Three of the Worst Movies ever

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Petey']TN, you're not even worth my time, then, if you insist on displaying that attitude. If you reply to me and criticize me, then I reply with a sound and logical basis and reasons to defend myself, to which you reply with "I don't care about what you think," then you obviously lack some very important social skills. TN, the world does not revolve around you, nor does it revolve around me. At least I have the common courtesy to explain myself with a detailed analysis and to debate with a point-by-point rebuttal, as to be as thorough as possible. You, on the other hand, refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion of anything, and outright ignore and disregard what others say. "I don't care what you think." TN, step off. You're nothing special.[/quote]

If i'm not worth your time, stop wasting it replying to me.

You saying that you've written about this and that and whatnot is not a logical reason to defend yourself. The whole topic behind this is not Event Horizon or the fact you're a huge nerd, but the fact you went around in the second post of this topic and in a completely demeaning way dismissed everything Chibihorsewoman said, as if you knew everything about movies and she knew nothing. Now if anyone can see otherwise, I'd like them to post here telling me so, cause thats the way i read it and I found that to be rude, unprofessional, and completely uncalled for. Therefor, I figured to throw it right back in your face telling you I don't care what you've written about. And I don't care what you think about the movie Event Horizon cause thats the same attitude you gave in your second post of this topic, I'm just acting the same way you are. Maybe you missed that...

[quote]I have a feeling that you are all talk. TN, I'm offering you the chance to prove me wrong in a most major way here. I'm giving you an opportunity to assert your superiority in this situation. If you indeed know more than I do, prove it. Put your money where your mouth is and let's see what you can do. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air here and have no basis for argument.[/quote]

What else can I be on a message board but all talk? Do you want me to pysically kick your ***? Come on, get serious. And whats proving you wrong? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to point out that you were doing the same thing to chibihorsewoman as I was to you. Where do you get this silly idea that I'm trying to point out I'm better than you? Thoughts on movies are completely opinionated... You can't say that a movie sucked by fact, thats just doesn't make sense... it's all opinion and I can't prove an opinion wrong. I can only show it to be stupid, rude, unprofessional, ignorant, arrogant, and all ther adjectives.

[quote]So, go for it, TN. Go for my jugular vein. Let's see if you've got what it takes to analyze Event Horizon, debunk my points, and prove me wrong.[/quote]

Nah, no thanks, I won't waste your time anymore...

[quote]You actually missed the reason why I used that. It's a professor's catchphrase here at Rutgers. You thought I was being condescending. Nope. It's a nice way to close out a subject.[/quote]

Well without that information, how was I supposed to take that comment? You expect me to know that this saying is used by some professor as Rutgers? I'm not a psychic. It's a rude way to close a subject and the subject is never closed unless both parties decide they are done with it. Maybe your professor needs a lesson in manners cause apparently he has none.

[quote]You're judging an actor on a 2-minute preview?[/quote]

::sigh:: Maybe you missed the fact I said he sucked in the entire movie of Spider-Man, and then in the 2-minutes preview of SM2... Just forshadowing his acting ability throughout the whole movie.

[quote]TN, what performances do you like? You had mentioned X2? Let's compare Spiderman to X2, then.[/quote]

You're right, I did mention X2, however I didn't meantion anything about the acting in X2. I was simply stating that I though X-Men and X2 were the only decent movies based off a comic book. I thought the acting in Daredevil was good, but the plot and everything else sucked. I found it incredibly boring. There was something about the Hulk I didn't like either, I dunno exactly what it was but I didn't find the movie terribly enjoyable. And Hellboy... The two best characters in that movies had supporting roles... The main character was boring, predictable.... the plot was interesting when talking about the gates of hell being open and even to the extent of Hellboy's character, but besides that, it was like any of other comic book movie. That and it had several plot holes and didn't explain all the charcters to the audience. I just didn't find it terribly enjoyable.

