Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results.

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:06:50 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
Right, here we go. If a mod could sticky this I'd be grateful.

A big thanks to all those who voted. A bigger thanks to all those who wrote blurb.

Unfortunatly, I'm posting the list still with some missing blurb. This is because I have to go away for a while and I gathered people would rather see an incomplete list than wait until the end of March for the complete one.

Just one other thing, it's going to take me a while to get the entire list up so please don't post anything until the entire list is up. Thank you.
 
Also, I hope we won't have a repeat of last year when my computer crashed leaving everyone in suspense for 24 hours.

On with the list!

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.

Post #: 1
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:11:11 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
100: Ocean's Twelve (2004. dir: Steven Soderbergh)

As terrible as 11 was brilliant, a complete polar opposite.
The acting is worse, the jokes are weaker if they turn up at all, the plot is shaky and aimless, the character's haven't developed and have in most cases receded and the French guy they introduce as the antagonist is the epitome of negative stereotype.
Also the production on the film is noticeably worse, this is the only film I have seen where I have noticed cuts between takes, it pains me now even to recollect it, not to mention the fact that there are captions in all manner of fonts thrown around at every opportunity.
The baffling use of Julia Roberts to pretend to be herself at one point is just horrible and falls flat the second it is even suggested. The entire scene between her and Bruce Willis is cringing to watch though Willis does his best with neglagable material.
The only redeeming point here is the casting of Eddie Izzard as a typical english inventer, though obviously hilarious is completely out of place. Also his role in the story itself is rendered pointless when it becomes blatantly obvious what is going on in one camera angle showing the egg flicker incredibly blatently.
Overall an excuse for a sequel, and now the news of 13 round the corner brings dread to my heart...if they can match the quality of 11 with 13 then they have my respect, otherwise I loose faith in Hollywood for the time being.
Decent Jam
 
99: Punch Drunk Love (2002 dir: Paul Thomas Anderson)

It's no secret that I am no fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, my thoughts on Magnolia reflect that. However, I am a huge fan of Emily Watson and thought this would be another quirky little film that I would enjoy all the more for her being in it.
There just didn't seem much point to this film. Thankfully I have done my best to mostly forget it. My friend that I saw this with did the right thing by falling asleep. I'm sure there must have been meaning to it, the car wreck, the organ, buying far more items than needed for the flight reward. The film went nowhere, it's one of those where you just sit there perplexed and wonder why people think this is fantastic and the reviews are so good. There was little or no plot and the characters were totally underdeveloped. . I couldn't identify with Sandler's character at all, he just came over as a total loser and unlikable and I also cannot stand the man
The one good thing I can say is that it was well shot. It's just that it's hard to believe that it's the director's fourth film and not their first.
I hired this out a couple of weeks ago on DVD to see if it was as bad as I remembered. I got a bit more from the film this time but still felt that Sandler's character was a loser who should stand up to his overbearing sisters. It's very awkward watching as the character has no social skills at all and cannot interact with the other characters in the film. Whereas he comes off as a jerk, Emily Watson's character comes over as being a sweet shy geek. Overall I enjoyed it more than the original viewing, but it is far from being a masterpiece and is the second worst film Watson has appeared in.
Silent Bob

98: The Sweetest Thing (2002 dir: Roger Kumble)
 

blurb to be posted later

97: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005 dir: George Lucas)
 
Why is Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith so bad? Why is it so fucking awful, why did I laugh when it was supposed to be sad, why did I yawn when it was supposed to be thrilling. I'll tell you why, George Lucas is why. He can't write ("younglings"!!!!!!), he can't direct and he doesn't know when to leave a good thing alone (Star Wars - that's its proper name (not episode 4) & Empire Strikes Back are both really good films).
Two scenes stick in my head the sum up the awfulness of this film. Firstly there is the "execute order 66" sequence when all the Jedi's die. This should have been high drama, pure space opera but George couldn't resist showing off his CG toys. Instead of sweeping us up with the power of the scene, by focusing on the deaths, he pulls the camera far back to show off his (not very good) CGI backdrops. Yes George those toys are very good, but please put them away like a good boy now because they are distracting us from watching the film.
The other sequence is - the build up to and the rise of Vader. I have not laughed so hard at a film in a long time, it could have been a climax to rescue the entire prequel trilogy, but instead it just sums up the whole bloody mess of the three films. Padme dies, because her husband turns a little bit grumpy (what a pile of crap!!). Then when Anakin falls into a fire (couldn't quite see what happened, George was playing with his blinding CGI flashes again), he has a helmet put on his head (one of those Cheap plastic Darth Vader masks you can buy at any good fancy dress shop) walks about like John Cleese doing a silly walk, and then cries "NNNOOO!!!"" like he had just forgotten to cancel the milk again.
The whole scene is an obvious homage to the creation scene in Frankenstein. George if you do want to remind us of another film, its best not to remind us of an all time classic. Why? Because it just serves to remind us of how shit your film is in comparison.
Juror No. 8

 
96: BloodRayne (2005 dir: Uwe Boll)
 
How does he do it? By "he", I'm referring to Uwe Boll and I keep asking that question. How does he keep: a)making horrible movies; b)still getting opportunities to make more movies; and c) getting top-notch actors in his movies? It's just amazing how the cinematic world allows people like Boll to do whatever they want to ruin successful video game franchises. This time, the next victim is "Bloodrayne". Although the movie will only open in 2006, a preview screening was shown in the Austin Film Festival and I was one of the (un)lucky ones to be able to watch it. Wow. He actually CAN spoil franchises.
At least, Bloodrayne isn't considered one of the most life-changing video games in the world. It is actually about action, violence, and vampire powers. This "Bloodrayne" unites stars such as Ben Kingsley (who is not in a very good form lately), Michael Madsen, Michelle Rodriguez, and Kristianna Lokken, known for her role in Terminator 3. Technically, "Bloodrayne" is better than "House of the Dead", but worse than "Alone in the Dark". It is a joke that seems to take on forever, dragging itself on and on through embarrassing fighting sequences. Dreadful acting, shameful dialogues, and a sex scene indicate we are watching another Uwe Boll film. The entertaining video game becomes a forgettable movie in the hand of today's Ed Wood.
Despite one or two decent scenes, "Bloodrayne" is absolutely horrible. The story about a major vampire leader, called Kagan (sadly portrayed by Ben Kingsley) who is chased by vampire hunters (Michael Madsen in a disappointing role) is poor and flawed. Kristianna Loken looks really sexy, but as an actress, she is lame. As Rayne, a vengeful dhampir (half human, half vampire), she reminds us why Razzies are in the world for. Almost nothing in this movie works. This is one more of those movies you find tons of clones in the closest videostore. During the screening, I wanted to leave bad, but literally came to tears when I found out I couldn't. "Bloodrayne" is waste of time, money, human logic, and sanity. It's torturous, painful, and sad.
In 2006, I'm sure "Bloodrayne" will attract tons of hardcore fans who may just believe Uwe Boll has learned his lesson. So I end this review by saying two very important words: he didn't. "Bloodrayne" is one more of his irritating mistakes and is one more movie where you can learn a lesson from in the most painful way possible. Enjoy life to the fullest. If you don't understand this, rent any Uwe Boll movie and you'll know what I mean.
MovieMan
 
95: Underworld (2003 dir: Len Wiseman)
 

Unfortunately the only way of describing Underworld without resorting to crude phrases is all style and no movie. All dressed up in long, black leather coats and with more ominous weather than a hurricane, the picture hasn't a clue as to what it wants to say. It only knows how it wants to look.
The plot is pretty thin, almost to the point of being stupid. Why would the leader of the vampires and the werewolves want to create a mixed, super breed of half vampire, half wolf? The new super wolfpire(??) would surely doom the vampires and werewolves to extinction. Secondly, we are continuously told that the vampires defeated the werewolves and pushed THEM to the edge of extinction. Yet, except for the finale, the werewolves dominate every fight against the vampires So if you just want to have a good laugh and watch a stylish vampire flick, "Underworld" is for you. But if your looking for a crafty, fast beat, well directed movie (i.e "Blade"), this isn’t the one for you.
UrbanAngel

94: Psycho (1998 dir: Gus Van Sant)
 
Gus Van Sant has always been a director not afraid of experimenting, but this experiment has blown up the lab and smells awful. Never mind the fact that he was never really going to succeed in imitating Hitchcock's undisputed masterpiece (and "shot for shot” is not going to offset the comparison, Gus.) but to fail this badly is truly spectacular. How in the hell is Vince "Swingers” Vaughn scary? Anne Heche managed to evoke no feeling in her character whatsoever, whilst fine actors such as Julianne Moore, William H Macy and Viggo Mortensen rarely move off autopilot. Haven't even mentioned the slightly, hell, incredibly unreal sensation of watching actors speak lines all to readily associated with the original that makes it impossible to sympathise with anyone.
The only highpoint of this movie is that Van Sant has since admitted that it was a terrible idea and he'll never try anything like this again. Shame he had to make this one to discover it.
Bulletproof Monk
 
93: The Polar Express (2004 dir: Robert Zemeckis)
 
"The polar Express " was an awful movie .What makes this movie worst is the hypocrisy to present itself as a innocent ,sugary and harmless tale for children about the "true " meaning of Christmas . I never read the book of Chris Van Allsburg in what it was inspired ,but the most disappointing is that it was directed by Robert Zemeckis ,the same who made the great "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?",a excellent movie where he proof that the animation could be appreciated for kids and adults equally ,while in this movie it seems that he was victim of his own ambition and he give too much importance to create impressive level of detail than a interesting story .I'm sorry to say this ,but "The Polar Express " have so much artistic level as a publicity campaign of a video -game or toy . Everything in this movie seems to be so lifeless : the characters could look like humans ,but they don't have nothing of life on them ,and they have a malevolent touch in their eyes .
But the worst ...is the "message" in this movie .You could see it at some parts of the movie ,and believe me ,it was vile .Take for example one scene ,where one kid refuses to enter to the Polar Express . Notice that the character that looks like Tom Hanks makes a gesture like saying "you are stupid to don't accept my offering " .Second ,when the girl says that the toys are so "warm " and things like that . All the damn movie the kids keep talking about how big would be the gifts that Santa would give to them . There is even a song about the gifts !the vagabond is a irrelevant and weak character . And ,in the last scene the character seems to "discover " the true meaning of Christmas : and what would be ? what do you think ? the gifts ! many Christmas movies are close to say something like it ,but "The Polar Express " it's a ode to the materialism and greed . Seriouslly ,I refuse to call it a "children's movie " , because if is that what the kids would learn ,I don't want to think how would be our future .
Gaturro
 
 
92: An American Werewolf in Paris (1997 dir: Anthony Waller)
 
I had been a huge fan of the original "American werewolf in London" and, while I had no real hopes this would be as good as that one (which was just funny good, not really good), I had hoped to be entertained. I was not. Aside from some physics bending during a bungie jump scene, a really weak plot and some really stupid characters, the movie just went nowhere. I've watched training videos that were more fun to watch than this mess.
Tirdun
 
91: Rollerball (2002 dir: John McTiernan)
 
With all the starving in the World, some coke abusing studio Exec gave the OK to spend 70 million US on THIS travesty ! I assume this person lost their job.
It is just like watching an episode of the TV show Gladiators, all the combatants have stupid names and costumes, and the grand oval Rollerball tracks of the original have been replaced with a tiny, cheap looking hamster run figure eight, littered with jumps, that is barely 25 yards in length !
But what really kills the film is the God awful "Directing".
What was John Mac doing ? The Rollerball games themselves are impossible to follow because he is constantly cutting from close up to close up at a frenetic pace (possibly because none of the actors can actually skate ?) The result is you cannot follow what on earth is going on.
The only good performance in this film is from LL Cool J, and what with him being a black actor, then inevitably, he gets killed, and we are forced to suffer "Keanu-lite"; Chris Klein from there after.
This film really is the pits. I hear that the "Special Edition DVD" is just an empty box.
Abarbsy

< Message edited by Bulletproof_Monk -- 21/3/2007 3:52:43 PM >


_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 2
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:12:24 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
90: Notting Hill (1999 dir: Roger Michell)
 
Having been underwhelmed by Four Weddings and nauseated by Love, Actually, what was I doing submitting myself to around two hours of Notting Hell? You might well ask.
Richard Curtis is a New Zealand-born writer who seems to have a love affair with the duller end of the British bourgeoisie. Except that they have the "endearingly eccentric" habit of swearing in linguistic constructions unknown to anyone in this country (I was born and bred in London, and I don't recognise any of these people).
It's a bit squirm-making to think people outside the UK might imagine this is what we're like and, goodness knows, Curtis's feeble-minded films are commercially successful enough domestically, so I can only take comfort from the thought that most intelligent moviegoers will have noticed that all of his subsidiary characters are essentially the same, whatever the film, and serve only as baffle-boards for the main characters' lame one-liners, while they also oil the lurching from each dull conflict to the next insipid resolution.
Anyway, you can read the other reviews to get an idea of the plot — and there's a f**cking awesome twist (only kidding). I just hope Julia Roberts got a good cut of the (depressingly inevitable) profits — she acts very well in a film that's otherwise rather like an extended, self-satisfied British sit-com.
But I will stop to waste a little more bile on the notorious "brownie" scene, in which assorted dullard characters with not one iota of self-awareness between them compete as to who is the more hard-done-by for a morsel of cake, albeit in a ostensibly comedic way — let's just say you don't want to be eating for this. Unless, possibly, the hour or so that's gone before has driven you to a chosen snack of 100 temazepam.
Johnny Myo
 
89: Citizen Kane (1941 dir: Orson Welles)
 
I have tried to watch this movie 3 times. Each time I promise myself that I will watch it through to see all the facinating camera angles and light shading. I want to see the last ten minutes of the film and be awed and amazed as I realize that Rosebud is something extraordinary. I want to recognize Mr. Wells' genius, daring, and inventivness. I want to feel the passion, emptiness, and all the other powerful emotions that the actors and "unique" cinematography portray in this movie.
I have not been able to make it yet. This is the single most boring hard to watch movie that I have ever tried to watch. I can usually watch about any movie at least once, but not this one.
I don't need exciting special effects, car chases, shoot outs, or sex scenes to keep me interested. I just need the movie to be interesting. This film is not interesting to me. I love history and I watch many older movies and I appreciate most of them for what they are, and in the time frame that they were made. But this one is just very hard to watch. If you have to have a college professor,(who himself has had to read a book about it to understand it) explain a movie to you so that you can appreciate it, then I'm sorry folks but then it just "ain't good".
I have enjoyed thousands of movies, and I have disliked many also, but very few have I never been able to finish watching and this is one of them.
Guy
 
88: Airplane II: The Sequel (1982 dir: Ken Finkleman)
 
Oh God where to Start ok here goes.
Airplane 2 is studio politics writ large ,I mean Paramount Obviously wanted to make more money after the success of the first one so here is their idea of a winning formula
1/Do Not retain the Zucker Brothers And Jim Abrahams
2/Hire a Guy called KEN FINKLEMAN to direct is that a real name
3/Fill the film with lots of tired jokes about stat trek and other films
4/go for really obvious gags
5/bring back the stars of the first and give them a script so devoid of laughs I would rather watch Airport 80 The Concorde
Airplane is a true one off film and this wreck of a sequel shows why avoid at all costs
Filmburner30

