PDA

View Full Version : Biggest movie pet peeves


Writer Cath
03-10-2007, 11:31 PM
Haven't just seen a movie that triggered one of these pet peeves, I thought I'd write in and see what other people's biggest problems with movies are. And for kicks and controversy, but not too much controversy, I'll think of an example and why I think that.

1. Movies that fall apart in the last five/ten minutes. It makes me so mad when a movie completely derails in the last few minutes. This is especially true if it's an above average movie.

Example: What Lies Beneath. This movie had suspense, drama and elements of horror, then it turned into your typical slasher ending. This movie would have been awesome had they gone the unhappy route. Instead, it just completely fell apart at the end, ruining what had been a tense thriller.


2. Movies that insult my intelligence. Despite the name of the site, most people have a reasonable degree of intelligence. That being said, I don't like it when a movie feels the need to explain everything to me. Let me reason a few things out by myself. You don't have to show me everything. Imply, hint, nudge understanding. Don't hit me over the head.

Example: V for Vendetta. I understand that comics are full of symbolism and imagery, but those symbols and images are stretched out over months, sometimes years of issues. Watching the movie, I felt like I was being bashed over the head with a mallet while someone was yelling "THIS IS THE MEANING. THIS IS THE SYMBOL." Whack. "GASP AT HOW DEEP OUR MOVIE IS." Whack "DO IT NOW!" Whack, bam, credits. I can figure a few things out for myself, it's not necessary to belabor the meaning of each and every fricking scene.

Man, I feel better.

nick1091
03-11-2007, 01:02 AM
Good topic. Here are some of my pet peeves off the top of my head.

1. In every romantic comedy where a guy likes a guy who's in a relationship, why is the current boyfriend/husband ALWAYS an obnoxious jerk?

2. Pointless remaks of films that were find to begin with. The original Wicker Man was a good fairly nuanced (for its subject matter) film; the remake was just plain awful. The Psycho remake was just pointless.

3. Not about the movie per se, but I hate when the cover of the film advertises as if it's starring so and so, when they're in the film about five minutes. I recently rented a film called Hole in the Floor which featured Gary Busey prominently on the box cover and even the opening credits, when he's in the film for about 2 minutes in a scene totally unrelated to the rest of the movie.

April
03-11-2007, 02:23 AM
I hate it when a movie staring a person who typically does comedies bills itself as a comedy, but when you go see it, it's NOT funny. They seriously used every funny scene in the previews and the rest are serious scenes.

I hate movies that have SO MANY special effects that it just becomes TOO long (the new King kong, for example. I became so bored during the fight scene between him and the dinosaurs, the ice skating crap scene and all that stuff. YES we know you computer animated an awesome monkey, but do you have to keep going and going and going and going?)

irateguy
03-11-2007, 02:54 AM
The Stepford Wives remake was ok until the last 10 minutes then it totally lost focus

April
03-11-2007, 03:04 AM
And that's exactly why I think ALL Peter Jackson movies are crap. But that's just me........although I do admit that the LOTR movies do make for excellent sleeping aids.



I watched about half of the first LOTR and found something else to do. Didn't bother to rent the others. I couldn't understand why so many people loved them. I found the books and the movies boring

Plaidman
03-11-2007, 04:15 AM
Yes, I third the STARRING BLAH!!! In BLAH!!!

Like this for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Fire

I bought it beleving it to be a Jackie Chan movie. Jacki chan is in the movie yes! For three minutes before he is shot and killed.

Spiffy McMoron
03-11-2007, 05:40 AM
1. In every romantic comedy where a guy likes a guy who's in a relationship, why is the current boyfriend/husband ALWAYS an obnoxious jerk?

Actually, romantic comedies as a group are a pet peeve of mine. If I went to a girl's house and blasted 80's power ballads at three a.m., I'm getting arrested, not laid.

1. College movies that show that college is nothing but four years of drinking, smoking, and all types of ill shit (Bonus cookie to whomever gets the quote!) while completely ignoring any class stuff. Hell, the only times that they show a class is when two people are exchanging "looks"

2. This is especially obvious in late 50's/early 60's war movies OR 80's action movies--the German/Japanese soldier OR Colombian drug troop will shoot at the American for 20 minutes, and hit nothing but air, but all the American has to do is make one random spray of bullets in the vicinity of bad guys, and they drop like flies.

