FORUMS: list search recent posts

Worst edited movies?

COW Forums : Art of the Edit

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Pixel Monkey
Worst edited movies?
on Dec 19, 2005 at 6:27:59 pm


First three worst-edited movies that come to mind:
- Gigli
- Dragon Storm
- Sideways (Oscar winner my @$$ - it was about an hour too long!?!?)

Bonus: worst-directed movie of all time:
- Trancers 2

______
/-o-o-
`(=)`/...Pixel Monkey
`(___)



Return to posts index

Scott Davis
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 19, 2005 at 11:08:57 pm

Star Wars Episode 3. It was about a 2 1/2 hours to long.


Return to posts index

mark suszko
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:03:00 pm

I'm going to say "Shane" the famous western. Particularly for the barfight sequence; the continuity is all over the map, the cameras cross the line of action without reference, it's just horrible.

I like to think I learn even more from bad movie editing than from watching the good stuff. great edits are so transparent, you feel them, not notice them. bad edits are blatant lessons in what not to do. I look at brilliant editing and despair that i could have done as well; I look at horrible editing and say to myself "I know exactly how they could have fixed that, made it better".


Return to posts index


Bob Cole
How about best edited movies?
on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:29:04 pm

For sheer brilliance in editing: Sliding Doors, a movie with Gwyneth Paltrow about two different futures, based on whether her character makes or just misses the subway (she finds her no-good boyfriend in bed with another woman in one version, and just misses that discovery in the other). The two stories are intercut and interwoven brilliantly. Critics weren't wild about it but they aren't always right.

Speaking of "crossing the line:" My favorite moment, direction- and editing-wise, was that when Paltrow breaks up with her boyfriend in a very violent way, the viewpoint abruptly cuts across the 180 plane. It gives the viewer a physical jolt not unlike the shock that the betrayed character is feeling.


Return to posts index

robertbec
Re: How about best edited movies?
on Dec 21, 2005 at 8:17:57 am

what about the part at the service station in romeo & juliet i think at the start with the gun fight and the way it was edited was great and introduced the characters


Return to posts index

Pixel Monkey
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 21, 2005 at 9:13:35 pm

[mark suszko] "bad edits are blatant lessons in what not to do."

Yup. Definitely learned more from crap than from gold.

______
/-o-o-
`(=)`/...Pixel Monkey
`(___)



Return to posts index


grinner
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 21, 2005 at 10:30:45 pm

Rent a movie calle The King of the Lost World.
Dude, it's so bad it's really fun to watch. Worst editing I have seen (including Shane's weird bar fights) and has to be the most poorly directed flick I have ever seen.
My wife couldn't hang through it but I was so entertained by it's badness, I beleieve I got my money's worth.
Lots of what not to dos in this one. Mainly in aidio editng. Be prepaired to hang on to the remote the whole time because levels are all over the place. The acting is hilarious. If I were still in college, this would have to be in the wake and bake collection.
I give two very enthusiastec thumbs up for worst job in all catagories.



Return to posts index

Johnny
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 22, 2005 at 3:12:16 pm

I just saw King Kong, I don't think they even hired an editor(3:07)


Return to posts index

grinner
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 22, 2005 at 4:55:59 pm

lol
some movies are obviously made to take a big loss.



Return to posts index


Mike Cohen
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 22, 2005 at 9:51:52 pm

visit ifilm.com - the rubbish that people call independent films - unmotivated edits, really poor dialogue, worse sound - walter murch couldn't save these things - there are a few gems.

i will give SW Ep III kudos for doing a couple of wipes which were motivated by action crossing the screen, rather than the usual variety at the end of a scene - there is one where chewbacca crosses the screen and he becomes the wipe.
aside from that, it has been said many times that Lucas edits on the word, and uses few cutaways during dialogue.

Agree with Sideways - aside from some T&A, pretty much the worst movie ever made.

Recently saw Elephant - beautifully photographed, with some interesting editing concepts.

I'll be on the lookout for bad editing now that I'm thinking abou it.

Mike


Return to posts index

Chaz Shukat
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 23, 2005 at 2:57:21 am

Anyone see that Brazilian movie City of God? The first time feature editor won an Oscar? I thought he did a fantasitc job, especially on the opening montage. What do you think?

