Box Office Blockbuster Films You've Grown to Dislike and Despise

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,469
The films took the box off by storm which, you may or may not have liked in the beginning . But , as a result of repeated viewings, you've grown to really dislike and despise them to the point that you even regret plunking down the money for the ticket to go see it in the theaters in the first place.
 
Titanic 1997 James Cameron film . Great visuals , but not a a great film . I thought okay at that time. Now I can't even look at it .
 
Every single superhero movie, outside maybe of X-Men: First Class. At first I treated them as social events - a new Avengers movie comes out, I do not get the hype, but I go see it so there is something to nerd over with people from the local SF club and the more casual friends. Now I can't stand even the better ones and my reaction to the whole shtick is "meh" at best.

I did stand J.J. Abrams Star Trek for a while, watching it as just another pew-pew-in-space, then I realized this is the new, deffinite direction for the series and after 10 years I hate them with a passion.
 
Cameron's Avatar is a movie that, for me, I would have been just fine seeing once and then forgetting all about it. Unfortunately, this mediocre (at best) film hit cinemas at the height of the 3-D zeitgeist and became such a phenomenon for its visuals (some of which are truly spectacular) that now we have to hear about how Avatar 2 is doing a decade later even though the original film had: a terrible plot, flat characters, and cringe-worthy dialogue (among a host of other flaws). All because it looked nice in 3-D on the big screen.
 
Cameron's Avatar is a movie that, for me, I would have been just fine seeing once and then forgetting all about it. Unfortunately, this mediocre (at best) film hit cinemas at the height of the 3-D zeitgeist and became such a phenomenon for its visuals (some of which are truly spectacular) that now we have to hear about how Avatar 2 is doing a decade later even though the original film had: a terrible plot, flat characters, and cringe-worthy dialogue (among a host of other flaws). All because it looked nice in 3-D on the big screen.

Only Mediocre ?:unsure: You're being far too generous. I was rooting for evil corporation.:D
 
Every single superhero movie, outside maybe of X-Men: First Class. At first I treated them as social events - a new Avengers movie comes out, I do not get the hype, but I go see it so there is something to nerd over with people from the local SF club and the more casual friends. Now I can't stand even the better ones and my reaction to the whole shtick is "meh" at best.

I did stand J.J. Abrams Star Trek for a while, watching it as just another pew-pew-in-space, then I realized this is the new, deffinite direction for the series and after 10 years I hate them with a passion.

I did like the Kevin timeline, but found Abraham Star Trek films storylines to be somewhat lacking . On the plus side ,the films may been a catalyst in getting the Trek franchise going again on television so, that at least counts in favor. I do like the fact that Kelvin timeline is acknowledged as canon in Discovery and one of many alternate timelines in Trek . One the story lines Star Trek Pickard is the Destruction of the Planet Romulus via a nova which ties into the Kelvin timeline.
 
Last edited:
I did like the Kevin timeline, but found Abraham Star Trek films storylines to be somewhat lacking . On the plus side ,the films may been a catalyst in getting the Trek franchise going again on television so, that at least counts in favor. I do like the fact that Kelvin timeline is acknowledged as canon in Discovery and one of many alternate timelines in Trek . One the story lines Star Trek Pickard is the Destruction of the Planet Romulus via a nova which ties into the Kelvin timeline.

The problem with Kelvin timeline's storytelling is that all three plots revolve around the same beat, i.e. some guy wants revenge and the Enterprise has to stop him. All of the three films also suffer from the fact that thay do not carry on the character development, and so the crew constantly suffers from the same flaws and misunderstandings from start to finish.

I do disagree with the notion that tying the Kelvin timeline to the main universe is a good thing - while it could have been a good idea on paper, the ultimate resolution is lacking a generates a ton of plotholes and problems. TNG had several story arcs that revolved around a sun going nova, always acknowlegding that it is an event milions of years in the making, with the star going through several stages of expansion and collapse. Kelvin ignores this completely - Romulus gets blown to pieces by a healthy, yellow star out of nowhere, and the consequences are even more bizzare, especially with the fact that Picard cannot decide on the scale of the cataclysm (with the Romulan Star Empire flung into a deep crysis and at the same time suffering non of it, depending on what the plot requires).
 
Only Mediocre ?:unsure: You're being far too generous. I was rooting for evil corporation.:D

We had a Polish YT channel that created a mashup of scenes with the evil general (whatever his name was), but dubbed his lines using our version of Pocahontas, along with the "Savages" song. It's hilarious.
 
