Movies you regret watching

[Ursus the Grim]

I think the worst movie I ever sat through was Silent Hill: Revelations. It was just so incredibly . . . bad.

I mean, there was Human Centipede, but we all kind of know what happens with that, so its disqualified.

[KillingAScarab]

I mean, there was Human Centipede, but we all kind of know what happens with that, so its disqualified.

This is a movie I regret being aware of through cultural osmosis.

[quinron]

My freshman year at college, I went with a group of friends to see The Campaign, the Will Ferrell/Zach Galiafanakis movie. I was used to paying $3-6 for a movie back home; this was the first time I had to pay $15 to see a 2D movie. I sat through the whole thing growing increasingly irritated at both the fact that I'd paid so much for it and that I'd now have to sit through it all because I rode to the theater with the others. I've seen worse movies, definitely, but I've never seen one that treated its audience with such contempt and considered them to be such imbeciles.

Dylan McDermott was pretty fun in it, though.

[8BitNinja]

Interstellar: It may be that I don't really enjoy hard sci fi, but to me it was so boring.

[2D8HP]

Interstellar: It may be that I don't really enjoy hard sci fi, but to me it was so boring.

I kinda wish it bored me:

The movie?
ConfessIon: I cried (It's easy for movies to do that to me, years ago a classmate said of how similarly easy it is to get me to laugh hard, "your like a cheap date").

[Aedilred]

Interstellar: It may be that I don't really enjoy hard sci fi, but to me it was so boring.

I don't think it's even particularly hard as sci-fi goes, to be honest. I think in many respects it fell between two stools: too much scientific mumbo-jumbo for people who wanted a popcorn blockbuster, too much handwaved scientific nonsense for people who actually take an interest in that side of things.

[BeerMug Paladin]

There's only two movies I can recall that have prompted the strongest, most viscerally negative reaction from me. These are as negative as possible a reaction as I've ever had, so I suppose they fit the criterion for the thread:

Chronicles of Riddick. The Avengers.

If a movie is truly horrendous, I'll just turn it off and/or find something else to do. In the case of seeing it with others, lightly mocking a movie for its glaring flaws or stupidity can make the experience better, if the movie itself isn't working. There's a lot of bad I've seen where doing such is enjoyable, so while I may be able to name other movies which might be worse on technical merits, my actual viewing experience doesn't reflect that distinction.

So if I were to see something remarkably bad in a theater, or are enthusiastically shown a movie by someone who thinks it's amazing... Such an environment creates a very unpleasant viewing experience.

Given how common bad movies are, I'm not really sure why those are the only two for me that come to mind. I suppose I'm either easy to entertain or extraordinarily lucky to have only had such a confluence of factors occur for me twice (that I can recall).

[Misereor]

About half, I guess.
But corny kung-fu movies from the 70's are not among them, no matter how atrociously written or executed.

[Eldan]

I don't think it's even particularly hard as sci-fi goes, to be honest. I think in many respects it fell between two stools: too much scientific mumbo-jumbo for people who wanted a popcorn blockbuster, too much handwaved scientific nonsense for people who actually take an interest in that side of things.

Yup, that. I didn't find the visual effects all that impressive, or at least the shots used to show them off, most of the characters were rather flat and if you looked at the science long enough, it made no sense.

I mean, for the obvious one: if a plague is killing off all plant life, can't we grow plant in sterile greenhouses? If we can't grow plants in sterile greenhouses, how exactly are we moving plants to a new planet or space station that prevents that problem? And if that works, why not use that method to grow plants in greenhouses?

And then then there was the ending, which was so bad.

[Telonius]

Battlefield Earth
The Scarlet Letter (1995 version, Demi Moore/Gary Oldman/Robert Duval)

Not exactly a movie, but I think a TV miniseries is close enough to count:
Earthsea. In my entire life, nothing else has inspired such white-hot nerdrage in me than this.

[Keltest]

Yup, that. I didn't find the visual effects all that impressive, or at least the shots used to show them off, most of the characters were rather flat and if you looked at the science long enough, it made no sense.

I mean, for the obvious one: if a plague is killing off all plant life, can't we grow plant in sterile greenhouses? If we can't grow plants in sterile greenhouses, how exactly are we moving plants to a new planet or space station that prevents that problem? And if that works, why not use that method to grow plants in greenhouses?

