what makes it a bad movie?
i liked it i thought it was just right when it came to scares and humor
tell me what makes it bad?
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000) Discussion > what makes it a bad movie?
What makes this bad? OK:
1] The plot makes little sense. Hidden identical twin? Honestly...
2] The murders are boring and badly staged
3] No gore
4] No scares
5] No intensity of any sort
6] No humour
7] Annoying characters [the heroine's pal dies, and she goes and watches a movie instead of calling the police!!]
8] A truly lame and unconvincing finale
9] Piss-poor whodunit element
There's more but I can't think of them just now. I will do...
Visit my website at http://mayfield20.tripod.com!
1)The plot makes about as much sense as any movie in the genre. They all have their tongue-in-cheak sensiblity. The identical twin thing was not overemphasized in the movie, it gave the movie a different dimension, is all.
2)The murders were clever in that they not only used the old chase scene schtick, but they used the movie within a movie aspect. The movie was more about style than substance, as a choice since it consistantly follows its premise.
3)Gore is not needed given the suspense. Build up is everything in any good movie. Blood is always good, but in this type of movie not completely necessary.
4)I actually jumped up in the scene when the dead body falls on the table from above. And the whole atmosphere regarding the amusement park ride scared me...the killer could come out of anywhere is such a claustrophobic space.
5)The intensity of the performances, especially towards the end speaks for itself and elevates the material. And the style of the movie otherwise does not call for intensity, the movie knows this about itself, the filmmakers are aware of the genre and who the story is marketed towards and go for suspense.
6)First of all, the movie is supposed to be knowing about itself. the very end when Rebecca Gayhart's charachter shows up, that is a big laugh. the casting of Joey from Blossom is another big laugh, and more than half the characters are comic relief in some sense.
7)The characters are all understated and the performances work, the villain is the only one allowed to go over the top in his acting (for the most part).
8)The finale follows with the premise of a movie within a movie and although there is not as much scariness overall, the movie does what it intends, and who can fault it on those grounds?
9)THEY ALL HAVE A WHODUNIT ELEMENT, most of them are piss-poor, if its efficient, then we can focus more on the violence, scares, other plot points, and characters.
I guess this movie is more Hitchcock ala Scream, with a little stupidity on the side, but overall it isn't all that bad. There are good arguments either way, but the movie is so harmless, why would anyone bash it?
1)The plot makes about as much sense as any movie in the genre. They all have their tongue-in-cheak sensiblity. The identical twin thing was not overemphasized in the movie, it gave the movie a different dimension, is all.
Agreed but the movie was boring as hell.
2)The murders were clever in that they not only used the old chase scene schtick, but they used the movie within a movie aspect. The movie was more about style than substance, as a choice since it consistantly follows its premise.
What style? The only murder that was in any way clever was the first one and I hate when those heads fall off so easily.
3)Gore is not needed given the suspense. Build up is everything in any good movie. Blood is always good, but in this type of movie not completely necessary.
Agreed.
4)I actually jumped up in the scene when the dead body falls on the table from above. And the whole atmosphere regarding the amusement park ride scared me...the killer could come out of anywhere is such a claustrophobic space.
I didn't jump at any scene and the amusement park ride scene was so boring and bad I was weeping in boredom. Anyway by this point the movie had been so bad I didn't care for any of the characters and wished that the fat guy and his stupid friend would die as violently as possible and the annoying soul mamma policewoman would be the killer. I mean that would have been a twist! I also find it weird that you can see the electricity in these movies and die if someone pushes you against some random wires.
5)The intensity of the performances, especially towards the end speaks for itself and elevates the material. And the style of the movie otherwise does not call for intensity, the movie knows this about itself, the filmmakers are aware of the genre and who the story is marketed towards and go for suspense.
"The intensity of the performances, especially towards the end speaks for itself and elevates the material." Funnier than any joke in the movie. Plan 9 From Outerspace has worse acting though but not as annoying characters.
"the filmmakers are aware of the genre and who the story is marketed towards and go for suspense." Yeah, the movie is made to cash in on the slasher movie trend that was going on back then. People wanted to see slasher flicks and they didn't even need to bother to make them good. There was no suspense, the characters were super flat and annoying. The kills were mostly unimaginative and the movie was also badly directed.
