What is your most HATED movie and why?

[cameron326]

Hate is a strong word, but there are a few that are deserving of it! A few of the reasons for my rabid dislike of the movie "Hero" (2002) by zhang Yimou :

1) the horrible ideology promoted by the film: country first, individual last - no matter what kind of horrible, inexcusable shit the state dumps on you - don't fight back. I wonder who benefits from this kind of message being propagated, the corrupt politicians or the people? This is the kind of film that corrupt political elites would PAY to have made. Oh, hang on, they did...

2) the total implausability of the crucial change of heart from the "Hero", Nameless, whose family had been slaughtered by the Emperor's forces. Totally against character until that point. "Stupid Gutless Chicken Shit" would have been a more apt title for this film in light of this.

3) the lack of plot and wooden acting.

4) the gimmicky use of colour - which signified absolutely nothing and was a pure gimmick - and impossibly luxurious backdrops, make the whole film look plasticky and fake. Beautiful in the way that a glamour model's huge fake boobs are beautiful perhaps...

5) the over choreographed, unrealistic, and totally dull fight scenes.

6) the fact that the director of this movie, Zhang, once made films that had soul, and were relevent to Chinese society, before being bought by the CCP.

7)the fact that so many massive Chinese stars were willing to be in the film. Jet Li even took a pay cut to get in it apparently. Jackie Chan, who declined a part according to IMDB, was the notable exception.

8) the fact that this superficial and corrupt pile of horse dung was lapped up by the vast majority of reviewers in the West, becasue of its pretty colours and stupid aerial fight sequences. Not only did they do a disservice to film lovers, but also to the people who in China who saw through this movie for what it was - pure party propaganda - and might at least have expected a bit of a backlash from the West. Instead it went straight to the top of world box offices on its release.

[nauru]

yeah that film gets a lot of hate from mainland China folks. I really liked it (it's in my T10) probably because I'm a westerner and didn't care to read into any symbolism or political/ideological undertone; just took the film for what it appeared to be--a lavishly produced dramatization of a folk tale, filmed in a style that I found extremely immersive and aesthetically pleasing. I personally prefer films that put a lot of work into constumes, sets and extras, as opposed to the faux-minimalism of indy flicks which is really just a cover for insufficient resources and/or skill to produce polished work. It is rare these days to find a film that doesn't skimp on paying extras to be in crowd scenes so I really appreciate when crowds are done well. To be honest I would have preferred if there was no flying in Hero. If there's one thing I hate about Chinese cinema it's all the flying. But in this case the flying was rather minimal and didn't detract too much from the rest of the folk-tale-like story for me.

[cameron326]

in fact the first time I saw the movie when it came out, I would harve put it in my 6 or 7th tier. It was only on seeing it again a couple of times over the years, comnbined with reflection, and reading up about the funding of the movie, Zhang Yimou's career, spending some time China, etc, that I realised what the film stood for, and the whole curtain fell away.

The cinematography is undeniably stunning and eyecatching, and fight scenes are spectacular - but dull. These two elements had me at first . . . until I reliased that, like all of Zhang's recent epics, the lush cinemtaograhpy doesn't MEAN anything. It is purely fancy wallpaper, pretty colours on a screen. For me, that isnt what film is or should be about.

As for the fight scenes, having since seen many of the superb kung fu in early Jackie Chan movies, I think less is defnitely more. Its not even about realism - many of Chan's fight scenes are hardly realistic - but they are "real" as in "human" and entertaining in a way that those in Hero are not.

[ShogunRua]

As much as it surprises and pains me to write anything agreeing with cameron326, Hero is indeed horrible trash.

And his points are completely valid. What astonished me the most was point 5; Donnie Yen is my favorite martial arts actor, and Jet Li is my second favorite. They had never fought on film before. Their confrontation should have been a classic moment in kung-fu cinema; a magical, incredible scene to be marveled at by every fan of the genre. My blood was pumping when I got to that part.

I watched it, rapt with attention...and it was so devastatingly dull I almost fell sleep.

If you had told me before that one could feasibly choreograph such an awful fight between Li and Yen, I would have thought they were insane.

Yeah, the director made his teeth on Beijing dramas, and knows nothing about the martial arts or kung fu genres. And yes, he is making a picture which is simple-minded, foolish Chinese Communist Party propaganda.

I'm not really surprised by point 8, though; considering the blind adulation for Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon, which was probably better, but also had a number of failings, you can give up on most idiot movie-goers seeing "Hero" for the garbage that it was.

Focus-

Easily Starship Troopers. Paul Verhoeven has never read the original book. He has admitted as much in various interviews.

However, he had someone summarize it to him as "something something military/patriotism/conservative", and decided to take a giant shit on it and author Robert Anson Heinlein. In the process, he made a film with the sensibilities and intelligence of an ADD-addled kindergartener. Purposely bad, purposely retarded. It was his way of sticking his middle finger to the source material.

There are many people who make crappy, lazy adaptations of great books. Verhoeven is the only one who went out of his way to piss on it.

