Movies you regret watching

[ZamielVanWeber]

Norbit. I saw it FOR FREE with a chance of winning a free movie ticket (easily a 20$ value where I was) and I still regret going.

[Bohandas]

Wow, that's a good list!

I remember

• 1984 (in Junior High School)
• The Great Gatsby (who's characters I hated)
• Othello
• Julius Caesar
• Great Expectations

and short stories the titles and authors I've forgotten.

That's it.

I think The Great Gatsby was the worst book I've ever read

[Dienekes]

I think The Great Gatsby was the worst book I've ever read

Huh, one of the few I enjoyed that year.

Mind you, that was also the year I read Ethan Frome and The Awakening. So it's not like it had much in the way of competition.

[tomandtish]

Alien: Covenant. A lot of dull moments, very cliche plot. Just another Alien movie...

Made even worse by the fact that the humans are so stupid they deserve to die.

Spoiler

Show

Yes, let's sets down on an alien planet and wear no protective gear at all. Strange flora? Sure, I'll stick my nose up to it and inhale!

I can't say I regretted watching it because at least I saw the improvement of the gene pool by the end. If this is the future's best and brightest, them I welcome our alien overlords.

[Peelee]

Really every Quentin Tarintino film except Kill Bill has been regrettable for the same reason as From Dusk Til Dawn they all have one or two really good scenes that draw me in and make me watch it and then I when I watch the film I realize I've already seen everything in the movie worth watching during those clips or previews I saw and that most of the movie is just filler.

The most egregious example is Death Proof which had no worthwhile scenes at all but I watched because it was part of a double feature with Planet Terror

EDIT:
I have a similar problem with Will Ferrell movies. If you've already seen the fight scene from Anchorman (and the scene that i,mediately follows it) there's no reason to watch the rest of the film, because while those two scenes are great, thay're the only good scenes in the entire movie

I also hate Tarantino and most Will Ferrell movies*, but Anchorman holds a special place in hell. Every single scene in the trailers and teasers I saw was apparently cut from the final film. They literally advertised a movie I did not see. Which was especially odd, since those were actually funny, while the movie was not.

*specifically, all the movies where he plays the exact same character, but in a different setting. Ridiculously stupid anchorman, ridiculously stupid NASCAR driver, ridiculously stupid basketball player, etc etc. I love Will Ferrell in movies where he plays an actual role, like The Producers or Stranger than Fiction. He's incredibly funny when he's not doing his schtick. Also, I feel the exact same way about Jim Carrey. Love the guy when he's not doing Ace Ventura: Batman Villain, or Ace Ventura: Lawyer Who Can't Lie. Hell, Yes Man was basically Liar Liar with 95% less Ace Ventura, and it was enjoyable.

[Bohandas]

Also Rogue One. I did not need to see Rogue One. That was not a proper Star Wars film and I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

And what the hell was up with that extremist rebel who didn't do anything? And that explosion that moved in slow motion despite everything else in front of it moving in real time; WTF!?

[sktarq]

New one to add to the list.

mother! (non capitalized but with exclamation for meaning)

I was pissed off. I was annoyed. This wasn't a story. This had no people in it, there were artistic statements in human form. I found the questions of how people (such as "man", "woman", "Him" (capitalized because meaning), sons, several large crowds), things (food (there was no garden), building supplies, electricity, etc) got to and from the house in which it is set than the story itself (external shots show there are no roads, support structures, signs of vehicles, etc.-because earth allegory?)

All this meant I couldn't care at all about what was going on in the movie. Baby being eaten by frenzied mob-no reaction beyond mild insult for trying to get me to feel without actually putting any work into it. 20-30 minutes of torturing of Jennifer Lawrence (she didn't actually have enough of a character for me to ever not see it as the actress) with a totally-do-not-believe-it pregnancy belly? Do not care. Suspension of disbelief, empathizing with characters, and all that never happened. Which under a constant blacksmith's hammer beat of "this is important" and "this is ART/the ARTIST experience" just was infuriating.

I read somewhere that of a 115 min run time 66 minutes were close ups. I'd believe that. It was shot and edited in such a way as to make me actively notice it. That just takes me out of the movie and makes the whole thing feel like it was dragging even more.

as for the acting? Well most of them are ACTING!. I mentioned they no real characters just allegory. There is a try hard aspect to the whole thing every minute. Ed Harris seems confused and from what his character seems to be asked to do I'm not surprised. And dropped right into this is Michelle Pfeiffer. And she's great. She brings a humanness to a role just as inhuman as everyone else's. She feels solid and vibrant. You don't really like her character (woman, that's her character-because meaning) is vile but the acting is good. And by contrast she shows just how weak every other character is in the piece. So even the good things are bad.