 
87: Godzilla (1998 dir: Roland Emmerich)
 
There are few films that I can honestly say that I hate, but the 1998 version of Godzilla would definitely be one of them. Why? Because this film was the first to really disappoint me. Being only 15 at the time it was released, my cynical side had yet to rear its' head. So when I heard about the Godzilla remake directed by Roland Emmerich, I immediately thought of a cross between Jurassic Park and Independence Day, rather than the lame box-office tat it was bound to be. As I watched the film I became more and more shocked at just how bad it was and by the end when they leave it open for a possible sequel (that thankfully hasn't happened. Yet) my previous blind faith in Hollywood movies had been demolished. I suppose I should be thankful to Godzilla for teaching me a valuable lesson, but I'm unable to feel anything but hate for the film that sparked the beginning of a pessimistic, cynical view of the movie industry that's still going strong inside me today.  
Hardcore Raver
 
86: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968 dir: Stanley Kubrick)
 
2001 is one of those movies where, if you don't like it, you are told that you don't 'get it' and need to look at the deeper meaning and symbolism. You're told that you clearly have a slow attention span, and just want to see sex, explosions, and have the plot handed to you on a platter.
Let's break down the movie shall we? Three minutes of blackness, with something that sounds like a dying hippo in the background. Then we get the opening credits. A minute of fascinating shots of the Savannah. Then a bunch of monkeys find a black rock and start killing things with bones. Cut to the first of many 20-minute shots of ships doing things while the 'Blue Danube' plays in the background. A bunch of pointless dialogue, and a group of moon scientists find another monolith.
Cut to a spaceship that's too long for the crew complement--three sleeping people, two people named Dave and Frank, who have only slightly more personality than the stiffs in hibernation. And then there's HAL, the 'perfect' supercomputer who runs the ship. Predictably, he snaps and starts breaking the First Law of Robotics. Now this is something that has potential. An evil, coldly ruthless super-mind who controls the surrounding environment and can predict your every move. And what does he do? He lets one guy float into space and turns off the hibernation machines so the three sleeping guys die, leaving Dave floating in a pod. He simply uses the airlock, puts on a spacesuit, and turns HAL off--agonizingly slowly. Then, apparently, there's some psychedelic 'evolution' at Jupiter.
Here's the movie with the pauses taken out: Apes see monolith, kill things. Scientists find moon monolith. HAL kills people. HAL dies; Dave gets a prerecorded message, and evolves at Jupiter.
This is not me 'not getting it.' This is me being bored to tears by long stretches of absolutely nothing. Sure, it's realistic, but I find I have no reason to care. No matter the message, no movie can be good without being entertaining. Frankly, every character could be replaced with Keanu Reeves, and nothing would change.
Bulletproof'sIdiotFlatmate
 
85: Showgirls (1995 dir: Paul Verhoeven)
 
For the record, I am not a member of the Moral Majority, nor am I dissing "Showgirls" because it exploits women (find me a mainstream Hollywood production that doesn't.) It is, simply, a godawful waste of celluloid.
This is not, as some would have it, a brilliant satire. If it was intended as satire, it completely fails to register as such. If it was intended as an expose' of the excesses of Las Vegas, it was unnecessary and handled in a rank, amateurish manner. If it was supposed to be a serious film, then it was an unmitigated disaster. The acting was universally atrocious, even from the normally reliable Gina Gershon. The plot was more shamelessly melodramatic than an episode of Melrose Place. The nudity was so gratuitous and unpleasant that I did not want to look at breasts for weeks afterwards, which was the most groundbreaking achievement of the movie.
I could go on and on about the sheer horror of it all, but you get the idea. Don't touch this one with a thirty-foot pole.
Andrew
 
84: Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life (2003 dir: Jan De Bont)
 
Some people usually say turning Video Game into movies is a bad thing, sure some have been bad, but some
(like Super Mario and Streetfighter) are guilty pleasures. But if you have much admiration for this game
sequel then you should feel guilty, because it's basically banal and useless.
It may have a saving grace in the form of Gerard Butler's excellent sidekick role who is never quite good
or bad, but he belonged in a much better, worthier film than this mindless mix of action, non-spookiness
and geography. Basically a bunch of amusing stunts, marred by silly acting (bar Butler) and shoddy
direction from Jan de Bont (hard to believe he once directed Speed).
The ending with the supposedly scary warrior statues is very boring at best, and the villain as portrayed
by Ciaran Hinds is very hammy and poor. If you're very bored on a Friday night and want some entertainment
and it's on TV then fine, but don't go out of the way to see it, as it's blatant garbage.
DJ Rob C: Mark II!
 
83: Pokemon: The First Movie (1999 dir: Michael Haigney, Kunihiko Yuyama)
 
I really shouldn't have to write a review stating why this film is so horrendously awful; I think the title says it all. However that is what I must do for the purposes of this list and it's impossible to know where to start. To say that it was made for the sole purpose of making money is a gross understatement, I can't imagine anyone involved would have had artistic integrity on their mind when making this; the animation is shocking, the dialogue nonsensical and characterisation and story development non-existent. We all know how good Japanese animation can be with Studio Ghibli's output, a company who make films that please both children and adults with fantastic imagery and imaginative storytelling. The makers of this film seem to think that creating a load of different monsters fighting each other in the dullest way possible (the climax of the film is just the two main Pokémon hitting each other inside their protective force fields or whatever they are) will keep the target audience amused. Fair play to them, they're probably right in all honesty, but that doesn't excuse this blatant disregard for decent or creative storytelling. 
DaveB
 
82: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005 dir: Tim Burton)
 
This should have been brilliant. Burton, with an eye for darkness, and the quirkiest director around, adapting Roald Dahl's darkly amusing novel. With the great Depp as Wonka, we hoped that it would dispel all memories of Gene Wilder's sickeningly sweet turn as the chocolate maker, but it turned out to be a tired, lifeless, yawn-fest- and arguably even more sinister than the original.
Cute little Freddie Highmore was likeable enough, and strangely, the film was coasting until we reached the factory itself. There, the one-dimensional kid characters, the tacky set design, the completely bizarre oompa-loompas, and Danny Elfman's forgettable songs made me wish that Charlie would escape the clutches of this weird paedo and get back
home in time for supper.
firesidebenny
 
81: Top Gun (1986 dir: Tony Scott)
 
I've seen loads of films I love, and even more that are just average, but I've seen very few films that I actually hate whilst I'm watching them, but Top Gun is one of them (Armageddon and Grease also had the same effect).  Why?  Well like all Simpson-Bruckhiemer films of the 80s, it's all too slick and shiny, and plays like a 2 hour pop video.  Its staggeringly predictable, unbelievably corny, the 'characters' are annoying and do things that only people in movies do - all that stupid bonding and singing, its completely unrealistic (Maverick's actions at the end would have probably started WW3), and its far too jingoistic.  Brainless garbage of the worst kind.
Tuck Pendleton

< Message edited by Bulletproof_Monk -- 21/3/2007 3:51:41 PM >


_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 3
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:14:05 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
80: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001 dir: Steven Spielberg)
 
While A.I. has its advantages – it looks beautiful and Haley Jole Osment's performance is excellent- its main flaw is that is misses the real questions posed by the scenario, and it is left overlong and oversentimental.
The film makes us think of the robot as a child; it wants us to feel sympathy. Instead, it should have asked should we think of it as a child? Can it even feel real emotion, or is it just bits and bytes affecting switches in his face to make him smile or sad? What does it mean to feel real emotion and could we ever create something that could feel it? Starting with these questions already answered, it then effectively becomes a story about a boy who is abandoned and spends eternity searching for a way back to his mom. The real questions are ignored in favour of a soppy, over sentimental story about a little boy lost.
What it should have done is looked more closely at the parents, the human beings. When the robot was gone, how did they deal with it? Was it the same as losing a real child for them? Did they really love it, or did they realise it was just a machine? How did this machine affect their lives in the long run? That's what artificial intelligence is all about – building machines that have an impact on our lives, and considering their effect on us. It isn't about building a little boy just to play at being God and then feeling sympathy for it. The fact that we can feel sympathy for something which is, at the end of the day, just a machine, says far more interesting things about human beings that it does about robots. This real area of interest was ignored and the film suffers for it – it meanders about with nowhere to go and finally peters out very slowly. Not even the cute Teddy could make it enjoyable.
Electric Barbarella

 
79: Independence Day (1996 dir: Roland Emmerich)
 
The brilliance of ID4? Well, I guess it is genius to a certain degree to progressively stack the crap higher and higher as the film goes on. It did take some kind of planning for a film to start off as an entertaining concept and get progressively stupider and more moronic as you go. Pathetic one-liners, terrible performances, actors clearly embarrassed to be there... When you've got Jeff Goldblum embarrassed, you've accomplished something with his career. Bill Pullman, non-actor, as President of the US, with his goofy, no eye contact, sheepish wimp performance donning a flight jacket. Randy Quaid, doing the worst "heroic" death in the history of cinema. Will Smith searching for and finding his wife, apparently the only survivor of her entire city. What a lucky coincidence! Just return that copter when you're done with it, Will. It's not like we'll need it in the midst of fighting an interstellar war.
To give you an idea what kind of slack-jawed Neanderthal moron preschool lobotomized chimps liked this movie in the theater I was in... there's a scene where a wave of fire is engulfing a tunnel filled with cars. People are dying by the thousands. There's a dog who somehow figures (ridiculously) in all of this. The dog makes it to this maintenance exit in the nick of time to be spared. The entire audience oohed and ahhed like they were watching "The Wonder Years". Who cares if throngs of people have been reduced to charcoal briquettes! Just so the cute wittle puppy dog made it!
This is one of the worst movies ever made and when you compare the stupidity proportionate to the amount of money spent, it's THE WORST movie ever...
Bleeeech!
Steeldealer
 
78: Bridget Jones's Diary (2001 dir: Sharon Maguire)

This is, without a doubt, the biggest pile of putrescent garbage it has ever been my misfortune to watch. I would rather jam spoons under my eyelids than be forced to sit through that ordeal again. Bridget Jones is a brainless tart who sets the women's movement back about 50 years. My boyfriend thought it would be romantic to watch it together. He was wrong. This film reinforces every bad female stereotype there is. The characters were unbelievable and extremely annoying, the acting vapid and fourth rate. i consider it an insult to my backside that it had to suffer the discomfort of prickly cinema seating for the duration of this dross. if Bridget Jones were a real person, I would track her down and beat the crap out of her. If you haven't seen this film, please, PLEASE do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague.
SmashMonkey
 
 
77: The Sound of Music (1965 dir: Robert Wise
 
The sound of music is considered one of the greatest films of all time with opening titles you'd only have to see once and you'd never forget it. But whether you'd want to remember this film is a different matter altogether. Classic or not it doesn't stop the songs from being incredibly annoying and cheesy, and the characters unrealistic. Take the children for example; instead of looking sweet and innocent as your gran claims, they annoy you almost as much as the songs they sing and make the film even worse than it already is. This film is without doubt one of the worst I have had to endure watching and it thoroughly deserves its place on this list.
UrbanAngel

 
76: Solaris (2002 dir: Steven Soderbergh)
 

blurb to be posted later

75: The Matrix (1999 dir: The Wachowski Brothers)
 
Cast your mind back to 1999. Along comes a trailer for a sci-fi film called The Matrix, featuring never-before-seen CGI effects that looked incredible. Everyone goes to see. Unfortunately, said effects are cool for maybe 30 seconds, by which point they were being imitated in every other film released. So behind those CGI effects, we're left with a slice of glamorous but pretentious nonsense which is so overtly solemn it becomes gigglesome, features some dialogue as cheesy as any in the contemporaneous Star Wars prequels and directors who fail to realise that putting action scenes in slo-mo defeats the purpose of action, which is supposed to be about things happening at speed. And we have The Matrix to thank for various dreadful kung-fu flicks [Romeo Must Die et al] that followed in it's wake, although to criticise its sequels is beside the point. Stick with the Wachowski's first effort, the vastly superior Bound, instead. If nothing else it has lesbian sex scenes. 
tommyjarvis
 
74: Anaconda (1997 dir: Luis Llosa)
 
Good monster movies, how I love them. King Kong, Godzilla, Dracula, Jurassic Park....really the list is endless. There are also bad monster movies but if they don't take themselves seriously I love them to, Lake Placid, Deep Rising, Critters.....again the list really is endless. However there are just plain dreadful monster movies which nobody in their right mind would tolerate. This list is to a long one, but in 1997 I saw the absolute stand out example. Anaconda is without a doubt the worst monster movie ever made...ever. The cast features some of the worst performances ever committed to film and the script is peppered with lines that wouldn't crop up in a primary school production. Jennifer Lopez is really as bad as she always is and so is fat rapper Ice Cube but there are some genuinely talented actors including Jon Voight, Owen Wilson and Eric Stoltz all of whom are equally as dire as the Pop stars turned actors I mentioned before. Director Luis Llosa is incompetent beyond words. He tries to build characters and tension in the first hour all he succeeds in doing is generating an unintentional laugh or two and boring us silly. When we do eventually see the monster snake it's a total anti climax. The thing looks pathetic and can't muster any scares or threat even in that bad special effect kind of way. The movie tries hard to generate excitement but barely musters any during its 90 minute run time. Anaconda wants to be the next Jaws, Jurassic Park or Aliens but looks shoddy and offers about as many thrills as your average GCSE maths textbook. It's enough to put you of monster movies for a while even the good ones, and that is saying something.
Daniel Kelly
 
 
73: X Men: The Last Stand (2006 dir: Brett Ratner)
 
I really don't have anything positive about this film to say at all. It was an utter letdown in every way, even visually. This movie was pure crap and utter swill, and if Marvel has any sense whatseover, they will ban this asshat from ever, ever working on another project of their for the rest of his useless, wasted, carbon copy idiot life. Here's why. The casual dismissal and destruction of Charles and Scott. This served no real plot point, could have demonstrated the Dark Pheonix's lack of interest in the lives of humans a thousand other, better ways. This was pathetic, and indicative of a thourough lack of imagination or understanding of character. The spontaneous generation of these mental "walls" Charles built into Jean. Not to mention the sudden change in Charles' basic character. He was as prick in this film, totally the opposite of the character in the previous films, and his dismissal made no real impact on the viewers, since he might as well have been an alien anyway, from the feeble fashion in which he was written. The total mistreatment of all the cornerstone characters struck me as hurried, completely ignorant of past character history, devoid of any personality and individual thought. Juggernaught was a generic meathead, with no real impact on the plot at all. St. John, exactly the same. In fact, all of the brotherhood were completely generic and uninteresting. Magneto's casual dismissal of Mytique once her mutancy was "cured". Nonsense. That is counter completely to their previous relationship. Doesn't wash. God, I could rant forever. I came away from this film with the desire to crush the idiot that molested this saga with his input. It was unforgivable, and I hope he dies in a car wreck, he deserves no less. I don't think the English language has enough negative words in it for me to accurately express how much I deplored this "movie". It watched like the crippled mind of a child trying to make a cartoon into movie. It was awful. I recommend no one see this trash and pretend it didn't happen.
Cthulu999
 
