What movie do you most detest? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

Surprised no one has mentioned "The Happening" or "Lady in the Water" yet. Both horrific misfires by Shyamalan.

 

[Ruz-El]

I was going to mention "Lady In The Water", but "Cars" beat it out on my hate list. "Lady In The Water" looked dodgy from the get go, and I got shanghaied into going to it. A truly awful movie, to be sure. It was more about Shyamalan bruised ego as it was about anything else.

 

[Paul D G]

Originally Posted by Russell G

My reason for hating it is it doesn't make any sense! They're cars! They have no arms! How the hell do they maintain themselves?!?! It's "Maximum Overdrive" made more retarded! "Finding Nemo" works because despite being fish, they mostly behave as fish, and the toys of "Toy Story" behave like toys and the bugs of "A Bugs Life" behave like bugs, all in the worlds the movie created. The cars of "Cars" though don't have thumbs or arms, they can't function as anything other then cars, AND THEY DON'T BEHAVE LIKE CARS! They have houses? How? No arms means no building! The world would fall a part! How the hell did all those cars get into that car stadium?? You can't park cars on top of cars like that!! It's never acknowledged! CHRIST I HATE THIS MOVIE! And I'm clearly miserable and intolerant to certain things in movies!

I had a roommate once. And he walked in the room while I was watching Superman The Movie and he went off on a similar rant during Lois' flight above the city. "She wouldn't be able to breathe! She'd be FREEZING and turning BLUE!!" etc. Finally, I said to him: "They've flying..." and he got that 'yeah, I guess you're right' look of embarassment and we both laughed. Sometimes you need to suspend belief - vampires are real, you can really cut off your hand, attach a machine gun to it and it'll fire at will, and cars can talk...

 

[Simon Massey]

Hostel was another film I detest. Never seen Hostel 2 and have no desire to. I did like the original Saw however.


Count me as one who detested Avatar more so probably because of the huge disappointment I had with one of my favourite directors. He took years to make something and that was the best story he could come up with ??

 

[RobertR]

All the vitriol directed at the likes of Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, and Stephen Sommers is well deserved. I think what I detest most about them apart from their moviemaking methods (hyperkinetic editing, overreliance on CGI, etc.) is that their movies are a manifestation of the idea that kineticism is more important than content, action is more important than plot, and the entire movie revolves around special effects sequences instead of something as trivial as a story. The result is that you have "B" movies on "A" budgets. They're given budgets that COULD let them spend time and effort and money on first rate scripts and actors, but they deliberately choose not to. Everything is sacrificed to the gods of marketing hype and bombastic FX. It's a stupendous waste. Cheesy movies from the past had the excuse that they couldn't afford something better. Not so today.


The most annoying thing about Avatar to me was news reports of fans of the film saying how much they wished they could run around in loin cloths in the Stone Age. Give me a break! If they were dropped into a remote jungle equipped only with said loin cloth and a spear, their whining would be deafening.

 

[SteveGon]

I wouldn't even call them "B" movies. Armageddon is little better than claptrap like Megalodon Vs. Giant Tarantula (or whatever). And there are just too many cooks on many of these movies, too many people with input and it ultimately leads to a much less cohesive "product." There's something to be said for a singular vision...

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Paul D G


Sometimes you need to suspend belief - vampires are real, you can really cut off your hand, attach a machine gun to it and it'll fire at will, and cars can talk...

The other day, my wife and I were watching Planet Terror, and she kept saying "she can't fire the leg rifle at will!". Her running commentary on the film's silliness made it more entertaining.

 

[Steve Christou]

Originally Posted by Richard--W


Who is Jack Briggs?


I know you're sincere, Steve, but you overstate your case. AS a writer and a director and an intellect John Boorman is lights years ahead of ED Wood. There is no analogy between the two films. I understand the spirit in which Zardoz is made and meant to be taken, a kind of synthesis of a lot of fantasy sci-fi themes that were swirling around in the 1960s and 1970s. You had to be there, in the 1970s, perhaps, to see where John Boorman was coming from. Apart from all that, I also think it's a really good film on its terms

Jack Briggs was an ex-mod buddy on the forum, we both loved 2001 A Space Odyssey, his favourite film at the time, but it was his 2nd favourite film where we differed a lot, Zardoz. And I used to tease him about it on the forum. Like posting pictures of Sean Connery from Zardoz wearing what looks like a red nappy.


Okay I admit I have seen far worse films than Zardoz, John Boorman's Exorcist II The Heretic for example. I may have been a bit harsh but every film fan needs a "whipping boy", yours is Casino Royale, mine is Zardoz. No worries, we may disagree on one film and agree on a hundred others, thats how it is.