As "what's it about" questions that my friends have been giving me when I've warned them off. The story of genesis, rape of the natural world, theatre of cruelty, the importance of bracing sinks, the woe of being an ARTIST or being in love with one, global warming, fame, house refinishing, madness, baby torture, ...and in large part because of all of the above its actually about absolutely nothing.

As a spur for think pieces and articles and critic "conversations" it seems to have been great. As a movie I'd say it came from the back end of a male bovine while reeking of pretentiousness and calling it the finest perfume.

And I generally like Oscar-bait artsy films.

[Peelee]

Also Rogue One. I did not need to see Rogue One. That was not a proper Star Wars film and I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

And what the hell was up with that extremist rebel who didn't do anything? And that explosion that moved in slow motion despite everything else in front of it moving in real time; WTF!?

Spoiler: Just for people doing the Darths and Droids challenge

Show

Saw was from Clone Wars, ithink? Not sure, didn't care much for it so I didn't see much. Anyway, his entire existence in Rebels and Rogue One was to more closely tie them all into each other. Because that's what Star Wars needs, a smaller universe where everyone has six degrees of separation.

[137beth]

Ooh, I watched Rogue One two days before Darths and Droids started their version, because I thought I’d need to see the movie to understand the comic. And then I found out a bunch of people were reading the comic without having seen the movie?!? I had refrained from watching any Hollywood movies since 2014, yet I broke my boycott of Hollywood on account of a comic which turned out not to require knowledge of the movie. I’ve been bamboozled!

[Peelee]

Ooh, I watched Rogue One two days before Darths and Droids started their version, because I thought I’d need to see the movie to understand the comic.

Had you seen Eps 1-6, and seen the Darths and Droids versions? Because if so, then you should have known that was an unnecessary decision.

[DataNinja]

Had you seen Eps 1-6, and seen the Darths and Droids versions? Because if so, then you should have known that was an unnecessary decision.

To be fair, the things are funnier if you know what actually happens. But, then again, that's like saying donuts are tastier if you add sprinkles.

[137beth]

Had you seen Eps 1-6, and seen the Darths and Droids versions? Because if so, then you should have known that was an unnecessary decision.

I'd seen episodes 1 through 6, and read the D&D versions. I probably could have understood D&D without watching the movies, but I don't think I'd have enjoyed it nearly as much.

That said, I don't think Rogue One really qualifies as a movie I "regret" watching. Sure, it's not normally the kind of film I'd get excited about, and it does seem a bit weird to me that I broke my three year not-really-a-boycott of major Hollywood studios for something like this. But I did enjoy watching it, so I don't regret it. Did I like it enough to want to watch future Star Wars spin-offs? Not really. I'll probably still watch episodes VII, VIII, and IX eventually, though.

[Hrobar]

On Rogue One I have the exact opposite view. That was literally what i wanted from a new Star Wars movie.

A new story that isn't awkwardly and insistently poking me in my hips every two seconds screaming in my ears "HEY! DID YOU GOT THAT? IT'S BECAUSE 20 YEARS AGO WE DID THAT THING. REMEMBER? WHEN WE DID THAT THING? DIDN'T YOU LOOOVE THAT THING? EEH? EEEEEH?"

Sure, there's plenty of references in Rogue One too, but leaving a pair of moments/scenes aside it's still his own movie.
Not like that regrettable nightmare that was Episode 7 for me. Starkiller Base's sheer amount of pure stupidity for the sake of fanservice still haunts me to this day.

[Vinyadan]

I also am in the "Rogue 1 is good" field. It is different from other SW movies in that there are no "special people" as protagonists: no chosen ones here! But what others see as a generic sci-fi movie, I see as a movie that expands on a part of SW that until now has been only used as a backdrop: the lower tiers. So it's a movie that I see as really giving something different from the others, and I wish there were more like this, especially after the prequels chose to only deal with the uppermost echelons of Galactic society, and the new movies seem like a simple rehash of the old ones.