 
72: Dick Tracy (1990 dir: Warren Beatty)
 

blurb to be posted later

71: Sin City (2005 dir: Robert Rodriguez)
 
Juvenile drivel, that has all of the emotion of your average crossword puzzle. It is, however, visually stunning at times, though I frankly can't come up with a sure fire standout scene or visual. Mickey Rourke manages to wring a few drops of humanity from a film that has none, and for that his performance deserves an 'outstanding' rating. Otherwise, I really could have cared less.
Rodriguez may have accomplished what he set out to achieve, and Sin City may be the most faithful recreation of a comic book/graphic novel to date. But Barely Legal 173 is a more faithful recreation of the sex act than anything in Casablanca. That does not make it a better film.
Capt.Vee

< Message edited by Bulletproof_Monk -- 22/2/2007 2:40:26 PM >


_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 4
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:16:28 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
70: Bean (1997 dir: Mel Smith)
 
blurb to be posted later
 
69: Judge Dredd (1995 dir: Danny Cannon)
 
If you love the comic (2000 A.D.) do not, I repeat, do not watch this movie, because you may never see Judge Dredd in the same light again. I had waited for this movie for years. When I heard that Stallone was playing Dredd I thought nothing bad of it. I knew that with him in the picture it would be in wide release, and I knew that much like Batman, Judge Dredd does not need a great actor to play him. Stallone seemed to fit the bill of someone who could be tough, have little dialogue, and shoot up the enemies. Little did I know that Judge Dredd would be put into the same category as Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin, in that they are all "disneyland" versions of a much darker comic.
In the comic, the future is a bleak place. Comic books don't get much darker or bloodier than this one. It is not a "fun, happy go-lucky" comic. However, it is extremely exciting and if translated correctly could be the perfect action movie.
Showing a human side of Dredd was the worst mistake of this movie. For one Dredd does not take his helmet off. For two he does not have a sidekick.
If this movie had been made correctly it would have received comparison's to the likes of Terminator 2 and Predator. However, after seeing this movie, I think it would best be compared to the likes of Teen Wolf Too, as one of the worst films ever made.
MI5 Guy
 
 
68: Unbreakable (2000 dir: M Night Shyalaman)
 
blurb to be posted later
 
67: Kevin And Perry Go Large (2000 dir: Ed Bye
 
Imagine going on holiday with two ugly morons and having to see their ugly faces and listen to their moronic babbling all the time. This is the painful experience that is Kevin and Perry Go Large. The two main characters are perhaps even more idiotic and irritating than the most of the unpalatable tourist contingent that infest Ibiza and similar locations. Possibly definitive proof that British comedy is not as funny as American the film is a cross between American Pie and Wayne’s World, but brings the vulgarity and gross out humour down enormous pegs while retaining none of the wit, self-parody or heart that made the aforementioned titles successful. The film one long sketch show of excrement, erection and vomit jokes played to the tune of the pneumatic drill that is trance music for nearly an hour and a half. Add dreadful acting, sub-television production standards and one is left wondering why this film didn’t go straight to video. The nadir of British cinema. A film that only people like Kevin and Perry could enjoy. Trivia: Nominated for an Empire award.
Director’sCut

 
66: When A Stranger Calls (2006 dir: Simon West)
 
blurb to be posted later 
 
 65: Alien: Resurrection (1997 dir: Jean Pierre Jeunet)
 
I hold a lot of hate for Alien Resurrection and it isn’t because it’s entirely the worst film ever, it does have [I]minor[/I] redeeming features. I hate Alien Resurrection because it is an entirely unnecessary addition to an already complete franchise. Alien 3 gave Ripley a perfect ending, that an inevitable death would be her only release from such creature. The fat cats at Hollywood thought otherwise, as the success of the recent videogame franchise painted dollar signs across their eyeballs. Though I’m sure that many a fan could have appreciated a cash-in had it been handled with care. Instead they gave the Aliens the characteristics of a Raptor, gave Ripley the emotional qualities of a lead rod and chucked the movie full of comic book characters all with the same sense of humour; Bad.
The lighting didn’t help the movie along either as the Aliens are forced into brightly lit corridors taking away any fear we might have held against them. The rule with the alien films, much like with the monster films of the 40’s/50’s, was that you keep your monster in the dark and let the imagination do the rest. ARse doesn’t allow our imagination run rampant with ideas and images, instead we are hit with a realization that “Oh, so that’s how they look”. Kind of spoils the atmosphere. Another problem came with the lack of Weyland-Yutani, a company that had billed itself as the real threat, destroyed in a singular paragraph of dialogue.
However, the biggest problem of all was the death of the Queen and the fact she was killed in aid of a albino abortion baby. The queen had been a major character within the Alien series, almost an exact opposite to Ripley as the two fight for ownership of a child during Aliens climatic battle. Such history and fear destroyed in one slash. Was the queen such an unworthy foe for the abortion of the alien franchise? I understand that many a writer or filmmaker wishes to make a film their own by adding something new to a franchise, though they must have taken a wrong turn with the Newborn. The concept could have been a good one, citing Ripley as a newt character as the new born and Queen fight for her ownership. Instead we get some cuddling and green blood, then spaghetti being sucked out of window. Brilliant! Alien Resurrection was the downfall for the Alien franchise. I cannot imagine that it’ll ever get back on its feet.  
Gazz
 
64: Far And Away (1992 dir: Ron Howard)
 
There are few things that are worse than an awful movie that exceeds a two hour running time. It's one thing for an awful movie to run 90 minutes, but when an awful movie runs over two hours, the pain can be almost indescribable. Such is the case with FAR AND AWAY, the surprisingly successful re-teaming of director Ron Howard and screenwriter Bob Dolman, who just four years earlier had brought audiences the terrible WILLOW. This time Howard and Dolman decided that what the world needed was a historical romantic drama starring Tom Cruise as an Irish immigrant. Let's stop and think about that for a second. Tom Cruise=bad actor. Tom Cruise with horrible sounding Irish accent=unintentional hilarity. Indeed for the first five minutes, FAR AND AWAY is unintentionally hilarious with Cruise putting on what could be the worst sounding accent in the history of cinema. However, after the first five minutes, it becomes a chore to sit through, especially once Nicole Kidman is introduced. As those who have seen EYES WIDE SHUT already know, Kidman and Cruise have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever. They may have been married, but on screen together they couldn't appear more dull, partly due to the atrocious dialog in Dolman's script.
I really hate to bash Ron Howard, but something has to be said for some of his questionable directing choices here. Besides the fact that he thought it was necessary for a over two hour running time, Howard also seems to have the urge to direct the many dramatic scenes as if were a Lifetime TV movie of the week, which is too say way over-sentimental and never ending. This could be forgivable if there was any reason to find the characters likable, or at the very least, sympathetic. Instead, the characters come off as stupid and annoying.
My advice: Stay 'Far and Away' from this movie.
jellyneckr
 
63: Kill Bill: Vol 2 (2004 dir: Quentin Tarantino)
 
Unfortunately I have seen this and I want to warn you, don't watch it! Totally dumb, boring piece of s**t, piteous acting, imbecile plot (actually NO plot presence in this crap) and all the time worse than Hong-Kong action movies from 70s. Volume 1 was quite good, nothing exceptional but watchable without hazarding with your health, imho this vol.2 was extended to 2hours just for money-making just when from whole story left about 5 lines in screenplay of volume 1, so why don't make sequel, a lot of little green papers will become handy just for nothing, what a deal! So don't wonder about 5 and more minutes long monologues over lying (and probably dying) enemy, what should probably symbolize that there is something like a plot behind 5 year old kiddies would make a better movie Quarantino's worst movie, actually worst movie I have ever seen
Huugh
 
62: Blade: Trinity (2004 dir: David Goyer)
 
Where to start? The one word that springs to mind when I think of Blade Trinity is “lazy”. A lot of blame has to be laid at Goyer’s door but by no means all of it. The film’s script is a mess and pacing is a real problem, that and the dialogue. But where Goyer really drops the ball for me is in the fight scenes. I could have forgiven the film many sins if the action was thrilling or even interesting but it is not.
Next we come to the acting talent or lack there of. Reynolds is vaguely amusing as King but soon his one liners begin to grate. Biel does little with the 2 dimensional character she is given. Snipes as Blade just seems to be there for the paycheck leaving a hole in the film that Reynolds and Biel are unable to fill. But the film really suffers in the bad guy department. Triple H is pretty bad but then again what do you expect from a wrestler. Purcell as Dracula  just seems lost and seems to have nothing to bring to the character all. He’s supposed to be the baddest vamp on the block but he never even aproaches menacing resulting in a showdown that can’t help but disappoint. That being said the worst part of this film can be summed up in 2 words,  Parker Posey. Posey creates an over-the-top vampire mastermind who chews up the scenery and overacts her heart out. She is the guilty of most of the unintentional humour found in the film.
So overall the film is a mess. Funny when trying to be serious. Boring when trying to be funny and unfortunately just never seems to excite. The first 2 films were solid action movies were as Trinity is just a very camp and very lame horror flick. Avoid.
Palahniuk’s Laughter

 
61: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003 dir: Stephen Norrington)
 
Or, if you're being honest, The Load of Extraordinary Shite. LXG can only really be viewed as an attempt by its producers to make the worst superhero movie ever. It should have been easy to make a good film: a much-loved graphic novel by Alan Moore, one of that medium's greatest writers; directed by Steven Norrington, who did a great job with Blade, another comic adaptation; the star power of Sean Connery. What went wrong? The terrible script was a start. Predictable and ridiculous, an insult to both the source material and the intelligence of the audience. Visually, it's just an incoherent mess, confused "action" drowned in shoddy CGI. Mediocre performances all round: unsurprisingly, nobody was able to transcend that awful script. Unbelievably, 20th Century Fox were actually sued by a writer who alleged the film was a rip-off of his own screenplay. The fact that anyone would want to claim any credit for this woeful waste of $78 million is the only truly extraordinary thing about this movie.
Angelus

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 5
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:17:50 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
60: Mission: Impossible II (2000 dir: John Woo)
 
Even De Palma's Mission Impossible wasn't this bad...
Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has been sent to find and destroy a GM disease (ooh, topical), called Chimera. Lots of other people want to get their hands on it too and will stop and nothing to do so. Still with me? John Woo's slide into the mire of atrocious blockbuster-making continued with this dire "action spectacular", complete with tedious action sequences, flat characters, terrible dialogue and boring plot-twists signalled long in advance. Very boring.
Rick 7

 
59: Resident Evil (2002 dir: Paul WS Anderson)
 
Probably the best example of how bad videogame adaptations can be (Mortal Kombat – also directed by the incompetent Paul WS Anderson – being close behind), Resident Evil shamelessly rips off from far, far superior sci-fi and horror flicks (Alien/s, Dawn of the Dead, and Cube to name a few) and still manages to be a big, ugly stinker. Devoid of originality, scares, thrills, atmosphere and suspense, the film, apart via name and zombie dogs, also lacks any sort of resemblance to the game that spawned it.
The film starts with a mysterious someone smashing a handsomely crafted phial (so that’s where the money that should have gone into the script went!) unleashing a virus that turns the employees of the Umbrella Corporation (the generic, evil pharmaceutical company that works outside the law) into the undead. The site’s computer (Red Queen – ooh! The symbolism!), proceeds to systematically terminate the workers via drowning, gassing and decapitation to prevent the virus escaping. We’re then introduced to the generic military types (ensue immediate betting on who will die first), which includes Michelle Rodriguez doing what she does best – scowling. Also dragged down is amnesiac Milla Jovovich, wearing nothing but a red cape (don’t worry, later on she wears nothing but paper!) who has the convenient ability to knock out zombies when guns fail. Their goal: to run in and then run out again. And there you have it: the plot. Oh, and there’s something about a marriage and a conspiracy, but that’s a largely tacked on afterthought.
These characters are so stupid that they shut down the computer, thereby releasing the hordes of undead businessmen. Cue lots of chasing around. Characters and zombies appear and disappear pretty much on the script’s say so, a script that relies on loud bangs in order to generate the cheapest scares and has never heard of character development. Not that that would help; the painful acting that Anderson draws from his cast wouldn’t make these characters any more one dimensional.
This entire film reeks of mediocrity; from the loud and obnoxious heavy metal soundtrack, to the piss-poor CGI, there is absolutely nothing redeemable about this film. The only way I can see it in any sort of good light is to imagine how different it could have been had Romero directed this.
Meh

 
58: The Da Vinci Code (2006 dir: Ron Howard)
 
Mass cultural phenomena are few and far between. It's uncommon for something to take over the collective consciousness and pervade almost every avenue of society. And it's not every day that a quickly written, cheaply produced, absurdly plotted book ends up in the hands of every second commuter on your bus or train to work. But that's what Dan Brown was able to achieve. He wrote something that had the x-factor, that for a while not just entered, but became the zeitgeist, that dominated every water cooler discussion and after work pub discussion all over the western world.
So how then, when the time came to put it on the big screen, did Ron Howard fuck it up so badly? How did he make The Da Vinci Code so gut wrenchingly awful? You know how? He made a film that had no soul or passion. He made a film that was driven by the amount of money he could make for the studio. It's a film inspired by potential grosses, with a profit and loss statement where its heart should be, and that's the greatest movie sin of all.
You expect better from both director and leading man. Admittedly hamstrung by the novel's preposterousness, Howard's direction was still lazy, his pacing still deathly slow, his misuse of supporting actors of the calibre of Ian McKellen, Jean Reno and Paul Bettany baffling. His attempts at action scenes were shoddy at best (the editing of the Smart car chase in particular was amateur), and the overall film just not up to the level of competence you'd expect from a man with an Oscar on his mantelpiece. And as for Hanks? the phrase "phoning it in" could have been coined specifically for this performance. This man has two Oscars to his name, and has played some outstanding characters, fully deserving his place at the forefront of today's movie stars. But contrast his lazy, disinterested turn as Robert Langdon with his Andrew Beckett from Philadelphia, or his John Miller in Saving Private Ryan and see what the man is all about. Hell, even as Turner from Turner & Hooch, his performance was of a higher quality . In these roles, he clearly believed in his character. When he took the role of Langdon, he clearly believed he'd be able to buy a small country when he was done. Oh, and Tom? never grow your hair long ever again.....
So then, this film may be a stand out among the rest of the dross on this list. It's not hated so much because it's badly made, or the story is poor (both of which are, to some extent, true). It's hated because of what it was made for, its reason for being. It's a cash in, plain and simple, it's pure exploitation. and while it may not be the first or last time this has been done, it's certainly one of the most cynical.
Kaner316
 
57: Scary Movie 2 (2001 dir: Keenan Ivory Wayans)
 