[quote]Just a question for you, could it be possible that you hate the performances in Spiderman because Spiderman features a predominantly teenage cast, while X2 is predominantly adults? You do have a thing against the majority of teenage movies. Just a thought.[/QUOTE]

If you read my posts, I never said I didn't like the acting in teenage movies, although they tend to be below par, but it was the plot I couldn't stand. How interesting can a plot on cheerleading be? Exactly my point. It is there to appease the horny teenage boy. I'm not a teenager, and I'm certainly not horny for some nasty slutty teenage girl.

Anyway, I could list off several movies which involve teengers or kids that I enjoyed if you like? (Harry Potter, L.I.E., The Cure... i can't think of anymore off the top of my head, if I did some more research I could find more) I didn't like the acting in Spider-Man. I thought it could have been tons better if they had cast it better or if they have spent a little more time with acting coachs.

I'm not telling you your opinion is wrong, I'm showing you how you treated Chibihorsewoman. You completely disregarded her opinion and then told her to come back with films she understood because he interpretation was different than yours. Its a matter of opinion and your opinion isn't the truth of the land.

[Balinese]

[QUOTE=Chichiri's Girl]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i]3.[/i]The Mummy Returns[/color][/font][/b]
[b][font=Book Antiqua][color=#4b0082][i] First off let me say I thought the first one was awsome. Period. But then they just [/i]had[i] to make a sequal. Why? This was just...bad. Well the first thing they did was to marry the two main characters and then, if that wasn't bad enough, they gave them a kid. Why?!?!?! Did they really run out of other ideas? Of course since the whole 'romance' element was gone there goes a big 'ol chunck of plot. Say goodbye to the plot kids because you'll never see it again after where it's goin'! Then the kid had to get all up in the parent's work and you know, just create extreme worldly chaos by waking up the mummy, again. Whoops. Can't we just give them their 300 years of rest. Guess not. Oh well. There go his chances of an afterlife. Oh and just to worsen the whole deal guess who they had to throw in? That's right! The Rock! Whoo! He had a five minute role and suddenly the critics are raving about his great acting skills and how he finished off the whole movie. Ugh. It urks me how the kid, who was one of the main characters mind you, wasn't even on the cover of the dvd and video while the rock, who made a five minute cameo, was right there a little to the left(or right I don't remember) of the center! Again, whoo! Don't even get me started on that horrible Kids WB TV show. I have fears that the squal to Pirates will turn out the same way...*sighs*[/i][/color][/font][/b][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]i agree. [b]The Mummy Returns[/b] was basically a showcase for the Rock. He's a good-looking guy, but i don't see why they made this movie and hyped him so much when he barely spent five minutes in it.

i disliked [b]Bring It On[/b], but that could be because i watched it fifteen times with my foster sisters in the space of three weeks. perky cheerleaders screw up. big whoop.

i REALLY disliked watching [b]How High[/b]. Typical stoner movie, not funny, why bother? Redman and Method Man do not make a movie watchable simply because they're big-name artists.

i liked [b]HalfBaked[/b]. Funny movie, and fun to watch. But [b]How High[/b] was pointless.

Another dumb movie is [b]Baseketball[/b]. The creators of South Park made it. Fine. But it's all about stupid humor and jokes about having sex and drinking. If that's your thing, fine. i like movies with a bit more depth, like [b]A Beautiful Mind[/b] and [b]Identity.[/b][/FONT]

[Vicky]

[QUOTE=Petey]
Halle Berry. I certainly don't recall any amazing performance from her. In fact, she didn't even perform. She essentially just walked through her lines. She demonstrated no emotion nor skill with the material.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1][B]Maybe because Storm in the Comics has to keep her Emotions under control...? If you haven't heard, Storm always tries to keep her emotions under control, and even in the X-Men Series (old ones and stuff) she was way different from everyone else.

The reason they had Patrick Stewart play the professor is because both Cap. Picard is because both characters are very a like. They can both be very serious, yet calm in stressful situations. Picard is Patrick Stewart, they got him to play Prof. X because he has a good personality for that type of character.