Which won't heal regret, but I felt like saying :P

[Knaight]

I also am in the "Rogue 1 is good" field. It is different from other SW movies in that there are no "special people" as protagonists: no chosen ones here! But what others see as a generic sci-fi movie, I see as a movie that expands on a part of SW that until now has been only used as a backdrop: the lower tiers. So it's a movie that I see as really giving something different from the others, and I wish there were more like this, especially after the prequels chose to only deal with the uppermost echelons of Galactic society, and the new movies seem like a simple rehash of the old ones.P

It still felt like Star Wars in a lot of ways, and in some ways was a return to form. Yes, there's no chosen ones but it's an eclectic group on the fringes of society up against a powerful force, and there has been Star Wars material that focused on more minor characters before - most notably the Clone Wars series.

[JBPuffin]

Oh yeah...I liked both Rogue One and the Force Awakens...I forget how odd that is on this site. Also that one guy in every lit class who was genuinely interested in most of the books as they came down the pipe for my three years of high school English (senior year took college classes instead; Comp II sucked, Brit Lit could've been better). The Great Gatsby was one of those stories that was important for its audience/critics, but not a bunch of high schoolers - heck, I think the new movie captured the "much ado about nothing" part of the "much ado about nothing turned hell in a handbasket" narrative rather well just by the trailers. A romance that didn't need to happen turned into more than one needless death, and for what?

Come to think of it, that may be the most prominent critique of stories I have these days - I so rarely get a good but why though? for so many stories.

[Bohandas]

Does the end of Rogue One count as diablos ex machina or deus ex machina? The protagonists get killed in completely implausible circumstances when one of the villains tandomly decides that he's going to assassinate a rival using weapons of mass destruction, but the same event that kills them also destroys a tactically important imperial base.

[tomandtish]

Does the end of Rogue One count as diablos ex machina or deus ex machina? The protagonists get killed in completely implausible circumstances when one of the villains tandomly decides that he's going to assassinate a rival using weapons of mass destruction, but the same event that kills them also destroys a tactically important imperial base.

Not sure it counts as either. He has the excuse of an active Rebel presence that is currently stealing information to use.

Don;t get me wrong, it is an excuse, but it is the justification he can use to get rid of the rival.

Along those same lines, it isn't a random decision so much as an unexpected opportunity. Krennick is obviously a rival and Tarkin clearly wants all the credit for the Death Star. I suspect Krennick wasn't long for that galaxy anyway. But now rather than Krennick dying in a random shuttle malfunction, he died when the base had to be destroyed to "stop the Rebels from stealing all the secrets".

[Solaris]

In no particular order:

• Jupiter Ascending: To this day, Jupiter remains one of the dumbest, dumbest movies I've ever seen.
• Chappie: Induced in me a remarkable rage. I wish I remembered more of the revision-by-ranting that I did on the way home; it made for a pretty good story that wasn't so mind-numbingly stupid. I know I posted these two in this thread before, but they were just that bad.
• Man of Steel: Why? Why would you lead off with General Zod, and why would you do it so ****tily? Supes has nowhere to go now! He just defeated his evil alter ego, there's nothing left to do but pick a fight with the local pantheon of evil gods. Just because this is a problem with Superman in general doesn't mean we should race towards it!
  And that's without getting into the obvious stuff like "Are we sure this guy's really a hero, just because he beat up the guy who wanted to kill the planet?" and "Why didn't Zod just terraform Mars? Why didn't Superman take the terraforming stuff to Mars once he figured out what it was?"
• Batman v Superman: I... I don't know what I was expecting after Man of Steel. I guess this one's on me, innit?
• Avatar: The fact that this movie was so popular speaks volumes of the general public. Unfortunately, most of those volumes are entitled "Arguments Against Democratic Government" and "Why Eugenics Isn't a Bad Idea."
• Ghostbusters 2016: I'm not saying that everyone involved with making this movie should be taken out back and executed in methods we haven't used since the Middle Ages. I'm just saying my Christmas list from 2016 got a few raised eyebrows. It's so terrible I wouldn't even pirate it.

Basically, if I've already come up with several ways to improve a movie and can think of nothing I liked about it before I even leave the theater, they done goofed.

I've seen it about four times. I remember nothing.

Not even "Anybody else wanna negotiate?"

[tomandtish]

In no particular order:[LIST][*]Jupiter Ascending: To this day, Jupiter remains one of the dumbest, dumbest movies I've ever seen.

A friend and I had a blast mocking that movie. Actually had to pause it because we were laughing so hard.

