Most Stupidly Annoying Film Plot?

[zoltan]

Usually Doug McClure films are a good place to start, if you like shite rubbish plots

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

That's not my recollection of it - as I recall, you see footage of them walking in the fog at night, chattering away to each other in a semi-scared, semi-relieved way, then they go over what they were told at the Slaughtered Lamb and look down to see they have wandered off the path. When they turn around to try and get back, they walk quickly for several minutes without regaining the path. If they had veered sharply to the left during the onscreen action, the path would only have been a few feet behind them.

I can't believe I'm having an argument this pedantic on a Friday! at self.

Heck, my mum and a friend managed to walk 20 miles in the wrong direction along the coast, in broad daylight before they realised they were going the wrong way, along a simple cliff-top footpath.

So anything's possible on the Moors, at night.

 

[Reno]

Usually Doug McClure films are a good place to start, if you like shite rubbish plots

Love those, especially The Land that Time Forgot and The Earths Core.

((((paper mache dinosaurs))))

 

[zoltan]

!

 

[zoltan]

The People that time forgot also:

Fuck it, should start a Doug McClure thread

 

[stdPikachu]

You people are trash philistines.

If things like The Core and Armageddon aspired to be trash, they shouldn't have taken themselves so seriously. Similarly, I have no problem with hokey films, or ridiculously tongue in cheek films like Mars Attacks... but by my reckoning films like The Core are pitched squarely at the sci-fi disaster/thriller market and I find it very difficult to cut them any slack for factual errors a ten year old could spot.

 

[May Kasahara]

Heck, my mum and a friend managed to walk 20 miles in the wrong direction along the coast, in broad daylight before they realised they were going the wrong way, along a simple cliff-top footpath.

So anything's possible on the Moors, at night.

Well quite, particularly when you factor in the entrance of a large and vicious werewolf shortly after the boys realise they're lost.

I really must watch that film again, it's just too good.

 

[Reno]

If things like The Core and Armageddon aspired to be trash, they shouldn't have taken themselves so seriously. Similarly, I have no problem with hokey films, or ridiculously tongue in cheek films like Mars Attacks... but by my reckoning films like The Core are pitched squarely at the sci-fi disaster/thriller market and I find it very difficult to cut them any slack for factual errors a ten year old could spot.

I like The Core, but hate Armageddon and the same goes for any Michael Bay atrocity. It's more a matter of filmmaking than subject matter. The Core didn't take itself seriously at all, check out the scene when Stanley Tucci freaks out at the thought of it being a one way ticket. The film is tongue in cheek, but doesn't patronise the audience by constantly winking at it.

 

[fucthest8]

Fuck it, should start a Doug McClure thread

YES.

Fucking brilliant, shite films r us.

I really couldn't care less if films like "The Core" are utter wank, so long as they don;t try to pretend to be anything else. Didn't really see that it was. Eyes Wide Shit on the other hand ... Kubrick FFS

 

[jæd]

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's DIY frontal lobotomy with a circular saw in order to nullify the laws of physics. I've no problem with things doing the unlikely, I have a problem with films doing the absolutely impossible.

The Day After Tomorrow -- even the director admitted it was implausible...

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Thing is, Day After Tomorrow took itself pretty seriously, which is why it deserves to be slated...

 

[Reno]

Thing is, Day After Tomorrow took itself pretty seriously, which is why it deserves to be slated...

...and Roland Emmerich is almost as shit a director as Michael Bay.

 

[boohoo]

Revolver - taking itself far too seriously -trying to be clever by being so complex that no-one has a clue or even cares what is going on.

 

[LesNatrels]

Eyes Wide Shut.

Or, to use the more accurate titles (that for some reason they shied away from): "Eyes Wide Shit" or "Arse Wide Open".

TO be fair I'm not sure it actually had a plot, so that may exclude it entirely.

ETA: this from IMDB: "A New York City doctor, who is married to an art curator, pushes himself on a harrowing and dangerous night-long odyssey of sexual and moral discovery after his wife admits that she once almost cheated on him"

Cos that sort of thing is actually what people do isn't it?

I would have been much more interested if it was about a New York City doctor, who is married to an art curator, pushing himself on a harrowing and dangerous night-long odyssey of drinking everything off the top shelf at his local whilst boring the shite out of anyone who comes near about what a bitch his wife is, after his wife admits that she once almost cheated on him.

ALMOST cheated on him. Fucking hell.

This will explain Eyes Wide Shut for you, (Kubrick was a very clever boy you know)

PS. my vote is '300', I mean, come on, give me a break, OR ATLEAST STOP SHOUTING ALL THE TIME!

 

[Hi-ASL]

Revolver - taking itself far too seriously -trying to be clever by being so complex that no-one has a clue or even cares what is going on.

Good for an hour then swiftly disappears up its own anal vortex.

As does: Sunshine. The "greatest Sci-Fi ever" my arse. Friday the 13th in Space, more like (which sounds like a brilliant premise, but they even fucked that up ).

 

[Reno]

This will explain Eyes Wide Shut for you, (Kubrick was a very clever boy you know)

Blimey !

Maybe an quicker way to explain why Eyes Wide Shut isn't exactly naturalistic and why the characters appear to act strangely is that it's an adaptation of Arthur Schnitzler's 1920's novel Traumnovelle (aka Dream Novel or Dream Story). Not only does the film retain some of the sexual attitudes of early 20th century Viennese society found in the book, the title of the novel should be enough of a clue why the actions and events in the film aren't exactly to be taken at face value.

 

[gsv]

I can remember that absurdity flying out at me the very first time I saw it. I just couldn't see past that and just sat there thinking "this film has only ONE flimsy reason, plotwise, any of it is happening".

Me too. Then I willfully threw away that observation and found that the rest of the film was -as-fuck


GS(v)

 

[Reno]

Always felt that film was really overrated as a result.

That is the most pathetic reason for dismissing a film I've ever read.

 

[fucthest8]

This will explain Eyes Wide Shut for you, (Kubrick was a very clever boy you know)

You are taking the piss aren't you? Surely?

Reno's answer is the right one.

Doesn't stop it being a shit plot though.

 

[subversplat]

I think that rules out any that are intentionally or unintentionally funny.

Gone in 60 Seconds: "A legendary former car thief rounds up his old gang to steal 50 cars in one night in a bid to save his brother's life". O rly? Do I even want to know why that would be necessary? Did you write it on the back of a cig packet? Blow it out yer fookin' arse.

There are undoubtedly many worse ones - but I can't think of any right now. This one really annoys me because the plot is so obviously secondary to the mayhem that follows. I mean, it's almost like they're laughing at us (well.. not me, but you know what I mean).

It's just a personal thing, I suppose. I'm sure you can all do a lot better.

Gone in 60 Seconds just added a pointless Hollywood plot on to a perfectly good 70s car thievery film (the 70s film was called "Gone in 60 Seconds", in case anybody was wondering). All this year 2000s moral justification bollocks is tiresome - what's wrong with nicking nice cars for fun and profit?

 

[subversplat]

This will explain Eyes Wide Shut for you, (Kubrick was a very clever boy you know)

PS. my vote is '300', I mean, come on, give me a break, OR ATLEAST STOP SHOUTING ALL THE TIME!

WTF!? 300 was based on history