[nauru]

4) the gimmicky use of colour - which signified absolutely nothing and was a pure gimmick - and impossibly luxurious backdrops, make the whole film look plasticky and fake. Beautiful in the way that a glamour model's huge fake boobs are beautiful perhaps...

Not sure I understand you here. So... you don't like films with lavish landscapes, sets and costumes? What did you think of the Lord of the Rings? Impossibly luxurious and plasticky like a pair of fake tits?

[cameron326]

4) the gimmicky use of colour - which signified absolutely nothing and was a pure gimmick - and impossibly luxurious backdrops, make the whole film look plasticky and fake. Beautiful in the way that a glamour model's huge fake boobs are beautiful perhaps...

Not sure I understand you here. So... you don't like films with lavish landscapes, sets and costumes? What did you think of the Lord of the Rings? Impossibly luxurious and plasticky like a pair of fake tits?

Because in LOTR, the imagery, landscapes etc for the most part, served the story. In contrast, in Zhang's recent films this isn't the case.

His films don't say "look at this beautiful scene/picture becasue it symbolises X", or "it shows X's state of mind", or "because this is how X must have appeared to people at the time" etc..

His films just say "look at this beatiful picture because . . . its like really beautiful". If my ONLY purpose is to stare at something beautiful - to admire something aesthetically, I think I'd just go to an art gallery or a live dramatic performance. I think film should aspire to other goals IN ADDITION to making what is on the screen visually appealing.

Zhang's recent films are certainly considered visually appealing, but it seems to be at the expense of everything else - thus making them superficial oin the extreme. Although in fact, personally I don't even find the cinematography in Zhang's film appealing - there's no subtlety there - its a theme park where everything is BRIGHT colours but there's not really a lot of depth. The recent film "Drive" is more my idea of an aesthtically appealing movie - although I agree LOTR has some great cinematogrpahy (which succeeds by keeping it natural - NZ, I think?)

[cameron326]

Shogunrua

There are many people who make crappy, lazy adaptations of great books. Verhoeven is the only one who went out of his way to piss on it.

That's a good reason! Although perhaps its more forgivable to butcher a much loved story on purpose, rather than through apparent total ignorance or misinterpretation of the source material- EG, Shyamalan - The Last Airbender"???

[cameron326]

the other thing that pisses me off about Zhang is that he seems to equate beauty with perfection. For Zhang, a normal lake with normal weather can't be REALLY beautiful. It has to be a totally still, unblemished lake with clear water, and a beautiful sunset overhead. Surely an artist is sposed to have the talent to find the beauty in the EVERYDAY? By which measure modern Zhang fails speatacularly.

[CMonster]

While there is a lot of schlock that could make a running for title of my most hated films like Something Borrowed, Eragon, and Vegas In Space, there are two specific films that are very similar in the reason for my hatred. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and An Education. I think An Education has to take the cake because it's title contradicts itself. An Education bills itself as a coming of age tale where a book smart but nieve teenage girl is tricked into a romance by a cunning conman. That already sounds like a boring cliche premise, but lets examine this film further. This is a straight up warning, I will use many 4 letter words in this review if you know what I mean. If you are offended by strong language don't read it because I don't want to have a discussion about it.

First, I'll do a more in depth examination from the plot. A young(16) hottie (aka Jenny but I may also refer to her as dumb cunt) played by Carey Mulligan seems like the perfect protagonist. She is smart, witty, can play the cello, and is trying to get in to an Ivy League school like Oxford or Yale or some other overly expensive piece of shit university. It's mid-1900's London and one day when it's raining, Jenny is stuck outside waiting for a ride. Enter David, professional conman and statutory rapist (never convicted as far as the viewer knows). He offers her a ride so she doesn't have to be stuck in the rain. This may sound like the beginning of many a porno but alas, it is an Oscar nominated drama. His charm which largely stems from the fact he has lots of money so he can dote on her wins her over. Then he uses his conman charms to make her dumb-fuck parents approve. At this moment the movie is broken and I'll get deeper into that later. David takes her to the university she wants to attend and tries to bang her. She says that she won't be ready until she is 17. He immediately realizes he can do the most cliche move in the history of romance and books a trip for Paris on her 17th birthday. Then, in Paris, he breaks that hymen. It also needs to be mentioned that Jenny has had first hand witness to him actually pulling a con but brushed it away because he is rich, charming, and handsome and she is a stupid shallow dumb cunt. Then he proposes to her. She then drops out of school. What happens next is she finds out David is married. She now realizes that a handsome conman who wants to bang 16 year old girls is kind of a sleaze ball jackass. WHAT A SHOCKER! With the help of one of her favorite teachers, she resumes her studies and is accepted to Oxford the next year.

