Now, when you say "bad"...
Oct. 29th, 2005 09:17 pmHere's what I want to know: has anyone out there actually *seen* "Ishtar"? Because it occured to me that it is *so* axiomatic now of "a really, really bad film of the modern era (that thought it was going to be good, or was trying to be)" -- but I've never actually seen it. So I don't know how bad it *actually* is.
Whereas... okay, I'm watching VH-1's third "I Love the 80s" series, because I'm a sucker for these things, and a couple of episodes ago they actually showed many clips from "Jaws 3-D" (which has a special resonance for them, because this series is in fact called "I Love the 80s 3-D"), and I have to say -- I think that may actually be the worst film, like, ever. Certainly of the modern era. Although I don't think you can say that the makers thought it was good, or were trying to make it be good. But that's another film where, you know, I'd always *heard* it was *bad*... but OH MY GOD, I didn't realize it was *THAT* bad! And knowing that it was 3-D? Makes it indescribably worse. I mean... words fail me. It brings bad to new levels of badness. Lord, it wasn't good.
Also? Right at this precise moment in time -- I would date Wil Wheaton. In a heartbeat. (He's one of the regular commentators this time around.)
(Especially because I just watched the 1987 episode, in which they discuss TNG, right, and he was *hilarious*.)
[<b
Whereas... okay, I'm watching VH-1's third "I Love the 80s" series, because I'm a sucker for these things, and a couple of episodes ago they actually showed many clips from "Jaws 3-D" (which has a special resonance for them, because this series is in fact called "I Love the 80s 3-D"), and I have to say -- I think that may actually be the worst film, like, ever. Certainly of the modern era. Although I don't think you can say that the makers thought it was good, or were trying to make it be good. But that's another film where, you know, I'd always *heard* it was *bad*... but OH MY GOD, I didn't realize it was *THAT* bad! And knowing that it was 3-D? Makes it indescribably worse. I mean... words fail me. It brings bad to new levels of badness. Lord, it wasn't good.
Also? Right at this precise moment in time -- I would date Wil Wheaton. In a heartbeat. (He's one of the regular commentators this time around.)
(Especially because I just watched the 1987 episode, in which they discuss TNG, right, and he was *hilarious*.)
[<b
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 06:47 pm (UTC)Plus Hal Sparks is just the cutest thing. I have such a weakness for funny men. And I hear you about Will Wheaton. He still looks so young, and he's a riot. Smart and funny. Who knew?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 06:51 pm (UTC)Although I admit I haven't caught up much lately. But he's a good writer, and a funny guy, very unpretentious and forthright about fame and geekery and family.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 07:08 pm (UTC)Hal Sparks is an absolute riot, and he has been since the first series. What I find really amusing this time out is the outright rivalry between him and Michael Ian Black -- at least from MIB's side.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 07:10 pm (UTC)I have no doubt that he's been snapped up already. I'm just sayin'. Watching him wax rhapsodic about Voltron? Very seductive.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 07:57 pm (UTC)I thought that rivalry thing was pretty cute, too.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 08:07 pm (UTC)also, in a stunning example of synchronicity, i swear on a stack of bibles i was in the blockbuster last night looking very briefly at a copy of ishtar and thinking "but I've never actually SEEN it."
then i went and got other things.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 11:17 pm (UTC)Ho ho.
It's not nearly as bad as some other movies I've seen--Dan Ackroyd alone has been in about 10 that were worse. I think what makes it stand out for people is a variant on the million monkeys with a million typewriters equation: given the quality of the director and actors, and the amount of money given to them, the chances of them turning out a product this craptastic were 1 in 1000. They could've filmed each other eating breakfast and had a much better movie.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-30 04:44 am (UTC)and the vh1 show is addictive. which is why i'm flipping the channels and hoping it's on this morning. *veg*
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 06:51 am (UTC)The part of the film that did click, and which I still like, is the whole interplay of Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman as a parody of Simon and Garfunkle. They play really bad NY folk-rockers who's agent sents them to perform in the middle east. The scenes of the two of them writing and "performing" their songs was really funny in a "Mighty Wind" sort of loving poke at bad folk singers.
If you want to see my post from September about worst films I've sat through, it's at http://www.livejournal.com/users/hungrytiger/26760.html and Ishtar didn't make the cut.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 10:04 am (UTC)There are worse movies than "Ishtar," although there's no doubt it cost way more than it should've, given what it was. But yeah, I don't think it would even make my top 10 of the worst movies I've ever seen.