What is your Top 5 Worst Movies?

SlammedZero said:

Ok I will add my list now. These are in no particular order for me, and I may have some that I cannot think of, but these are a few that just came to mind.

Jack and Jill: I usually am just fine or actually enjoy Adam Sandler's stupid slapstick comedy. I also will usually see a movie through, even if I don't like it, just to finish it. Not this one. This movie was absolutely stupid and I had to turn it off.

The Happening: What a stupid premise. I don't even care if I am going to spoil this for anybody reading that hasn't seen it yet, but, the plants start making people off themselves? Just ridiculous. To me they tried to film the movie in a mysterious or deep tone and it was just bad. Really surprised Mark Walberg signed up for that one.

Anchorman 1: I may ruffle some feathers on this one, as it seems to have a cult following, but I couldn't get into this one. I love the cast, but for me, it was just so stupid to me that I couldn't get into it, at all. Again, like Jack and Jill, I couldn't even finish this one even when trying to "check my brain out at the door".

The Master of Disguise: Where do I begin? Just................so dumb.

Blair Witch Project: Alright, I may get some static back on this one, but, I just never understood the hype. I remember when the movie came out. A couple co-workers were at work the next day raving about it at work going on and on about how scary and amazing it was. From there the hype built. I finally went to the theater and watched it. Now, while I will give it some credit for being original with it's "found footage" filming, it was just way overhyped and 'meh' for me.

Click to expand...

SlammedZero said:

The Happening: What a stupid premise.

Click to expand...

Reverend Conehead said:

That Wrath of Khan explores themes about humanity such as getting older and dealing with loss, as well as themes of greed and revenge. It's consistent with the original Star Trek in that it explores themes like this related to humankind trying to better itself. It also keeps the characters consistent with the original series with Kirk being the gutsy captain trying to right wrongs, and Spock being the logical one, even using logic in the end to choose to sacrifice is own life to save others. The 2009 movie is pure trash compared to that. All it has is a bunch of shoot'em'up action and special effects and exactly zero characterization. Kirk and Spock are cardboard cutouts, comic book versions of their TV show selves, and even what little is shown is not not consistent with the original show. Spock, a Vulcan, only gets sexual once every 7 years for the Pahn Farr, but in the '09 film is shown fondling all over Uhura. If they had done any tiny smidgen of research about Trek, they would have known that was totally our of character for him. The Wrath of Khan was a smartly written Star Trek film in which the action conveys multiple themes about humanity, and ending with gut-wrenching emotion with Spock sacrificing himself. The '09 movie is just a bunch of superficial action with no quality story, no themes at all, trash characterization, and huge conflicts with the original show. In short, TWOK is like a high-end meal at one of New York City's finest restaurants, while '09 Trek is like cotton candy. The '09 film fails on every level. It's throw-away cinematic junkfood. It's so bad, many Trekkers (myself included) don't even consider it to be Star Trek. JJ Abrams even admitted he never even liked Star Trek, and it shows in the awful mess of a movie that he made. His followup movie was also terrible, and the third one (not directed by him) made some attempts at theme, but ultimately was still totally inferior to The Wrath of Khan and the original show.

Click to expand...

• "lol. Kirk really should have died on that ice planet."
• "Not opening your parachute is dumb way to die."
• "Everyone should have died at the black hole. And how is Nero's ship just SITTING within the event horizon of a black hole???"
• (After re-watching it years later) "Why is Thor Kirk's daddy?"

DallasEast said:

That reads like you felt ambushed by the movie. I know how it feels to be ambushed when a director is silent about his or her vision. Or talks his or her butt off about recreating movie, book or television series like it was originally.