6)First of all, the movie is supposed to be knowing about itself. the very end when Rebecca Gayhart's charachter shows up, that is a big laugh. the casting of Joey from Blossom is another big laugh, and more than half the characters are comic relief in some sense.
Too bad they were really unfunny and annoying. Except Rebecca Gayheart's characters cameo in the end.
7)The characters are all understated and the performances work, the villain is the only one allowed to go over the top in his acting (for the most part).
I don't agree at all. The acting was bad but worse were the characters that were flat or completely annoying (The fat guy, his friend and the police woman).
8)The finale follows with the premise of a movie within a movie and although there is not as much scariness overall, the movie does what it intends, and who can fault it on those grounds?
Watch Scream or H20 for a much better slasher flick. The movie does what it intends? Bore the hell out of you and make you regret you wasted your time on it.
9)THEY ALL HAVE A WHODUNIT ELEMENT, most of them are piss-poor, if its efficient, then we can focus more on the violence, scares, other plot points, and characters.
I guess this movie is more Hitchcock ala Scream, with a little stupidity on the side, but overall it isn't all that bad. There are good arguments either way, but the movie is so harmless, why would anyone bash it?
Because there's nothing good in it except few ideas but everything is executed so badly. The movie is so typical, badly made and boring. That's why people bash it and in the end most feel that they have just wasted their time.
1.Agreed but the movie was boring as hell.
I guess that's up to the individual to decide. But I thought it had good pacing and was well-acted enough to keep me interested.
2.What style? The only murder that was in any way clever was the first one and I hate when those heads fall off so easily.
The very fact that the movie bases its story in film school territory and uses some of the Urban Legend elements is what gives the movie its style. However bad you think the movie is, you can definitely tell the difference btwn this movie and the original, which is how it differs in style...and no not b/c its a worse style, but a different style. The whole fake gun thing was pretty cool (although no one gets murdered), when the girls are in the closet and the guy grabs one (I don't remember who, maybe Eva Mendes' character) was pretty suspenseful, the guy who gets his kidney taken out was a good one. The dead body falling onto the table suddenly.
3. We agree
4.I didn't jump at any scene and the amusement park ride scene was so boring and bad I was weeping in boredom. Anyway by this point the movie had been so bad I didn't care for any of the characters and wished that the fat guy and his stupid friend would die as violently as possible and the annoying soul mamma policewoman would be the killer. I mean that would have been a twist! I also find it weird that you can see the electricity in these movies and die if someone pushes you against some random wires.
That would have been a funny twist if Loretta Devine was the killer, I agree. The electricity issue involves suspension of disbelief and makes the killing look better visually (the "better" part is an opinion, of course). I guess if you are in the mood like I was at the time I jumped at the body falling down scene, things like that will freak you out. Esp. if you don't expect them. I watched it the first time and wasn't really scared at all, but then I watched it again years later and it scared me. The characters can't all be fully developed b/c that would be too easy and you would figure out the whodunit aspect, which is important to the plot.
5."The intensity of the performances, especially towards the end speaks for itself and elevates the material." Funnier than any joke in the movie. Plan 9 From Outerspace has worse acting though but not as annoying characters.
"the filmmakers are aware of the genre and who the story is marketed towards and go for suspense." Yeah, the movie is made to cash in on the slasher movie trend that was going on back then. People wanted to see slasher flicks and they didn't even need to bother to make them good. There was no suspense, the characters were super flat and annoying. The kills were mostly unimaginative and the movie was also badly directed.
The actors are all from the indie and comedy world and they did the best they could with what they were given if you really think about it. Jennifer Morrison was good in this and Stir of Echoes and brought that indie sensibility to the role, not overdoing it considering the plot. The only one who didn't stand out in any way was Joey Lawrence. But horror movies need only one or two central characters to follow since most of the characters will get killed off. And how could you say the acting wasn't better than the material in some instances, especially at the climax with the fake guns? Morrison was quite believable.
The movie isn't necessarily good or bad, it chooses its approach to the material, and it is at least different if not for its casting and story structure. The killings were ok, the real suspense came when people were running for their lives. And the Mardis Gras bathtub scene was fun. The direction was intentional in those scenes you saw as bad. The director knows that in the film school world movies are always bad, so he milks it. And in his scenes away from the film school world, the movie is actually directed as well as it possibly could have been.