And then then there was the ending, which was so bad.

As interesting as that would be, greenhouses, sterile or otherwise, are probably not going to be enough to sustain, say, agriculture for a human population of any significant size.

[Peelee]

About half, I guess.
But corny kung-fu movies from the 70's are not among them, no matter how atrociously written or executed.

Oh man, being a Jackie Chan fan is both glorious and difficult. He's amazing, but there's a lot of crap to wade through. I love each and every one despite their badness, though, because it's still Jackie Chan having just great comedic instincts, so they're always still enjoyable.

[RyumaruMG]

Oh man, being a Jackie Chan fan is both glorious and difficult. He's amazing, but there's a lot of crap to wade through. I love each and every one despite their badness, though, because it's still Jackie Chan having just great comedic instincts, so they're always still enjoyable.

Plus it's pretty clear that Jackie Chan loves what he's doing, so even bad movies are enjoyable when he's in them.

I'm usually pretty choosy about movies I watch, but there's one that just makes me want to go back in time and slap myself for wanting to see. ****ing Epic Movie. Okay, mainly I went to hang out with friends, but holy mother of the entire Dawn War Pantheon it was awful. I don't know what I really expected, but what I got was a couple of thirteen year old Adam Sandler fans making a movie on a blockbuster budget. I could have written a better movie.

[digiman619]

Logan. I regret watching Logan.Not that it was a bad movie or anything, but I went in blind based on the other X-Men movies and is seemed exploitative. Every second I saw it, it screamed "This only exists because Deadpool was R". Deadpool cursing like a sailor made sense to his character. Xavier saing the F word seemed cheap and unnatural because I've seen him in a half dozen flims where he didn't. They were also gory for the sale of being gory. I will believe you that the green liquid heals wounds. I don't need to see you regrow that guy's eye back.

Now I will admit, the cinematography was suberb, and the acting was great. If you're in the mood for a dark tale, it can be quite enjoyable. But I was watching it with my not-so-young anymore mother and it felt off-putting. I really should have waited the week or two for the Power Rangers movie to come out. Much more of a fun film to watch with your folks.

[Rodin]

I don't think it's even particularly hard as sci-fi goes, to be honest. I think in many respects it fell between two stools: too much scientific mumbo-jumbo for people who wanted a popcorn blockbuster, too much handwaved scientific nonsense for people who actually take an interest in that side of things.

I was actually thinking about Interstellar while watching Guardians of the Galaxy 2. There's a lot in the latter that would have driven me nuts in a movie that was trying to be even slightly realistic. By the time they were going through the "quantum asteroid field", my brain finally took the hint and shut down its suspension of disbelief centers for the night.

Naturally occurring teleporting asteroids? Sure, why not? Pass another beer, wouldya?

[The New Bruceski]

Sausage Party. Don't watch Sausage Party.

[Mikemical]

The American, with George Clooney. Literally the first time I was the only person inside the theater. After the film ended, I understood why.

Also, Drag me to Hell. I went in expecting anything but ridiculous, over-the-top "spoooooooooky" effects and a predictable plot that left me wondering if I should've spent my money better by instead buying myself another pop-corn bag.

[GolemsVoice]

Heh, Drag me to Hell. As far as I know, that movie was supposed to be kind of a throwback/homage to the old B-movie horror films, and Sam Reimi of Evil Dead fame directed it. Thing for me was that the movie was neither so bad it was good (which can be done intentionally) nor just good. Had the movie been a bit more in one or the other direction, it would have been good. That way, it sat right in the middle of both types and turned out bad.

[8BitNinja]

I found the very first Star Trek movie to be incredibly boring.

Strangely enough, I liked every other one.

[Gnoman]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a mediocre episode padded out to three hours by gratuitious special effects intended to imitate 2001. It is no wonder why you wouldn't like it, you can cut a huge amount of the runtime out without anybody noticing something is wrong.

[Lentrax]

I found the very first Star Trek movie to be incredibly boring.

Strangely enough, I liked every other one.

Even 5? I don't believe you.

[Mystic Muse]

Even 5? I don't believe you.

Well, there were only 3.

Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and the Journey Home.

No other movies exist.

Especially not ones where the moral is technology is bad.

[KillingAScarab]

Logan. I regret watching Logan.Not that it was a bad movie or anything, but I went in blind based on the other X-Men movies and is seemed exploitative. Every second I saw it, it screamed "This only exists because Deadpool was R". Deadpool cursing like a sailor made sense to his character. Xavier saing the F word seemed cheap and unnatural because I've seen him in a half dozen flims where he didn't.
...
Now I will admit, the cinematography was suberb, and the acting was great. If you're in the mood for a dark tale, it can be quite enjoyable. But I was watching it with my not-so-young anymore mother and it felt off-putting. I really should have waited the week or two for the Power Rangers movie to come out. Much more of a fun film to watch with your folks.

I felt like there were a number of subjects which the movie touched on which do make it deserving of an R rating other than the profanity (though there was justification as well). I found myself explaining to my mother, who quite enjoyed Hugh Jackman in the other X-Men movies, how the combination of child soldiers, senescence and Shane would probably be difficult to tackle without the R rating. That said, I wanted them to draw more upon those elements, and I think they especially explain Charles Xavier's behavior. Patrick Stewart had previously professed a love for Shane, so I liked that he got to do something with that. I didn't regret seeing it; I didn't think it was the best superhero film ever, or even my favorite X-Men film.

They were also gory for the sale of being gory. I will believe you that the green liquid heals wounds. I don't need to see you regrow that guy's eye back.

How many times did Logan's claws barely knick something and then rocket through it, or cut something perfectly in half (despite having three claws)? I lost count.

[digiman619]

I felt like there were a number of subjects which the movie touched on which do make it deserving of an R rating other than the profanity (though there was justification as well). I found myself explaining to my mother, who quite enjoyed Hugh Jackman in the other X-Men movies, how the combination of child soldiers, senescence and Shane would probably be difficult to tackle without the R rating. That said, I wanted them to draw more upon those elements, and I think they especially explain Charles Xavier's behavior. Patrick Stewart had previously professed a love for Shane, so I liked that he got to do something with that. I didn't regret seeing it; I didn't think it was the best superhero film ever, or even my favorite X-Men film.

How many times did Logan's claws barely knick something and then rocket through it, or cut something perfectly in half (despite having three claws)? I lost count.

You have a point, but it seems to me that this tale was written by someone who hated Deadpool and wanted to "show them how it's done". Deadpool was light in tone, Logan was almost grimdark*. Deadpool was mostly respectful with the violence, Logan was incredibly gory. Deadpool made a lot of sex jokes. Logan has none (though with X-23 there for most of the film, that was probably the wise choice).

I'm not besmirching the film, but it left me feeing depressed and annoyed. Admittedly, that was on me, but I do regret watching it.

Spoiler: *

Show

I mean, every named character that wasn't one of the child soldiers died, usually horribly.

.

[Aedilred]

Heh, Drag me to Hell. As far as I know, that movie was supposed to be kind of a throwback/homage to the old B-movie horror films, and Sam Reimi of Evil Dead fame directed it. Thing for me was that the movie was neither so bad it was good (which can be done intentionally) nor just good. Had the movie been a bit more in one or the other direction, it would have been good. That way, it sat right in the middle of both types and turned out bad.

I really enjoyed Drag Me to Hell. I felt it managed to combine moments that were genuinely horrifying with a general sense of the absurdity of the genre, which it embraced rather than shying away. And the levity of the tone of most of the film made the "scary" parts all the worse, for me at least. I'm not sure which part gives me the shivers most, the car sequence, the grave sequence, or the ending.

But each to his own, I guess.

[Lethologica]

You have a point, but it seems to me that this tale was written by someone who hated Deadpool and wanted to "show them how it's done". Deadpool was light in tone, Logan was almost grimdark*. Deadpool was mostly respectful with the violence, Logan was incredibly gory. Deadpool made a lot of sex jokes. Logan has none (though with X-23 there for most of the film, that was probably the wise choice).

I'm not besmirching the film, but it left me feeing depressed and annoyed. Admittedly, that was on me, but I do regret watching it.

Spoiler: *

Show

I mean, every named character that wasn't one of the child soldiers died, usually horribly.

