yoyodinepropulsion

"1941" is known for being a flop, and Steven Spielberg's only significant black mark on his resume. At least, that used to be the reputation, since thanks to sites like IMDb even every film on the bottom 100 has its share of fans...And that is exactly where "1941" should be.

This film belongs in the EXACT same company with "Ishtar" and "Hudson Hawk". It is shrill, overproduced, and obnoxious in its arrogance that it is funny. But it is not. It is an overlong, bloated, worthless piece of trash. All the positive reviews on here actually make me angry! This is literally one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Every St. Patrick's day me and my friends have a party and watch all the Leprechaun films to date (up to 6 or 7 at this point I forget). Getting that deep down the pipeline with horror films about Leprechaun's would seem about as low as films can go. But no. Even low-budget trash can be enjoyable in a fun way. But this film is no fun. It is loud, in your face, and dares you to enjoy it. Well I don't.

There are good points, but they just make the rest of the 2hr 20 min film seem even more of a drag. You have better things to do with your life than watch this move. Stay far away, please!

I'd say this was Jim Carrey's worst movie if not for the existence of "The Majestic" (oh boy, now THAT's a stinker!) Actually, "Bruce Almighty" is not a bad movie, but it's so terribly mediocre that it just gets tiring. The worst thing is, the premise is fantastic and this could have been great, but of all people Tom (Patch Adams) Shadyac got the directing bid. Yes, this is the man that also helmed "Ace Ventura" and the decent "Liar Liar" but even the latter film had a tinge of syrupy wholesomeness that undermined the that film's comic premise. Basically, "Bruce Almighty" needed a little edge, and Shadyac was not the man to deliver it. What is the point of this film? What humor there is turns maudlin and dopey before we're even out of Act II. Hollywood just gets sadder and sadder. Do you know what would of made this film great? Imagine Woody Allen directing. Then at least we could've gotten a funny picture with some ballz.

Here's a rare case of a film that's not only bad, but incompetant (Only "The Avengers" comes to mind as another recent example). The fact that original director Richard Stanley was fired only days into the shoot, and that a pouting Val Kilmer was allowed to run loose pretty much self-destructed this film. It's obvious that the heavily altered script was either slapped together, written on the fly, or at the very least not well thought out. The tone of the picture changes dramatically as it progresses (especially after its relatively assured beginning) but its not until we see Val Kilmer doing a Brando impression (certainly one of the most inexplicable scenes I've ever come across) that we realize no one seems to be in control of this incoherent mess. If this was just a schlocky b-movie there wouldn't be much to consider, but given the excellent cast, a capable director, and good makeup work, the occasional bits and pieces that register with the audience just make the film see that much more disjointed. For a big-budget action picture, "Island of Dr. Moreau" is a unique experience. It isn't as much bad as a mess, a cacophony of sights and sounds lacking a coherent narrative, and occupied by two egotistical stars too caught up making their own movie in their minds to bother with what's in the abysmal script. The one positive thing that I can say of "Island of Dr. Moreau" is that it does have value as a curio. It's almost fascinating to watch what happens when a film just plain goes bad, and makes you start to take for granted witless moronic fare that at least makes a bit of sense.