Oh wow this movie was bad - Kaboom (2010) Discussion

[–] drthee 13 years ago

This may be the worst movie I've ever seen. Usually I do not watch a lot of indies, but this one had a pretty high rating and an interesting description so i gave it a try. Last time I've done that.

When men in masks came, and a girl was killed in the beginning, I thought the plot would work towards an explanation later on. Same with the strange connection when the girls were having sex. Instead there keep on happening more and more strange things. Then suddenly it's revealed there is some kind of cult. And then, in the nearly end, we get some kind of short explanation that people in the cult were given scientific enhanced paranormal abilities. Then we see a fight between people in two different cars. Then the world blows up.

Don't get me wrong, the beginning of the movie was quite interesting, and it could have been interesting all the way. If they had taken less interest in people having sex, and more interest in working out the plot.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cracked_machine 12 years ago

Well, you know the fact that this started off as some kind of Roadtrip-style movie I can understand the negative reaction from Brailes and their ilk. Personally I liked the college humor mixed with WTF sci fi. Although it was a little clunky in places, it didn't totally spoil the fun - even if the ending does leave more questions than answers. I don't want to praise this film too much though. It more akin to Butterfly Effect than Donnie Darko. More fratboy than arthouse.

reply

[–] la_cinematheque 13 years ago

Wow, you really sound like someone who hasn't much acquaintance with the world. People can appreciate more than one kind of entertainment. You probably think having a narrow range of tastes makes you smart, but using that to condemn others only makes you a snob.

reply

[–] jpga666 13 years ago

"If they had taken less interest in people having sex"

Welcome to the world of Gregg Araki! Where sex is the ultimate past-time, and sexuality knows no limits!

Anyways, what's your problem? They explained the men in masks. Everything came together at the end and left no questions unanswered.

Boy goes to college, begins being stalked, then gets kidnapped, to only find the people around him were actually the people stalking him. They kidnap him to take him to his father, who is the leader of a cult, so he can be the next leader. They end up dying before they reach him, and he goes ahead and decides to destroy the planet before they get to him.

Quite clever, if you ask me. Also, the cult mentioned in the film is speculated to be a real cult in the today's world. Ever heard of the Freemasons? Their plan is to essentially eliminate the lower and middle class and restart the world-- with only the elite and rich pulling through, and uniting every country and continent in the world, into one single power.

reply

[–] duncreg 13 years ago

1. The Freemasons aren't doing a very good job of it if you know all of their dastardly plans.

2. The Freemasons are just a fraternal organization; nothing more. I believe the cult with the goals you describe is actually named "Wall Street".

reply

[–] aidan_phantom 13 years ago

Oh look a post on a board on IMDB that says the movie is bad and then someone saying "this may be the worst movie I've ever seen." This never ever ever happens.

Not forgetting the lack of reasons why the film is so "bad", if people are going to continously do this please give us some semi-objective points at least or you deserve every single piece of abuse thrown your way.

www.aidanphantom.co.uk

reply

[–] ofumalow 13 years ago

This is a Gregg Araki movie for people who know prior Gregg Araki movies. Admittedly, it's possibly his silliest, but you've got to accept it on his terms as basically a quirky indie-flick spin on bisexual softcore. It's all shock-value-oriented idle thrills, nothing to be taken seriously. Would you expect realism from John Waters? Araki is similarly interested in broad exploitational strokes--albeit very different ones--that can seem simply crude or amateurish. But if you "get" his sensibility it's funny, sexy and diverting in the manner of a total goof.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] la_cinematheque 13 years ago

What is with all the insane snobbery going on here and the hate for the OP enjoying America's Next Top Model? I like Top Model and watch it casually, and I also LOVE all of Araki's previous films.

However, I didn't enjoy this one because it simply wasn't as witty or interesting as his others. Maybe his intention was to take the parody to new heights, but I think it failed. It seemed more focused on being weird than building engaging characters or having that sharp, hilarious dialogue I'm used to in his work. I didn't mind that the plot was ridiculous, in fact I expected that, but I also expected an enjoyable ride on the way to the inevitable wtf ending but didn't get that.

I'm not sure why everyone here seems to think enjoying simple fluff tv means you're incapable of liking or understanding any other form of entertainment. Besides that, with all the sex and debauchery and mayhem, I'd say Araki's work should appeal to the same base instincts as most trashy reality television (though I would say Top Model isn't as trashy or exploitative as the programs you're probably lumping it in with.)

reply

[–] ladycat713 13 years ago

Actually the worst movie I've ever seen so far was an adaption of a Lovecraft story that was so bad Lovecraft could've sued to get his name off of it (if he was alive). This was pretty bad though.

One thing that struck me as particularly off is that the main character only successfully has sex with one person (inspite of several want tos and tries) and she turns out to be his half sister. Was that really necessary? Couldn't they have made her just be a member of the cult who was trying to clue him in after leaving?