After coming off the first one you think the wayans brothers could come up with some new jokes. Though i guess not. If the first one wasn't bad enough this one is just so bad it hurts to watch. With all the actors they had in this film you think they could come up with something a little more clever. Though they couldn't, they had to take all the same raunchy, not funny jokes from the first one and somehow put it into this film thinking people would laugh at it again. Though the thing is i didn't laugh at it the first time. They tried to make these movies into parodies though they failed at every level. Most of the time it's just randomly inserted jokes, that are so disgusting and raunchy that it's hard to watch it and enjoy it. Then when they do try to do scenes that are movie parodies they just end up making a 20 minute recreation of the scene with maybe one joke within the entire scene. Also for people saying that its not for the older and real young audience, well i fit into the age range that it's supposed to be funny for. While people say that different people have different ideas of what is funny or not, if you do find this funny then you probably aren't one of the more mature or intelligent people around. It doesn't take that much skill to write that kind of a script, though if you do want a more clever and funnier movie go see the movie Spaceballs. It's a movie parody that's actually good and well done and it didn't have to use disgusting and raunchy jokes to make it funny either.
Tim
 
56: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002 dir: George Lucas)
 
Without the benefits of the big screen to view this film on, AOTC falls painfully flat. Turgid dialogue performed with faux emotion and a woodenness that wouldn't look out of place in the National Forest. A 'romance' so cringeworthy and cliché-ridden it becomes an embarrassment that no matter how hard they try (if at all they really are trying) the 2 leads cannot elicit any discernible emotion. Christensen is a stroppy teenager for most of the film and Portman fares little better.Lucas's obsession for all things CGI has never been more apparent than in Episode II, but no matter how many CGI characters and landscape he throws at us, this cannot cover up the plethora of other failings this film has. It's a confusing mess with no coherence to the story and no satisfactory explanation for events. This is an overblown, pompous, drudging example of how not to make a good sci-fi film, emphasizing effects and set pieces over story, character and emotion. If only Lucas hadn't tainted the original classic trilogy by making these ghastly, sub standard prequels.
Adt 100

 
55: Requiem for a Dream (2000 dir: Darren Aronofsky)
 

blurb to be added later

54: Dude, Where’s My Car? (2000 dir: Danny Leiner)
 
Dude, Where's The Plot?
It was my misfortune to catch this film on TV last year. At least I didn't waste any of my hard earned cash on it. I have heard terrible things about this film, but amazingly, it was even worse than I had feared.
I kept watching more out of curiosity rather than enjoyment. Nothing at all happens in this film. It is utterly pointless and a waste of film, people's time and money. Seann William Scott cannot try to build a career on the back of films like this. If his range of acting is this limited, he should give up now. I Spoke to a friend the next day and they confirmed my thoughts about it and that it hadn't been a bad dream.
That's about as much as I can remember about it, I do try to erase movies like this from my memory.
Silent Bob

 
53: Miami Vice (2006 dir: Michael Mann)
 
Boring as all hell.
I haven't been this bored, or disappointed, in a movie since Tony Scott's 'Domino'.
The screenplay, by Mann, was just dire. The dialogue was absolutely cringeworthy. If you have DeNiro or Pacino spouting them, they can sell it, but Farrell and Foxx are fucked. And who the hell says it's "11.47 o'clock"? Who says that?!
The digital photography was also crap. Collateral, for me, looked absolutely gorgeous, but that was because there was always plenty of artifical light around to light the screen. You take that away and the grain, onscreen, is really distracting and pulled me out of the movie completely.
Farrell and Foxx just didn't click at all. They weren't given much to work with but you get the feeling in real life that these two guys wouldn't be seen dead with each other.
Gong Li was crap, but only because she can't speak English. It was Mann's fault for bringing her into the movie. The whole bit with her and Farrell was just tedious, as was the entire movie.
I can't remember the last time I was so saddened by a movie going experience.
elzupasmonkey
 
52: The Animal (2001 dir: Luke Greenfield)
 
Okay, I'll just set the scene for my first, and thankfully only, viewing of this film. I was in my second year at university. My housemates and I were a bit bored, so we nipped down the road to the video shop (Choices, I think). A few days earlier, another one of our friends had recommended 'The Animal' to us. Nothing else really caught our eye so we took this out along with one other film that may or may not have been 'Roadkill', I don't remember. But that's not important. Anyhoo, several hours, beers and spliffs later we put ‘The Animal’ on. Jesus Christ that was a long 80 minutes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen another comedy that failed to raise a single laugh, let alone one that failed to raise a single laugh amongst a group of drunk and stoned students. The plot basically involves a mad scientist giving Rob Schneider the powers of different animals, apparently with hilarious results. Quite what John C. McGinley is doing in this I’ve really no idea. Anyway, suffice to say this film is bad. Really bad. I’d rather snort a line of battery acid than watch this film again. (Not that I can envisage a time in my life when I’ll ever be forced to choose between the two.(Though I did once snort some Febreeze, but that’s a whole different story.)) Anyway, after watching the film, we called our friend who had recommended it to us, at about 2 in the morning, just to register our disappointment, though we really shouldn’t have expected anything. After all, this is a man who counts Mr Deeds as one of his favourite films.
Hardcore Raver
 
51: Jaws: The Revenge (1987 dir: Joseph Sargeant)
 
Jaws was one of the best movies of all times. Jaws 2 is a weak follow up that is only tolerable if you can edit out all the scenes with the teenagers (at least until the end when the become necessary to the story). Jaws 3-D is just a bad movie that also looks grainy and bad due to the crapfest 3-D. Now on to Jaws: The Revenge. This is so bad it is hard to describe. It is Plan 9 From Outer Space/Ed Wood bad. The plot is stupid; the shark stands up and roars like a lion and Ellen Brodies hair is scarier than the shark!
God knows what Michael Caine was thinking when he agreed to take part in this tragic moment in film history - maybe he got the impression he was making a spoof sequel.
Consider this film the textbook example of why not to make sequels. In fact, the only good thing in its legacy is that no further ones have been made.
This film's first half hour already has a lot going against it. "Jaws The Revenge" as a title sounds more like a mafia movie. A shark seeking revenge? The acting is much like an afternoon soap opera, complete with overdramatic scenes, and awful lines.
UrbanAngel

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 6
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:19:22 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
50: Highlander II: The Quickening (1991 dir: Russell Mulcahy)
 
Key actions to take prior to watching Highlander II:
Forget everything that happened in Highlander
Drink copious amounts of alcohol
Attempt mental regression to pre-school age
Pickle head
Remove DVD/Video from packaging
Take sledgehammer and smash said disc/tape into as many pieces as possible, then burn the pieces.
Watch something else.
Although the original Highlander was no masterpiece, it was good, cheesy ‘80’s fun, with a half-decent premise, a cool villain (Clancy Brown’s Kurgan) and some great action set pieces.
The sequel throws all this out the window, scrapes up the mess & then flushes it down the loo. Now, I’m used to sequels failing to live up to their predecessor, but this effort really plumbs the depths to reach new, uncharted levels of clag – the plot makes even less sense than the original, the acting is weak (Lambert is merde, Connery looks bored & even genre fave Michael Ironside fails to make an impression), the action is poor, the direction dull, the special effects dire…… I could go on but I’m beginning to feel nauseous.
Suffice it to say: there really, really, REALLY should be only one!
Brundlesflies

 
49: Die Another Day (2002 dir: Lee Tamahori)
 
For many, Pierce Brosnan was one of the finest actors to play Bond in the franchise’s history. Having had a run of three solid films (Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough), however, he will surely also be remembered for the hideous misfire of Die Another Day. The film took the character of Bond, and almost everything the Bond franchise was loved for and ruined it.
Most famously remembered is the invisible car, which perhaps sums up why this film was so awful (an invisible car? A car, that can disappear??). Although Bond is not known for being completely realistic, DAD took this to new extremes. Hovercrafts, ice palaces and superhuman stunts all contribute to an overblown mess, yet the problems do not end here.
In answer to Hollywood’s new love of female action franchises (Tomb Raider, Charlies Angels), Halle Berry becomes one of the most dislikeable Bond girls ever. The audience does not want a Bond girl with attitude, yet this is exactly what the film attempts to give us. It does not help that Berry puts in a lukewarm performance as Jinx, even the name says irritating! On top of this we get cartoon villains, a token evil business man and a bad guy with disability (in this case his face is encrusted with diamonds).
The end result is an example of just what a Bond film should not be. A friend remarked after seeing it “It wasn’t a bad film, it just wasn’t a Bond film”. The problem is of course, that DAD came after 19 films all with a certain style and character that this film completely missed. Perhaps it would sit happily on the shelf next to Stealth or Tomb Raider 2, but it’s just these sorts of mindless action films that Bond should be avoiding.
Spider

 
48: Dungeons and Dragons (2000 dir: Courtney Solomon)
 
Dungeons and dragons is mildly entertaining but probably more suited to television than the big screen, probably because it looks like they threw away the game and photographed the box it came in. The special effects work fine for minor acts of magic, but the climactic aerial dragon fight is far from breathtaking, and most of the performances are at the level of children’s nativity plays, with poor dialogue to go with it.
Past and present gamers will be drawn to this movie out of curiosity, but its real target seems to be 10-to-13 year old males, who will be impressed by the monsters and not terribly upset by the lack of character development or the complete absence of an interesting plot. For just about everyone else, here are a few basic requirements necessary to enjoy Dungeons & Dragons: a strong constitution and relatively low scores when it comes to wisdom and intelligence. Oh, and anyone susceptible to sleep spells should studiously avoid this movie. The film casts an effective one that will put you out in no time.
UrbanAngel
 
47: Bad Boys II (2003 dir: Michael Bay)
 
On viewing Bad Boys 2, one logical question springs to mind; why was it made? Was it an inevitability due to the massively successful and influential original? Was there an unfinished storyline to tie up? Was there a hot-shot scriptwriter looking to showcase some screenplay gold? Were there character arcs left incomplete? Unsurprisingly, it’s a no, no, no and no.
Now you could argue that I’m looking too deeply into it, that this film is not designed to be taken that seriously and dissection of such motives is somehow ‘missing the point’. Maybe so, but exactly what is the point of the film? To be a comedy? It’s not funny. To be an action movie? It’s actually surprisingly light in that respect too.
When talking about the general ill-feeling toward this film, there appears to be two principal antagonists. The first one being director Michael Bay.
Michael Bay is not renowned for subtlety. Nor is he renowned for artistic style or vision. In short Bad Boys 2 has one level of volume which is unfortunately jammed at 10 and is about as subtle as two rats shagging (which sadly is an actual scene in the film). In one scene, Bay attempts to employ a tricksy camera manoeuvre during a shoot-out and it’s easy to see why. The shoot-out itself actually is one of the most uneventful in history. Other Bay trademarks such has the slo-mo panning shots of macho posturing are rendered laughable by the sheer clichéd, unnecessary ridiculousness of them.
The film opens with a montage showing how cool it is to process ecstasy and leads into a scene involving our heroes on a case that involves drug dealers dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan. Like, hilarious. Interspersed with incredibly ham-fisted dialogue such as “These radios are fucked!” and culminating in a completely pointless slo-mo shot of Will Smith shooting someone, this pretty much sets the tone for the entire film.
The dialogue itself has all the panache and delivery of a pre-match interview with a WWE wrestler. Even Will Smith’s bullet-proof charisma fails to help deliver the lines in a cringe-free manner. In fact, what is Will Smith even doing here? We know he was (justifiably) annoyed at losing out at the Academy Awards for Ali but come on Will! You had your little sulk and money-grabbing lash-out with MIB 2. Surely there was no need to inflict 2 dire sequels on us in succession. It positively reeks of that whole ‘let’s do it, it’ll be fun to make’ attitude to film-making that helped turn Ocean’s 12 in the travesty it was (yet another waste of celluloid). Obviously the lure of the big buck and the ‘safe’ re-teaming of the first film got the better of Smith. Which leads us neatly on to the second reason behind much of the dislike for the film. One that is not so easy to defend. Martin Lawrence.
Martin Lawrence (or Martin Fucking Lawrence, as he is lovingly referred to on many web forums) boasts quite a talent. He is a ‘comedian’ who is spectacularly unfunny whether he is delivering verbal or physical comedy. Lack of talent in both of these areas are on display for all to see in Bad Boys 2. Nor is he an effective straight actor so where the film requires some emotions invested in by the audience, Lawrence actually elicits laughter in a way that he could only dream of in comedy. His performance (and I use the term loosely) reaches it’s lowest point when his character accidentally drinks down 2 ecstasy tablets. The ensuing scene in the police captain’s house is at best, dreadful. At the beginning of the film we see a Miami clubber succumb to the effects of ecstasy and subsequently his body hurled from a moving van onto a sidewalk. But if you’re Martin Lawrence it just turns you into the most irritating, embarrassing, humourless excuse for a cheap laugh ever appear on the silver screen. Even potential comedy set-pieces (the video camera store, the daughter’s date) are single-handedly destroyed by Lawrence’s shameless lack of talent.
The lead actors’ unfortunate situation is not helped by the supporting players either. Even Joe Pantoliano can’t make his part work (probably due to lack of interest). Meanwhile the chief villain of the film is the least convincing or threatening villain I’ve ever seen. Bay could have avoided stereotype but instead, opted to make him a Cuban who lives in a big villa and spends most of his time brandishing a big cigar and a huge brandy glass.
But then again, this is only my humble opinion for what it’s worth. My advice is: If you want an intelligently made action/comedy/buddie movie, buy Lethal Weapon. If you want to see a 10 ton car transporter outrunning a Ferrari 575, buy Bad Boys 2.
Biggus
 
46: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003 dir: Peter Jackson)
 
The final, and easily worst part of the trilogy sees any number of wheels come off an already shaky vehicle.
Special effects wise, the movie is a disaster. Structurally and narratively, it is car crash cinema, only without the gruesome watchability and chance to pinch a wallet from one of the victims.
Why does Bernard Hill lead the army of men on a suicide mission when the fate of the ring is still unknown and there is therefore still hope? Who knows. Oh, another excuse for a battle sequence of course. Just one more example of the need for endless, tedious battle sequences ("No, come back, this one's got hefalumps in it!") at the expense of strong characterisation.
As for the previously unmentioned invincible undead army coming to the rescue at the last minute, horrible, just horrible. No good story teller springs a conclusion like that on an audience with no hints, no warning, no build up. As an audience, we were cheated, plain and simple.
As the unanswered questions and frustrating narrative blips pile up like so many dead, comedy dwarves, it is impossible to list everything so excruciatingly wrong with this film, and have change from two lifetimes. The trilogy was long considered unfilmable. Well now it has been filmed the question has to be, why did we even bother?
Juror No. 8

 
45: Grease 2 (1982 dir: Patricia Birch)
 

blurb to be added later

44: Hulk (2003 dir: Ang Lee)
 
blurb to be added later
 
43: Son of the Mask (2005 dir: Lawrence Guterman)
 
Jim Carrey is a great actor, The Mask is a great action comedy with top-notch special effects. So, why oh why could they not make a sequel featuring more cool effects and a further storyline for the rubber-faced genius. Instead, we get saddled with a sequel so awful that it could be used to torture people in future. Though moments come along that provide a mild smirk and Alan Cumming provides a relatively amusing performance, the whole film is still an unfunny, scarily bad and disgustingly awful movie that is not funny, cool or enjoyable at all really. Really, if they want to make sequels to class films then they should at least make them good. This film is just turgid and revoltingly despicable.
DJ RobC: Mark II!
 