The actors have the ACT like the characters. They do act like themselves sometimes, but they have to bend their personality and acting to make themselves more like the characters. X-Men had the best actors in it, they changed their personaliy to fit. The guy who played Nightcrawler was hiding all the time? Because that's what Nightcrawler does. He hides all the time, he's afraid. There's not use changing the whole X-Men Universe just for the benifit of one actor.

Don't go all whacko at me...[/SIZE][/B]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Petey]

And the fact that you sit there and minimize what Blair Witch stood for, by reducing the horror to "boogy man and stick figures hanging from trees" proves that you do not want to give this film a chance. CHW, you're looking at it from a purely superficial level.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Maybe I just minimized what it meant to you. It's an opinion like *** holes, everyone has one. You were obviously born with two though, so consider yourself special.

As for not wanting to give the film a chance, I figured that since two of my friends who have [b]OPINIONS[/b] that I [i][RESPECT[/i] wanted to see this movie I may as well go and see what it was all about. I did give it a chance. I wasn't the only one who didn't like it. The two friends I saw it with also thought it was lacking, and they wanted to see it[/color]

[quote name='Petey']You weren't going to let yourself be open to the experience in the first place. You went in there with a closed mind. You treated it like you were forced to go. You didn't want to go. How can you be surprised that you dislike a movie when you go into it with that kind of attitude?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I usually don't repeat myself, but you're a special individual who is obviously superior to me, so I will.

Like I said above, I figured since two of my friends wanted to see this movie so badly and someone's brother thought it was good, I may as well give it a shot and see if it was a good movie or a bad movie.

Don't assume that you know what I was thinking five years ago because you come off sounding like a fool, which in this case you are. Besides, like I stated prior, I'm not the only one who disliked the film. Don't take your thoughts as gospel truth because they're not nor are mine for that matter.[/color]


[quote name='Petey]']Are you sure that you know yourself?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]What kind of assinine question is that? Are you trying to say that now by insulting me on a computer message board because you dissagree with my thoughts on a movie you thought was a masterpiece up there with Vertigo and Gone With the Wind that suddenly you [i]know[/i] me and I don't know myself, you're more of a fool than I took you for[/color]

[quote name='Petey']CHW, I'd be glad to see you prove that I'm being close-minded here. I went into Blair Witch with an open mind, ready for whatever I was going to experience. You went in there thinking the movie was crap, and you hadn't even seen it before that. Now you get on here and just outright bash the movie, refusing to entertain the ideas that the film was utilizing. When I explain it to you, you get pissy. Who is close-minded here?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I wasn't forced to go, I went of my own free will. But the fact that I called you closed minded wasn't about the movie. It was the fact that you think you're right and I'm wrong based on the fact that I don't agree with you. That's why I'm saying you're narrow minded person. Not to mention presumptuous since you think you can tell me what was going through my mind.

I am not bashing a movie as you so eloquently put it. I was staing an opinion that I have. That I still have. I saw Blair Witch with my brother after I went to see it with my friends and I still didn't find it to be a psychological horror. I didn't refuse to do anything so quit acting like you know me so well.

And of course I'm getting pissy. The first reply to this subject was you and instead of stating your opinion on something, you bashed me which was completely uncalled for. You acted like you were friggin' Ebbert and Roper up here and I didn't kow anything. You put me on the defensive. Take your head out of your butt and put yourself in my place for a minute. How well do you like being told that you're wrong about everything? Grow up[/color]


[quote name='Petey']No, CHW. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to have a completely uneducated opinion .[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]PT, maybe you should rephrase that to it's one thing to have an opinion, it's anpther thing to have an opinion which differs from yours. Since the only reason you put me down is because I didn't like what you did.[/color]

[quote name='Petey']You obviously don't take informed insight seriously, so why should I bother?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I take informed insight very well, which is why I'm completely ignoring your ranting and raving about how I'm an idiot and you're the master of he universe. The only reason someone like you bother's ranting on and on about himself is because you have some sort of infirority complex.

Now lay this to rest and focus on the real topic[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE=vicky][size=1][b]Maybe because Storm in the Comics has to keep her Emotions under control...? If you haven't heard, Storm always tries to keep her emotions under control, and even in the X-Men Series (old ones and stuff) she was way different from everyone else.[/b]

[/size][/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]I would have to say that Halle Berry was a huge disappointment for me, in the X-Men movies.

