Worst Popular Movies of all time

Reading KSK's movie endings mock draft reminded me how much I hate 'A Few Good Men,' which got me thinking about movies I can't stand but remain, mystifyingly, popular. Or at least, not unpopular and riduculed, which is what they truly deserve.  

10. The Sixth Sense (1999)- There's no way Bruce Willis didn't figure out he was a ghost before that. I mean, his marriage is so bad that his wife wouldn't talk to him that whole time? And it's annoying when people think kids are good actors just because they're kids acting (ie., anything with Dakota Fanning).  

9. Pulp Fiction (1994)- "Royale, with cheese?"  Are you kidding me with this shit?  

Douche 1: "Oh, look how cool John Travolta is.  Wooooah.  Oh man, he was in 'Look Who's Talking' and now he's a hitman.  That's some fuckin' range, dude."

Douche 2: "Man, and Tarrentino is a fucking artist, man.  'You shot Marvin in the face.'  Shit, dude."      

The whole thing is sound and fury signifying nothing.       

8. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)- A very good movie for the first two and a half hours. Yeah, fucking Sauron got his ass fucking kicked! Then Peter Jackson decides the film needs to devolve into some nonsensical shit in which sap and mush and turd is thrown in your face. Eowyn to the Witch-king, "I am no man," right before she kills him? Dumb.  Dude, Frodo awakens to have most of the fellowship file into his room in order of story significance?  Dumb.  I can't even watch the last hour. Spluh. Schluck. The worst of the trilogy, yet the only one to win "Best Picture."

7. War of the Worlds (2005)- Steven Spielberg is amazingly innovative as far as shot-making and techniques in directing, but holy crap he seems clueless about actual good story-making. Remember when Tom Cruise's kid dies because he's a stupid shit and follows the military trucks into battle?  But we find out he didn't really die because when Cruise and the aforementioned Fanning show up at Cruise's ex-wife's house the son comes out even though every single person in the audience had written him off as dead and wasn't too busted up about it. Dude, why not let the kid just be dead?  That is both bad writing and not giving the audienceany credit.  Speaking of the trucks heading into battle, why do they come back over the hill, on fire, in unison?  Of course it's meant to be some powerful, awe-inspiring scene, but comes off as just, kind of, stupid.  

6. Top Gun (1986)- Another Cruise movie? Yes. Awful. Is it still popular? Beats me, really. But it at least was popular for a long time. Dude, awful. "Talk to me, Goose. I'm a brooding, humorless, 4'7" pilot that doesn't play by the Navy's rules.  I play volleyball in my jeans and ride a motorcycle and my girlfriend/instructor and we make out on it."    

5. Cast Away (2000)- I really wanted to like this movie.  I guess I did, for the most part.  Tom Hanks is good.  No, great.  Helen Hunt ruins it though.  It's at the point that I can't watch the parts in which she's on screen.     

4. The American President (1995) - Come, on.  While Michael Douglas is busy saving the free world as the presidential ideal, Republicans are in a back room plotting his demise by stooping to traditionally Republican lows?  It's Rob Reiner's attempt, with a gigantic assist from Aaron Sorkin, at propoganda disguised as art.  Ultimately it just looks naive and short-sided.  And really, the whole thing is not compelling at all.        

3. The Rock (1996)- Sean Connery is rad. Ed Harris is rad, but less so in this.  Nicholas Cage sucks, Michael Bay sucks, Jerry Bruckheimer sucks, and 'The Rock' sucks. "C'mon, General. Let's be all we can be." But you're Marines, not Army.  That car chase scene when William Forsythe holds the CB in front of his face and Bay shakes the camera to make everything seem so intense is brutal.  Bru. tal.  From wikipedia,

"It was Nicolas Cage's idea that his character wouldn't swear; his euphemisms include 'gee whiz' for Jesus Christ; 'A-hole' for asshole; and 'Zeus's butthole'. Cage had to fight the producers and director to keep the butthole line, but he agreed to deliver the lines "Do you know how this shit works!" and "Eat that, you fuck!" as swearing is a staple of the action genre, and to show how the mission had changed Goodspeed."

Brilliant.  Subtle.  These guys are totally genius.  God, this is like movie making for 3 year-olds. 

-I'd put Pearl Harbor on here, but I don't think it's very popular. Most people know that, you know, kids weren't playing Little League games that early in the morning when then Japanese attacked.  I'd probably put almost every Bay movie on here, because he sucks, but they are all the same and thus, one should do it.

2. Titanic (1997)- Overacted and shittily acted. How many times does Leonardo DiCaprio say, no, scream, Rose's name at the end of a sentence throughout the movie? 2,435 by my count.