3. Guy walks into a bar and orders a beer. Doesn't say a brand, or if he wants a bottle or a glass--he just asks for a beer.

4. Everyone on the screen is prettier than me! Even the ugly guys! :cry:

BusBus
03-11-2007, 06:27 AM
Romantic movies where someone dies at the end piss me off. Not because I hate seeing someone die, it's just that the plot is so irritating and predictable. Bad boy meets good girl, good girl's influence over bad boy makes him into a good boy, turns out good girl has a fatal illness (usually leukemia), good girl dies, good boy is a better person because of her, BusBus has to be woken up.

Romantic movies with a happy ending piss me off to a lesser extend.

Ringtail Z28
03-11-2007, 08:19 AM
Political satire thrown into movies for no apparent reason other than to make a political statement.

Unnecessary sequels and prequels. Like most of the crap Disney cranks out these days, or better yet, all of the Land Before Time movies other than the first one.

Stupid remakes of movies that don't need to be remade.

Rapscallion
03-11-2007, 08:45 AM
"Scream" was like that. Drew Barrymore features prominently on the cover, and she dies in like the first ten minutes.


This is a bad thing?

Rapscallion

NightAngel
03-11-2007, 09:35 AM
Hmmm. movies that bill a predominate actor that really isn't in the movie? I always think of Guilty By Association. The cover box proudly displays Morgan Freeman's face and yes, the first 2 minutes and the last 2 minutes he is in the movie. The ENTIRE rest of the movie is a bunch of no namers (not even wanna-be's) running around the 'hood. Filmed, I believe, on a home video camera by a bunch of obnoxious teenagers who don't really want to be the one holding the camera that long.

blas
03-11-2007, 10:00 AM
Movies that take almost an hour to get the plot rolling............but at the same time, you have to pay attention to the dialogue.......but it's so damn boring you nearly fall asleep...........and when you've woken up..........the plot has picked up but you have no idea what's up.

ArenaBoy
03-11-2007, 02:36 PM
The fight scenes in movies where the hero and the villan are equals. Good god that gets annoying after a while.

lordlundar
03-11-2007, 02:52 PM
Movies that grab big name actors just to sell tickets. Damn I hate those! Especially if it's actors WAY past their prime and at the stage in their life where they should consider at least a role change or a career change.

The main reason is that because these actors/actresses are ego freaks and think they should get more screen time. It's even worse when there's more than one of them involved, because then they compete for screen time and the movie falls apart because of it.

These movies, you can grab some fresh face of the street and they will do a better job, simply because they focus on the role and not on how often the cameras look at them.

Becks
03-11-2007, 03:09 PM
Supposedly scary movies that are not scary at all. I find them bland and predicitable.

Romantic kisses that last for hours. Ugh. I don't not want OR need to see that.

blas
03-11-2007, 05:04 PM
Movies with 30 year olds portraying teenagers. LoL.

iradney
03-11-2007, 08:46 PM
Movies where the kid acts all sucky, but at the end of it, the ends justify the means and the parents apologies *fume*

stormtreader
03-11-2007, 09:16 PM
What about movies that are "based on a true story" to the extent that someone with that name was alive at that time, ie Braveheart which is NOTHING LIKE what actually happened. Oh and also the film around the Enigma machine which makes out it was the USA that broke the code, it was the UK! Grrr...

Also, films which have a character with a regional accent, ie Irish, which are played by an american putting on a very bad accent. Why not get an irish actor?

BusBus
03-11-2007, 10:29 PM
When Renee Zellweger is cast in the movie :puke:

April
03-11-2007, 10:47 PM
Movies based on the book where the movie is NOTHING like the book, only the title is the same

nekoro
03-11-2007, 11:22 PM
Movies based on the book where the movie is NOTHING like the book, only the title is the same

Ella Enchanted. That movie sucked donkey balls.

Spiffy McMoron
03-12-2007, 01:23 AM
Also, films which have a character with a regional accent, ie Irish, which are played by an american putting on a very bad accent. Why not get an irish actor?

Oh, quite possibly the worst offender of this rule: Sean Connery in The Hunt for Red October. Exactly--and I mean EXACTLY--how many Russian submarine captains speak only two or three lines of Russian to the crew, and then talk in English with a heavy Scotch accent the rest of the time?