I don't think that it was so much a question of Storm needing to be a reserved character (although I do understand what you are saying), but I think that Berry just didn't really seem to [i]care [/i]about the role at all.

Moreover, did anyone notice that she seemed to "forget" her accent several times during the movies?

"Oh, today I'm American. Now I'm Egyptian. Now I'm a bit of both."

It just lacked consistency. And I think that's kinda sloppy. This isn't to say that the X-Men movies were bad, because I quite enjoyed them. I thought they reflected the comics/cartoons/etc pretty well. And they were certainly a lot better than most of the video game to movie translations out there.

X-Men 2 was also a lot better than the first (no doubt due to the higher production values).

Anyway, let's keep things civil in here. I don't mind if you guys want to discuss your choices and your reasons for them, but let's keep our comments focused on that alone. I'm quite certain that you are all capable of talking about the movies themselves while still being civil on a personal level.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I have to agree with James on Halle Barry's voice in the first X-Men movie. Her accent was pretty bad, but the second movie she used her normal voice. That alone was a relief in itself.

I thought that Hugh Jackman fit as Logan/Wolverine quite well. As I understand it (Correct me if I'm wrong because I could be) the character that Jackman plays is something of a loner. He did very nicely in the first movie.

I don't know too much about the X-Men comics except that Logan/Woverine has a thing for Jean Grey and is something of a recluse at times. Nobody knows how old he is because of the whole regeneration thing which is his mutant power.

I thought the first Scooby-Doo movie was really stupid. Especially the ending. Give me a break. [spoiler]The monster was a robot. and to add fuel to the bomb it was about to become, the guy controlling the robot was Scrappy-Doo[/spoiler] What person decided to put that up?[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I agree that Jackman did a great job as Wolverine. He was just as gritty and dark as the role required, and he was witty when the scenes called for it. Personally I think he was a perfect choice, and I like Wolverine as a character much more because of what Jackman contributed to him. I can't believe they were originally shooting for Russell Crowe. Crowe is a great actor, but he simply doesn't have the right look. Jackman LOOKS like Wolverine (and Batman, Punisher, Aragorn, etc. etc. he should just play every cool character ever and then take over as Indiana Jones once Ford stops doing the films :-D ).

I'd also like to submit the Batman films as some of the worst movies made. All but the campy 60s Batman. That was some good stuff. But Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin. I'd have been happy if those films never existed (apart from the beneficial effects the first film had on the direction of the character design). Batman Returns made the horrible move of taking the two characters in the Batman universe who are NOT insane (Penguin and Catwoman -- both crooks but not lunatics), and making them just as freaky and insane as the rest of the rogues gallery. Batman Returns and Batman and Robin, well I don't have to explain why those suck. Everyone knows they do.

[James]

[color=#707875]Wow, I don't think I've ever heard anyone speak a bad word about Batman Returns. lol

I feel that Batman Returns was more true to the original comic series than anything else I've seen. Burton really nailed the dark visual theme in the movie, I think.

In regard to characters like Penguin and Catwoman...well, I suppose it's both a matter of convention and taste. When I look at the 60's campy versions, I just don't feel that it in any way represents the original style of the comics. I felt that although Penguin and Catwoman were depicted somewhat differently by Burton...they were, in my view, the best depictions of these characters.

At least, if Batman were a real situation, that's how I'd imagine them being. I liked the fact that Penguin was a horrible, dirty little man with a black sense of humor. lol

And I liked the fact that Catwoman wasn't an airy fairy, kinda pointless character (not that she was this way in the older movies, but she was definitely more "glamorous" in the 60's series). I liked the fact that she was dark, gritty and psychotic in Batman Returns. That's how I picture a true Catwoman.

