› ›

Z is For sleep: your WORST movie EVER

1…5791011

Comments

  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Reading some of these posts, I'm now curious:

    How often do you guys give up on films? If you go out to the movies, how often have you walked out, and if you're watching something at home, how often have you switched a movie off and never come back to it again?

    I can say I have never done either of those. When I sit down to watch a movie (or pay to see one in a theater) I stick with it, and at the very most I'll pause it/save it for later in the day if I feel I need a recharge. This happened with Ben-Hur, where I split my viewing into two parts with an hour or two intermission of sorts.

    I guess my philosophy is always to finish what I start when it comes to cinema, and even if I don't like something part of me is willing to put in the time to finish it to see if it gets better. In other instances I see something just to say I've seen it, then never worry about touching it again.

    I was just curious how other members here handle or deal with films they don't like, as I know a great many here who are very passionate about movies and their perspective is interesting to me.
    I made the experience that if I don´t like the film after 10-20min, that´s not going to change, the same feeling that disturbs me in the beginning is usually staying until the end. Therefore I find it more valuable to use my time with other stuff and walk out if it´s a cinema and I´m alone. Happens not too often, most of the time my cinematic intuition works to my advantage. Sometimes I go to see a sneak preview, where nobody knows in advance which film will be shown. There it can happen more often.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,117
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I made the experience that if I don´t like the film after 10-20min, that´s not going to change, the same feeling that disturbs me in the beginning is usually staying until the end. Therefore I find it more valuable to use my time with other stuff and walk out if it´s a cinema and I´m alone. Happens not too often, most of the time my cinematic intuition works to my advantage.

    I'm curious how you arrive at this conclusion given you never see the rest of the film? An equally valid hypothesis is that you could be missing hundreds of epic films that have a crap first 10-20 mins.
  • JohnBarryFanJohnBarryFan
    Posts: 1,405
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Reading some of these posts, I'm now curious:

    How often do you guys give up on films? If you go out to the movies, how often have you walked out, and if you're watching something at home, how often have you switched a movie off and never come back to it again?

    I can say I have never done either of those. When I sit down to watch a movie (or pay to see one in a theater) I stick with it, and at the very most I'll pause it/save it for later in the day if I feel I need a recharge. This happened with Ben-Hur, where I split my viewing into two parts with an hour or two intermission of sorts.

    I guess my philosophy is always to finish what I start when it comes to cinema, and even if I don't like something part of me is willing to put in the time to finish it to see if it gets better. In other instances I see something just to say I've seen it, then never worry about touching it again.

    I was just curious how other members here handle or deal with films they don't like, as I know a great many here who are very passionate about movies and their perspective is interesting to me.

    Last time I walked out of a film was DAD, I couldn't stand the senseless car chase right after the CGI. That being said, I'm very selective about what I pay to see in the movie theater. When my wife wants to see something I don't have a clear interest in seeing she goes alone.

    At home, out of respect to those who watch a movie with me I'll stick to the end. One exception was Flight with Denzell Washington. 40 minutes of the crap was more than enough.

  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I made the experience that if I don´t like the film after 10-20min, that´s not going to change, the same feeling that disturbs me in the beginning is usually staying until the end. Therefore I find it more valuable to use my time with other stuff and walk out if it´s a cinema and I´m alone. Happens not too often, most of the time my cinematic intuition works to my advantage.

    I'm curious how you arrive at this conclusion given you never see the rest of the film? An equally valid hypothesis is that you could be missing hundreds of epic films that have a crap first 10-20 mins.
    Well, if it makes me fall asleep before it gets epic, I won´t notice much when it gets epic, will I?
    Besides that, my intuition is based a lot on decades of empirical observation since my teenage days. It´s not that I didn´t try, and if I go see the film with friends I´m curteous enough not to walk out on them. I can´t recall seeing an epic film that didn´t pull me somehow in within the first 10-20mins. Can you name some?

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @boldfinger, Citizen Kane comes to mind as a must-see film that is a hard sit for some at the start. Beyond the initial scene showing Kane's death there's the section of documentary style features that detail his life before things get near rolling into gear, which I could see turning away some not prepared for the film's pacing.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @boldfinger, Citizen Kane comes to mind as a must-see film that is a hard sit for some at the start. Beyond the initial scene showing Kane's death there's the section of documentary style features that detail his life before things get near rolling into gear, which I could see turning away some not prepared for the film's pacing.
    @0Brady, I haven´t seen that one yet. I hear only good things about it. But everything has its time, and I feel so far the time hasn´t come for me to watch it.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @boldfinger, I get that. I'm that way with many films. 2001: A Space Odyssey, for instance, has intimidated me for a few years now, and I'm still waiting to take the plunge. It happens when it happens, as you say.
  • cooperman2cooperman2 Uk
    Posts: 380
    Never have walked out of a cinema screening, but i have come close a couple of times. One was Twister. Jan DeBonts second film after the great Speed so i went in with high hopes. An hour into the film and realising it was just going nowhere story wise it just become a chore to watch. More recently i nearly walked out of Star Trek Beyond. Endless CGI mayhem, lousy story and a director with zero understanding of what makes Trek work. As a Trek fan of forty odd years it was breaking my heart to see what they doing to the franchise
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @boldfinger, I get that. I'm that way with many films. 2001: A Space Odyssey, for instance, has intimidated me for a few years now, and I'm still waiting to take the plunge. It happens when it happens, as you say.

