• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Stupid movie plots that irritate you, please share them here

Tech -- that was a typo, obviously. I meant 1994, not 2004! What is your "theory" and how does the IMDB listing prove that it's "correct"?
 
I think you could easily devote an entire thread to the study of such devices in James Cameron films.

Humans triumphing over clearly superior alien species: Aliens-the alien's "blood" is an acid strong enough to eat through several decks of ship metal, but somehow only causes surface burns on human skin.

Humans triumphing over clearly superior machines: Terminator-cyborg is sophisticated enough to mimic human voices, determine proper responses and repair itself, but not intelligent enough not to crawl under a press.

Humans accomplishing tasks under absolutely ridiculous circumstances: Titanic-Rose manages to locate Jack deep in the hold of a huge ship, despite never having navigated the lower decks (other than the quickie in the storage), while those all around her are in complete panic...then manages to free him from the pipe and survive after having already been exposed to freezing water.

Humans acting in utterly incomprehensible fashion: Point Break-Johnny Utah lets Bodie go after watching his partner die attempting to arrest him and tracking him for several years, throwing away his own career in the process.
 
movies proclaiming to be based on either:
a) a true story
b) a work of fiction
where either:
a) no one associated with the movie read the book or interviewed the people involved
b) rewrote the book or changed the true event

I could give examples but its time to go home :)
 
the passion of the christ.

man, who thought of that dumbass movie?????

oh FYI, there is a great shot of jesus's ass at the end if you watch real close.
 
oh yeah and you know those "who is the killer?" type horror movies. The killer is always the guy who is seen periodically throughout the movie for no reason. You know, that extra guy who has no real significance to the plot but he has to be in there so that the killer can be someone you never would have guessed, but technically IS in the movie.
 
Sketchwreck said:
movies proclaiming to be based on either:
a) a true story
b) a work of fiction
where either:
a) no one associated with the movie read the book or interviewed the people involved
b) rewrote the book or changed the true event

I could give examples but its time to go home :)
Click to expand...
Or even lamer: "inspired by actual events/a true story."
 
Movies that are "based" on a popular video game that has absolutely nothing to do with the game except for the title. House of the Dead. The plot(if you can call it that) was nowhere near the equally weak plot of the game. Haven't seen Alone in the Dark yet but I imagine it will be the same. I did like the resident evil movies though.
 
Cruel Intentions 3.
I knew it would be bad but wasn't prepared for that :(
 
jeenius said:
I hated "The Others" so much. The whole intrigue/mystery plot for the whole movie, followed by HUGE LETDOWN because NOTHING HAPPENS. Also a good example: "Contact."
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? "Contact?" The ending was a struggle between having faith in what your senses have told you, or having the ability to filter out your human spirit for the sake of scientific understandance, and how one balances this out. It's a huge struggle that we, as human beings, face every day. To believe purely in love and acceptance for what your world has told you, or to break it down into mathematical components completely rendering all your emotions attached to an experiance completely moot.

DONT YOU GET IT, FOOL!?
 
i saw this one movie recently with Nev Campbell, and i cant remember the title (goes to show how much i enjoyed it) and the basis of the movie was this girl (neve campbell's character) who is obsessed with sex. she'll have sex with her low life boyfriend, the girl next door, and this 70 year old "man of the world". when she does the nasty with the nasty man, she gets 100 million out of the deal. she tells the boyfriend that she fucked the old hag and didnt get a penny. then the boyfriend kills the old man, and then he goes to jail. she had already put the 100 million in a safe at the bank, but then....it ends...just like that. by far the WORST movie i have ever seen...the funny part is, that was the entirety of the movie, the rest was worthless rubble.
 
skankopickle said:
Lost in Translation: man thinks about having an affair. goes home. end.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness I wasn't the only one that thought this movie was horrible. It was one of the worst movies that I've ever seen.
banghead.gif


The crazy thing is, I heard people rave over this movie and I think it even won awards. It was dreadfully boring, in my opinion.
 
You know what bothers me? When nothing remarkable has happened in a scene but a character (usually the younger, introverted youth) awkwardly leaves the room. Obviously, it's an easy way for the director to move from one room to a new room. Plus, it'll probably let him take away some of the characters from the previous scene.

I know your stupid games directors.

I mean, I love the movie White Oleander but the scene where Astrid leaves the kitchen because her new foster dad was looking through her art... was awful. Why are (good, yes even good) directors so compelled to have characters act unnecessarily dramatic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top