But that's me. I just assumed that most people preferred Batman Returns, as compared to the newer movies. The Joel Schumacher iterations of the series were awful, in my view. I half expected Batman to tear off his suit and run around in a g-string, while dancing to Abba -- it was [i]so [/i]ridiculously campy and glittery that it became kinda laughable and pointless. Nothing like Returns, unfortunately.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Har. Batman Returns was about as true to the comic series as the Joel Schumacher films, to be honest. Possibly even less so. The non-Batman characters as we know them in the film (Penguin, Catwoman, Max Schreck or whatever his name was) were nothing like their comic-book counterparts. In my opinion they were also worse. But really the best version of both villains can be found (if you ask me) in Batman: The Animated Series, which was influenced by the Burton film as far as character appearance goes but thankfully not as far as personality and history goes.

Believe me, Burton took liberties like nobody else. Well, no that's not true. Schumacher that dumbass ruined Bane beyond any recognition. What an insult to a character who deserves at least one 3-hr Batman film dedicated all to him.

The original Batman film wouldn't have been all too horrible if not for one (out of a number, but this one in particular) scene -- the one where Batman is in his Batwing. Bats unloads his entire freaking arsenal at the Joker, and [i]misses[/i]. First of all, Batman wouldn't use fighter-jet-mounted firarms against people (he doesn't kill), but if he did, he wouldn't miss. It was stupid. And then Joker takes out his two-foot long pistol (gimme a break) and [i]shoots down the Batwing[/i]! You've gotta be kidding me. There I half-expected Batman to eject out and fly headfirst into an overpass, then he'd fall but his pants would get caught in some random crap and he'd land to the ground pantsless.

[James]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Har. Batman Returns was about as true to the comic series as the Jole Schumacher films, to be honest. [/quote][color=#707875]I'm mostly referring to visual style alone. I'm not a hardcore Batman fan myself, so I really don't have an in-depth view on the character's original personalities. But, stylistically, there was obviously a major difference between the 60's version, Returns and and post-Returns movies.

My preference would easily be Returns, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned. It seemed like Joel Schumacher was trying to somehow capture the camp value of the 60's series, but it just came out wrong.[/color][quote=ScirosDarkblade]

Believe me, Burton took liberties like nobody else. Well, no that's not true. Schumacher that dumbass ruined Bane beyond any recognition. What an insult to a character who deserves at least one 3-hr Batman film dedicated all to him.
[/QUOTE][color=#707875]I'm absolutely certain that Burton took liberties; of that I have no doubt. But Burton takes liberties with everything when he puts his hand into the mix; everything that he "remakes" or "reinterprets" has his own dark spin. In my experience with his films, it's always been something that's worked -- but only because of the subject matter at hand.

I've always found Batman Returns to be my favourite iteration of Batman, for the reasons mentioned above. Burton may have taken significant liberties with character personalities...but from the average moviegoer's point of view, I'm glad that he did. I much prefer the Batman Returns Catwoman and Penguin to any other versions that I've encountered (including in the various animated series).

But again, I'm speaking as someone who isn't a hardcore Batman devotee. If I were in that position, I'm sure it's quite possible that I may view Burton's interpretation as a complete butchering of the original.

But also, if viewed in a vaccuum, I think Burton's movie was a truly good movie in and of itself. It stood on its own two feet as a movie, irrespective of the franchise surrounding it, though of course, it [i]does [/i]stand up against the rest of the franchise by virtue of what it is.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

Halle Berry's character wasn't as good in X2 because she simply didn't want to do the movie. She won't be in 3 or 4 when they come out. If I didn't want to be in a movie, I wouldn't put much effort into it. She's only in it because they wanted to keep the original cast.

[Semjaza]

If she didn't want to be in the movie, knowing full well that it would at least be a trilogy from the start, she shouldn't have gotten involved in my opinion.

I've heard nothing about that angle to the story, personally. It wasn't that she didn't want to be in it, she wanted to be in it more. She complained of her lack of lines in the second film. All the news I've read points to her simply wanting to play more a role in the movie. She wanted to be even more of a main character than she already was. It seems more like her ego, honestly, as Storm is not all that popular compared to some of the other X-Men in the film, nor has she ever been the main character. No one really is, although it obviously focuses on some more than others. I can't say I feel bad for her reasoning to not be in it as I find it selfish.

