What exactly do I mean by "bad movies?"
For some the phrase means a low-quality film. Is a bad movie incompetently directed? Poorly written? Does it star bad actors?
For others, the phrase indicates a poor return on a budget. When a movie has a production budget of $225M and only earns a gross of $150M, does that mean it is a bad movie or was just poorly marketed? Or does it mean both?
And what about adaptations of other works for the big screen? If it's well made but a poor adaptation, can it be called a bad movie?
And what about adaptations of other works for the big screen? If it's well made but a poor adaptation, can it be called a bad movie?
It seems fairly obvious that there are elements of each which determine how bad a movie is. There are certainly movies which have earned successful box office returns which many people consider bad, even inept. There are good movies which are awful adaptations relative to the source material. And there are definitely bad movies with all of these elements and more.
Here's the plan:
For every day in December I will watch one movie which might qualify as either a bad movie or a b-movie. I have a prewritten list of films which might fit one of those categories for a number of reasons. I will post some thoughts on each film and whether I think it's a bad movie, b-movie, or something else entirely.
Some of these are big budget wide releases with seasoned directors, casts, and actors. Some of these are direct-to-video or direct-to-digital releases with incredibly low budgets. Some of these are actually good movies with reputations for low quality. The one thing each of them have in common is that little something which makes them stick in your mind and think, man, that was a bad movie.
Watch your heads.
Watch your heads.