.

Deadpool was respectful of something? That's out of character (and I mean that in the best possible way). Personally, I saw the difference in how the movies treated violence as reflecting the general tone--Deadpool's violence is largely irreverent, and Logan's is earnest to the point of being overwrought.

Logan is a counterpoint to Deadpool, but that doesn't mean it is an attack on Deadpool. It simply has a different intent and appeals to different tastes, for better and worse.

[digiman619]

Deadpool was respectful of something? That's out of character (and I mean that in the best possible way). Personally, I saw the difference in how the movies treated violence as reflecting the general tone--Deadpool's violence is largely irreverent, and Logan's is earnest to the point of being overwrought.

Logan is a counterpoint to Deadpool, but that doesn't mean it is an attack on Deadpool. It simply has a different intent and appeals to different tastes, for better and worse.

"Respectful" might have been the wrong word; I meant that while it was there, it wasn't the focus. I think that you said it best as irreverent/overwrought.

[CozJa]

I rarely go to cinema, and I believe that if I see a movie on tv/internet, no matter how bad it is, it's just me choosing to keep seeing it, therefore I would never name a bad movie seen out of cinema.

But on the topic... Borat. How much I hated that movie. I will never forget expending all the duration of the movie thinking at the fact that I threw away my money when in the other room they were displaying 'the Departed', only because my friends said: "Hey, let's look a funny comedy!"

[AvatarVecna]

There's a number of movies I regret watching in theaters but thought were alright, and movies that I thought were mostly bad that had some interesting questions/ideas/visuals/plotpoints/whatever, but there's only two kinds of movies I really regret watching: on the slightly better end, movies that are ridiculously overhyped for what they deliver, and movies that actively insult the audience's intellect or possible points of view.

Spoiler: Overhyped

Show

Because they'd fill up the list really quickly, just assume that any sequel or remake that came out a decade or more after the first movie is overhyped as a continuation of the first that doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the original, with very few exceptions.

Man Of Steel was a very stylized story about a guy with superpowers who, despite all appearances to the contrary, is not really Superman. Kryptonian Batman and his disjointed timeline of a tragic backstory might've been interesting if they'd been for an original character. They sold this movie hard on this being the newest live-action Superman in their new cinematic universe, and while it wasn't as awful as everybody makes it out to be, it didn't deserve nearly the hype it got.

The original Disney's "Mogli". There were two good songs, and some pretty neat animation, but the movie is basically just a largely-helpless and cludless Mogli aimlessly wandering with no real motivation while a tiger antagonist he's not afraid of is tracking him down to kill him for boring reasons. At the end, Mogli hasn't learned that doesn't belong in the jungle, and only leaves because puberty hits him over the head. The live-action Mogli is one of the exceptions to the above rule: it took the two good songs and inserted them in a way that felt relatively organic for musical numbers in a live action movie, Mogli is actively escaping the villain, is resourceful, and is stubborn enough to try and prove he can make it on his own in the jungle. By the end of the movie, he learns he was wrong, and needed the village's fire to win, and it was Pyrrhic victory at best. He actually affected the plot, the wandering wasn't aimless...I can't say the story was super-interesting, or the CG was super-well done, but both were fine, and with how much it improved upon the first, I'm certainly not complaining.

The Percy Jackson films are very much in the same genre as the Harry Potter and Hunger Games movies. Unlike those movies, the Percy Jackson films didn't deserve being trumpeted as the long-awaited film version.

Fight Club and the Matrix are both overhyped to me for the same reason: they were cool because they started their thing. The musings and philosophical ramblings of these films, the twist ending, the bullet time, the "we're all cogs in a machine, controlled by others" vibe...these movies were great, and set a lot of trends that have since become SO GODDAMN OLD that by the time I watched the movies that made them popular, I was already relatively sick of them.

Guardians of the Galaxy was okay, but as somebody who didn't read comics, I went in expecting Marvel's superheroes, and

12 Angry Men. I have no idea why anybody likes this movie. This is a movie about 12 boring men sitting in a boring room very slowly piecing together a much better story for the audience. A couple actors were giving a pretty good performance, but 12 dudes sitting around a room and talking does not make for good cinema. While I've never confirmed this, I've always gotten the impression that this was originally either a book or a play, and if that's the case I imagine they were probably better.