Blueberry
03-12-2007, 03:14 AM
Historical movies where they get everything wrong!!!!
I usually end up yelling at the TV 'NO NO NO!! *Insert some completely distorted historical fact* did not happen!!'
I now am no longer allowed to watch history movies when my husband is around. Especially any Tudor historical movies.

protege
03-12-2007, 04:17 AM
The fight scenes in movies where the hero and the villan are equals. Good god that gets annoying after a while.

I'm assuming you've seen the end of Mission Impossible II? Is it just me, or does the chase/fight scene go on for freaking ever? Just kill the bastard already!

April
03-12-2007, 04:19 AM
Historical movies where they get everything wrong!!!!
I usually end up yelling at the TV 'NO NO NO!! *Insert some completely distorted historical fact* did not happen!!'
I now am no longer allowed to watch history movies when my husband is around. Especially any Tudor historical movies.

My husband REFUSES to watch any movies with me with any sort of medical stuff in it at all. He gets mad at me when, in horror movies or something where someone is injured in a wierd way, and should be dead, but isn't dead, I say "medically, that is impossible".

Plaidman
03-12-2007, 07:10 AM
Movies based on the book where the movie is NOTHING like the book, only the title is the same


*cough* The Postman with Kevin Costner *cough*. Nothing like the book. At all. Cept he got a postman suit. That's about it.

BookstoreEscapee
03-12-2007, 03:27 PM
Movies based on the book where the movie is NOTHING like the book, only the title is the same

*ahem* The Time Machine from a few years ago. He built a time machine and went to that year. That's it. The Eloi and Morlocks...nothing like described in the book. Nothing else, either. Pissed me off.

False Endings!!! LOTR had about 10 of em. My friend dragged me to see it (the last one), on the first day. He had already seen the much-hyped midnight showing that morning, and then made me go at like 9 that night. After 6 hours (well, it felt like it) I thought it was finally over...the screen went dark...then it opened on a new scene...then it did it again...and again...AAUUUGGGHHHHH!!! :banghead:

Broomjockey
03-13-2007, 01:39 AM
Movies based on the book where the movie is NOTHING like the book, only the title is the same

I'm surprised no one else brought this up but... "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy." It's hilarious, usually I dislike the movies based on books because they destroy my beloved book so, but these are so different it's almost like two completely different series.

Ryu
03-13-2007, 02:51 AM
for movies based on books which dont do the book justice
battlefield earth was an amazing book, at least in my opinion, but the movie was awful

hecubus
03-13-2007, 04:49 AM
I hate the trend these days to do the "MTV" style of editing, in other words, not holding a single shot for more than a few seconds, and shooting everything in medium close-up. The aforementioned "Bourne Supremacy" was very guilty of this, especially in the car chase scene. It was shot so close-up, and with so many cuts, that the damn thing almost gave me motion sickness.

See also: any film by Michael Bay.

myswtghst
03-13-2007, 05:22 AM
Ooh, ooh, as an amateur filmmaker-type in my spare time, I'm excited to join this thread. :)

To whoever upthread said this (I'm too lazy to go back and look)--the Horntail chase in Goblet of Fire pi$$ed me off to no end, as there were so many other things they could have done with that time/special fx budget.

And to add my own:

Movies where ends are left loose, and things are not fully explained. I.E. a character is randomly added then removed, simply to explain something about a character/to illustrate their awesomeness/suckiness/etc. Or where a subplot is introduced then not resolved.

Movies with an ending that almost seems clever, until you realize it doesn't make sense at all.

Example: Valentine. I don't feel bad spoiling this, as I don't recommend anyone watch it, as it is stupid, especially in the way they set up the main male character, entirely in the last 13 minutes or so. At the end, they pull a relatively clever twist and make the killer someone you wouldn't initially expect--the ugly friend. Then, they pull a little twist at the end, having to do with nosebleeds (something the killer was always shown as having) from the main male love interest, who was cleared when the ugly friend was the killer. It was almost clever, but then I realized--it makes so sense. :p

MystyGlyttyr
03-13-2007, 03:22 PM
Bastard science.

