the vynsane asylum

Hell, All them supporting characters were good. Liitle John, Friar Tuck, the witch lady. Only Costner (and perhaps Slater) brought it down and even thats debatable. And now we've gone and discussed it so much, everyone is going to have to rewatch it, to decide if its good or not, thus negating its place on the list.

You can skip What Lies Beneath though. Another turd.

Zero wrote:And now we've gone and discussed it so much, everyone is going to have to rewatch it, to decide if its good or not, thus negating its place on the list.

nah, i won't be doing that. i know it sucks.

You can skip What Lies Beneath though. Another turd.

in the same vein, don't bother with "gothika" either.

vynsane wrote:In the same vein, don't bother with "gothika" either.

I'll see your "gothika" and raise you "Catwoman".

And on the Halle Berry tip, Monster's Ball. Not that it doesn't have great performances, but watching it repeatedly might make you depressed enough to fill the tub with warm water and find a razor. Jeezus, what a depressing film.

Mystic River - well acted but boring as shit.

Capote-for the same reason as Diabolical mentioned with Mystic River. Well acted, but boring as fuck.

Wyatt Earp. Some channel was showing it this weekend. Didn't like the first time I saw Wyatt Earp when it was in the theater. It was bad enough where I almost walked out. (I didn't because someone else drove.) Couldn't bring myself to watch it on TV.

I think I could stand to watch Mystic River again. Solid performances. It was slow, but I can dig a slow movie if the acting is worth it. Eastwood is good for those kinds of movies.

Capote I agree with. PSH might have have done a brilliant performance, but then you realize anyone can do a whiny, high pitched uber gay lisp and play Capote.

Wyatt Earp had the misfortune of coming out the same time as Tombstone and telling the same story. I remember liking both versions for what they were, Wyatt Earp is a sprawling tale at three hours, so I'd have to watch it again to see if I'd enjoy it as much as before. But it IS really long and that can be a turn off if your expecting a shoot 'em up Western.



Movies you only need to see once: Romantic Comedies. Two people "meet cute", then go through all this emotional flimflam, and finally get together at the end. Just like every other Romantic Comedy. Bleah. Sure, there's some good dialogue occasionally, and clever supporting characters, and maybe a good solid monologue or soliliqy about love and romance from one of the people in the movie thats insightful about relationships. But they're all interchangable. Every last one of them. So, with very few exceptions(Love, Actually, fer instance), you only need to watch them once ( and sometimes not at all).

Zero wrote:But they're all interchangable. Every last one of them. So, with very few exceptions(Love, Actually, fer instance), you only need to watch them once ( and sometimes not at all).

yes, "love, actually" is one of those that you needn't watch at all.

Fuck you Vyn, Love Actually is worth watching a few times.

kidhuman wrote:Fuck you Vyn, Love Actually is worth watching a few times.

Word.

vynsane wrote:yes, "love, actually" is one of those that you needn't watch at all.

Word.

I saw a romanic comedy once. I figure they are all pretty much the same so I don't plan on watching another one.

This one is obvious and should be on a list of movie to never watch, but since I've seen it I see no reason to see it again - Transformers.

Transformers is AWEFULSOME!!

Blues Brothers 2000. For some reason, I actually liked this the first time, and tried to watch it again when it came to video. Ugh. I couldn't even get through it. As good as the first is, this one is bad. Some amazingly good music, though, pairing the band with the likes of Donovan, Dr John, Erykah Badu, Taj Mahal, and Aretha Franklin. The soundtrack bears repeating.