The major problem with the film is the main character, Jenny and her parents. In the medium of film, us views have a suspension of disbelief. This means that we accept some things that wouldn't necessarily happen in the real world to make the movie work. Through preconceived notions of genre, setting, etc. every film has its own logic. When this logic is broken, the film ceases to function properly. Jenny is presented a smart. I called her book smart because she is clearly fucking stupid, but that's not what the film wants you to think. Being smart but nieve can be equated with "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." She was fooled into thinking he was a good guy, but then found out he was a CONMAN. There is no question about it. That is what he does for a living. He lies and takes advantage of others ignorance for a living. At this point an actually intelligent character would have realized something was up. Her believing he was a genuine guy is equivalent to me believing that the guy emailing me is actually a Nigerian prince. Then her parents, presented as good caring parents, also fall for this guys 'charm'. When her parents believed the guy was genuine, 3 things should have happened. 1) She should have never trusted her parents judgment again. 2) her parents should have been renamed Stupid Cunt and Dr. Dick Cancer. 3) I should have stopped watching the film. To my shame, I continued.

The next problem I have is that it isn't really a coming of age tale. This is the wikipedia definition of a coming of age film. "Coming-of-age film is a film genre which focuses on the psychological and moral growth of the protagonist from youth to adulthood. Personal growth and change is an important characteristic of this genre, which relies on dialogue and emotional responses, rather than action." So lets examine the change that happened in our protagonist. She learned that middle-aged conmen who want to bang teenagers are not trustworthy...what a bunch of horseshit. She learned dropping out of school at 17 may be a bad idea. At the end of the film, she was back in the same school, living in the same house, and getting accepted to the same school she was planning on attending anyways. Her life trajectory didn't change one bit. It was presented that she learned a big lesson, but really a smart person could have gotten that with logic and the biggest actual change was that she no longer had her virginity. She should have learned her parents were useless and stopped talking to them.

I've discussed this with somebody before and to dispel any people who want to argue by saying, "It wasn't presented that way, it was all presented in a way that makes it feel natural and not illogical." To that I say you are fucking stupid. No film is intentionally presented in a way that makes it look bad. That's why people can cry plot hole even if the film comes to a logical conclusion. Yet, if you examine a film using its own logic and it starts to fall apart, then its a shit film. That argument is based on a lack of critical thinking. I've also said this before, but I'm not above hypocrisy so you could probably go through the films I like and find something that also doesn't work well as a film, but what can I say I'm not perfect. However, I do have a job which means I work, which this film does not.

The final problem with the film is that it is shit Oscar bait which people give credence to because it is 'well made'. Many people here didn't love it due to pacing and the ending, but it was pretty well accepted by critics garnering a 94% fresh rating on rotten tomatoes. I could go on about what critics said, but this from a criticker review sums up a good portion of my hatred, "A refreshing type of teen movie which revolves around a fine schoolgirl performance from the very promising Carey Mulligan, aided by the director's intense focus and obvious affection for all the little details of props, costumes and locations which go into bringing 60s London alive. A splendid-looking film with interesting characters..." What I hate is that people will point to shit like costumes, props, and locations as a positive for a movie, enough to override the other issues a film has. Both this and Benjamin Button have this "going for them." This is comparable to the famous George Lucas quote about special effects. "Special effects are just a tool. A means of telling a story. People have the tendency to confuse them as an ends in themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." People gave all sorts of shit to the Star Wars prequels (which they rightly deserved) for awful characters, a huge focus on special effects, and a story that didn't function. Weird, if you replace a focus on special effects with a focus on sets, costumes, etc. that sounds an awful lot like what I've been talking about. Interestingly enough the Star Wars prequels all received Oscar nomination. 2 for Visual effects, 1 for sound, and 1 for make-up. While the Oscar's are shit that I don't watch, I have watched all the Star Wars prequels and I would agree, they all looked nice through special effects, costumes, etc. So why do dramas immediately get a pass on criticism when they have a story that just doesn't fucking work. Both An Education and Benjamin Button have one word that is a pretty overarching theme for the entirety of the time you watch them, boring.

Movies like this have no soul. So to round things out (or provide substance for those who didn't want to read all that) I'll share the last two sentence of my mini-review that sum up what I'm trying to say very nicely. "This was nothing more than Oscar bait that put emphasis on doing things technically correct, but missing the true essence of what makes a good movie. I fucking hate this movie."

P.S. I didn't edit this because it's very late at night so I apologize for any typos.

[Stewball]

I dislike using the word hate, but I'll make an exception in the case of these two political "documentaries" that are tied as my most hated. I rated them both a "1" instead of a zero just to emphasize my deliberation.

An Inconvenient Truth: (I'll use my review) Al Gore's disingenuous hypocrisy is evident from his carbon credit money grubbing Ponzi schemes, to his carbon gushing personal jets, homes and limos. The movie itself is a self-serving fraud. The polar bears are thriving, global warming is such a joke they had to rename it "climate change", and receding glaciers are a sign of warming, NOT the ones calving icebergs.

The other one is Capitalism: A love story: I don't think you have to go any further than to point out the clash between Michael Moore's anti-capitalist message in the movie, and the exploitation of capitalism that's made him his millions. If the movie had been an indictment of his own anti-capitalism, I'd have given it a 99, but this and the rest of his movies are more about trashing the Truth in an effort to give people the propaganda they want to hear--making him rich, and fat, in the process.