42: Spice World (1997 dir: Bob Spiers)
 
Arguably the least merited feature ever commissioned, the Spice Girls' first - and mercifully last - feature dribbled onto the big screen in 1997.  Nine years on (or four, actually, as I've avoided its meritless clutches since 2001), Spice World can be neither appreciated as a time-capsule, nor enjoyed as daft fun.  Rather, it is a vile experiment in self-promotion, product placement and spurious personal philosophy.  Presumably seeking to recreate the madcap atmosphere of seminal band flick, A Hard Day's Night, the director (whose name I can't be bothered to find out) hangs a series of terminally unfunny 'sketches' upon a narrative as alarmingly thin as one of the group's impressionable teenage fans.  Hurl a lot of colour and money at a film, and you expect a little of it to stick.  Spice World is a movie made of teflon.  Five talent vacuums shriek and piss and moan about their worthless lives, as big-name whores line up to piss their careers up the wall.  By all rights, Richard Briers, Alan Cumming, Richard E. Grant and Hugh Laurie should not have been allowed to live - never mind act again - after Spice World.  If watching The Wages of Fear is to experience the feeling that there is a screw in one's stomach being continually tightened, and LeRoy's Little Women akin to having Chuck Norris tug relentlessly at your tear-ducts, then Spice World is like being kneed repeatedly in the balls for two hours.  And then drowned in shit.
Rick_7

 
41: Planet of the Apes (2001 dir: Tim Burton)
 
Planet Of The Apes is perhaps the first film to use the fear-inducing term "re-imagineering", which pretty much now stands for "ruining a legacy".  A film like Planet Of The Apes, does not need re-imagining; it is a classic for a reason.  This is not to say that the idea of a remake is completely redundant, but in an effort to top the original, Burton and all who said on his merry ship missed the mark in calamitous fashion.
Finger pointing isn't necessary with this disaster as there is so little of merit here; Mark Wahlberg effortlessly proves he is no leading man, Danny Elfman yawns out a perfunctory score, the many scriptwriters try to all stamp their mark of "originality" on the film, disposing with the original ending and replacing it with a nonsensical slice of fried turd.  Tim Burton even appears to just give up trying to find his voice on the film and simply shuffles off into the distance, shrugging his shoulders.
If ever the term "it ain't broke, don't fix it" was to apply, it is here, and all involved can hang their heads in shame and apologise for putting us, the audience, through this moribund waste of two hours of our lives.
Rikkie

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 7
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:20:37 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
40: Grease (1978 dir: Randal Kleiser)
 
Im not a fan of musicals, but back in the 70s after Saturday Night Fever, this was the next big thing.  I remember queuing for hours, I wish I hadnt bothered.  30yr olds pretending to be teenagers, stupid songs, bad jokes, a ridiculous ending - a flying car - WTF?  And girls, if you want to get the boy you fancy, you must become a slut.  Absolute drivel, that surely, only a 12yr old girl would like.
Tuck Pendleton
 
39: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999 dir: George Lucas)
 
There are many reasons why this film is truly awful. Perhaps the hype surrounding it – the first Star Wars film in 16 years – made sure that it couldn’t live up to the expectations. As well as that, one of the most evil creations ever dreamt up – Jar Jar Binks. Why? Why torture us so George? To children he may be funny, but not to the vast majority of adults who would see the film as well. His clowning about is simply not humorous.
By making this a film for mainly kids, it alienates the now 20/30 year olds who grew up with the original trilogy. It is also ruined by the fact that George creates 2 new characters – Qui-Gon and Darth Maul – and then kills both of them off. And they were easily the most interesting characters of the film.
There’s the feeling that George no longer can recognise what made the Original Trilogy good – it wasn’t all about the special effects. There’s no witty Han Solo character here, and instead of The Force we now have Midi-Chlorians.
The special effects dominate this film, and this is perhaps one of the main reasons why it seems so bad. No longer is there such a focus on the characters, characters that we’re supposed to care about as the Prequel Trilogy continues, it seems more like a case of ‘Look at how pretty and shiny everything is!’
And yet people still went to see it, to make sure it wasn’t as bad as it was when first viewed. This makes it worse, the worst film of the Star Wars franchise so far is the 2nd highest grossing one.
Curse you George.
Daonering
 
38: Gigli (2003 dir: Martin Brest)
 
Saw this movie and hated about 99% of it. After I found out it cost $54,000,000 to make, I started to hate the other 1%. If this is considered a love story between Lopez and Affleck, my I ask...where was the love? A sex scene with no nudity, no passion, and no sound....why? Supporting characters like Walken and others were introduced and went no where...why? The story alone peeks when Pacino arrives and shoots one of the cast members. From there, i was hoping that Pacino had finished the job and killed the rest of the cast. Then, the movie would have been good. Instead, the movie drags and drags and drags. The audience is not going to care if the actors in the movie learn something or progress if they don't care about the characters. Lopez and Affleck's characters do not exist! Much like the ugly tattoos on Affleck's shoulder, the movie was not fun to look at. In my opinion, and I do not think I am wrong, if Lopez had a small nude scene and the movie was done as an independent film for under 2 or 3 million, Gigli would have been a giant success. Instead, we are left to wonder....why?
Cameron
 
37: Street Fighter (1994 dir: Steven E De Souza)
 
Disappointment’s a motherfucker.
Let’s get that straight. Many people consider The Phantom Menace as the biggest let down of all time. Well let me tell you that if you think that’s a disappointment, you don’t know jack shit about it.
When this movie was announced I was the happiest boy in Christendom. How could the writer of both Die Hard and Commando let me down in delivering an all-out battle royal? The answer, as if you needed me to tell you, was quite a fucking lot. A Belgian as Guile? Blanka is a weird experiment? E. Honda a Hawaiian? Where was the Hadokens, the Sonic Booms and the Yoga Flames? What the fuck? The list of complaints goes on and on.
How could they do this? How could they take the most simple of premises and turn it into the biggest turd squeezed out since Godzilla finally got over his bout of constipation?  The answer is thus: Like Titanic, they tried to shoehorn a plot in.
Okay, maybe a plot is needed. Maybe a reasonable story in between the street fights could shepherd us from one blockbusting battle to another. Or so you would think. There’s barely a fight to speak of. No tournament whatsoever, just some sad little tale of a despot that needs to be taken out by a bunch of ragtag scrappers.  Fights are in there, alright, but for some reason they’re given a reason for being. You don’t need a reason, dagnabbit! Just get stuck in there! Spinning-bird-kick the bastard!
The pain of revisiting this monstrosity has brought me to the verge of tears, leaving me to make one more statement and one final complaint. This piece of celluloid excrement is easily the biggest let down in cinema going, not to mention the worst film of all time. Make no bones about it. If you disagree, you’re wrong.
And finally: Why wasn’t Kylie Minogue kitted out in a leotard, like her video game character? Oh, the wasted opportunity! *sobs*
JustBuggin
 
36: Beaches (1988 dir: Garry Marshall)
 
What do you think of when you think of Beaches? For me, a beach should invoke happy childhood memories of sunny days and ice-cream cones, sandcastles and paddling in the sea with your trouser legs rolled up. Sadly for me, when I think of Beaches, I think of my mother crying into the umpteenth Kleenex as Marshall's cynical 1988 movie put her through the emotional wringer. Lets face it Beaches was made for one reason only. To make women cry. Look at the ingredients: Childhood friends, lose touch, regain touch, fall for same man, terminal illness, death. This pretty much sums Beaches up. It's aimed at emotionally unstable women who cry at Pet Rescue. There cannot possibly be any man in the whole world who likes this film, who hasn't sat watching it, thinking "God cleaning out the garage seems like such a good idea now, especially wearing barbed wire underwear", because that my friends would be a whole lot more of a pleasurable experience than watching this. The thing with Beaches was, just as I was starting to put all the memories of watching my mother cry over some glorified made for TV movie, they returned, as my girlfriend moved in and brought her own grainy VHS copy with her. And with me, ever the gentleman offering to watch it with her, to try to grasp what it is women love about this so much, wasted nearly two hours of my life which I shall never get back.
I, as a bloke, will never understand Beaches, and it was quite an easy choice to put in my most hated films list. I can only hope that that future generations of women avoid this film and it is left to rot on a sea of snottery hankies for ever more.
KennyM
 
35: Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003 dir: McG)
 
Watching Charlie's Angels 2 is like watching 12 MTV channels at once. Did this film actually have a script? Did it have a director? Or did a bunch of studio execs just decide to throw in whatever they thought would please 12 year old boys? Was the editor stoned? I could have stitched the 'scenes' together more coherently. You know this film is truly bad when what you would expect to be it's saving grace,it's special effects,are terrible. The CGI bikes look they were created by having a 5 year old throw blobs of paint at the screen.  Rarely have I seen so a film packed with so much and be so boring,and I didn't actually mind the first film that much!
Dr Lenera

 
34: Dreamcatcher (2003 dir: Lawrence Kasdan)
 
On first glancing over this film on it's release about 3 years ago i thought this could be quite good. I missed the cinema release and watched it on Sky about a year later. Before i saw it, everything seemed good.
The Plot : Four friends find mysterious nasty goings-on in the woods while on vacation.
It sounded like a good sypnosis and the fact it was Stephen King material intrigued me as well. The cast seemed top notcxh as well: Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Tom Seizemore. Not a bad cast at all but then one thing happened, i saw the movie.
4 friends share a common bond that links them together somehow and sets up for what seems like a solid film.The first hour is compelling science fiction which i enjoyed setting up a number of possibilities for the second hour. It's just a damm shame that the possibilities went off at such a tangent that it was like an 11 year old wrote the second half of the story. It goes from stupid twist to stupid twist almost non stop.
It starts with shit weasels and then continues with aliens, split personalities and other strange things that i just can't remember (and don't want to). Characters are introduced halfway through without any explanation why and it totally just lost my interest till the end. The performances don't matter in this film (i.e. Morgan Freeman = disappointing) because all the problems ultimitely are derived from it's source material. Hollywood take note: stop adapting every Stephen King novel that comes to print.
Overall it's a great example of a film that starts off well and then goes on a freefall to hell.
Highlander

 
33: Magnolia (1999 dir: Paul Thomas Anderson)

On paper, this film has it all: IMDb places it at #181 in its top 250; Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman and William H. Macy are just a few of the actors in a stellar cast and even Roger Ebert likes it. But to top it all, it just doesn't work.
This film makes no sense to me whatsoever. The plot is turgid, which has apparantly a kind of "operatic ecstasy". What ecstasy's that then? Dying deathbed patients? Falling frogs? Connections that don't make sense? Awful acting (from an ensemble of considerably able actors)?
The film over runs by about 3 hours, the cast are lost in a sea of metaphors and symbolism and the direction by Paul Thomas Anderson has nowhere to go - he can't even make the frogs look good.
"Respect the cock"?! Please...
i007Bond007i

32: Revolver (2005 dir: Guy Ritchie)
 
Guy Ritchie is ,if he is not careful going to be remembered as Mr. Madonna for the rest of his career and this mess shows why.
After the flat out awfulness of Swept Away many of us had high hopes for Revolver as it saw a return to a genre the director knows well.
What we got was a lazy self indulgent mess of a film that made no sense in the slightest.
The other terrible thing is that Mark Stongs rather good performance as a guilt ridden hit man is lost in a film of bad acting (Step forward Andre 3000) or actors on a very off day (This means you Ray Liotta)
I left the cinema fuming that someone had given the director money to make this claptrap .
One only hopes that Guy Sees the light and tries something else or he will be cast out as a hack which is what he has become.
Maybe they should give the backers of this film A Revolver to shoot the director. 
Filmburner30
 
31: Scary Movie 4 (2006 dir: David Zucker)
 
It seems that after Scary Movie 3 the writers have been making worse and worse movies, but this one takes the cake. White Chicks and Date Movie look like they've been done by Scorsese compared to this 89 minute chunk of boredom. I had a funny feeling from the commercial that the movie, wouldn't be funny at all. And i guess i was right. I, ironically, laughed 4 times (once kind of hard) at Scary Movie 4. The rest was all horrible slapstick comedy, and nothing was clever about the way they made fun of the movies at all (and in some parts, they just re-enacted it). It was probably the worse movie i've seen since Short Circuits 2, and I strongly recommend no one should ever lay eyes on, or speak of, this horrible, horrible movie ever again.
Cameron

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 8
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:21:42 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
30: Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004 dir: Alexander Witt)
 
I could be stoned for the fact I find Paul WS Anderson a tolerable director, though a good writer he isn‘t. For Christ’s sake, I’ve seen chimps fling shit with better potential than his scripts. I could lark on for hours about the inconsistencies between game and film etc. but you can get enough of that over at iMDB. Funny thing is that it’s not entirely the script that gives Apocalypse a bad name, rather the incredibly poor direction, editing, cinematography, acting and pedestrian score. Never have I seen a film that’s such a technical failure (pre Uwe Boll). Though Alexander Witt seems to have an impressive CV (to some extent) as a Second Unit Director, Apocalypse is evidence that the greats don’t always rub off on you. Witt hardly knows where to place a camera and has obviously not heard much of framing. The editing zips about almost as if it’s been cut by a flydimite with an axe. Nobody seemed to be giving the film the effort needed and instead produced a half arsed attempt at an action flick. My balls should have been firmly to the wall instead they were resting beside my leg. However, the biggest problem of all was the most unlikely. Apocalypse actually suffered from the lack of Anderson as a director and I must say, that is saying something.
Gazz

 
29: The Fast and the Furious (2001 dir: Rob Cohen)
 
I saw this movie because my brother recommended it. Big mistake. If you like cinema and movies (any kind) don't waste your time. It's just a show off of modified cars and a plot as shallow as the piece of paper it's written on. If you like cars, chases, and scantly clad women (which don't make a good movie at all), then this is for you. Shallow acting. Silly lines. Loud soundtrack. Lousy camera movements. Plastic characters. Flat performances. Amazingly predictable story line. Empty script... Finally I felt myself pushed into adding this line just to fill the minimum. There is really very little that can be added to this movie. And it's quite difficult to find word that define the rage any serious movie-lover feels at seeing this junk being released. As if one sin wasn't enough, they actually made two sequels. This proofs that the minds of the studio bosses and the minds of the teenagers (which are the only ones that can enjoy such a trash) are one and the same. Really the movie does not deserve more.
Guile
 