I never quite understand the sheer level of hatred that Avatar attracts. It's definitely mediocre, but I don't get why it's meant to be so incredibly bad. Yes, it's derivative, but so are most blockbusters. The environmental bits are a bit banal, perhaps, but I'd rather have banality than nothing at all. It's no stupider or worse than the weaker Marvel films, and they just keep on coming endlessly. And as a technical achievement, it's quite impressive.

On the other hand, I find most Christopher Nolan films pretentious, and they get rave reviews, so what do I know?
 
I never quite understand the sheer level of hatred that Avatar attracts. It's definitely mediocre, but I don't get why it's meant to be so incredibly bad. Yes, it's derivative, but so are most blockbusters. The environmental bits are a bit banal, perhaps, but I'd rather have banality than nothing at all. It's no stupider or worse than the weaker Marvel films, and they just keep on coming endlessly. And as a technical achievement, it's quite impressive.

On the other hand, I find most Christopher Nolan films pretentious, and they get rave reviews, so what do I know?

To each his own. I myself do not rave about Nolan movies - Inception is my guilty pleasure and I love to return to it, but at the same it is one of the worst movie scripts I have ever seen, with tedious exposition and meaningless dialogue the duplicates what we already see as part of the action.
 
I agree with other that the Marvel movies are overrated and there is no risk. Black Panther was by far the worst offender. Every story cliché in the book was used. The acting and the script wasn't great and it was just too over the top. That said, my GF loved it and has seen it at least 3 times.

Michael Bay. His movies are just way to over the top with action and they just end up being boring. Really boring.

I don't get the whole Fast and the Furious thing. I watched the first one and thought it was awful and haven't seen any of the others, but my impression is that they get stupider with each new sequel. That said, i really hope the next on is Fast Ten: Your Seatbelts.
 
To each his own. I myself do not rave about Nolan movies - Inception is my guilty pleasure and I love to return to it, but at the same it is one of the worst movie scripts I have ever seen, with tedious exposition and meaningless dialogue the duplicates what we already see as part of the action.
Fortunately Nolan has fixed this issue in later movies by drowning out the tedious exposition with skull-shudderingly loud music.
 
I really liked Braveheart as an historical movie; until I found out that 90% of what is in the movie is bunkum. I enjoy it now as a movie with great villains and incredibly brutal/realistic fight scenes, but I don't have the respect for it due to the lack of integrity in it's historical accuracy.
 
You have films that are just so good they do not date; classics if you will. They are as good now as they were 20+ years ago.
But sometimes you put on a film you remember to be amazing as a teenager only to find it has not aged well.

This happened to me with Luc Besson’s Fifth Element. I do still love the film, it’s a great story with amazing characters which were casted very well. Just the action scenes on a recent re-watch dragged me out of the film and I struggled to enjoy it, I was gutted to say the least.

So I can’t bring myself to say I dislike the film because of the nostalgia I can still draw upon for it but it certainly isn’t the classic I thought it was. I’m not an advocate for remakes but I must admit I would love one for this film as I think the story is a lot of fun and likewise the characters. I’d be excited in the same way I am for the new ‘Dune’!! Massive fan of Timothee Calamet!
 
I really liked Braveheart as an historical movie; until I found out that 90% of what is in the movie is bunkum. I enjoy it now as a movie with great villains and incredibly brutal/realistic fight scenes, but I don't have the respect for it due to the lack of integrity in it's historical accuracy.

One the biggest was that William Wallace had an affair with Edward the II's Wife Isobel and their child become king of England ? There are lots of reasons why none of that is possible.
 
One the biggest was that William Wallace had an affair with Edward the II's Wife Isobel and their child become king of England ? There are lots of reasons why none of that is possible.
Not to mention The Battle of Stirling Bridge without the bridge, which played a rather important part in the battle. I see some modern Sottish historians are daring to mutter the heresy that it was Andrew Moray that actually won the battle and that Wallace was just his assistant, In fact when Wallace did actually lead an army after Moray died he lost.
 
I've never been able to get through Avatar without falling asleep. How can a movie that looks like a Roger Dean painting be so boring?

Armageddon is a movie I remember enjoying at the time, but on re-watches is just awful.
 