Spoiler: Insulting

Show

Alice In Wonderland 2. I saw the first movie on TV and thought it was okay, but not cinema worthy. So I waited to see the second one on TV also...and that was a complete waste of time. The best part of the movie is about two minutes worth of the March Hare and the Mad Hatter as ******* teenagers trading time puns while Time himself is sitting their grumpily waiting for Alice. The worst part of this movie how you could cut out the middle hour if Alice had stuck to her motto of "nothing is impossible", instead of calling the Hatter's ravings impossible and then using time travel to prove it. I particularly despise what could've been a very subtle moment of foreshadowing had they removed just three words from the script, but because those three words remained was instead a bullhorn shouting the plot "twist" in my ear. Any other poor soul who's seen the movie will know what I'm talking about. I was watching this with my 7 year old cousin, and even she kind of had a double take at that part.

Spoiler: The Plot and it's "Twist"

Show

Alright, so quick plot summary: the Hatter is dying of a broken heart because his family he thought was dead he now thinks is actually alive. Alice says them being alive now is impossible, and goes to steal a Time Machine from Time to prove it and the find out what happened to the Hatter's family. She arrives at Time's fortress, and witnesses Time walking into a room of ticking clocks, pluck one out of the air because it was about to stop (and when it stopped, it quickly cut to some dude dying), and then Time carried the watch into a room of stopped clocks, where rows and rows of stopped clocks (which are, again, dead people) are going into the distance forever. I will remind you at this moment that the Hatter's surname is "Hightop". With that in mind, here are Time's words while bringing the clock to its place - right next to a row of empty chains still waiting for stopped clocks (or an approximation):

"Hiddleton...Higglesworth...not arrived yet...Hijazi...ah, there we go."

Independence Day 2. I liked Independence Day well enough, but it's very much a "turn off your brain and enjoy the popcorn" kind of action movie, and Will Smith being awesome certainly saves parts of it. Will Smith's absence from the second one sucks, his two replacements aren't even worth a quarter-Smith each (not that they're awful, but it's Will Smith), and the plot is the typical sequel schtick of "it's the same plot as the first movie, but more so!" Unlike other sequels that do this though, humanity repeating the things it did last time actively make what was once an interesting plot look even worse. Independence Day worked because the technology felt realistic, and was obviously inferior, and we were caught by surprised and so many monuments were destroyed. The tenseness of "can we trust the aliens" builds the atmosphere early in the movie, and when they strike, they strike hard, and humanity is put into an underdog position hard and fast. This sets up the first movie to end with an action-packed climax of a come-from-behind victory, and it largely delivers. The new movie, we have no excuse. We have another 20 years of building technology based on the alien tech, we had another 20 years to try and plan for a second invasion, and yet humanity largely rested on their laurels, trusting in an orbital defense system that was (from the alien's perspective) 20 years old, then when that failed we resorted to the same tactics we used last time...which, given what we see in this movie, seems to be about the only thing the aliens really prepared for us to do. There was a lot of other stupid stuff in this movie, but that's the big one for me: that in copying the basic plot without maintaining the plot points that made it work originally, they managed to make the plot worse. Most sequels that have the same plot as the original are just okay because they're nothing new, but if Independence Day had been a prequel that came out after Independence Day 2, ID 2 would still be stupid and make no sense.

Forrest Gump. ****ing Gump...alright, here's a drinking game for you:

1) Take a shot every time the movie props up blind obedience or puts down intellectualism.

2) Take a shot every time the movie presents a left-leaning person or group in a negative light.

3) Take a shot every time Gump's entire effect on an event is "he was present for that thing".

4) Take a shot every time the movie whitewashes history.

5) Take a shot every time Gump does something that should make him a household name, and you remember that basically nobody recognizes him while he's telling this story.

If you're lucky, you'll be dead by the time you're a third of the way through, and the reason you'll be lucky in that case is because it will mean you can stop watching Forrest Gump.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yes, Twelve Angry Men was a play. A very successful, long running one. It's also pretty adaptable, as you can shift emphasis slightly to 'juvenile delinquent', 'race' or whatever button you want to push.