28: Lost In Translation (2003 dir: Sofia Coppola)
 
spoilers, but you shouldn't watch this dismal excuse for a movie anyway
This movie is completely pathetic. The opening butt shot, is it attention-grabbing and fun? No. It is random, irritating and way too long. I can't believe this movie won the Oscar for best writing. The writing was miserably hackneyed, it's all the Japanese stereotypes we've heard before. I don't have a problem with parodying the Japanese or anybody, but if the parody isn't original than to hell with it. The faxes from the wife, not funny.
"Bill Murray's character is just right for him!" Wait no, he's just been typecast yet again. "Look at me I'm a disgruntled middle aged man who makes cliched supposedly witty jokes about wanting to go to the bar all the time". Scarlet's character: "I want to be a writer"--oh so blatantly self-referential.
So people can relate to the main characters and their friendship? I couldn't, I don't think people should idealize their "we're lonely because we're special and different from everyone else" egoistic delusions. Accuse me of exaggerating if you like.
Forgive my zeal but this movie has deceived people. It is not interesting, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT good writing, the characters are worthless boring snobs who do nothing all day and who need to get over their initial discomfort, after all what do you expect when you go to a foreign country, that all will be just like it is in America where you're apparently unhappy anyway? This movie is overrated, lacking in subtlety and you can find far better films depicting any of the topics it handles: living in a foreign country, friendship, love, etc. elsewhere. Please, do not let this overrated travesty of a film remain popular.
Portopig
 
 
27: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001 dir: Peter Jackson)
 
Halfway through, I got up to make a cup of coffee and have a cigarette.  House mate asks if I would like the movie to be paused.  I say no, in the nicest possible way.  So I have a fag and some caffeine, and come back some 15 minutes later...to find the scene exactly the same (I think it was a council meeting).  I say "you didn't have to pause it".  He says "I didn't...".
Pettsy

 
26: White Chicks (2004 dir: Keenen Ivory Wayans)
 
Once upon a time, in Hollywood, there was a school of that went like this: "Let's make films that entertain, stimulate, entice, reward and enthral our audience. Let's have a generation of films that will be looked on in years to come as an era of classics, as a pantheon of quality, a shining beacon of virtue for ever more."
Then Studio Execs came along and ruined the world.
The whole world, mind. Not just Hollywood, the entire planet is tainted with their vileness. Follow me, if you will, to a place of sheer terror, a Hollywood studio executive meeting. The suits are all around us right now, they're drinking Cristal, snorting dubious substances off dead hookers, calling up for Heidi Fleiss's specials and green lighting absolute tosh for mass consumption. Oh no, a coked up exec has seen a picture of a Wayans brother and in a fit of frankly dubious sexuality, has decided "ye know, he'd look quite well in a frock".
And thus White Chicks was born. a film that owes its very existence to the complete lunacy of the studio system in Hollywood right now. Where worthy scripts and brilliant concepts are over looked every second of every day, but if you're a Wayans brother, all you need do is throw on a skirt, slap your face with a chalkboard duster and voila, green lights and million dollar paychecks all round. This is the kind of film that insults every hard working, struggling script writer and director, every guy at Sundance with a great idea and no-one to back it, every film fan who fronts up the ever rising ticket price at their local multiplex cinema to be presented with this rubbish. It's films like this that are making the world look at Hollywood and say "no more".
It's also really, really bad. For a comedy, it breaks the golden rule, because it's not funny, at all, even in the slightest. Comedies don't necessarily need to be original, and believe me, there is nothing original here, but if you're going to steal ideas, at least make people laugh. Use them in a way that will surprise, or at least amuse. Don't abuse racial stereotypes, don't abuse gender stereotypes, and above all, don't have any sort of dance off scene involving two black men, dressed as white women, dancing badly to Run DMC. It's just not right.
Kaner
 
25; 9 Songs (2004 dir: Michael Winterbottom)
 
I’m going to keep this piece on 9 Songs brief, because I don’t believe anyone should spend any time reading anything about this pile of excrement that laughingly is referred to as a film.Lured in by the cover which states something along the lines of 'The Most Explicit Sex Scenes in a British Film Ever."  I foolishly picked this up.  Not as my main feature for the night but simply as a titillating second choice to (you know) have an effect.It had an effect alright. One entirely opposite to what I wanted.  It bored us to tears.  This thing is total tedium.  It takes some kind of talent I guess to make a film with sex scenes in and yet make them less interesting than Accountancy Lectures. I mean who could ever imagine before this film, actually fast-forwarding through a sex scene? Sex scenes are usually the only redeeming feature in bad films, it's MADNESS!  To save you the bother.  It goes like this.  Concert song.  Dull conversation.  Dull sex scene.  Concert song.  Dull conversation.  Dull sex scene.  Concert song.  Dull conversation.  Dull sex scene.   And that’s it.  I’m sure there are those that would delude themselves and try to convince others that this film is actually some kind of deep study into relationships, love and coping with loss or something.  To that I say blah blah blah.  No, that’s not very mature but I’m having NONE of it.And for those who can remember the lead actor from the late 1980s kids show 'Gruey' it's even worse. Gruey!  It doesn’t help that his (ahem) member is on the pretty large end of the scale too.  So it’s not even as if it was a gutsy move on his part.  The girl didn’t do anything for me either.  Ho-hum.IF you are fan of any of the bands or musicians featured, The Dandy Warhols, Franz Ferdinand, Super Furry Animals, Primal Scream being the ones I knew of, STILL don't feel that this is worth a look.  Flick among the music channels for a bit instead.The one positive aspect of this film is that it only runs 71 minutes long.  Although even with the songs, a mixed bag of tunes, and a little fast-forwarding, this still seemed to take up way too much time, forever stolen from my brief existence on this planet.
Jedi Bobster
 
24: xXx (2002 dir: Rob Cohen)
 
Well, I began watching this movie with trepidation and interest, which quickly turned into annoyance, then enormous irritation, then disbelief, then finally hilarity. This has got to be one of the most appalling, pointless, moronic, tedious films ever made - it is a triumph of bad film-making. The performances from Diesel, Jackson and everyone else in the film are at a level more often seen in nativity plays, ably assisted by a script resembling an episode of The A-Team but with less emotion and less philosophical depth. I have never been a great fan of James Bond movies, but I suddenly felt a warm, intense longing for Connery, Moore et al after seeing this absolute car-crash of a film. Beyond the extraordinary incompetence of the direction (from a director clearly unable to understand the use and necessity of geography in any scene, let alone the concepts of atmosphere, tension etc), the poor, out-of-date special effects, over-bearing, nasty score, and desperately awful acting, this was so enormously old-fashioned as to be insulting. I would advise reading the local telephone directory rather than watching this excretion.
David
 
23: Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 (2000 dir: Roger Christian)
 
Why do I hate Battlefield Earth? Well the obvious viewpoint would be the whole John Travolta in Dreadlocks scenario- he was supposed to be the villain, but he looked like a Rastafarian alien sidekick! Did I have issues with the acting? Maybe, but the only other cast member, besides Travolta, that I know of is Forest Whitaker, who played Ker (thank god, he did The Last King of Scotland!) I tell you why I cannot stand this film; it was boring as hell! The story is the same old aliens want to take over humanity; and, even under 2 hours, it was too long to cope with! However, one of the biggest problems I have with this flawed film was the script. When you have dialogue like "I am going to make you as happy as a baby Psychlo on a straight diet of kerbango", it just does not inspire you to appreciate the story at all. I am sure the book does have a thing or two to say, but this film clutters this story with dodgy costumes, unimpressive effects, and some unmemorable acting. The tagline for this was "Prepare for Battle"- it should have been 'Prepare to be bored"!
AndyNortonUK
 
22: Eyes Wide Shut (1999 dir: Stanley Kubrick)
 
This truly is a low water mark in cinematic history.  On paper, it had a hell of a lot going for it but transferred to screen, it’s a relentlessly dull and massively pretentious waste of everyone’s time and effort with a soundtrack that would be more at home torturing the prisoners of ‘war’ in Guantanamo Bay.
Let’s start with the good points.  Nicole Kidman has a beautiful bottom.  It’s beautifully lit and looks visually striking.  Mind you, so does my bathroom and I wouldn’t want to watch that for nigh on three hours, even if I suspect it would be more interesting than this boreathon. 
So much is wrong with this film.  Tom Cruise gives possibly the worst performance of his career and when you’ve played Cole Trickle and been in Far and Away, that’s low praise indeed.  Nicole Kidman is better, but in a part so underwritten that even her usual brilliance can’t save it.  The ‘plot’ is as bare as most of the cast, and the underlying themes of jealousy and the psychological torment imparted by your imagination are ham-fisted and poorly executed.  It’s a film about sex, but is as resolutely unsexy as the thought of Johnny Vegas doing Anne Widdecombe Last Tango in Paris style.  And for a director as fastidious as Kubrick, the continuity is hilariously bad (check out the scene with Pollak in front of the pool table)
The glace cherry on this Knickerbocker Gory though, is the world’s worst soundtrack.  DING.  DING.    DING!!!!  Goes the Piano, playing its excruciating one note refrain.  For three fecking hours, which is why this rancid Bernard Matthews Bird Flu turkey of a movie will forever be burned into my subconscious as the worst film I have ever seen.
TonySoprano
 
21: The Matrix Reloaded (2003 dir: The Wachowski Brothers)
 
Though it had its faults The Matrix is one of the best Sci-Fi films ever made, and living up to its predecessor was never going to be simple, but failing on the scale that The Matrix Reloaded did - was completely unexpected.
Yeah, there are some great set pieces of action – most notably the motorbike scene – but a film needs more than that. It requires a decent plot or at least an understandable plot, it needs decent acting – especially from the lead role, and it needs a script which has actually been checked over; because during the course of this film the characters continuously speak in “clipped oblique fashion so it appears as if they're saying something important when they're really saying nothing”, not to mention the Architect’s speech near the end of the film? I mean
what the fuck was that bloke on about?
Reloaded is a film which oozes with its own self-importance (due to the success of the original) and failed to maintain the tense atmosphere of the first film because at no time do you ever feel that Neo is threatened.
All of these reasons, added to some overly long (and sometimes laughable) scenes in Zion really do make this a turkey of a film for me…. and I haven’t even mentioned Revolutions! In short, they should have just stuck with one film.
Sinatra

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 9
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:23:23 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
20: Dirty Dancing (1987 dir: Emile Ardolino)
 
You know, as you get older, you somehow think the movies you did not like when you were younger, might have been because of your youth and inexperience. Case in point, when I saw The Godfather at age 14, I thought it was boring. 20 years later, its an incredible movie to me. In other words, I grew up and began to appreciate great movies.
So I rented Dirty Dancing with my girlfriend last night on her request, as she loved it at age 14 and I hated it at the same age. But I hoped, because I was young and stupid at age 14, perhaps this would be a new experience for me. So I sat down with her to watch, hoping to be enlightened.
Well, the night after watching Dirty Dancing, I feel a violation. I feel like someone reached into my soul and robbed me of 2 hours of my life from watching this cheese fest.
First, Patrick Swayze plays a 20 year old, but he looks like he is 35. And the premise of the movie is him seducing some underage teenager, wooing her with his dance moves. Really Creepy.
Anyway, the movie is the cliché plot where the "wrong side of the tracks" guy and the "rich smart girl" accidentally fall in love with each other. Of course, their romance is fueled by the fact the "rich girl" can't dance a lick, so the "poor hero" teaches her in a week to become an expert dancer for the big end of vacation show, or something like that.
But you guessed it: The disapproving father soon enters and forbids the two to see each other, and the movie progresses to secret meetings of dance lessons and love making. This all culminates into the final scene where the entire resort rallies around the two young lovers while the once antagonistic father accepts the 35 year old dancer as his teen daughter's new man.
Even my girlfriend whimpered at the end of the movie as she admitted it was not anything like she remembered. I didn't press her, but I did smirk a little, and put the Godfather part II in the DVD player.
Texas31
 
 
19: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002 dir: Peter Jackson)
 
“Even the fucking trees walked in that movie!”  - Randal Graves, Clerks II (2006)

Oh dear. Where to start with this?
Well, let me begin by stating that this is the weakest movie in the much-overrated Lord of the Rings movie series. Why the love for these films? At best they are a competently-handled adaptation of a longwinded (albeit enjoyable) trilogy of books by J.R.R. Tolkien and squeezed into an overly long trilogy of movies by the yeti-man himself Mr. Peter Jackson.  (On a side note: Have you noticed how when the subject of Rings is brought up, Peter Jackson’s name is more mentioned than the creator of these much-beloved novels? Hmmm…)
I digress, so let’s leave aside those simplistic and oft-used complaints and concentrate on this: The movie itself is one long “It wasn’t like that in the books” to me. Yes, I know that the events that transpired in the film follow those in the book of the same name, but it just felt… butchered to me. Three or four important plot points aside, The Two Towers could have had well over an hour chopped out and not made the slightest difference to the film itself. Slow-motion of a horse? Dead people in bogs? So much dead wood and unnecessary areas covered. Tack aforementioned plot points onto the beginning of Return of the King and you wouldn’t have needed a second movie at all.
Case in point: During the scene where Merry and Pippin meet the Ents, my then girlfriend (now soon-to-be wife) got up for a cigarette, a toilet-break and then drank a large cup of coke (she later revealed she was bored rigid, and was only got out to kill time) she came back nearly half an hour later and asked if she missed anything. I hesitated, thought back and admitted that no; she hadn’t missed anything at all.
I could write a fucking book on why I detest this film, but the above paragraphs will have to do. I could touch upon the terrible CGI (in places, admittedly), the groan-out-loud attempts at humour, the complete reshuffle of the Shelob battle, the minor characters that are inexplicably brought to the fore and lines of dialogue that would have seen George Lucas crucified. I could attempt all this and give you every last detail but I’m not Peter Jackson. I’ve gone with the abridged version, just like he should have done.
Oh, and Gollum can fuck off too.
JustBuggin

 
18: Moulin Rouge! (2001 dir: Baz Luhrmann)
 
“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.” Que the nausea, monsieur. Question; ever had an overwhelming urge to be anally violated by a garishly vamped-up mannequin? If so, this is the film for you. “Moulin Rouge!” plays out like any other Luhrmann flick, a relentless assault on the senses, one that never fails to amuse (in an awkward state, you understand) or should that be bemuse? Truth be told, the only thing perplexing about this bilge is how on Earth it emerged so critically acclaimed. An obnoxious, self-indulgent, vacuous melting pot of gaudy excrement featuring a one-trick gimmick musical score, a group of actors incapable of doing anything apart from mimic timber and most significantly, a foolishly artificial love story at the heart of a wholly derivative narrative.
Dusty Junk
 
17: Hostel (2005 dir: Eli Roth)
 
blurb to be posted later
 
16: Vanilla Sky (2001 dir: Cameron Crowe)
 
blurb to be posted later
 
15: Pearl Harbor (2001 dir: Michael Bay)
 
