Okay, don't go Republican on me! :)
I said *Some* of the worst trash ever put on celluloid, and I stand by that.
Never saw "Leonard Part 6" I heard so much bad about it. As for the worst movie
I've ever seen, that's really hard. I think the worst, like the best, would be
difficult to pin down to one film. There's such a wide range of "bad", and some
things make me angrier or more disappointed at different times in my life. I'd
have a list, but not sure I could keep one movie on top of that list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelwyn" <ravena...@yahoo.com>
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 8:15:37 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Rotten Tomatoes Picks Worst Movies of the Last Decade
I'm with George on this one. "The worst trash ever put on celluloid"? Really?
Have you never seen "Leonard, Part 6"? ("Leonard" 1-5 were pretty good,
though).
~rave!
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@...> wrote:
>
> Well, they discussed that, and I think one man's unwatchable is another man's
> high camp. Like I said, I think George reviewed "Catwoman" when he was in
> Britain, and thought it was camp fun. I found it to be some of the worst
> trash ever put on celluloid.
> Let me check the list again, 'cause I could swear "Catwoman" was on it.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelwyn" <ravena...@...>
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:05:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Rotten Tomatoes Picks Worst Movies of the Last
> Decade
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Did I miss something? I don't see "Catwoman" on this list. "Catwoman" clocked
> a mighty 10% fresh rating and this list starts with "Whiteout" (number 100)
> with a 7% fresh rating. It is all down hill from there.
>
> While this list is strictly based on the fresh rating these films accrued (or
> failed to), there should be a distinction between something like "Basic
> Instinct 2" which is high gloss trash(like "Showgirls") but watchable and
> "Glitter" which is utterly unwatchable.
>
> ~(no)rave!
>
> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Keith Johnson <KeithBJohnson@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Not at all surprised to see "Catwoman" on tis list, despite some of you who
> > inexplicably thought it was some kind of sly tongue-in-cheek
> > masterpiece.(George, didn't you send a favorable review of it from England?
> > )Â Also not surprised to see "Battlefield Earth" on there. I tried to
> > watch that one rainy Sunday morning when I didn't want to go anywhere--and
> > turned the channel after ten minutes. Never saw this "Ballistic: Ecks vs.
> > Sever"Â flick. The trailers were so bad I avoided it. Same for Eddie
> > Murphy's "Adventures of Pluto Nash", "Norbit", and anything with "Big
> > Mamma" in the title.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts? Anything on here undeservedly, to your mind? Anything not on here
> > that should be?
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************************
> >
> > http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/
> >
> >
> > Intro | How It Works
> > Over the last decade, we've collected reviews for thousands of movies. Most
> > films, even profoundly mediocre ones, can expect to receive at least
> > cursory support from the pundits. However, once in a while, a film will
> > take such a critical drubbing that further attention is warranted. That's
> > where our Worst of the Worst list comes in. We've compiled a veritable
> > cornucopia of dull, foolhardy, and outright terrible films, from legendary
> > duds ( Battlefield Earth ) to chuckle-deficient comedies ( Epic Movie ),
> > from hapless sequels ( Basic Instinct 2 ) to scare-free would-be fright
> > fests ( Alone in the Dark ). We've pored over the reviews to bring you the
> > lowest Tomatometers of the decade -- including several ( All About Steve ,
> > Whiteout ) that were released within the last several weeks. In other
> > words, we suffered for our work -- now it's your turn.
> >
> >
> > • Each critic from our discrete list gets one vote, all weighted
> > equally.
> > • Reviews without ratings are not counted toward the results.
> > • Because reviews are continually added, manually and otherwise, we
> > have a cutoff date at which new reviews are not counted. The current cut
> > off date is 9/21/2009.
> > • The movies contained in this list are from 2000 to 2009.
> > • We rank the movies by Tomatometer. in the event of a tie score, the
> > film with more reviews is ranked more highly.
> >
>