For what it's worth I'm a huge fan of Boorman's Deliverance, Excalibur and The Emerald Forest.

 

[lvicious]

Battlefield Earth: This Travolta - Scientology dribble was just an absolute mess. I could state the obvious but I'll just quote what has already been said that everyone pretty much knows by now.. other than I turned to my friend and said.."WTF is this Crap?" I've seen Barry Pepper and Forest Whitaker do very fine films.. such a shame. The plot, the dialogue, acting, effects, everything. I bet you couldn't even get a prop from that movie to sell in a auction. Yes, yes.. that's what I want. A 7 ft tall alien with high heels and dreadlocks in my living room. It's like some nightmare, acid version of Gene Simmons.


Oh and before I quote the BE bashing...I know this will get me in hot water with die hard SW fans of which I consider myself to be but solely because of Jar Jar Binks I almost.. I didn't but almost walked out of Phantom Menace and the writing for Clone Wars was just at times embarrassing. "Good call, my young Padawan!" "Jedi business go back to your drinks" Oh good lord that made me cringe.


But here is why Earth of which I agree completely along with the facts was so horrible plus the fact even the writer apologized:


"Based on the first half of L. Ron Hubbard's novel of the same name and starring John Travolta, Forest Whitaker, and Barry Pepper, this film had the third-worst 3,000-plus-theater opening weekend up to that time. It was criticized for its poor script, hammy acting by Travolta, overuse of Dutch angles, laughable dialogue, and several plot inconsistencies. More than one reviewer called the film "Travolting".[44] Rob Vaux called the film a "crime against celluloid".[45] Roger Ebert predicted that the film "for decades to come will be the punch line of jokes about bad movies."[46]


It is also on his "most hated" list.[47] The film has a 3% rating at Rotten Tomatoes,[48] and was included in their Top 100 worst reviewed movies of the last 10 years.[49] It won seven Golden Raspberry Awards, including Worst Picture and Worst Screen Couple (John Travolta and "anyone on the screen with him").[50] In 2005, an eighth Razzie (for Worst "Drama" of Our First 25 Years) was awarded to the film,[51] and in 2010 the film won a ninth Razzie at the 30th Golden Raspberry Awards for "Worst Picture of the Decade".[52]


The movie also appeared on Metacritic's list of the all-time lowest-scoring films,[53] is on the MRQE's 50 Worst Movies list,[54] and remains on the IMDb bottom 100.[9] It is #1 on both the Bottom 200 movie list at Everyone's a Critic,[17] and the 100 worst movies list at DigitalDreamDoor.com.[35] Maxim magazine printed,


"Even Quentin Tarantino couldn't revive Travolta's career after this movie." The movie's distributor, Franchise Pictures, was later forced out of business after it emerged that it had overstated the film's budget by $31 million." .. so yeah I would rather watch cockroaches have sex than having to guzzle a whole bottle of Pepto again and view this tragedy.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Salo is almost too easy- though I did detest it and regret wasting the time watching it.


But I'll go with Leaving Las Vegas. I grew up around an alcoholic and have no patience for them now. I walked out on the film at the theater shortly after they introduced the hooker with the heart of gold into the story- which is fairly early into the movie IIRC. A completely unsympathetic main character and one of the worlds oldest cliches- all in the first 15 minutes. Ugggghhh.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott


But I'll go with Leaving Las Vegas. I grew up around an alcoholic and have no patience for them now. I walked out on the film at the theater shortly after they introduced the hooker with the heart of gold into the story- which is fairly early into the movie IIRC. A completely unsympathetic main character and one of the worlds oldest cliches- all in the first 15 minutes. Ugggghhh.

After the first 15 minutes though you get to see Elizabeth Shue's sweet sweet boobs and bum, so I can't agree on detesting this film.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The Movie I hate is Alien 3. I don't hate because it's a bad movie but because of the plot choice they made at the beginning of the movie. I won't detail it here to avoid spoilers, but lets just say they decided to trash much of Aliens, a movie I did like very much. Basically, I have erased Alien 3 from my Alien memory. Hmmm, if I did that, how am I able to comment on it?

 

[cineMANIAC]

I can't decide which contemporary Bond film I dislike (not detest) the most: Die Another Day or The World Is Not Enough. It comes down to what's more implausible - Denise Richards playing a nuclear scientist or invisible cars. Come to think of it, Quantum of Solace was no masterpiece either, and the fact that it was a direct sequel to Casino Royale didn't help. The movies aren't terrible, just misguided and miscast.