Now look, I'm not saying that "false" science is bad. I like to play with the laws of physics as much as the next girl. But I least offer SOME reasonable pseudo-scientific explanation for why my stories have weird science. But when there's some craziness going on that has NO freaking explanation whatsoever, then all I can do is sit there and yell WRONG WRONG!

My example: The Day After Tomorrow. Okay, I personally don't believe in global warming (at least not to the degree that it's usually presented). That's not the purpose of the thread, it's just my opinion given so I can make the following point. At the start of this movie, they at least explain to me what global warming is doing, why it screwed up the oceans and the weather, why that caused all this craziness. Okay, to me, it's false science, but at least they're explaining it so that it makes sense in the context of the movie. Cool so far. But then, after a couple weeks of hellstorms...everything suddenly clears up and goes away. ...WHAT?! Okay, wait, you guys were just saying that the global climate was changing and we were all doomed and everything sucked...and then it just goes away like THAT? HOW? WHY? HUH? Okay, I'm not asking for the hand of God (see: The Stand) or anything, but a little Morgan Freeman voiceover telling me what that was about would have been nice.

Also, deux ex machina (or however it's spelled), like the aforementioned The Stand, but especiallly The Andromeda Strain. I had issues with the book because I am still trying to figure out what biological leap of faith led a virus that caused human blood to powderize suddenly started eating rubber instead...aka the biggest COPOUT in the history of the written word. And then the movie just...blurgh. Made it so much worse.

As an aside to both of these peeves, if you'd ever REALLY like to wound yourself in the name of bastard science and all time flaming copouts, go look up a movie called "Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land". You'll be gouging at your brain within a matter of seconds.

blas
03-13-2007, 03:27 PM
How come no one has mentioned movies that are supposed to be of historic value but end up being a love story?

I know everyone loves an "awww" factor every once in a while but sheesh......let's forget ALL about what happened on that fateful day of Dec 7, 1941 and let's focus on loser Ben Affleck hurting because his woman found a new man.

Barefootgirl
03-13-2007, 04:11 PM
Almost anything with Mel Gibson allowed to have creative control. Is the man trying single-handedly to change the history of the entire world? He turned The Patriot into an inaccurate anti-English pile of nonsense, Braveheart into an inaccurate, anti-English pile of nonsense, and The Passion onf The Christ, just for a change of pace, into an inaccurate anti-Semitic pile of nonsense. If he could have figured out a way to make the Jews = English, he would have done.

Did Joss Ackland upset him that much when they were making Lethal Weapon 2?

Plaidman
03-13-2007, 05:17 PM
Uwe Boll. Enough said.

ForestDragon
03-13-2007, 11:44 PM
To whoever upthread said this (I'm too lazy to go back and look)--the Horntail chase in Goblet of Fire pi$$ed me off to no end, as there were so many other things they could have done with that time/special fx budget.

I'll go along with that - also goes with the "That never happened, gawddammit!" irritant. I seem to recall Harry got extra credit for not hurting the Horntail in the book, whereupon in the movie it looked like he killed it. :no:

Extremely long fight scenes also annoy me - the worst offender to me was They Live! Two guys in an alley, one wants the other to put on a pair of "magical" sunglasses, the other guy refuses, instead of saying "Just humor me," or something equally normal, the first guy decides to beat the second into submission. :confused: Frickin' fight went on for twelve straight minutes, and that's a damn long time in a movie! I got bored real quick there. I mean, I know they were pro wrestlers IRL, but Jeebus Tapdancing Christ, this is a movie, not PPV.

Stupid mistakes, and I don't just mean the standard dumb movie things like blowing up a car by shooting at it with a pistol. The worst movie for dumb mistakes that I can think of was Alien Resurrection. First off, you don't fire projectile weapons inside a spaceship - can you say "Hull breach?" Second, nobody/nothing's gonna get sucked out an itty-bitty hole through a window as a ribbon. It'd either plug the hole when it ran against it or break the window the rest of the way out. Third, anything that's in a room open to the atmosphere during reentry is going to be fried. Fourth, a spaceship half a mile across smashing into the surface of the Earth is basically another dinosaur-killer. Congratulations, genius, you wasted the aliens but killed off all life on earth. Way to go. :rolleyes: Guess Whedon didn't really have a handle on SF until he did Firefly.