I don't feel she was suited for the role in the first place and her acting in both films wasn't exactly imprressive. She can go on to make such gems as Catwoman where she wears barely any clothes instead. Lord knows it'll make people think more highly of her average acting ability.

[PWNED]

As you can tell by the heading, all of my movies are Harry Potter movies.


1) Harry Potter and the philosphers stone

I don't get how this is so popular because the characters are rather annoying, the storyline is nothing like the book (Which to the unreading masses, I have read 10 times). And this movie is one of the two movies that I have fallen asleep in.

2) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
This is the only other movie I have fallen asleep in, Need i say more? Oh yes and allow me to add one thing, The ending is too bloody corny(I mean I like the ending of the book form of this but I mean I don't want to see it all the way through, attempting to stay awake then all of a sudden, Hermionie comes running to Harry and goes " Youi did it Harry". Jesus Christ, it was bad.)

3) You all know what this spot is reserved for!!! Harry Potter 3, which I will add as soon as It comes out in Australia.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]If she didn't want to be in the movie, knowing full well that it would at least be a trilogy from the start, she shouldn't have gotten involved in my opinion.

I've heard nothing about that angle to the story, personally. It wasn't that she didn't want to be in it, she wanted to be in it more. She complained of her lack of lines in the second film. All the news I've read points to her simply wanting to play more a role in the movie. She wanted to be even more of a main character than she already was. It seems more like her ego, honestly, as Storm is not all that popular compared to some of the other X-Men in the film, nor has she ever been the main character. No one really is, although it obviously focuses on some more than others. I can't say I feel bad for her reasoning to not be in it as I find it selfish.

I don't feel she was suited for the role in the first place and her acting in both films wasn't exactly imprressive. She can go on to make such gems as Catwoman where she wears barely any clothes instead. Lord knows it'll make people think more highly of her average acting ability.[/QUOTE]

Well I don't think there was a trilogy planned when they made the first movie. Usually whena trilogy is planed, they have some sort of plot ideas for each movie and they are still flip-flopping on their ideals for the third movie.

You can't really blame Berry's preformance when she wasn't written well. She had very few lines in both films, significantly less than Hugh Jackman or Ian McKellen. It was just how her character was written. You can't put on a star preformance when your character isn't written that well. Its like saying Collosus wasn't very good in X2... he had a cameo at best.

I dunno, I wasn't particularly looking for a great preformance from her character anyway... it's Storm...

[Semjaza]

Many movies of this type hope for a sequel and X-Men was no exception. I don't think anyone expected it to bomb and a sequel was being planned for quite some time. Everyone involved seemed to know there would be more. Hugh Jackman said sometime before the second film was even released that he wanted to be in a large trilogy like the X-Men films. People knew.

Personally, I don't think the idea of what the film is about matters. Storm is one of the main X-Man and if Halle was too dense to figure that out, I don't think she should have signed onto a franchise that was obviously planned to be at least two films. She already seemingly gave up before the second one even started, so a third doesn't even matter. She was hired for it, she took the job, she should do it right.

You can't really compare the popularity of people like Wolverine and Magneto to someone like Storm though. I don't know how she, or anyone, could expect the scripts to not concentrate on the more popular characters like that.

I don't think it's comparable to the many little cameos in the films either. Storm had a substantial part (certainly more than the handful of lines she made it sound like she had prior to the films release) and she did what was required of her in the movie. No more or no less than she really has in any of the X-Men comics I ever read. Does Berry just expect to be given a bigger role in the X-Men simply because of who she is? Because, honestly, I don't know what she could have expected going into this film knowing these things about Storm and knowing that there are like twenty central characters in the film they're trying to develop at once, some more than others.

Oh well. That's all I have to say about it lol.

[Transtic Nerve]

Maybe she just isn't used to being a less than supporting character. I don't think she should be critisized so much for complaining about her part. I thought she did well for what she was written for. I didn't notice any significant carelessness in her acting either.