Even as a person who is basically obsessed with Buffy, I agree that the show started going downhill at the beginning of season four. I actually love season five though, no matter how horrible seasons six and seven are. Still, if you've only seen the first season, you totally should watch until you get at least to season two, which is so much better than the first season.
As for really bad movies, the only one I can think of right now is The Host. My friends dragged me to see it, and, knowing about Twilight, I figured that it wouldn't be that good. I was right. It was horrible. The acting was kind of flat, the plot was weak, and the fact that one of the aliens wore really, really high heels really annoyed me.
The Host is based on a book by Stephanie Meyer, and it's about the Earth being invaded by aliens that take over humans' bodies. The story focuses on a group of humans that is in hiding from these aliens, and a girl who is taken over by an alien, except she regains consciousness and talks to the alien inside her mind. So she convinces this alien to go to the group of survivors, and there's a love triangle, which the story centers on, though truly it's a square, because someone falls in love with the alien and the human girl already had a boyfriend who is part of the survivors. Personally, I think the idea could have some potential, but the execution is horrible, for example, the voice-over of the human girl talking to the alien is really awkward, and some of the moments that were meant to be 'dramatic' are unintentionally hilarious. I just checked, and apparently it only has an 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but most of my friends actually liked it, so I guess whether you like it depends on your taste in movies.
Troy. We watched it for a class and just ended up laughing at the "soundtrack", banging on drums and people wailing. One of my friends passed out part way through the movie.
I walked out on ... oh wow I don't even remember it now. XD I think it was a Will Ferrel movie. oh well.
YES, The Host is a much better book than the Twilight series was.
I knew when I heard it was going to be made into a movie that it would not transfer well. There is just no way to express the emotions in the book or the way that Wanda would talk to Melanie. She was an alien that had taken over her body, so their entire relationship was inside Melanie's head. There was no way to portray that without it being boring.
They also didn't do very well with the relationships between the characters. Nobody seemed important and you didn't get attached to anyone like you did in the book.
I think another book that really sucked when it got transformed into a movie was The City of Ember.
---------- Post added 03-02-2014 at 04:03 PM ----------
I will have to give Buffy more of a chance. I only got through 3/4s of the first season.
I hate how a lot, maybe even most, book-to-movie adaptations kind of suck. Like The City of Bones - it's an amazing book, and the movie is actually alright, but as an adaptation it's really bad. The plot is significantly different from the book and slightly confusing, and things are revealed that in the books were revealed in the third installment. As a person who has only read the first book, this was really annoying when I watched it.
Also, another movie that I think is a really bad adaptation is Harry Potter and the Deathy Hallows: Part 2. The film series started getting bad at the Half-Blood Prince, but the fact that the last film was split into two kind of ruined it: it was spread out, way too dramatic, things not in the book were added at the expense of important moments from the books being drastically changed or flat out cut.
I hate it when they split books into two movies. It just ruins the continuation and, like you said, they're totally over dramatic.
I adore the first Harry Potter movie and my favorite is The Goblet of Fire movie. I've never read the books though, so if either of them suck I can't say.
The City of Bones wasn't that bad. It was just very condensed and it was missing a lot of the plot. I didn't know that it took plot from the later books and added it into the movie. I've read all the books and they're all just jumbled in my head.
Oh the books are a lot more detailed. The movies were OK, though very disappointing for me. They missed so many vital plot points, I'm amazed those that haven't read the books could understand what was happening at all. They also left out so many great characters. The fourth movie was by far the most rushed in my opinion, because there was so much in the book. I didn't agree with how they split the last movie up, obviously just for more money because it could have been one movie. Really, all the book is about it them looking for the Horcruxes and then the big battle at the end. You don't even get to find out about Dumbledore like you do in the book _-_
I remember watching Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix before I read the book, and having no idea what was going on during the battle of the Department of Mysteries. I get that it was the longest book in the series, so they had to cut lots of stuff out, but I'm pretty sure they cut out way too much. Now that I read the book, I get the plot, and I don't mind the movie. My favourite Harry Potter film is the Prisoner of Azkaban, with the Goblet of Fire a close second, even if it is lacking compared to the book. I don't really like the first movie though, because the golden trio's acting wasn't very good at that point, but really my main reason would be that I've watched it way too many times and I'm kind of tired of it.
The third one irked me, because at the end (of the movie) Harry just randomly trusts Sirius after little to no explanation why he should. I saw the movie with a friend who didn't read the books and she was confused as hell.
As someone who just plain hasn't read the Potter books, I can say that the movies were pretty damned confusing sometimes. There were a couple that I just don't watch because they made no sense. Sirius Black was confusing because, like you said, he came out of nowhere and Harry suddenly trusted him completely. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was confusing because you had no idea that Tom Riddle was Voldemort or why you should give a shit. Suddenly they were just in this underground chamber fighting stuff. The last two movies were boring because there wasn't enough material in them if you ask me...
I think that it was ridiculous they split Breaking Dawn into two movies. That was similar to Deathly Hallows. There was not enough content to do that.
I hate it when they split books into two movies. It just ruins the continuation and, like you said, they're totally over dramatic.
I adore the first Harry Potter movie and my favorite is The Goblet of Fire movie. I've never read the books though, so if either of them suck I can't say.
The City of Bones wasn't that bad. It was just very condensed and it was missing a lot of the plot. I didn't know that it took plot from the later books and added it into the movie. I've read all the books and they're all just jumbled in my head.