So Pearl Harbor, or as its known to its friends a big bag of wank (which will refer to it as from hereon in).
A big bag of wank was supposed to be the war film to end all war films. Highlighting a pinnacle moment in American history (and one of their greatest defeats), which we were told would be breathtaking due to CGI developments, and combining it to a romantic love triangle scenario, how could it fail?
Well here’s a list! Hire a director who’s raisen d’etre is to over-edit every exciting sequence to within an inch of it’s celluloid life and who constantly fails to deliver on the more emotive scenes; get a hack writer who’s understanding of history is limited (see Braveheart) to write a script full of cliché, foununder cheese and historically distorted aspersions; make the cast up of young beautiful starlets that, whilst they look good, can’t act there way out of a paper bag that has an arrow pointing towards the exit; make it three hours long because all profound films need to have a long running time – a shame that it bored the majority to tears and lacks any kind of emotive or profound punch; and turn it into a blatant US patriotic flag-waving jaunt my attaching the highly unnecessary Doolittle Raid.
Truly this is awful filmmaking of the highest kind. The CGI may have been impressive looking but the Maggots within the strawberry paint a different picture. Three wooden sticks pretending to be the central characters remove all emotive interest from the film – the clunky dialogue delivered by these three numbskulls leaves you hiding behind your hands begging for a big bag of wank to get better.
On top of this the attack itself is simply bland and uninspired. Reminiscent of Star Wars’ far superior trench run on the Death Star, such battle sequences have been seen and done better many times before. Instantly forgettable.
And then by the time you think the film should end... it doesn't. The Doolittle Raid which follows is tagged on in a blatant portrayal of American jingoism - pointless in a film called a big bag of wank! Who cares if America bombed mainland Japan six months later when you're watching a film about Pearl Harbor? The inclusion of this final half hour loses any of the pathos and empathy the film might have concluded with, instead turning the film into a tedious and often painful endurance test.
And at least I didn’t get onto how the contrived historical interp… [edited by Bulletproof Monk – the dissertation that followed would have obliterated the Forum]
Clownfoot

 
14: Titanic (1997 dir: James Cameron)
 
Imagine an average episode of Neighbours, its crass, badly acted, poorly written and highly predictable. Now imagine Neighbours being directed by a world class helmer, starring two talented and beautiful actors and made on a mega bucks budget. Titanic proves that despite these things you still come up with bad acting, bad writing and lots of boring parts if your screenplay has the tone of a 2nd rate Soap opera. Titanic is simply Pap and romantic drivel of the worst kind, there's a good film ready to be made about the mighty ship, but all Cameron and his team have managed to do is defecate all over one of the most extraordinary events in our history. Winslet and Di Caprio aren't to bad in the leads but everyone else in the film is crap....pure crap. Billy Zane is a pantomime villain of the worst sort, he simply seems to feel that by glaring smugly into the camera and giving us a performance hammier than a pig farm that he is a convincing villain, though maybe its not totally his fault that he acquits himself so poorly, after all Cameron clearly let him away with it. Then there’s Kathy Bates and Gloria Stewart. I don’t think I've ever wanted to slap two actresses as much in my life. Bates plays her character in the most annoying, moany and freaking irritating way possible, and Stewart is so sugary sweet the film should come with a dental warning. I said above that Di Caprio and Winslet aren't to bad....let me re phrase that, there not to bad on their own. Together they have a total lack of Chemistry and some of the lines exchanged between the two during their romantic escapades are enough to make anybody throw up in their mouths. The ludicrous 3 hour runtime may be the  final nail in the films coffin. Its hard to digest a movie this cloyingly sweet and blatantly rubbish over a 90 minute period ,and yet this goes on for at least double that. I won't lie the sinking of the Titanic itself was spectacular, but that’s clearly where all the money went....and Cameron's attempt at the end where we see all the frozen bodies, to try and trick you into thinking its a great film by shoving brutal images in your face is not only exploitive but really a very cheap moment and surely an artistic low point for the 90's. The worst part of all is we bought it..we bought it big time. When shit like this takes the no.1 spot in the all time box-office there’s a problem and one that really needs to be sorted. Quickly!
Daniel Kelly
 
 
13: Donnie Darko (2001 dir: Richard Kelly)
 
Any film that requires you to visit a website so that you can fully understand all of it's meaning, has IMO failed in it's mission.
Way overrated by pseudo-intellectual movie buffs/students. This film tries to be clever, deep and cool, but it doesn't make a lot of sense half the time, while being boring the rest of the time. I was so glad when the credits finally rolled.
The entire film is a mish-mash of different ideas and themes, and it's onvious to me that either the Director just couldn't decide what direction to go in, or he thought he'd have a laugh and try to just make a confusing mess of a movie and wait to see how many people loved it's deep and meaningful messages...
Good points? Jake Gyllenhaal does give a good performance as the brooding and seriously strange Donnie, and the film has a great soundtrack but this isn't enough to make up for a completely perplexing storyline which leaves more questions than it answers.
Sinatra
 
 
12: Scary Movie (2000 dir: Keenan Ivory Wayans)
 
The spoof genre has produced some great comedy films. The Zucker staple of Airplane!, Hot Shots and The Naked Gun just continues to slay audiences several years on. However, their influence on a series of “lesser brained” spoofs is lamentable, and none so more than here.
Where the Wayans crew seemed to have spectacularly missed the point is that whereas Airport and Top Gun were so po-faced that sending them up was easy, Scream (the main target here) was pretty damn funny to begin with. Recycling scenes wholesale with added profanity and dick jokes is squarely aimed at those who still think the word “penis” is funny. The film also targets swipes at The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, Amistad and The Blair Witch Project. In each case, the original was funnier.
The awful cast (mugging for all their worth) fail to raise the terrible script. When I saw this at the cinema, I hung on for the whole thing in the hopes that it would get better. It didn’t, and I soon realised that something I thought was impossible had happened. Someone made a spoof with no laughs.
Bulletproof Monk

 
11: King Kong (2005 dir: Peter Jackson)
 
Due to the success of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy Peter Jackson’s initial vision of ‘King Kong’ as a rollicking good adventure became warped into some sort of pseudo-epic nonsense that seemed to forget everything that made the original a classic in the first place.  The remake’s pace is atrocious, it spends an incredible length of time setting up characters who we do not care about and will not care about, in fact we’ll only end up hating them more for wasting our time talking about Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ when they could’ve been being eaten by giant bugs.  The film could be saved by its action and adventure sequences but unfortunately these have all the thrills and excitement of watching some eight year old kid playing a video game in a shop, a shop that you’re not even in, you’re just walking by outside and happen to glance in at this kid, anyway...  The allegedly incredible stampede sequence is a laughable combination of ropey effects and ropey action beats, witness the ludicrous sight of a man kung-fu kicking a raptor in its face or the sore-thumb compositing of the cast running on tread-mills in front of backgrounds so appallingly rendered that I felt embarrassed.  Then, of course, there’s Kong himself, an impressive creation technically, yes, but the ‘developments’ made to enhance the relationship between Naomi Watts’ Ann Darrow and the ‘eighth wonder’ are shamefully dull and unintentionally hilarious.  Worse than that they do nothing - much like all the other examples of lame-brained character development – to enhance our experience of the film, instead they slow it down to a brontosaurus crawl, and when the action comes it’s such a relentless blur and barrage of CGI beasties and CGI backgrounds and CGI dust and CGI haircuts that you simply cease to care.  The only sequence in this overlong island mid-section of any note is the bug pit, and that’s only worth watching for the rather disgusting digestion of Serkis’ other creation Lumpy the Cook, but beyond that schlocky 60 second highlight the film suddenly realises that it’s supposed to have an ending.  Quickly Jackson takes us to New York and even more quickly – one painful ice bound romantic sojourn aside – we are up and down the Empire State building and then Jack Black fluffs the incredibly famous last line.  Oscars did not follow and rightly so, for the King Kong remake is a flabby, over-indulgent piece of effects fuelled twaddle that ignores the delicious pacing of other successful adventure movies and wallows in its own computer generated turgid guff.  FACT.
Kingoftheducks

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 10
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:24:41 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
10:  Date Movie (2006 dir: Aaron Seltzer)
 
Its true. Everything you've read is true. This really, really, really is the worst parody ever. This movie was so bad that I spent the entire ride home from the theater, frustrated that I couldn't come up with the vocabulary to describe how I felt about it. IT IS NOT FUNNY. I, like most other people who have seen it, chuckled a few times. The rare laughs were part genuine enjoyment and part trying to make the best of a horrible situation. On the whole, though, 98% of this movie is just mind-numbingly bad. And not just because it has a lot of toilet humor and fat person jokes. The worst parts of the movie are the ones that are not only devoid of humor, but they just flat out are so stupid they don't make sense. I've never had an experience where I've sat through an hour and a half film and felt like I was watching a bunch of two minute clips of stupidity that had almost nothing to do with each other. It was almost surreal how horrible this movie was. Please, do not go see it. You're welcome.
BrianWilson
 
9: Alien vs. Predator (2004 dir: Paul WS Anderson)
 
A work of genius
Many people castigate Paul Anderson for destroying both the Alien and Predator franchises. I must say that they have no clue and the director/writer is a true genius for having pulled this movie off. Notice that I did'nt say that this movie itself was great but it was a work of genius. So what is the movie like? It is by far one of the worst and most disgusting pieces of crap that will kill your interest in both the Alien and predator. But don't you get it? That's the point.
Paul Anderson obviously hates the fans of the franchises and has been hating them for a while now. He hates them beyond anything and they must be made to pay dearly and suffer. So in a brilliant plan, he manages to fraud the fools at Fox to give him the project. He did that despite the fact that his previous movies were laughable. Now isn't that just genius? Anderson has made a joke out of every single thing that made the concepts stand out. Your innocent curiosity will make you sit through his parody in hopes of some big twist but it never happens. Scene after Scene is one joke after another. How can anyone possibly imagine a bullet-time mode for an Alien attack? All this has been done very intentionally and nobody realises that. Once you've watched this movie, there's nothing you can do about it. You've lost and Anderson has won. His revenge on fans is complete. Hes also left room for a sequel by including a predalien birth at the end, further putting a big hole in future stories. He makes a ton of money too. Genius.
Oh, I should have said EVIL genius.
UNLESS YOU WANT YOUR INTEREST IN ALIENS AND PREDATORS KILLED OFF, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
eboxtree
 
8: The Blair Witch Project (1999 dir: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez)
 
Loads of films have hype, some films justify that hype whilst others memorably fail to live up to it. Which begs
the question, why are a load of people setting up sites and getting scared over what amounts to a bunch of people
walking around, getting lost and then some random person kinda knocks em out and kills them.
Films like Halloween and Evil Dead succeed in providing an not-totally-unseen but mysterious killing force... the main problem with Blair Witch is not the mysteriousness of the killer.. the imagination can conjure up scarier things than some films.. but the snail-like pace it takes to get the mildly interesting end.
A bunch of random people talking about random things and wandering round the woods getting mildly agitated before going into a empty house and then something happens. Whilst some people may think it's a mysterious horror film, it's basically nothing happening for an hour and a half... and then something happens that is pretty average. Basically not that great.
DJ Rob C: Mark II!
 
7: Cabin Fever (2002 dir: Eli Roth)
 
Oh man, I was looking forward to Cabin Fever so bloody much. Internet chatter, magazine articles, cinema trailers. Everything seemed to be pointing towards the kind of audacious, contempory genre re-invention that horror fans had been gasping for since the early 90’s. It looked so bloody good on paper. In an age of super-bugs and viruses, this was going to be a chilling 21st century fusion of suspense, terror and gore. What’s more, its thrusting young director was confidently hailing himself as the “saviour of horror” and there seemed to be little argument from those in the know.
Five years on and I’m still embittered by the crushing disappointment that this film delivered. Beyond embittered, in fact. I have nothing but festering disdain and outright abhorrence for Cabin Fever. A movie that didn’t just fall well below its own painfully misplaced hype…  It forged a whole new circle of cinematic hell in the process. A piss and shit-filled inferno of C-movie vomit, punctuated by Roth’s egotistical screams of self-promotion, a relentless barrage of kindergarten dialogue and the kind of oh-so-ironic narrative that’s fast becoming a cancer eating away at Hollywood. A painfully derivative, cliché ridden, stoner friendly slice of teen movie schlock that reaches for the heights of Evil Dead but only succeeds in plunging the depths of The Beast Of Yukka Flats. And Roth’s effort didn’t even have a redemptive scene featuring Tor Johnson throwing rocks and going “rrrrraaahhhrrrr”.
Two dimensional acting. Cheap humour. Even cheaper scares. Cabin Fever is awful, awful, awful. A failure on every single level. A great fat turkey that seemed set to bring us cinematic bird-flu yet was ultimately about as terrifying as a common cold.
Harry Lime
 
6: The Village (2004 dir: M Night Shyamalan)
 
Under usual circumstances, the Village would have probably slipped under many peoples radar going completely unnoticed, however this film came from the mind that brought us the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs and maybe this has a lot to do with why the Village has made the top 100 most hated films, it leaves such a bitter taste in the mouth after such sweet appitisers. Even the trailers manged to lead us to believe that we may be about to witness a great horror, they managed to make us believe we were about to witness a tense, edge of the seat film and had people talking for weeks before the actual release. What we actually got was one of the most disappointing films ever created. Where previously Shyamalan’s films have had fantastic plot twists, interesting ideas or interesting characters (or all of the above), the Village has none of these. Despite some good performances from the films actors, none of the characters have enough to make the audience care about their plight and once the "twist" in the plot is revealed, it becomes clear that the impossible is possible, you come to care about the characters even less.
Marvel 79
 
5: Freddy Got Fingered (2001 dir: Tom Green)
 
There are two groups of people in this world- those who can't stand Tom Green, and those who have never heard of him. I was a blissfully happy member of the second group before coming across Freddie Got Fingered, the story of an unemployed cartoonist's unrealized aspirations. It's quite an achievement; a feature-length comedy film that fails to evoke a single laugh. It's not that it doesn't try- it's just that normal people don't find it funny when a wheelchair-user's legs are beaten with a stick, or when a stillborn baby is swung in the air by its umbilical chord. And that's the very thing with Freddie Got Fingered- it dives to unimaginable lows to get laughs.  Green is not the only guilty party here- the very pretty Marisa Coughlan is extremely annoying, and it's hard to understand just why Rip Torn wanted anything to do with this. It also stars that berk from American Pie as the titular younger brother whom Green falsely claims was molested by their father. Hilarious.
Freddie Got Fingered is less of a film than it is an exercise in offending as many groups of people as possible. You've never seen anything quite like it.
firesidebenny

 
4:  Scarface (1983 dir: Brian De Palma)
 