However, JJ Abrams ambushed no one. He was very candid about not remaking the Star Trek franchise after the remake was announced. Here is an excerpt from one of his interviews before his Star Trek was released:

JJ Abrams: 'I never got Star Trek' (link)
Steve Rose
Wed 6 May 2009 19.01 EDT

One thing Abrams has never been, though, is a Trekker. Or a Trekkie. Or even a Trekkist. "Star Trek," he says, referring to the original TV series, "always felt like a silly, campy thing. I remember appreciating it, but feeling like I didn't get it. I felt it didn't give me a way in. There was a captain, there was this first officer, they were talking a lot about adventures and not having them as much as I would've liked. Maybe I wasn't smart enough, maybe I wasn't old enough. But The Twilight Zone I was obsessed with. Loved it."

Any new addition to the Star Trek universe must manoeuvre through a dense asteroid belt of existing Trek lore that has accumulated after 79 episodes of the original series, its TV successors (The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Enterprise), 10 movies and innumerable other spin-offs. But Abrams's ignorance was, he says, an asset: "I had no idea there had been 10 movies! I still haven't seen them all. I didn't want to become a student of Star Trek. I felt that was actually one of the few advantages I had. I was trying to make a movie, not trying to make a Trek movie."
_____________________________


You are right. The movie failed you and Star Trek fans like you. At that time, you, and Star Trek fans like you, anticipated seeing a representation of the franchise from 1965 to that present. Unfortunately, you, and Star Trek fans like you, did not know the mindset of the director tabbed to make the movie. You, and Star Trek fans like you, spent your money on something that was never going to be seen on screen.

On the other hand, Star Trek fans like myself knew Abrams' film would not copy the established franchise. And while I also had problems with the movie:

• "lol. Kirk really should have died on that ice planet."
• "Not opening your parachute is dumb way to die."
• "Everyone should have died at the black hole. And how is Nero's ship just SITTING within the event horizon of a black hole???"
• (After re-watching it years later) "Why is Thor Kirk's daddy?"

--I had fun with the overall re-imagination of Gene Roddenberry's ideal. No. Not as a replacement but nothing could replace what can before. Yet, this was a re-writing of the entire established Star Trek universe. Similar? Yeah. Different? Of course. The man making the film said it would be.

In my opinion, Karl Urban and Simon Pegg were GREAT as McCoy and Scotty, respectively. Urban's Deforest Kelley was superb, in fact. Zoe Saldana? 'nuff said. The true Star Trek fan in Zachary Quinto shined through and it showed on screen. Cardboard? Please. Very few actors I am familiar with at that time could have pulled off Leonard Nimoy just as well as Quinto did or better. "A walking talking Christopher Pike?" Fantastic twist on the character. The special effects were top rate. Lastly, the action pretty darn good.

Oh well. Opinions differ.

Click to expand...

DallasEast said:

That reads like you felt ambushed by the movie. I know how it feels to be ambushed when a director is silent about his or her vision. Or talks his or her butt off about recreating movie, book or television series like it was originally.

However, JJ Abrams ambushed no one. He was very candid about not remaking the Star Trek franchise after the remake was announced. Here is an excerpt from one of his interviews before his Star Trek was released:

JJ Abrams: 'I never got Star Trek' (link)
Steve Rose
Wed 6 May 2009 19.01 EDT

One thing Abrams has never been, though, is a Trekker. Or a Trekkie. Or even a Trekkist. "Star Trek," he says, referring to the original TV series, "always felt like a silly, campy thing. I remember appreciating it, but feeling like I didn't get it. I felt it didn't give me a way in. There was a captain, there was this first officer, they were talking a lot about adventures and not having them as much as I would've liked. Maybe I wasn't smart enough, maybe I wasn't old enough. But The Twilight Zone I was obsessed with. Loved it."

Any new addition to the Star Trek universe must manoeuvre through a dense asteroid belt of existing Trek lore that has accumulated after 79 episodes of the original series, its TV successors (The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Enterprise), 10 movies and innumerable other spin-offs. But Abrams's ignorance was, he says, an asset: "I had no idea there had been 10 movies! I still haven't seen them all. I didn't want to become a student of Star Trek. I felt that was actually one of the few advantages I had. I was trying to make a movie, not trying to make a Trek movie."
_____________________________


You are right. The movie failed you and Star Trek fans like you. At that time, you, and Star Trek fans like you, anticipated seeing a representation of the franchise from 1965 to that present. Unfortunately, you, and Star Trek fans like you, did not know the mindset of the director tabbed to make the movie. You, and Star Trek fans like you, spent your money on something that was never going to be seen on screen.