6)Too bad they were really unfunny and annoying. Except Rebecca Gayheart's characters cameo in the end
Well, would you prefer funny and interesting characters to get killed? Its fun to see some of the goofy dumbasses get whats coming to them for being in an obvious horror movie plot.
7.I don't agree at all. The acting was bad but worse were the characters that were flat or completely annoying (The fat guy, his friend and the police woman).
But all of these movies have annoying characters, except the first Scream I guess. Its easier to see them die,am I wrong? U don't want a likable character to die. Maybe Joey Lawrence's character should have been killed. You can't get completely emotionally involoved in every character who's about to die anyway. Morrison and Davis give the movie the acting their roles needed. And the villain was perfectly wacky and boring, since he is, after all, a former film student and professor.
8. Watch Scream or H20 for a much better slasher flick. The movie does what it intends? Bore the hell out of you and make you regret you wasted your time on it.
Based on its own premise, it did what it intended. It bookends the movie within a movie ordeal so there is logic to it, no matter how banal.Scream had a different tone and was a trend setter for the genre, so it wasn't a complete waste for this movie to at least try to do something different, and it at least has more ambition regarding style than the first Urban Legends movie.
This is a different type of movie, you shouldn't compare it to H20 b/c H20 was even slower to get to its point and the killings and characters were more uninteresting than this movie. Where was the character development in that one?
This one at least explains things without resorting to overemphasis of its interest in the genre....oooh wow, let's see Jamie Lee do what she's always wanted to do...that movie took itself too seriously in a style of movie that was hardly serious...Halloween 1 is suspenseful and observant of the appropriate tone for a brother trying to kill his family.Its a serious movie.H20 was rediculously directed from the MTV generation and with little respect for what John Carpenter orignially intended for his characters (up until the final scene with Jamie Lee decapitating the guy she thought was her brother) while gaining its story from a much serious and more ambitious movie. that's just as boring,it could have been developed better. It was just as big a mess as any movie released around that time.
9.Because there's nothing good in it except few ideas but everything is executed so badly. The movie is so typical, badly made and boring. That's why people bash it and in the end most feel that they have just wasted their time.
I think the movie is "typical" as a choice, not inadvertantly. But it is also atypical in its approach to the Urban Legends myths, although maybe not as interesting, at least it didn't just recycle the same ideas the first movie put forth. And the acting and writing were appropriate for the genre. And the direction was knowing about how film school students suck at filmmaking, and at least it works on its own terms and sets itself apart from the other movies you've mentioned, except for maybe Scream....oh well this is pointless. I was willing to look past some of its flaws to admire its method. It isn't that good of a movie, slightly above average at best, but isn't boring and it tries something "not tried before."
"The very fact that the movie bases its story in film school territory and uses some of the Urban Legend elements is what gives the movie its style."
It could have used more known urban legends in the other deaths like the girl in the bathtub with her kidney removed. Besides the first death the fake gun part was the only thing I liked in the movie so you understand why I don't like the movie at all.
"I guess if you are in the mood like I was at the time I jumped at the body falling down scene, things like that will freak you out."
It can do that but I saw that coming and it's such a cliche (and yeah yeah it's bad and boring on purpose..)
"The actors are all from the indie and comedy world and they did the best they could with what they were given if you really think about it."
Yeah, some of the actors weren't THAT bad but still no reason to give the movie a break.
"The direction was intentional in those scenes you saw as bad."
I saw that in many scenes. The Mardi Gras murder thing was outside the student world, right? That was badly directed too although cool. Also the movie seemed very low budget to me (although not a thing that makes necessary a bad movie).
"U don't want a likable character to die."
Well I would like all the characters to be as good as possible so I can be scared for them.
"And the villain was perfectly wacky and boring"
I want the villain to be scary and cool.
"H20 was even slower to get to its point and the killings and characters were more uninteresting than this movie."