Those who read my posts regularly on these forums will know there is one film, above all others, that I have nothing but utter contempt and hatred for. One cheap, artless film that represents everything that I detest in filmmaking. One film that I regard as the most basic, intelligence insulting, life wasting piece of almost criminal celluloid vandalism ever committed. That film is Brian De Palma's Scarface.
With its atrocious overblown acting, sensationalistic violence and clumsy emphasis on incestuous titillation this is a perfect example of the kind of 1980's excess that saw the crime thriller genre dragged down to its very nadir; an impossibly messy exercise in style over substance with a fourth rate score, filled with third rate performances and helmed by a second rate director with woefully misplaced Hitchcockian delusions. The film that gets stuck in one gear straight from the credits and doesn't shift again in the following two and half hours. Such necessities as pacing and structure certainly weren't in the minds of anybody here.
Instead we have a burnt-out Al Pacino offering his most misjudged performance in an illustrious career. The star falls into the trap of believeing that in order to play a wild, emotionally unfettered character, one has to give a wild, unfettered perfomance. As a result, Pacino offers a turn that is uncontrolled, messy and, quite frankly, embarrassing. As occassionally happens when the material is way below his talents, Pacino opts to shout and rant with the kind of unwelcome force that would rouse a deaf narcoleptic from a coma. No wonder it was slammed by critics and audiences on initial release. 
Of course, Scarface has somehow found some critical redemption in these oh so post-modern, oh so post-Tarantino times. Thus, Pacino's shouty erratic performance is no longer embarrassingly hammy... It is "deliberately OTT" (Smirk). The violence is no longer the overblown work of a writer and director out of their gourds on class A drugs... It is "deliberately cartoonish" (Snigger). And, best of all, the film is no longer a sprawling and messy gangster movie rip off with poor dialogue... It is now (stop laughing at the back) an "ironic" and "deliberately satirical" take on the American Dream.
Don't believe a word of it. This post-modern critique only adds excuses after the fact. Ultimately, Scarface is a film that takes itself too seriously to call itself trash but at the same time is way too trashy to ever be taken seriously. Scarface has always been a film aimed at people who refer to films that don't have swearing or physical violence as "boring". The kind of social inepts who don't like talky bits, get all sweaty and excited when the piles of cocaine mount and who reach a crescendo of what can only be described as near-sexual arousal when Pacino introduces his "little friend".
Have no illusions my friends. Scarface is an insult to both the general filmgoing public and to the memory of all those great cinematic magicians that De Palma constantly fails to imitate. A travesty of poor taste and even poorer craftmanship. I salute all those who voted for this film and celebrate the fact that this film has landed on "Empire Forums Most Hated" list. In fact, I intend to light a Havana Cigar and do the rumba upon it's critical grave.
Harry Lime

 
3: The Matrix Revolutions (2003 dir: The Wachowski Brothers)
 
Why do I find The Matrix Revolutions to be incredibly bad? simple it has very little point or purpose to it. The Matrix when it first arrived on the big screen was groundbreaking, extraordinary unlike anything seen in film before, it was influential and best of all unique. Why oh why then was there a need for two sequels?
The Matrix Revolutions is the concluding part to the Matrix franchise that falls majorly flat on it's face, it's far to overlong and drawn out, underwhelmingly poor, considerably lacklustre and unnesscairy. You see it sheds no light on the original Matrix, it has no real satisifactory conclusion, no twists or shocks, no draw dropping moments and my expectations for a worthy finale were cut short. The acting is passable but nothing more and it's even more hatable for the fact it was cleary done for money and nothing else. A chance to make plenty of cash at the Box-office sacrificing passion and originality all in the name of money. Disappointing doesn't really cover it, The Matrix was genius, Reloaded was passable Revolutions was a joke and the biggest waste of time, money and effort you could imagine. In a word Poor.
Bruce Wayne

 
2: Van Helsing (2004 dir: Stephen Sommers)
 
Is it wrong to feel personally insulted by a film? Is it wrong to be so offended by the poor quality of a film that you forever hold a grudge not only against the film, but against the director, the producers, the scriptwriter, the stars, the DOP, the second unit director, the FX people, the press people, the grips, the best boy and even the tea boy?Is it? Is it really????
If there is a film out there that makes you feel like you've not only wasted the 132 minutes you spent watching it, but donated those minutes to the devil himself, Van Helsing is it. But what, I hear you cry, is the problem? Why does this film annoy you so? And verily, i reply, it's because it's absolute muck. There is no plot worth speaking of, the whole thing is a mish mash of cliche, bad scripting and worse dialogue. The acting leaves a lot to be desired (Kate Beckinsale's accent coach, I'm looking at you), there is no chemistry worth speaking of, and some talented individuals, like David Wenham, are completely wasted in nothing roles.
But the simplest reason why this film is so bad: Stephen Sommers. Every time he sits in the directors chair, you get the feeling more and more that The Mummy was a fluke. That he directed this mess was bad enough, that he also wrote it is the icing on the whole rotten cake. Action scenes that are not only far fetched, but are completely laughable (the stage coach bridge jump being a stand out), a main villain that's camper than a field-full of pink tents, CGI that looks like it was rendered in a virus ridden Commodore 64 and a complete inability to merge credible story-lines for three of Universal's most iconic monsters.
And that's what makes it so annoying. It's not just a bad film, it's not just a terrible film, and it's not just a wasted opportunity. It's a ham-fisted, cack-handed affront to everything the film making and film watching process is all about. It offends on a spiritual level, it offends on a theological level, it offends on levels that haven't even been discovered by psychologists yet. It is the Mount Everest of offensive films, and that's why it is my number one most hated film of all time.
Kaner316

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 11
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:25:17 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
And the winner is....

1: Batman And Robin (1997 dir: Joel Schumacher)
 
The word ‘abysmal’ is one that I do not use lightly, it is a word of immeasurable badness, and is a word to describe the worst of the worst. In that sense, Batman and Robin is not an abysmal film on its own. Yet when taken into context, when we take into account the dark legacy of the Batman character, when we take into account the work of Alan Moore and Frank Miller who gave us deep psychological and multi-layered comic-book tales, when we take into account Burton’s sprawling, gothic take on Batman (flawed though it is), and when we take into account the fact that Batman and Robin is camper than even the 1960’s Batman parody, that went out of its way to be as camp as possible, the word ‘abysmal’ is one that sums up this film perfectly.
Just about every aspect of this film is god-awful. For starters, let’s look at Gotham. Burton gave is a magnificently gothic and stylised Gotham, reminiscent of the German Expressionist films of the 20’s and 30’s, something which he got spot on. Schumacher however disregards this and spews out neon vomit on to it, with flashing lights and naked statues aplenty. Its more like a disco than the worlds most dark and corrupt city.
Then we have the acting (if it can so be called). Clooney could have been a decent Batman with the right direction and script, but here he comes of looking smarmy and incredibly uncomfortable. He even smiles his way through Alfred’s sickness scene! Then we have Robin (played by Chris “Mr Bland” O’Donnell) who is just plain annoying, and then the unspeakably bad and pointless Batgirl, played as a spoilt rich brat by the atrocious Alicia Silverstone.
The villains are even worst. Originally Patrick Stewart was down to play Mr Freeze, an apt choice and one that might have harked back to Freezes portrayal in the acclaimed ‘Heart of Ice’, one of the best episodes of Batman: The Animated Series, yet Schumacher scrapped that and asked for a muscle man. Arnold Schwarzenegger was called in, and his Mr Freeze ranks as one of the most embarrassingly bad portrayals in cinema, accentuated by his incessant shitty puns on the word cold (‘Ice to see you’, ‘My condition has left me cold to your pleas of mercy’, ‘Lets kick some ice’), and his overly melodramatic delivery. He also has hockey playing henchman. Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy is just plain hammy, and defines the phrase ‘ludicrously overacting’. Then there is the most heinous crime of ruining one of the most complex and intelligent Batman villains, Bane, who is played as an oafish brute. Perhaps something that most people wouldn’t care about, but to the Batman fans it is akin to first-degree murder.
What else is there left that is bad? Lots actually: the costumes are ridiculous (Bat-nipples I tell you!), the plot ludicrous, the pathos badly handled, the direction uninspired to say the least, the script is just horrendous (examples of ‘hilarious’ innuendos include “my garden needs tending” and “Ill help you grab my rocks”) and all together it’s the biggest bastardisation of any fictional character in the history of film-making. Everyone associated in the production of this utter drivel should be ashamed of themselves, and thank god for Nolan and Bale for managing to resurrect the Batman franchise and show us how a great Batman film should be made.
The Man With No Shame


_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 12
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:26:32 PM   
kaner316


Posts: 1778
Joined: 18/8/2006
From: Not Wales !!!
BM.

top stuff, mate. well done.....

_____________________________

Bartlet: What do we do with him?
Sam: Make him the Ambassador to Paraguay.
Bartlet: What do we do with the Ambassador to Paraguay?
Sam: Make him Ambassador to Bulgaria.
Bartlet: I like this. Because, if everybody keeps moving up one, I can go home

(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 13
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:28:33 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
Right, that's it. On with the part you guys like the most, basically the moaning, fighting, crying and threatening to leave the forum.

Once again thanks to all who voted, there may be no suprise about Batman And Robin retaining its crown for the fourth year running but this was a very different list otherwise, with previous faves The Avengers, Speed 2 and The Mummy Returns all missing.

So, over to you. See you next year!

BP.

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 14
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:28:59 PM   
Neth


Posts: 4750
Joined: 3/10/2005
Great work Bulletproof Monk, and all of those blurbers who've painstakingly waxed lyrical about their claggiest movies.

And quelle shocker - look what floater ends up at #1.

Some really iffy choices here - Magnolia? Blair Witch Project? Citizen Kane? - plus it skews hard and fast towards stuff from the last five years, but there's a lot of stuff that, in my humble opinion, thoroughly deserves to be in this list.

Like Scarface. Which is shit.


_____________________________

"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore."


(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 15
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:29:20 PM   
Biggus


Posts: 7638
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: Not Local
Seconded. Well done also to everyone else who contributed. Some interesting choices here. I'm gonna have a big ol' read through and voice my opinions later.

ps The blurb for Bad Boys 2 (#47) is fantastic.

_____________________________

"They offered me a hundred grand. You wanna know something? When I found out I'd get my hands on you, I said I'd do it for nothing."

http://fletchsworldoffilm.wordpress.com/

(in reply to kaner316)
Post #: 16
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:30:58 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
Yay, well done Bulletproof Monk for putting this all together. For once, most movies in the list fully deserve to be in there and the blurbs are mainly great(I especially liked Biggus's review of Bad Boys 2 and Harry Lime's putdown of Scarface).
Glad to see Batman and Robin is top, the only film that I have enough hatred for to write a vitriolic blurb. The only thing more vitriolic is my anger at the reviewer of Citizen Kane (who hasnt even watched it), and 2001: A Space Odyssey (who has totally missed the point). Other than that, well done to all

_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 17
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:33:53 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame

The only thing more vitriolic is my anger at the reviewer of 2001: A Space Odyssey (who has totally missed the point).


That would be my flatmate, who always wanted to do that if it ever made it in. Idiot.

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 18
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:35:46 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bulletproof_Monk

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame

The only thing more vitriolic is my anger at the reviewer of 2001: A Space Odyssey (who has totally missed the point).


That would be my flatmate, who always wanted to do that if it ever made it in. Idiot.


Tell him from me that he is a cock

_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 19
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:41:12 PM   
Bulletproof_Monk


Posts: 681
Joined: 4/10/2005
Added tommyjarvis's blurb for The Matrix which arrived whilst I was posting the list.

_____________________________

CHAOS REIGNS!

Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.


(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 20
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:47:58 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10883
Joined: 30/9/2005
Citizen Kane? 2001? Independence Day?
 
Who voted for this list? Men with no shame?
 
Nice to see Bad Boys II and Scarface up there.

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 21
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:53:34 PM   
rikkie


Posts: 4661
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell
Nice work there Monky.  Do you know I've still managed to avoid watching Batman & Robin...  I'm still undecided as to whether this is something I should rectify or not...

Mind you, I still want to smite anyone who voted for Lost In Translation...


< Message edited by rikkie -- 22/2/2007 3:03:53 PM >


_____________________________

Oh no, not the bees! Not the bees! Ahhhhhh! All over my eyes! Eyes! Blaaaarghhh!

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 22
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 2:56:17 PM   
tommyjarvis


Posts: 6632
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Caught somewhere in time
Good job BM, nice to see that Titanic didn't make the top ten for a change!

_____________________________

"I've been too honest with myself, I should have lied like everybody else"

My Top 101 Rock Songs - The first Audiophile list to actually get completed!

(in reply to Bulletproof_Monk)
Post #: 23
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 3:16:03 PM   
kaner316


Posts: 1778
Joined: 18/8/2006
From: Not Wales !!!
just realised something, something horrible, something so bone chilling we may never recover....

The Wicker Man remake didn't make the top 100.......

_____________________________

Bartlet: What do we do with him?
Sam: Make him the Ambassador to Paraguay.
Bartlet: What do we do with the Ambassador to Paraguay?
Sam: Make him Ambassador to Bulgaria.
Bartlet: I like this. Because, if everybody keeps moving up one, I can go home

(in reply to tommyjarvis)
Post #: 24
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 3:23:13 PM   
rikkie


Posts: 4661
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell
quote:

ORIGINAL: kaner316

just realised something, something horrible, something so bone chilling we may never recover....

The Wicker Man remake didn't make the top 100.......


Ah, the perfect excuse to show this bit of greatness:




_____________________________

Oh no, not the bees! Not the bees! Ahhhhhh! All over my eyes! Eyes! Blaaaarghhh!

(in reply to kaner316)
Post #: 25
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 3:26:33 PM   
deniseA


Posts: 1020
Joined: 30/9/2005
Perhaps we were smart enough not to watch The Wicker Man remake.  Like Rikkie I've also manged to avoid Batman and Robin.

Still, I'm delighted to see the abysmal Scarface place so highly.  It's my most loathed film ever.  Would have been nice to see Heat in the top 100, but the placing of Scarface makes up for it.

(in reply to kaner316)
Post #: 26
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 3:31:02 PM   
EVILSPEAK


Posts: 3502
Joined: 19/5/2006
From: Hades
Requiem For a Dream and The Matrix above Bloodrayne? What a crock of shit! Requiem and Matrix have no place in that list!

(in reply to deniseA)
Post #: 27
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 4:11:04 PM   
Marvel_79


Posts: 1110
Joined: 15/12/2005
I can proudly say that there are 12 films on that list that I like

Notting Hill - 8/10
Blade Trinity - 7/10
Bad Boys 2 - 7/10
X-Men The Last Stand - 8/10
The Matrix - 8/10
LORT: The Fellowship of the Rings - 6/10
xXx - 6/10
The Fast and the Furious - 6/10
Star Wars Ep 2 - 6/10
Star Wars Ep 3 - 7/10
Independence Day - 8/10
MI:2 - 7/10

None are my favourites, but there are some I really enjoy there (as the 8/10's show) - Still it's all about opinions and I think largely the list is pretty good at picking out some crimes against cinema, hell I know xXx and Fast & the Furious could be considered crimes against cinema, but I like them in a so bad they're good capacity


(in reply to EVILSPEAK)
Post #: 28
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 4:39:42 PM   
DJ Rob C: Mark II!


Posts: 34874
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Christmas town
Very interesting list, a mix of films I hate and films I love (Darko, Kong, Moulin, LOTR, Unbreakable, Sin City, Matrix 1, and some more) but then again opinions are opinions, we'll always think differently... probably which I'm surprised since I didn't think Scarface was that bad

_____________________________

When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die

Third Highest Post Count on the Forum, sad but proud!

(in reply to Marvel_79)
Post #: 29
RE: The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. - 22/2/2007 5:09:30 PM   
JustBuggin


Posts: 306
Joined: 28/10/2005
From: North East
So much fun to see my blubs with the rest of ya. Feeling part of a team, now.

and well done BM. A cracking job


< Message edited by JustBuggin -- 22/2/2007 5:11:33 PM >


_____________________________

"Death awaits you all, with nasty big pointy teeth."
Click to View my Online Comic

Follow me on Twitter


(in reply to DJ Rob C: Mark II!)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> The Forum's 100 Most Hated Films 2007: The Results. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125