Watching a movie that turns out bad (1 Viewer)

In watching a DVD movie that turns out to be a dud do you continue watching it or turn it off and watch something else?

I've accumulated many DVDs over the past few years and I'm now to the point of watching some of those films that I've never seen before. Dvds that have been sitting in my "too be watched" stack for quite some time, and quite a few I've found to be so bad that I turn them off before finishing and toss them in my "too be sold" stack.

Although there have been many, here are some of those titles that I found to be not worthy of my time in recent watchings:

Stay Hungry
The Howling 2
Hairspray (2007)
The Decameron
The Thief of Bagdad (Criterion)
Goin' South
Beowulf
Chaplin

Well, to each his own. I'd not quibble with most of your list, with the exception of The Thief of Bagdad, which is a favorite of mine. I rather liked Beowulf too, but could live without it.

I often tire of comedies, which do not hold up over time for me (unless they are silent). I also do not re-watch "surprise ending" movies repeatedly. A friend recommended The Usual Suspects to me very highly. I watched it once, could see the "surprise" a mile away, and promptly gave the disc to the very friend who was so high on the film. I know many people liked The Usual Suspects, so, as with my feelings toward The Thief of Bagdad, ymmv.

The great thing about rewatching The Usual Suspects is not the ending, but in trying to figure out what are lies and what is true. The ending is gravy.

Considering that the screenwriter and the director of The Usual Suspects completely disagree about what's true and what's invented, and yet didn't even discover that they disagreed until after the movie was completed, I'd say you've hit it exactly. And if one sees the ending coming (David_B_K isn't the only one), that should just make the first viewing more interesting.

Taste is personal, but anyone who can't get through Chaplin at least once is not getting an invitation to my viewing room.

If I give it another chance and make it through the whole film would you reconsider?

Aside from the particular films I gave up on I'm still curious as to whether or not people here continue to watch the whole movie once it begins to fail. I'm sure everyone here has a stack of "too be watched."

Currently have in my "to be watched" stack (and feel free to give me the heads up on what to watch first and what to avoid).

These are currently sitting in front of my TV:

Prince of the City
A Knight's Tale
The Big Trail (70mm)
The Journey of Natty Gann
Sister act 1 & 2 DF
Burn
The Fugitive Kind
Fantastic Voyage
3:10 to Yuma (2008)
The Boys in the Band
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Continental Divide
The Last detail
The Moon Spinners
Alien vs Predator
Navajo Joe
Inglorious Bastards
This Island Earth
Forgetting sarah marshall
French Postcards
1969
Pinnochio (starring Roberto Begnini)
Bachelor party/Revenge of the Nerds DF
Men Behind the Sun
Free Willy (Triple feature)
The Fabulous Baker Boys
Chamber of Horrors/Brides of Fu Manchu DF
Here Come the Tigers
Robots
Chicken Run
Rio Bravo
Conan the Barbarian
Hamburger Hill

I've only turned off a couple of real stinkers that I couldn't stand for another second, like 'Down in the Valley'.

Then there's others like 'I'm Not There' that test my patience while I struggle to finish.

Even junk like 'Wanted', I'll try to finish and then watch the extras to see what could have been (the source comic look very interesting and FAR too edgy for Hollywood).

But revenge is mine, as I dump all these stinkers at FYE...

There are too many films out there that I haven't seen, and will never have the time to see, to sit through a film on DVD that I am actively disliking.

While I won't turn off a film, I will hit the FF. It it doesn't look like it picks up, that is enough for me. I can at least see what happens.

Other times, if a film is very slow, but I'm not ready to give up on it entirely, I will turn on the subtitles and watch it in FF X2 mode. That way, I can watch it in half the time, read all the dialogue, and know what goes on.

But, I won't sit through something (unless it is a theatrical) just to say I watched it.

Most of the time, yes. Then again, my definition of "begins to fail" and yours are probably different. Films can slow, sag, take odd turns, etc., and I'll give them a chance to recover.

The only films I've ever turned off and not tried to finish are the ones that are preceding straight for their objective, and either I don't care about the objective, or they're doing such a poor job that I see no hope of recovery and no chance of anything interesting along the way. But those are usually films that you can spot in advance.

For a recent example, take Yes Man. When even the trailer for a Jim Carrey comedy isn't funny, I won't invest any time in the film itself.

I almost always stick it out. Thanks to free rentals from when I worked in a video store, I've seen some absolute garbage over the years. I'm sure I've quit on a few but I can't even remember any specific examples.

I've only walked out on one movie in a theater and that was only because I got in free.

Take your copy of JOURNEY OF NATTY GANN (if it's the region 1 release) and throw it out with the kitty litter. It's not only a horrible "fullscreen" edition of a 2.35:1 film, it's excessively grainy and soft to boot. An utter disaster. Whoever greenlighted this DVD is, I hope, standing in the unemployment lines.