Another thread said this film was made for the fans of his previous works and to understand it you need to watch the other films to get him. That seems like a strange way to run things. Sure you might have a limited appeal but any film that isn't part of a series should be able to be watched without checking out the director's previous work.

For instance I love Wonderfalls , Dead Like me and Pushing Daisies (all by the same people) and there are some little in jokes in Pushing Daisies that you would only get by seeing the other shows but they are so subtle that if you hadn't seen the other shows you wouldn't notice them and don't feel like you just missed something. Also you don't need to watch Wonderfalls or Dead Like Me to fall for Pushing Daisies.

reply

[–] jpga666 13 years ago

I'm beyond glad that people are saying this movie was a movie for people who liked Araki prior to it. That's exactly what it was! I can't remember the gentleman's name, but he told Gregg that he'd like to see him do something in the spirit of the Teenage Apocalypse Trilogy, and this is exactly what that is.

I don't see the complaints about the ending though... the world ended. Why is that a concept so hard to grasp with people? The cult leader got tired of waiting for his son to come, and decided to go ahead with plan "Blow up the world".

The only part I dislike about this movie is that *beep* CGI clip at the end of the world blowing up. If a cult leader wanted to destroy the world and inherit it afterwards, he wouldn't blow the entire thing to pieces.

That was my only beef with it. I would've preferred to see a mushroom cloud from a distance, or a view of Earth from space, with nuclear explosions happening in every major city. That would've been a far better ending.

But afterall, that only occured for about 2 seconds on the movie, so it's no good reason to dislike the other 84 minutes, in my mind.

People see Thomas Dekker and Juno Temple in this, and since they have a celebrity-crush on them, they decide to watch this, and they're getting let down. It's like watching a herd of sheep jump off a cliff.

"OMG OMG OMG, Thomas Dekker has a new movie out! And he's naked and having sex, like OMG OMG I gotta see it!"

*Few days later after watching movie*

"This was the worst movie I ever saw! It sucked! Blahblahblahblah"

This just keeps happening and happening. It happened in Nowhere when people saw people like Christina Applegate attached to the film. The way I see it, maybe 1 in 10 people who have never heard of Araki and decide to give him a go will enjoy this movie. The others are going to dislike it. Gregg Araki fans are a small, rare bunch. And while I wish Gregg was more successful and recieved more deserved recognition, I must say, I enjoy the smaller fan-base, since it meant fewer idiots completely putting it on blast.

reply

[–] AliveInColdWorld 13 years ago

Well done sir, well done.

reply

[–] barneyboy 13 years ago

Lord it was bad. The editing, the script, the storyline even the clips of the movie over the end credits were cringeworthy.

Terrible terrible movie. I thought it seemed to be aimed at high school girls who would think it was cool, dark and 'adult'.

Pointless cheap crap.

ooh 2 guys kissing, ooh a girl that likes sex. It tried waaay to hard and achieved nothing.

reply

[–] JasonHodder 13 years ago

This was a great write up. I loved this movie, it might be one of my favorites of the year so far. I had actually never heard of Gregg Akari before this, so I was going in blind, and still ended up enjoying it. I plan on checking out the rest of his films now.

To the people that think this is the worst movie they've ever seen, you're entitled to your opinions, but really, watch more movies. There are far worse movies out there than this one. Just to hate on a movie because it's getting good word is about a childish as liking a movie just because everyone else hated it. I'm sure that that's what happened here.

reply

[–] AliveInColdWorld 13 years ago

i would check out Mysterious Skin (my favorite)

reply

[–] jpga666 13 years ago

With respect to you, AliveInColdWorld, I think I would recommend Nowhere or the Doom Generation before Mysterious Skin to the guy who enjoyed Kaboom without prior knowledge of Gregg. While Mysterious Skin was great, it was VERY different from Kaboom, which seems to be the main beef with a lot of people concerning this movie.

Nowhere and The Doom Generation are much more like Kaboom, and in my opinion, better.

reply

[–] hubble-hallow 13 years ago

lol so many people think this movie is BAD. i have to agree. and yet, take out all that gay crap and this was quite good.

reply

[–] hollywoodhighguy 13 years ago

You're a disgusting human being. "Take out all that gay crap and this was quite good." How much more arrogant can you get? You heterosexist animal.

"Gay crap"...really? Spare us your closed minded judgment and get a reality check.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hubble-hallow 13 years ago

LOL like "a Gregg Araki film" means anything to anyone normal?

And just how many accounts do you post under jonyx. ALL backing yourself up, making the same gay points. Coward much?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AliveInColdWorld 13 years ago

you're exactly rite jpga666

i was just letting him know my favorite

but yes, listen to jpga666, the guy/girl knows what he/she is talking about

reply

[–] jpga666 13 years ago

I don't think it matters what "so many people think". I wouldn't trust the masses with my life, yet alone choosing what a good movie is.

