What are your personal worst movies ever?

[Zyxst]

Daredevil. I watched 15 minutes, then the writing became so shittily trying to be cheesy.

Except for Demolition Man and Love Potion #9, anything with Sandra Bullock in it.

[empath]

Second Sight.

I liked John Larroquette, and I liked Bronson Pinchot.

...and the film was the most derivative, formulaic 'buddy mystery' film this side of a cookie-cutter. Even at the age of seventeen I could predict the plot and character developments before they happened.

I got to the point of caring so little that I'd forgotten the characters' names...

...during the film.

Basically a film that presented NOTHING original or even interesting enough to think anything but "yeah, they did that in..."

[MaximusXIII]

I think it would have to be The Happening (from M. Night Shalamallamadingdong). From the trailers it looked like an atmospheric thriller with a decent cast but it was teeeeeeeeeeerrrible just truly awful i felt robbed, confused as to who would pay give him money to make it and a little nauseous.

Second to that would have to be... Hostel. I seriously don't see the point. I like scary films due to the adrenaline rush you get but this isn't even scary its just disgusting (which i personally don't see is a form of entertainment unlike getting scared shitless). Maybe you have to have a fetish for this sort of thing to like it but I consider myself not in that category so I would be very happy if i never watch it again.

[empath]

See, that's the difference between 'scary' and 'gory' - somewhere along the way horror movie makers forgot a key axiom:

"The audience's imagination is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE at scaring them than ANY special effects budget."

One person may be terrified at the sight of blood, another couldn't care less - so having a scene explicitly show someone's throat cut open and producing a gush of blood is going to work for the former but fail for the latter.

It may be vice versa for viscera (sorry) - if that same scene shows the musclature and blood vessels and whatnot getting lacerated, the latter person may feel faint, but the former person may start critiquing "You call that a jugular vein? It's GREEN for crissake! And she's a 90-pound woman; she shouldn't have platysma muscles that big - hell, 'Ahnald' doesn't have platysmas that big!"

On the other hand, if the camera keeps the frame just to the victim's face and keeps the neck 'off camera' and the scene is played out with just the actor's expressions and some foley sound effects... both viewers are left to 'fill in the blanks', and each starts imagining what will effect THEM, and thus it works on BOTH.

So if anyone ever meets Eli Roth; slap that Zach Quinto-lookalike and make him read this post, willya?

[Tetsubo]

Showgirls. It was full of amazing beautiful naked women and it was still the worst film I have ever seen.

[empath]

....wait; I know I've watched that film...what was the story again?!? (apart from totally forgettable )

[Metcarfre]

Oh yeah, did I say Eagle Eye? No? Eagle Eye.

[falconknight06]

Disney's The Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy. That is the only movie I've ever seen that has made me hate everything for about a day after it was over. I saw it for free because of my grades in high school, and I had to go up to a teacher and ask her if they were punishing us for something.

[Metcarfre]

Oh yeah!

Shakespeare in Love, one because I was forced to go (school trip!), two because it beat out Saving Private Ryan for a lot of awards.

Also, it sucked.

[King Kool]

Is Eagle Eye REALLY that bad, Met?

[Metcarfre]

To me, yes. I'd rather it retitled Do You Mind If We Destroy Your Suspension of Disbelief?

[Tycherin]

Metacritic gives Eagle Eye a 27%, but it also lists its audience rating as 72%, so I have no idea how to read that.

Also, Meet the Fockers. Not the worst movie ever, but man did it destroy my faith in humanity.

[Arius]

Whup, Met said the magic words. Gotta watch it now.

http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/86/Suspend-your-Disbelief

[OMGItsSarah]

Anything with Larry the Cable Guy. Fuck that shit.

Also, I HATE Land of the Lost. I can't be in the same room when that's on. And District 9 because it gives me anxiety attacks.

[Wolfenbarg]

See, that's the difference between 'scary' and 'gory' - somewhere along the way horror movie makers forgot a key axiom:

"The audience's imagination is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE at scaring them than ANY special effects budget."

One person may be terrified at the sight of blood, another couldn't care less - so having a scene explicitly show someone's throat cut open and producing a gush of blood is going to work for the former but fail for the latter.

It may be vice versa for viscera (sorry) - if that same scene shows the musclature and blood vessels and whatnot getting lacerated, the latter person may feel faint, but the former person may start critiquing "You call that a jugular vein? It's GREEN for crissake! And she's a 90-pound woman; she shouldn't have platysma muscles that big - hell, 'Ahnald' doesn't have platysmas that big!"

On the other hand, if the camera keeps the frame just to the victim's face and keeps the neck 'off camera' and the scene is played out with just the actor's expressions and some foley sound effects... both viewers are left to 'fill in the blanks', and each starts imagining what will effect THEM, and thus it works on BOTH.

So if anyone ever meets Eli Roth; slap that Zach Quinto-lookalike and make him read this post, willya?

Yes, pretty much. If you've ever seen Hard Candy, you'd know it's far more effective to not show anything when you want to either horrify or make the audience uncomfortable. That movie barely has a drop of blood, and is still far more effective than any of the Saw films, even the first one.

[SPACExJUMPxJOSH]

je deteste le mel gibson ave brave heart, je regarde, tre teribble ¬_¬ excuse my terble french xD

[theDreamer]

Anything by Tarantino.

Even Inglorious Basterds was meh, and that was the only one I managed to watch all of.

[iamafish]

the Patriot fills me with uncontrollable rage

[JustAName]

Aw, I liked it.

Edit: Inglorious Basterds that is.

[Alja-Markir]

Tarantino, while to some being, arguably, something of a jackass and unoriginal, does have actual cinematic talent, at the least.

Whatever one thinks about the man and the stories he tells, one kinda has to admit he at least understands cinematography as a technical skill.

~Alja~

[Theremin]

Tarantino, while to some being, arguably, something of a jackass and unoriginal, does have actual cinematic talent, at the least.

Whatever one thinks about the man and the stories he tells, one kinda has to admit he at least understands cinematography as a technical skill.

~Alja~

That's a bingo.

[theDreamer]

Agreed.

But then it gets boring.

Edgar Wright, on the other hand, does good and INTERESTING cinematography.

And the latter is really the important one.

[MaximusXIII]

Agreed.

But then it gets boring.

Edgar Wright, on the other hand, does good and INTERESTING cinematography.

And the latter is really the important one.

I actually love Tarantino but I can understand why people find his films tedious, LOTS of dialogue, which is generally very well written in his films especially in Deathproof which I highly recommend seeing before say his films are boring (unless you have already in which case to each their own)

[elvor]

Deathproof is the WORST example to give to prove that Tarantino isn't boring. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it, but literally the first half of the movie is a few girls hanging out at a bar.

[MaximusXIII]

Deathproof is the WORST example to give to prove that Tarantino isn't boring. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it, but literally the first half of the movie is a few girls hanging out at a bar.

I'm not trying to disprove peoples opinions I'm just saying the writing is really good which is why I DONT find it boring.

Also shouldn't that be "smoking hot girls..."?