    I'm right there with you. I'm always waiting for the "right mindset" so I don't become bored or shut it off halfway through, but I never know when that mindset is, exactly. I'll just have to suck it up and finally give it a try one day, or maybe I can do a Kubrick marathon like I've wanted to do for years now.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @boldfinger, I get that. I'm that way with many films. 2001: A Space Odyssey, for instance, has intimidated me for a few years now, and I'm still waiting to take the plunge. It happens when it happens, as you say.

    I'm right there with you. I'm always waiting for the "right mindset" so I don't become bored or shut it off halfway through, but I never know when that mindset is, exactly. I'll just have to suck it up and finally give it a try one day, or maybe I can do a Kubrick marathon like I've wanted to do for years now.
    On a small scale, I can be very whimsical in that regard. I don´t own many dvds/brs, and I hugely enjoy multiple viewings of films I like. Still, some days I´m just not tuned to watch this or that film. Then some time later, I can get an almost obsessive longing to watch a certain film, and if I watch it then, it makes me very happy indeed.

    On a grander scale, I think sometimes it´s good to wait even decades to watch a certain film, even if then I´ll ask myself why I haven´t watched that film 20 years ago. I watched First Blood once with around 15, and once with around 35. The second time I saw the same film, I remembered lots of scenes in detail, but still my grasp of the film was totally different. I enjoyed it the first time around (mostly for its violence), but I only got a minimum of what I got from it 20 years later.
    I watched 2001 when I was in my middle 20s, and again, I wasn´t mature enough in certain regards to appreciate the film fully, and I feel the right time is still ahead of me.

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,078
    chrisisall wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    being spoon fed a load of leftie propaganda.
    I'm aware that V is a leftist film, just like Red Dawn is a rightie flick... but let me ask you which one comes closer to addressing the real issues our society faces today, eh?
    ;)

    Um, neither of them.....
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,078
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Generally the Dutch cinemas in the South as well as the Belgian ones I visit have an intermission in the middle, you can do a toilet visit or stock up on drinks and or food.

    When we went to see to the Suicide squad we were the only four, me missus and the two daughters, watching this movie and we still got an intermission.

    It is a sensible thing to do to have an intermission.

    If someone can't go a couple of hours without stuffing their face or going to the toilet then I'd find them pretty pathetic.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Here it is, for some strange reason, normal to have intermissions in the countryside, but never in the cities.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Here it is, for some strange reason, normal to have intermissions in the countryside, but never in the cities.

    People in the city have places to be, lives to lead. They can't let their schedules be held back by a simple intermission!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I think the reason may be that the country cinemas have so lousy seats, you need a break to stretch your legs.
  • RobertsonRobertson
    Posts: 170
    Crimson Tide, starring Gene Hackman, the greatest actor ever, and co-starring some smug, arrogant punk.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited June 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Robertson wrote: »
    Crimson Tide, starring Gene Hackman, the greatest actor ever, and co-starring some smug, arrogant punk.

    My God are you joking ????? its brilliant.
    The smug punk is only Denzel Washington,and he is not smug,he just doesn't agree when the sub cant confirm the orders to launch a nuclear missile,due to being damaged by a Soviet sub.
    One of my favourite films of all time ,with an amazing score !!!!

    For me its CR'67...and no joke.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,370
    Birdemic anyone? :p

  • RobertsonRobertson
    Posts: 170
    @barryt007 Now that you mention it, The Siege (1998) may have been worse.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Natural Born Killers!
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    Avatar, maybe? Behind all that CGI, I couldn't find it interesting at all.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,207
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Avatar, maybe? Behind all that CGI, I couldn't find it interesting at all.

    Maybe not the very worst film ever, but for me it's definitely the most overrated.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Grown ups
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    CR 67 is certainly up there.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I know I called Battlefield Earth the worst movie ever before, but that was before I tried watching Baise-Moi.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    Never have walked out of a cinema screening, but i have come close a couple of times. One was Twister. Jan DeBonts second film after the great Speed so i went in with high hopes. An hour into the film and realising it was just going nowhere story wise it just become a chore to watch. More recently i nearly walked out of Star Trek Beyond. Endless CGI mayhem, lousy story and a director with zero understanding of what makes Trek work. As a Trek fan of forty odd years it was breaking my heart to see what they doing to the franchise

    Surely it can't be as bad as Nemesis.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Either The Revenant or Divergent.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Walecs wrote: »
    Either The Revenant or Divergent.

    Why don't you like the Revenant, it's a marvel of filmmaking
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Love Actually, just typing the words makes me want to reach for a bucket
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Avatar, maybe? Behind all that CGI, I couldn't find it interesting at all.

    Maybe not the very worst film ever, but for me it's definitely the most overrated.

    Avatar is actually the worst movie experience I've had. Sure, there are films I've seen where the actors have been bad, or the plot have been poor, etc. Still, those movies have been entertaining on some level; Avatar didn't give me anything, which is a first.
Sign In or Register to comment.