The fact that you say "take out all that gay crap" shows exactly what type of person you are. You're probably some heterosexual douchebag. You're probably against gay marriage, you probably think woman should exist only in the kitchen and in your bed. You're scum. Just *beep* scum. And what's sad is, yes, the majority of males are like you. They're just as rotten and low as you are. So really, saying "so many people think this movie is bad" doesn't really mean much. It just means all that this was a great film that a lot of people weren't able to understand or appreciate, due to their lack of intelligence and overwhelming ignorance.

reply

[–] AliveInColdWorld 13 years ago

i'm a 20 male

straight

been in with the "cool" crowd all my life

so i agree about what you're saying about this f#$king idiot

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jpga666 13 years ago

I know exactly what you mean about the whole "parents concerned your gay" bit. The fact of the matter is I'm quite straight. I've also had friends think I'm sexually deviant because of Araki's films.

The truth is, I've just come to accept these things as the "norm". Araki really helped me redefine what I consider "taboo", which I'm glad to say isn't much.

reply

[–] la_cinematheque 13 years ago

I think you're making liking Araki films more "special" than it really is. I don't know anyone who's seen his stuff that doesn't like it. It's true that it wouldn't be for everyone, but they're still pretty accessible I'd say. And the thing about his movies before this one is that dialogue and characters were always witty enough that you could find them completely enjoyable even if you don't care about the wacky plot.

reply

[–] hppg 13 years ago

Lol, the plot sounds awful, I don't know if I'd even watch it. Maybe to see how bad it can be.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ScarecrowX 13 years ago

Not as revolting as all the homophobia around here...

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mulholland_empire 13 years ago

usually homosexual directors use gay sex in their films.

i dnt really understand why its so surprising to ppl and why its so revolting. im not gay but im not going to not like a movie just because there is gay sex involved. thats pretty ignorant.

pedro almodovar is one of my fav directors. and gus van sant is pretty good also.

like i have said before araki made this film most likely for his fans.

if uve never seen any of his other work you are not going to like this film.

its that simple

reply

[–] Chairman-Meow 13 years ago

The sex was quite gratuitous and most of it was unnecessary. When dealing with sex in movies the director should try and make sure that the sex is necessary and not something that distracts from the plot. With Kaboom it was sex scene, sex scene, sex scene, random nonsense that tries to pass as plot, sex scene, sex scene, three-way sex scene, some nonsense about some girl being a witch, more nonsense, end of the world drivel, cults blah blah blah, sex scene, BAM! terrible incoherent ending. Sex in movies can be very effective and furthers the plot when done right, but in Kaboom it was just gratuitous and used simply because the directer wanted to film his hot young stars having sex, probably for his own weird personal benefit.

I was never one to hold grudges. My father held grudges, I'll always hate him for that.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Chairman-Meow 13 years ago

There was a ton of pointless sex in it. Did we even watch the same movie?

I was never one to hold grudges. My father held grudges, I'll always hate him for that.

reply

[–] jpga666 13 years ago

You're completely missing the point.
Stella says:

"College is just an intermission between high school and the rest of your life. It's four years of having sex, making stupid mistakes, and experiencing stuff".

Sex in this movie is as natural as brushing your teeth in the morning before work. This world created by Gregg Araki is a hedonistic utopia. It's all about pleasure. No one in this movie cares about consequences. They don't live for tomorrow or the day after. They live for today. Sex feels amazing. So you can bet your sweet ass, that when the opportunity arises, they'll take it.

These people are sexually liberal. You're most likely very; hesitant, uptight, chaste, ect. I don't want to make generalizations about you, but I will say that the type of people make your comments would be the type of person to chastise a woman for being a "slut", when in my eyes, I see nothing wrong with that.

So, obviously this movie was not meant for you or your method of thinking.

reply

[–] jane75 13 years ago

It was so BAD, I can't believe I wasted the time watching it.

And what was the people in animal masks all about?

And the part with London being smiths sister- ugh! Gross

Why go? When you could stay a while, when you could stay with me tonight.

reply

[–] jpga666 13 years ago

The people in animal masks were a part of the New World Order, hired to watch over the leader's son AKA Smith. Maybe had you paid attention to the movie... you'd know this. Maybe you were texting your BFF during that part. You may want to go back and rewatch in order to gain the full experience and as a result, have a valid opinion. Want to know something quite funny, as well? It's been like... 6 months since I last saw this movie. Somehow, I've managed to remember a basic storyline for half a year, and you couldn't even grasp it... well... as you were watching it. I find that quite funny.

And the part about London being Smith's sister was funny. Black Humor. You're probably not familiar with it, so maybe you should just ignore my previous request that you watch it again... you still probably wouldn't like this movie.

reply

[–] magintz 13 years ago

Yea this film was just terrible. I'd rate it somewhere between American Pie 5 and Sharktopus on the crap-scale. Not quite bad enough to be good, but just enough attractive people to keep you watching.

reply