The problem with Kelvin timeline's storytelling is that all three plots revolve around the same beat, i.e. some guy wants revenge and the Enterprise has to stop him. All of the three films also suffer from the fact that thay do not carry on the character development, and so the crew constantly suffers from the same flaws and misunderstandings from start to finish.

I do disagree with the notion that tying the Kelvin timeline to the main universe is a good thing - while it could have been a good idea on paper, the ultimate resolution is lacking a generates a ton of plotholes and problems. TNG had several story arcs that revolved around a sun going nova, always acknowlegding that it is an event milions of years in the making, with the star going through several stages of expansion and collapse. Kelvin ignores this completely - Romulus gets blown to pieces by a healthy, yellow star out of nowhere, and the consequences are even more bizzare, especially with the fact that Picard cannot decide on the scale of the cataclysm (with the Romulan Star Empire flung into a deep crysis and at the same time suffering non of it, depending on what the plot requires).
The problem I have with the Kelvin timeline is that it ignores the rules of the science of Star Trek - and yes there's always flexibility in those rules for the sake of story telling but the Kelvin Universe takes it to extremes. Want to beam to a ship while it's travelling at warp? Sure! Want to get to Qo'noS and back in a day? Go for it, turns out the Klingon home world is just around the corner - can you pick up some fresh gagh while you're there! Going to lose power when you're closer to the moon than Earth but want to crash into Earth in ten minutes? We can do that. Don't want a character to die? We have a cure for that and we'll never mention it again!

I enjoyed the films at the time - but I can't bring myself to watch 'Into Darkness' again. I weep every time Spook shouts Khan's name - and not because it's an emotional, even earned, moment. But because it's a bad rehash of the Wrath of Khan.
 
The problem I have with the Kelvin timeline is that it ignores the rules of the science of Star Trek - and yes there's always flexibility in those rules for the sake of story telling but the Kelvin Universe takes it to extremes. Want to beam to a ship while it's travelling at warp? Sure! Want to get to Qo'noS and back in a day? Go for it, turns out the Klingon home world is just around the corner - can you pick up some fresh gagh while you're there! Going to lose power when you're closer to the moon than Earth but want to crash into Earth in ten minutes? We can do that. Don't want a character to die? We have a cure for that and we'll never mention it again!

I enjoyed the films at the time - but I can't bring myself to watch 'Into Darkness' again. I weep every time Spook shouts Khan's name - and not because it's an emotional, even earned, moment. But because it's a bad rehash of the Wrath of Khan.


As soon as any series/movie brings time travel into the equation, nothing is off-limits for me. There are lots of things in ST, most notably said time travel and the 'universal translator', that require a suspension of disbelief.

Tbh I much prefer the alternate timeline to introducing completely new characters in the ST universe. Star Trek is as much about characterisation and their interactions, and a crew of unknowns in a movie just wouldn't be sufficient. I thought that the way the alternate timeline was brought about was an interesting one, and I like the way that we have similar storylines with twists.

Yes there are always going to be certain scenarios that grate, but the main issue for me is that the new movies (with the possible exception of the first) , and as has been mentioned earlier, are far too similar to each other. Just look at the original ST movies; all very different in style and substance. The new ones are all too same-y and full of plot holes (which imho is a bigger cinema crime than altering the laws of physics).

And yes, I agree that the Khan timeline was poorly done. I do like Benedict Cumberbach in other roles, but he was poorly cast here.
 
The problem I have with the Kelvin timeline is that it ignores the rules of the science of Star Trek - and yes there's always flexibility in those rules for the sake of story telling but the Kelvin Universe takes it to extremes. Want to beam to a ship while it's travelling at warp? Sure! Want to get to Qo'noS and back in a day? Go for it, turns out the Klingon home world is just around the corner - can you pick up some fresh gagh while you're there! Going to lose power when you're closer to the moon than Earth but want to crash into Earth in ten minutes? We can do that. Don't want a character to die? We have a cure for that and we'll never mention it again!

I enjoyed the films at the time - but I can't bring myself to watch 'Into Darkness' again. I weep every time Spook shouts Khan's name - and not because it's an emotional, even earned, moment. But because it's a bad rehash of the Wrath of Khan.

I liked the Kelvin time as a concept of alt history and the casting of the main roles . But , Im not fan of the radically redesigned Enterprise and yes, they really did did play fast and loose with the science of Star Trek. Into Darkness is not a very good film.

I think They tried to get Benicio del Toro for role of Khan . He would have been a very good choice .
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top