What's everyone's least favorite movie?

Post Reply New Topic

Ed Wood''s, Plan 9, is a bad film by most objective standards, but it works well as an unintentional comedy. Other Bad films are just bad.

What is your least favorite bad film? I am going to choose Dawn of Justice. These are some of my reasons:

-Ma Kent seems to be an objectivist in this movie. That's okay, but aren't Clarke's human parents supposed to be the main people who inspire him to be a shining beacon of goodness for all of humanity?

-The film contains multiple realistic acts of terror. Isn't this supposed to be escapist fun?

-Batman is an unrepentant mass murderer, and an idiot.

Roller Boogie (1979) starring Linda Blair. Yikes.

Runner-up: Dungeons & Dragons (2000).

I don't think it gets any worse than these two :

Any war film....and Grease.

Harry Potter.

Any rom-com chick-flick.

I'm going to try to pick personal least favourites that I've had the misfortune to see rather than the usual suspects like Plan 9 or Manos: Hands of Fate although I have seen both of those.

Unranked least favourites include:
- Charlie's Angels (and sequel)
- Catwoman
- Movie 43
- I Don't Know How She Does It
- Crossroads (the Britney Spears film that I was forced to see)

I think films like The Room or Birdemic have some kind of amateur charm in which you can find amusement but ones like the above just make me sad for various reasons.

A Bug's Life.

The Room is the absolute worst thing I have ever seen yet at the same time it is absolutely compelling... it barely makes a shred of sense, has some of the most obscenely pathetic dialogue and character development I've ever seen and has the cohesion of a gnat made out of elastic or something. I rewatch it every now and then just to try to unravel the lunacy of it... I have no idea what's wrong with the director/main character but he seems completely deranged. I find it hard to believe he didn't make the film as a completely intentional horrific mess but he seems legit and to have embraced the fact everyone thinks his film is the greatest error in the history of cinema, it now has a cult following.

-I should have said about Ma Kent that she is a misanthrope. She doesn't say enough to be considered an objectivist.

-I didn't see that version of Crossroads, but I liked the Crossroads movie directed by Walter Hill with Steve Vai as the Devil.

Star Wars: Episode VII (or the force awakens, Whichever way you wanna call it!)

Honestly I think it is the worst Star Wars film in the series next to the prequels, because at lest the prequels had a few remarkable moments.

I think the film tried WAY too hard to satisfy the Original trilogy fans. While that may sound fine and dandy on paper, it's really stupid in reality. Not only was the film very similar to episode IV but it managed to get away with bad writing, a TERRIBLE Marry Sue character (*cough* Rey *cough*) and a discount Revenge of the Sith Anakin Skywalker (*cough* Kylo Ren *cough*)

*sigh* I might as well explian.

1. the lazy writing - when you start asking yourself questions like "Why didn't Captain Phazma fight back when she was taken hostage by Pole, Chewie and Han?" and "If Rey was able to posses a New Order trooper, why didn't she just ask him to escort her to a nearby escape pod/Tie fighter?" You know the writers weren't really there to revive this beloved franchise, oh no! They were most likely there for this worthless pieces of paper here:



And really just by the fact that the lazy writing, Oh wait I'm sorry, the "Mysteries" let to the creation of many theory videos on YouTube just shows how Disney was likely inspired by a certain franchise. I'm not quite sure which one but I know it had something to do with a bear.



I think it's pretty clear that the movie follow the "Let's make this movie as mysterious as possible so that it can generate millions of theory videos on the internet that way we can get free publicity" mentality.

2. The phony planets - What's the point of creating "new" planets like Jakku if they are gonna be so darn similar to the original trilogy planets!? If they wanted to be cheap then why didn't they just recycle the planets from both the prequel and original trilogy only with slight changes? It just shows how desperate the film is in trying to trick and exploit the often nerdy original trilogy fanbase!

3. Why destroy Starkiller base? - Of all the crappy planets I've seen in this movie Starkiller base was one of the best planets in terms of both appearance and concept; a combination of both Hoth and the Death Star?! How cool is that!?

But the movie went up to me and said:



"...We had to destroy Starkillerbase because... Episode IV." Honestly I think it was a wasted opportunity to explore the lair and ideals of the New Order. Heck we don't even know if Captain Phazma is dead!! !

...And you have these animatronic monstrosities to blame for that!

|
V



Thank you Scott Cawthon for ruining the Star Wars franchise for me!

Honestly I think what the film itself embodies is the fact that there's a lot of original trilogy fanboys who think that Star Wars is limited to the films that came around 1977 and 1986 and that the rest of what was produced beyond that doesn't exist.

And being a fan of both trilogies, I think that is wrong. Not only because it is simple human bigotry towards the people who grew up with the prequels (myself included) but also because they are doing a disservice to a franchise that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

I'm hoping to do an review on it on YouTube someday.

I saw Memento back when it came out in 2000 or 2001. I know it's a well-made probably fine movie...but it was bleak and dark, it made me more depressed. It is my least favorite because of how I felt afterwards.

As much as I might get lynched for this, I really hate Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. It strays too far from the already great source material it was based on, the Oompa Loompa's were hideous looking, and also, WHAT THE FLYING HELL WAS THAT TUNNEL SCENE DOING IN THE MOVIE!?!. It was never in the book and it literally serves no purpose. I also can't understand those who hold it up as this perfect masterpiece when it's clearly flawed in numerous areas. I could go on more about the problems I have with it, but I'll just leave it at this.

Ouija.

Hancock