On the other hand, Star Trek fans like myself knew Abrams' film would not copy the established franchise. And while I also had problems with the movie:

• "lol. Kirk really should have died on that ice planet."
• "Not opening your parachute is dumb way to die."
• "Everyone should have died at the black hole. And how is Nero's ship just SITTING within the event horizon of a black hole???"
• (After re-watching it years later) "Why is Thor Kirk's daddy?"

--I had fun with the overall re-imagination of Gene Roddenberry's ideal. No. Not as a replacement but nothing could replace what can before. Yet, this was a re-writing of the entire established Star Trek universe. Similar? Yeah. Different? Of course. The man making the film said it would be.

In my opinion, Karl Urban and Simon Pegg were GREAT as McCoy and Scotty, respectively. Urban's Deforest Kelley was superb, in fact. Zoe Saldana? 'nuff said. The true Star Trek fan in Zachary Quinto shined through and it showed on screen. Cardboard? Please. Very few actors I am familiar with at that time could have pulled off Leonard Nimoy just as well as Quinto did or better. "A walking talking Christopher Pike?" Fantastic twist on the character. The special effects were top rate. Lastly, the action pretty darn good.

Oh well. Opinions differ.

Click to expand...

Reverend Conehead said:

"I had no idea there had been 10 movies! I still haven't seen them all. I didn't want to become a student of Star Trek."
JJ Abrams

That one quote shows that he should never have been hired to direct Star Trek. I had not read/heard any interviews with him before that movie came out. I often don't do that. I just check out a movie once it arrives, then if I think it's good I might check out some interviews. I will say his terrible Trek movies aren't all on him. He bears partial responsibility. He was the wrong person for the job, and the interview you've posted shows that they had evidence of that. He also didn't write those movies. They must have hired either a chimpanzee with a typewriter or a hung-over college fat boy to write them, because, man, that writing was bad. But, besides, Abrams, Paramount and the writers bear some responsibility for how bad those fake-Trek movies turned out. Problem is, they probably don't care, as the movies made money anyway. The studios are way more concerned with profit than in quality story telling. If they could come out with Rocky, Part 87, and star some skinny kid from a boy band, they would do it IF it would make money, no matter how awful that story would be and no matter how pathetic it would be compared to the original.

Click to expand...

BigStar said:

Speed 2 --- A cruise ship may go too fast...this was a script? I love that Keanu said no to this...

Mod Squad: rarely do I walk out of a movie, but remember doing so here.

Simon Sez with Dennis Rodman

Bride of Chucky - an already hard to believe premise goes full comedy

Unhinged - Russel Crowe who I usually like has gained a ton of weight and shot almost the whole movie from the drivers seat of an SUV. About a road rage incident but was really bad...I remember them trying to make the term "raged on" a slang term for road rage and it just wasn't working but they pushed on lol

Click to expand...

paladin said:

Pearl Harbor
Flightplan
The only movies I've ever paused... simply so I could jeer and mock them.
Black Panther
Not bad, but the most overhyped movie in history

Click to expand...

Trendnet said:

I always thought the Onion's take on the new Star Trek was always apt -

Click to expand...

terra said:

Then they should not have called it Star Trek. IF they were going to crap all over the original idea and concept, then name it something else.

Click to expand...

DallasEast said:

Click to expand...

BigStar said:

That was good stuff...I don't know anything about Star Trek but this explains the angles pretty well (for an outsider anyway)

Click to expand...

Khartun said:

I can see how some Trek fans don't like the remake but to call it the worst movie of all time is ridiculous. It was a solid movie. I'll watch it any time I see it on TV. That's like people hating on Rob Zombies Halloween. Yes, the original is better but his version isn't that bad.

Click to expand...

Good times.