I thought it used that time to build the characters somewhat and I disagree about the characters. They were quite flat but not as flat as here. The guard played by LL Cool J was annoying. I wanted him to die. If no one else Jamie Lee was very good. In H20 the killings were quite mean and brutal like the first kill in Urban Legends 2 but just better directed and nothing foolish like cutting a head off with a window.
"that movie took itself too seriously in a style of movie that was hardly serious"
I like slasher flicks being serious and I thought it had suspense. Although early in the movie it had too many jump scares. I thought those were just funny. Made in purpose in that way or not.
"H20 was rediculously directed from the MTV generation and with little respect for what John Carpenter orignially intended for his characters (up until the final scene with Jamie Lee decapitating the guy she thought was her brother)"
I thought it was the only proper sequel. The whole movie dealed with Jamie Lee getting over the fear of his brother which I thought was great. I'd like to know how it didn't have respect for the characters? I must admit though that I didn't like Halloween one but I thought H20 paid very well respect to it although being obviously made much later. About Halloween 8. To me that movie doesn't exist. Halloween series ended with Jamie Lee killing his brother for good. There was not even a single thing good in Halloween 8. It was terrible. Urban Legends 2 was better in my opinion. In Halloween 8 Busta Rhymes gives the very definition why rappers shouldn't act. If they ever make Halloween 9 I hope it starts with a scene where Michael tortures Busta Rhymes character to death.. or better make the whole movie just a dream.
"I was willing to look past some of its flaws to admire its method"
I think you are too forgiving to the movie. I guess I agree with you that it tries something not tried before. I'm glad you didn't get upset about my comments. I usually say just what I think.
"It could have used more known urban legends in the other deaths like the girl in the bathtub with her kidney removed."
I agree with the fact it could have used more Urban Legends, but I also respect its decision to go in another direction, to set itself apart & a different take on the Urban Legends theme.
"It can do that but I saw that coming and it's such a cliche (and yeah yeah it's bad and boring on purpose..)"
U might be right. I just like the different take on the subject.
"Yeah, some of the actors weren't THAT bad but still no reason to give the movie a break"
Maybe you're right, although sometimes actors can save a movie... I thought casting was interesting, but its all up to the viewer.
"I saw that in many scenes. The Mardi Gras murder thing was outside the student world, right? That was badly directed too although cool. Also the movie seemed very low budget to me (although not a thing that makes necessary a bad movie)."
I know what you mean. Most people expect a movie to be a certain way and get disappointed at the outcome, especially if its completely imperfect , but I can respect the choices of the filmmakers as long as it makes some sense withing its genre, even if it will disappoint half of an audience in the process... although I admit that it is bad to alienate an audience. But not all movies are for everyone, you know? Adult movies are not for any kid, and some kiddie movies only appeal to the kids and no adults. But not all horror fans will like certain horror movies...for instance, hypothetically maybe many of today's generation dislike George A. Romero's zombie movies because they involve so much philosphy, satire, and human drama. They may prefer the newer Dawn of the Dead or Resident Evil movies b/c of the pure gore and action. That doesn't make Romero's films any less a part of the genre. I mean-- he invented the zombie movie and he still gets no respect from some hardcore zombie film watchers, you know? But at the same time, you have to respect what appeals to them.
"Well I would like all the characters to be as good as possible so I can be scared for them."
U got me there. But I thought that the two leads did a good job, so I was ok w/ it overall.
"I want the villain to be scary and cool"
You are right, but it wouldn't fit in to this movie...the villain is gonna be human underneath the mask, not like Freddy, Jason, or Michael Myers. The fact that he was a total geek makes sense, although I guess the payoff is not good for some audiences expecting a huge surprise or something...but what could be expected... An escaped lunatic comes in at the last minute to shake things up?
"I thought it used that time to build the characters somewhat and I disagree about the characters. They were quite flat but not as flat as here."