I think it's brilliant when the movie of a last book is split into two movies actually. It depends on the book, though, when it boils down to it being "over dramatic". There are some movies that really don't need to do that, but I thought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was an example of one I didn't particularly care for. Though I'm very much digging that they're making Hunger Games: Mockingjay into two movies. <3 To cram just one 2 hour movie into the last book would be leaving so much out. I respect producers that want to attempt to put as much from the book into the movie as possible. Soooo, while I agree that not ALL movies need a part one and part two, there are definitely movie adaptations of books that NEED it. Harry Potter could have done well without a part two though. I agree with that much.
Innnnn topic though, a movie I really was annoyed with was Eragon. It was based of a book I really adored, but it should have just seriously been called something totally different. It bored me, was nothing like the book and was more of an insult to the book it was supposedly based on. -.-
Last edited by KittyCat18; 03-11-2014 at 06:24 AM..
Innnnn topic though, a movie I really was annoyed with was Eragon. It was based of a book I really adored, but it should have just seriously been called something totally different. It bored me, was nothing like the book and was more of an insult to the book it was supposedly based on. -.-
*Commencing rant* Holy crud, I agree with you 1000000000000000000000000%! I was so excited for the movie, but when I saw it, I was like... OMFG WTF did you do to my favourite book?? Soooo much was wrong, it's better to list the things they got right. And it seems that list basically extends to at least all the names were right. And everyone ignored me when I got mad at the trailers, simply because they made Saphria look wrong. WHY DOES A DRAGON NEED BIRD WINGS??? AJHJHHbdHGD *Rant over*
*Commencing rant* Holy crud, I agree with you 1000000000000000000000000%! I was so excited for the movie, but when I saw it, I was like... OMFG WTF did you do to my favourite book?? Soooo much was wrong, it's better to list the things they got right. And it seems that list basically extends to at least all the names were right. And everyone ignored me when I got mad at the trailers, simply because they made Saphria look wrong. WHY DOES A DRAGON NEED BIRD WINGS??? AJHJHHbdHGD *Rant over*
That movie pissed me of soooooo much. The only thing they got right was the actor who played the main villain..because now if I try and watch that terrible movie I see Rumplestilskin from Once Upon a Time XDD
Another movie that I actually DID walk out of was Season of the Witches. It was drenched in religion and if I recall the witches ended up being demons..that pissed me off to no end.
And the newest "remake" of Karate Kid. WTF? It had absolutely nothing to do with Karate Kid. I mean if I recall right, they didn't even use karate in the movie! I possibly would have liked it if I wasn't trying to find comparisons to the original it was supposedly based in. If it were named something else, I might have enjoyed it.
Oh man, where to begin? I went through a phase of trying to watch as many horror films as possible. Trust me, there are so many bad horror films out there. Not the 'so bad it's kind of good' type, either. I've no idea how most of those projects got funded!
'I Spit On Your Grave' (the original) is a spectacularly bad film. Nothing happens for about 98% of the film; the other two per cent is just gore. Quite creative gore, it must be said, but it does nothing at all to redeem the other hour and whatever of total pointlessness.
Another film, the name of which I can't remember for the life of me, has a couple whose car breaks down. They get out to go and see a zoo in the middle of nowhere consisting of three pets in cages. The woman ends up in a cave with a dinosaur... Yeah. It's every bit as awful as it sounds.
I also managed to fall asleep at the cinema during 'Die Hard 4'. It should never be used as a date movie.
Oh, I've seen plenty bad horror movies... One I can remember was about these people that get stuck in an underground cave and the monster ends up being some weird cave man who captures and rapes two of the females, who later escape but are pregnant with cavemen babies... Actually, anything with sex or rape in it just takes me right out of things and turns the movie into something boring. Everyone told me Hostel was scary as shit, but the first half of the movie is literally full of sex and gross humour. Don't see it. It's not scary at all, just painful to watch.
Hostel is just disgusting..
Also, my friend dared me to watch Human Centipede a few years ago with her. I did, and I know there's people out there who think it's funny, but man my gag reflexes had me going for HOURS after that movie. DON'T.DO.IT. It's a boring movie and it's absolutely nasty.
I think that the problem is that there hasn't been a good "book split into two parts" movie yet. If they do well with Mockingjay, that'll be a first.
I pretty much just hate horror films. I don't go to movies to get freaked out....but, on that note, I thought Repo: The Genetic Opera was awful. It was both disgusting and kitschy at the same time...I know that movie has a huge cult following, though, so I apologize if I just insulted anyone's tastes.
Our most recent awful movie was Aqua Tales. It is an animated movie made in 2009 (if I remember correctly) and has CG that looks as if it was from the 90's/early 2000's. My brother forced my mother and I to watch it several times... Here is the movie's plot:
Read at your own riskX
Its plot revolves around a boy addicted to junk food and comic books who is forced to eat fish presumably every night. One day, the boy's mother brings home a fish that grants him a wish if he eats it, and the boy gets fed up and wishes for an alien invasion and for his mother to get abducted. The rest of the movie revolves around the boy trying to figure out how to un-wish the situation he caused, then he finally remembers near the end that he had not eaten all of the fish and attempts to un-wish it that way. That does not work, so he and the rest of the people he met on his expedition decide to defeat the leader of the aliens--and they manage to do so by a dog wizzing on the alien leader's head.
I am still trying to mentally block that movie; it was awful. Aqua Tales was apparently targeted at children, but it had both a character swearing at least once and what I mentioned under the spoiler. I would not recommend this movie to anyone...