[*]Avatar: The fact that this movie was so popular speaks volumes of the general public. Unfortunately, most of those volumes are entitled "Arguments Against Democratic Government" and "Why Eugenics Isn't a Bad Idea."

Are there that many people who actually like the plot and story? I saw it and appreciated it for what it was, which (at the time) was a breakthrough in visuals. But I don't own it and would never want to watch it on a small screen because all it had was the visuals.

In short, I think it was popular for the special effects, not the story. but I could be wrong.

[Bohandas]

[*]Avatar: The fact that this movie was so popular speaks volumes of the general public. Unfortunately, most of those volumes are entitled "Arguments Against Democratic Government" and "Why Eugenics Isn't a Bad Idea."

It's an effects movie. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once the effects become obsolete people who didn't see it when it was new will realize that it's crap (but unfortunately most of the people who saw it when it was new will probably still think it's brilliant, if 2001 is indication)

[Keltest]

It's an effects movie. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once the effects become obsolete people who didn't see it when it was new will realize that it's crap (but unfortunately most of the people who saw it when it was new will probably still think it's brilliant, if 2001 is indication)

Unfortunately, that leaves the four(!) planned sequels in a bit of a sore spot. Theyre unlikely to be all equally revolutionary in some field, and the plot wasn't really strong enough to support the first one, let alone any sequels.

[tomandtish]

Unfortunately, that leaves the four(!) planned sequels in a bit of a sore spot. Theyre unlikely to be all equally revolutionary in some field, and the plot wasn't really strong enough to support the first one, let alone any sequels.

Totally agree. I'm dubious as to whether he'll have enough of a breakthrough in tech to justify one, and I certainly don't see the plot power needed to justify one, let alone four.

[Bohandas]

Unfortunately, that leaves the four(!) planned sequels in a bit of a sore spot. Theyre unlikely to be all equally revolutionary in some field, and the plot wasn't really strong enough to support the first one, let alone any sequels.

Was there a sequel to Fern Gully? Maybe they fould rip that off. It worked successfully enough for the first one. But they need to stay on message this time. Their first knockoff of Fern Gully kept straying off of Fern Gully's environmental message onto trying to guilt people for wars that happened way before anyone alive to be watching the movie was born, way back in the ancient days of the westward expansion

[Metahuman1]

I think there was a direct to video sequel actually.








Frankly, I want them to spend the most money on any movie ever made on the next sequel, rush it out, and have it be a disaster that will still be remembered well in the public collective memory a century after it's come out. And I mean in terms of the money. I want Cameron to loose so much money on that movie that he becomes persona no grata in Hollywood's Studio's so that, with luck, one of these days, BOTH of his terrible two will be knocked out of the top 10 highest grossing movies and replaced with something, if not smart, at least generally enjoyable.




As for 2001: A space Odyssey, there actually is more then just effects, there are ideas that are practically rooted in actual space travel, and it does the cold, sterile atmosphere you'd see in a real comparable mission very well.

And Hal 9000 changed the face of media villain's forever. Heck I'd still argue he's a great warning against too much trust in AI.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

But... what about the new Terminator film(s?) he's working on?

[Peelee]

Frankly, I want them to spend the most money on any movie ever made on the next sequel, rush it out, and have it be a disaster that will still be remembered well in the public collective memory a century after it's come out. And I mean in terms of the money. I want Cameron to loose so much money on that movie that he becomes persona no grata in Hollywood's Studio's so that, with luck, one of these days, BOTH of his terrible two will be knocked out of the top 10 highest grossing movies and replaced with something, if not smart, at least generally enjoyable.

Eh, Hollywood accounting.

[Bohandas]

As for 2001: A space Odyssey, there actually is more then just effects, there are ideas that are practically rooted in actual space travel

Because space travel looks like a kaleidoscope...

[Bohandas]

Frankly, I want them to spend the most money on any movie ever made on the next sequel, rush it out, and have it be a disaster that will still be remembered well in the public collective memory a century after it's come out. And I mean in terms of the money. I want Cameron to loose so much money on that movie that he becomes persona no grata in Hollywood's Studio's so that, with luck, one of these days, BOTH of his terrible two will be knocked out of the top 10 highest grossing movies and replaced with something, if not smart, at least generally enjoyable.

Yeah, James cameron sucks. He used to make good films way way back in the day but for the past twenty years (since 1997) his films have been lame and pretentious.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Yeah, James cameron sucks. He used to make good films way way back in the day but for the past twenty years (since 1997) his films have been lame and pretentious.

Both of them...