I'm surprised that Superman Returns isn't well thought-of. I'm not into comic books so things like screwing with mythology and radical re-imaginings don't bother me. I was thoroughly entertained. I'd be curious to learn what exactly people didn't like about the film.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Gladiator - A laughably bad script; leads that are either wooden (Russel Crowe, what are you doing? YOU'RE BETTER THAN THIS!!!) or camp (Joaquin); the typical all style no substance-problem that has been hounding Ridley ever since Black Rain; and some incredibly bland effects and mattework. How did this win best picture again?


Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - Boring plotless ripoff of several other "second movies", mostly Wrath of Khan. Back in 2006 when somebody said Dead Man's Chest was a great movie I wanted to punch them in the face. Now those guys want to punch other guys in the face to atone for their erroneous ways. Not so fast slick.


Any Michael Bay movie - Noisy shrill garbage where everybody is moist and looks like an oompa loompa.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek

Gladiator - A laughably bad script; leads that are either wooden (Russel Crowe, what are you doing? YOU'RE BETTER THAN THIS!!!) or camp (Joaquin); the typical all style no substance-problem that has been hounding Ridley ever since Black Rain; and some incredibly bland effects and mattework. How did this win best picture again?


Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - Boring plotless ripoff of several other "second movies", mostly Wrath of Khan. Back in 2006 when somebody said Dead Man's Chest was a great movie I wanted to punch them in the face. Now those guys want to punch other guys in the face to atone for their erroneous ways. Not so fast slick.


Any Michael Bay movie - Noisy shrill garbage where everybody is moist and looks like an oompa loompa.

I forgot about that second Pirates movie. I despised it. My problem with it was, the first "Pirates Of the Caribbean" was a very traditional, classic pirates tale at it's heart, with the twist being the Pirate was bonkers. It made for a fun and clever film. That second one though was all about putting the wacky pirate in "funny" situations so he could be extra wacky. What a piece of shit, especially in comparison to the first film which did it right.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Luisito34



I'm surprised that Superman Returns isn't well thought-of. I'm not into comic books so things like screwing with mythology and radical re-imaginings probably has something to do with it, but I was thoroughly entertained. I'd be curious to learn what exactly people didn't like about the film.

Read post #18. A lot of people don’t like a dark, dreary Superman story with a mopey, depressed, deadbeat dad “hero”. They also don’t want a bitchy, angry Lois who has no chemistry with the “hero”. I’ll add that the Luthor “evil plot” was utterly ridiculous (yeah, people are just DYING to move to a continent that’s an utterly barren wasteland), and the Super Kid was even duller, more useless and mopier than his dad.

 

[Jeremiah]

I like a lot of movies, and I might not like some of them I really don't have that hate towards them except.


The Black Dahlia - I hated everything about this movie and haven't wanted to walk out of a movie since Last Action Hero.


The phantom menace - jar jar binks.


I can watch LAH now so go figure.

 

[Charlie Campisi]

The most horrible adaptation of a book I liked was Michael Crichton's Congo. Horrendously goofy bad movie.


I get most irritated by sequels that drop the great story of an original movie, and just say "we don't need a story. Let's just make the explosions bigger, add too many characters to develop any backstory and sell tickets!" That list is pretty long though.


Shumacher's Batman sequels

Matrix 2 and 3

Star Wars prequels

Spidey 3

Beverly Hills Cop 3

 

[PODER]

Interesting that the remake of CASINO ROYALE was listed several times. The original was the first movie I ever walked out on, back when I was in

Junior High School. And I'd have to be paid a humungous amount to ever wade thru PEARL HARBOR again. But if I had to pick, my choice would

be TOP GUN. My only excuse for going in the first place is that:

1) I was out of town on a Summer Stock tour.

2) It was a rare night off.

3) This was the only movie playing within miles.

I think it may have been as long as 15 minutes into the movie when I muttered "If Tom Cruise turns and smirks at the camera one more time, then

I'm outta here." 30 seconds later I was headed up the aisle. Uurrggh!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Great thread. When I saw the title, the first film that popped into my head was Armageddon, and I see that I am not alone. You can also add just about every other Michael Bay film to my honorable mention list, with the exception of The Rock, where not even that hack Bay could prevent some great performances from an exceptional cast.


A few other films that make honorable mention on my list would be Bonfire of the Vanities, Sphere, and Batman & Robin. Fortunately, I have never seen Battlefield:Earth, and even though I enjoy suspense/horror films, the entire concept of gore/porn disgusts me enough to not have bothered to watch anything from that genre.