Those characters did nothing for the plot, either but I guess the teenagers in H20 might have generated more sympathy. But Final Cut is entirely different...It's more satirical about the student film world and it knows its place. H20 pretends to be serious while succumbing to a slick, cool style and typical dead teenager plot with nothing to learn from it. It wants it both ways. If it would have taken itself as seriously as the original and some of the sequels like Halloween 4 did, it could have had better staying power. As is, it is a barely adequate fable about....let's see... a woman's struggle to hide from, and then face her brother while she irresponsibly puts hundreds of children at a school she "lives" at in danger, just so she can hide. It makes no sense, the bitch practically handed all of these kids on a platter to her brother so that a slasher movie could be made and she could finally win, but at the expense of several lives which is basically her fault that Michael killed. How are we supposed to generate sympathy for Jaimie Lee? In the first film, she at least is innocent and we respect her decisions because of her young age. It would have been more logical if she moved to another country...maybe Africa or India...Michael couldn't travel to get to her and his existence would be unnecessary and hundreds of lives would be saved. Jaimie Lee's character is selfish in my opinion...she knows that her actions cause the deaths of so many people so why do we care about her...just throw her to the wolf already and pick your teeth with her bones...haha. Her character gets to be very disturbing in her double standards...sure we feel sorry that her brother is out to get her, but does that really mean that everyone but her should die in every movie?
"I like slasher flicks being serious and I thought it had suspense. Although early in the movie it had too many jump scares. I thought those were just funny. Made in purpose in that way or not."
Talk about a movie in which the end (lots of deaths) justifies the means ( we gotta save a totally selfish sister from a maniac brother). H20 was "serious" if you think about it...seriously demented. At least Urban Legends has a sense of humor about itself and doesn't use teenage deaths as an excuse for a "serious plot". Note that I don't mind if the movie like Urban Legends does this b/c the plot doesn't take itself serious and so we need not question its motives as much...it knows its purpose and doesn't pretend to have any other interest. And there are no long standing characters to get all caught up in like the Scream and Halloween movies.
"I thought it was the only proper sequel. The whole movie dealed with Jamie Lee getting over the fear of his brother which I thought was great. I'd like to know how it didn't have respect for the characters? "
Steve Miner directed part 2 so he would logically screw this one (H20) up. Maybe if Carpenter came back he could save his own character from getting *beep* on in another implausible sequel. And as for part 8...it was a terrible mess but at least Jaimie Lee was in a place that was logical for her to be in...a mental institution.. instead of a Boarding school.what idiot thought that a Boarding school made any sense? Sure it makes sense to kill a lot of teenagers a la H20 ( out of respect for the genre of dead teenager flicks), but if the movie is really about Jaimie Lee, they should have had her running for the whole movie or something, not staying around having a great life while she endangers everyone and has babies and drinks martinis. If part 8 had replaced H20 and the story had taken place in an asylum, at least it wouild make sense that she was nuts and knew her brother was after her and in a twist of irony, she herself ends up institutionalized. That would have made for an interesting movie at least. And they could have had the whole movie been like the last 20 minutes of H20 where she fights for her life, since its already obvious that Micheal is after her and we don't need and hour and a half of Bull *beep* leading up to it. We know who Jaimie Lee Curtis is! we don't need to be bored by her dumb decisions up to that point in her life to endanger everyone she loves. Maybe she even loses to Michael...that would have had a lot more heart and respect for her character. At least she would die with dignity. That's all hypothetical though. I don't mind her dying, as long as there was a good fight throughout the movie and not just 20 minutes at the beginning of part 8 and 20 minutes at the end of H20. Imagine the possibilities
" I think you are too forgiving to the movie. I guess I agree with you that it tries something not tried before. I'm glad you didn't get upset about my comments. I usually say just what I think. "
Your good to talk to. Hopefully i did not offend you about H20. I think there are some really good aspects of it, but the premise is illogical to me is all. Maybe the end does justify the means sometimes but it felt rushed, maybe they should have focused more on Jaimie and less on setting it in an obviously whacked up location...
Lets have a poll, which was more long, tedious and sleep inducing? The film or this thread?
shareAll of the above equally.
shareI can't believe my response got so many responses. If there had been as much thought put into the actual movie it may have been tolerable
Visit my website at http://mayfield20.tripod.com!
the beauty of this film was they had people in it making really piss poor films... so the average joe would be blissfully unaware they were actually watching a piss poor film. cleverly done.
shareActually, Rick Rosenthal directed "Halloween II," from a screenplay written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. Steve Miner directed "Friday the 13th Part 2" and "Part 3."
share[deleted]
Oh, god. Why are people even defending cinematographic poo like this...?
share