I would definitely recommend:

Prince Of The City
The Last Detail
The Fabulous Baker Boys
Rio Bravo

I was disappointed with the remake of 3.10 To Yuma, especially the ridiculous ending. The original 50's movie is much better - a classic in fact. If you enjoy Rio Bravo, I'd recommend you get that one as well.

Happy viewing!

Over the past decade or so I’ve tried a few times to watch Casablanca but every time it turns out the same. I get about 20 minutes into it, space out from boredom and change the channel. It also took me three tries to get through The Fountainhead even though Gary Cooper is my favorite actor and I’ll watch him in anything. That was a real stinker though and to date I’ve only seen it once all the way through.

I’ve only walked out on a movie in a theater once and that was for Magnolia several years ago.

I actually gave Beowulf another chance and watched the film in its entirety last night. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would have. What initially put me off was the fact that the film was animated, which I wasn't expecting.

Thank you. I will put those on the top of my watch pile. I'm now a bit curious to see the remake of 3.10 now that you pointed out it having a ridiculous ending. I haven't seen the original, but it would be interesting to compare the 2 having seen the remake first.

I've notice quite a few of these Disney titles have been released full screen and wonder if any of them will ever be rereleased in their proper aspect ratio. I've never seen this particular film, but do remember seeing it advertised back at the time of its theatrical release. Judging by your disappointment in the quality of the DVD release I take it you enjoyed the actual film.

I've attempted to watch the film twice and both times I was put to sleep. I guess I was expecting more, being this film is hailed as having amazing special effects for its time. I thought maybe this Criterion release would make it better since my original viewing was off the Alpha release.

Haven't seen The Fountainhead, but Casablanca, yes. I know several people who feel the same way about the film and personally find the film a bit overrated myself.

At point did you walk out of Magnolia? Funny you should say that because I walked out on it too. Not so much because I wasn't enjoying it but the person I went with was bothered with the opening scene.

I've had more than a few stinkers, but I usually sit it out so I can review it later and warn any potential watchers!

Hi Jon,
What bothers me most about The Fountainhead is the dialogue. Ayn Rand insisted on also writing the screenplay and wouldn’t allow the actors to stray from the script at all. Thus the conversation seem very stilted and worse than what’s in most soap operas. People don’t talk that way and it seemed forced and unnatural. I think this one was a waste of four talented actors (Gary Cooper, Raymond Massey, Kent Smith, and Patricia Neal) but I have to admit I do like the scenes where Gary is doing manual labor in a quarry and where he breaks into Pat’s bedroom so at least there’s some good eye candy.

I think we walked out on Magnolia about 20 or 25 minutes into it. I didn’t realize it was one of those films with a bunch of different stories that come together at some point. It’s tough to do those kinds of films well and this one just didn’t seem to be going anywhere and there was nothing about the characters that made me want to stay. Plus, we were getting hungry so we decided to skip out. I wish I had walked out of Eye of the Beholder too, or better yet not gone at all. That’s the worst film I’ve ever seen in a theater. It’s like they forgot to film the ending. When it was over the guy sitting in front of me said “Is that it?” to his friends and everybody broke out laughing which I’m guessing is not the kind of reaction the filmmakers were hoping for.

I like Ingrid Bergman very much but I don’t care for Bogart at all so I just can’t stick with Casablanca. Along the same lines I love Jean Arthur and Cary Grant but just can’t get into Only Angels Have Wings.

Posted by Coopsgirl_31:
Casablanca is the stuff of classic romance. If it were made today, it would be termed a "chick flick" in that there is little action, and it is all about the love story. What makes it a classic romance story is that in the great romances, the love story is "doomed" or for some reason, "not to be". Casablanca embodies all of that with a cynical hero who makes a sacrifice for the woman he loves (and the free world) and even the hero's rival has ennobling qualities so that the woman is torn between two interesting men. On top of a great romantic story that could actually work against any backdrop, the movie also succeeds in being a wartime morale booster.

I have never cared much for Only Angels Have Wings myself. the movie is the first (I think) of a basic plot with basic characters that Hawks would use again at least three more times in differing settings. Basically, he did the whole thing better in To Have and Have Not and Rio Bravo (and did it again in El Dorado). Although the movies differ in setting, they all have similar plot devices and characters. In all of those films, there is not a lot of action, but instead a lot of tense waiting around. Most feature a hero (Grant, Bogart, John Wayne), a drunken sidekick (Thomas Mitchell Walter Brennan, Dean Martin or Robert Mitchum) and a girl who is supposed to leave town by the next stage, ship, plane (Jean Arthur, Lauren Bacall, Angie Dickinson). Usually, when the woman does not leave, she says a variation on the line "I heard someone say I wasn't going and it was me".

There's nothing really wrong with Only Angels Have Wings. I just think Hawks did it better in some of his other films. And I don't think Grant was really right for a cynical hard-bitten type of role. Cary was better suited to more suave roles, IMO