1. A Few Good Men (1992)- Overacted and shittily acted. Reiner is such a crappy director at times.  How does he make "The Princess Bride," or "Stand by Me," or "The Jerk," or "Misery," but make this other shit?  There is barely an overarching tone for the entire movie, there is no subtlety anywhere, characters' actions are inconceivable, and and truth regarding the Navy and its conduct is coincidental. And at the end, there's a huge, ginormous "The End" written out across the screen, as though we've just finished watching a 1940's love story. Fuck, what an awful abortion of a vomit.

No Country for Old Men

Let's get this out of the way right now.  I don't really watch movies at the theater, so if you're ever interested in seeing a BH review on MHR about a movie currently in theaters, it's probably going to be about a cartoon.  Three of the last five times I've been to the show have been with the kid for "Horton Hears a Who," Ratatouille," and "Shrek 3."  Most everything I watch is on DVD, which is fine with me because I have a nice television, but I am not current.  There's something about watching the DVD rather than going to the theater that sharpens your judgement.  I'm spending $3 instead of $30.  I'm comfy on my couch and not next to someone horning in on my side of the arm rest.  If I see a movie at the theater, a lot of factors encourage me to inflate my opinion of the movie.  I want to feel good about my $30.  I convinced myself "For Love of the Game," was good at the theater.  At home, pluh.  Kevin Costner's fastball looked a lot less, um, I don't know, 47 mph on the big screen.  So there are good things about seeing most movies at home.

That said, I might be the last person in the U.S. to have seen "No Country for Old Men."  Maybe I'm overestimating its viewership, but obviously, after winning 'Best Picture" and getting a lot of attention over the past few months, it's been seen by a lot of people.  Is the attention merited?  The awards?  I can't really tell.  Of the Coen brothers films, I don't know if it cracks the top 3.  As far as being a compelling story, "Fargo," was much better.  "O Brother," was better.  "The Big Lebowski," while not artistically as accomplished nor meant to be taken as seriously, was so fucking clever at the time.  I wonder if just having the Coen name on a movie gets it a degree of acceptance prior to it's even being viewed.  

The characters are totally believable.  No one performs outside themselves.  The characters are injected into fucked up situations, but you never wonder how they got there.  You don't know what's going to happen next.  Is the hitman going to get his guy?  Is he going to live?  Is Josh Brolin going to make it?  He doesn't turn into Rambo, overcoming insurmountable odds to save his woman and his life.  Would I act any differently if I were being chased with a gun?  That all said, why was this movie supposedly better than "There Will Be Blood," or "Into the Wild?"  I don't know that it was.  Are Academy Award voters so blah that they slobber and drool over any perceived anti-Hollywood style twists and turns?  Do they love unknowingly recognizing post-movie that they've been rooting for the bad guy?  I'm not sure why this movie garnered the unquestioned and unexamined acceptance it did.  It's good.  It might be great.  I'm not such a douche that I'd presume to tout my own movie interests over those of more accomplished movie-goers.  But, it's not as good as "Fargo," nor its own contemporary, "Into the Wild."  I'd watch it again though.                

I Am Legend

It took until 'I Am Legend' was released on DVD for me to see it.  I had planned on seeing it at the theater with my assistant swim coach during Christmas vacation of last year - her vacation, from Sonoma State - but she bailed on me at the last minute.  Could I have gone alone?  Yes, but I did not.  

My big fear the first time I saw the trailer was Will Smith is becoming Mr. sci-fi.  I'm a fan of the genre, but so was Kevin Costner for a while, and I'd hate to see Smith follow that path.  I liked 'I, Robot,' but sci-fi is designed to attract a pretty specific audience, and I don't know if that audience is ready for Smith to carry a film on his own.  Were those first thoughts right?  No.  Hell no.  According to wikipedia, the film made a shitload of money.  

Smith has become a good actor, and in 'I Am Legend' does a good job conveying the idea that his character might be nuts, might be completely alone and grudgingly accepts that, and is scared shitless of the dark.  Having missed it in the theater, I'm not sure how well the CG looked because if it looked as shitty as it did on my screen, that's a disappointment.  I'm passed the point in my life in which that really matters anymore though.  One of the biggest surprises is that the film's director, writers, and Smith let the viewer do a little of the figuring out on his own.  It's the anti-Michael Bay technique, which is welcome and should be exercised more frequently throughout the action/adventure movie-making world.  

I've been wrestling off and on with the question of whether or not I'm going to buy the movie.  I'm interested in seeing the alternate ending, which was not on the copy I rented, dammit.  I don't really know that I'm going to watch it that many times if I do happen to purchase it.  It's good.  I liked it.  But I'm not sure there's going to be something new to find the next time, and the time after that.  Will my brain be stimulated to wrestle itself by new or complicated questions of morality each time I watch?  If so, when those questions cease, is the movie strictly blow-up, carnage, entertaining enough to warrant the purchase?  I don't think I'd spend paycheck money on it, but I won $300 at the casino last night so I'm feeling like the buy it/don't buy it question's significance has toned down, which means it'll likely be in my library come this time next week.