Chaz S.


Return to posts index

Tae
Re: Worst edited movies?
by
on Jan 18, 2006 at 2:55:19 pm

I just saw King Kong, I don't think they even hired an editor(3:07)


Just because you thought it was too long doesn't mean it was poorly edited. I thought it was wonderfully edited and paced. It certainly did not feel slow, and that's there the editing comes in. The run time is all Peter Jackson.



Return to posts index


Lu Nelson
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Feb 1, 2006 at 12:18:48 pm

for that matter, the whole lord of the rings trilogy was awfully edited; but especially the first one. And they won an oscar for editing....


Return to posts index

Richard
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 28, 2005 at 5:59:55 am

Solaris .. The movie with George Clooney. I know they purposely edited it that way, but after about 5 minutes into the film, I wanted to start screaming!! I was begging to cut it!! Crap.. talk about just pain.

-Richard


Return to posts index

Pixel Monkey
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Dec 28, 2005 at 7:39:44 pm


[Richard] "Solaris .. The movie with George Clooney"

Eeew... yeah, I'd rather count how many times per hour the Windows hourglass spins itself than watch that one again!

______
/-o-o-
`(=)`/...Pixel Monkey
`(___)



Return to posts index


debe
Re: Worst edited movies?
by
on Dec 29, 2005 at 8:21:50 pm

Now there's a case where a mediocre editor, or a good editor trapped by bad direction or producing, can destroy a beautifully shot piece!

I don't remember if it even had a decent script. If it did, it was made moot by the editing decisions.

I good editor can do good things with good material. A great editor can do good things with mediocre material. A bad editor (or one not allowed to edit, just made to push buttons...) can make a decent script and well-shot film utter trash!

debe


Return to posts index

Bob Cole
How can you tell?
on Dec 31, 2005 at 4:14:09 pm

[debe] "A bad editor (or one not allowed to edit, just made to push buttons...) can make a decent script and well-shot film utter trash!"

Debe, of course you're right, and there are bound to be some films where the bad editing is obvious. But in most cases, how can you tell whether it was bad editing, or bad material?

conversely...

Haven't you ever had a project that you saved by using every last shred of decent material? And afterwards, if you did your job right, probably nobody noticed that you had done a brilliant edit.


Return to posts index

debe
Re: How can you tell?
by
on Dec 31, 2005 at 4:42:13 pm

I certainly don't disagree with you, Bob!

I've had a few projects where they were amazed it ended up as good as it did. Still, I didn't get nearly the credit I deserved. When you polish a turd, the one who made the turd still thinks it's the original quality of the turd, not the polish, that made it good!

Well, there was one. I edited a short film starring one of the cast members of MadTV quite a few years back. Everyone had high hopes for the project, but when filming was done, the DP just didn't have the feeling in his gut that it was going to turn out as well as everyone had thought. I ended up missing the premiere for some reason, and later the producer told me the DP was so sorry I couldn't be there, because he wanted to congratulate me on some damn fine work. The DP told the producer that I made some edits that he didn't even know he'd shot for! The director, of course, had a hand in many of those decisions. However, had I not found the edit, she wouldn't have and anything to decide on!

So, yes, it all depends on the situation, and each edit is a unique animal, Bob!

debe


Return to posts index

Gishdog
Re: How can you tell?
on Jan 12, 2006 at 7:00:35 pm

Anything that involves Michael Bay in any capcity... Most of the stuff that he directs or produces seems to have such a "condensed" feeling... I can't imagine the same person that cut collateral so well destroyed something as promising as the island unless the director completely screwed him out of material to work with.





Return to posts index

Jamie
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Jan 20, 2006 at 3:53:40 pm

This may be a controversial choice but I voluntarily endured the Last Samurai a few weeks ago.

And Russian Ark: A good example of why films usually ARE edited!


Return to posts index

paul77
Re: Worst edited movies?
on Mar 2, 2006 at 8:27:45 pm

RE: Sideways: Time slows down considerably when you spend a weekend in Santa Barbara. It's meant to be a relaxing, comfortable stroll. Time to get away and spend quality time with good friends and good vino. That's what you got. Swingers in ain't. Another purposefully slow film: Withnail & I.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]