i mostly have the same attitude… i was reading this thread earlier trying to think of a film i hate, and i couldn’t think of anything
I can usually find time for a bit of hate!
Especially when it comes to films like B. Monkey & Starship Troopers. Also, any film with Doris Day, most ‘teen’ movies & most films that have come out of England in the last 30 years . These are the sort of films that I have way beyond a strong disliking for.
Anyway, I think I’d better stop myself now before I get carried away…
I dislike many films, but I only hate a few. Usually its the idealogy or message of films the films that make me hate a film. Sometimes I hate a film because I find it offensive. I actually don’t hate fims because they are necessarily bad or boring.
Some movies that i hate and I’m sure some of you will be surprised:
Sugar and Spice
55 Days at Peking
Confessions of a Shopaholic
East Broadway
Serenity
Wendigo
Joy Luck Club
Let me do that & get back to you…
[quote=“Stanton, post:40, topic:1962”]Why should someone hate films? I love some films, well, many, but I don’t hate films which are boring, badly made or whatever.
But there are films “folks love” I don’t care very much for. That’s unavoidable.[/quote]
I guess I chose the wrong word but Stanton, you are up to the task when it comes to sparking a debate. Not always a bad thing.
[quote=“Col. Douglas Mortimer, post:43, topic:1962”]I dislike many films, but I only hate a few. Usually its the idealogy or message of films the films that make me hate a film. Sometimes I hate a film because I find it offensive. I actually don’t hate fims because they are necessarily bad or boring.
Some movies that i hate and I’m sure some of you will be surprised:
Sugar and Spice
55 Days at Peking
Confessions of a Shopaholic
East Broadway
Serenity
Wendigo
Joy Luck Club[/quote]
Colonel, I don’t care for any of those films except Serenity. I enjoyed it and the series it was spawned from(Firefly).
Yeah, Serenity is a winner. And in one way or another a western. A SF western.
He he, it will be a great read. Absolutely rewarding 
I guess I chose the wrong word but Stanton, you are up to the task when it comes to sparking a debate. Not always a bad thing.
Yes, I like to spark a debate. For that I’m in a forum, that’s what a forum is made for. Only don’t have much time these days to write something more substantial.
I joined a forum to discuss movies, not necessarily debate. Although debates usually follow pretty close behind.
I only followed your word choice.
Is there a great difference between “discuss” and “debate”? Than replace debate in my above post with discussion and we have it.
Maybe you are still misunderstanding me.
I’m interested in discussing movies. In interchanging opinions. Not in quarrels. I don’t attack people. And if someone is offended by one of my opinions I talk to him in the forum or via PM until the problem is settled.
Even to SD I tried to talk with reason. But SD was a problem himself.
A few reasons why I dislike, and hopefully start a debate, (I’m with Stanton: I don’t hate any films) “The Searchers” (taken from my IMDb review):
John Ford’s so called “classic” western “The Searchers” (1956) is in reality, nothing more than your average western, that is also (clumsily) trying to say something about racism. Don’t get me wrong, I like good westerns. Sit me down in front of one and I’m happy. Some of my favourite movies include such films as “High Noon” and “The Magnificent Seven”. The problem with “The Searchers” is that everything it dose, has been done much better. People claim that when Ethan Edwards (John Wayne, a poor performance from an overrated actor) sees his brothers homestead burnt down, it insipied George Lucas in the similar scene in “Star Wars: A New Hope”. But it was done much better there, and what is more remembered? Also, David Lean apparently watched it many times while making (the brilliant) “Lawrence of Arabia” to get an idea on how to film vast empty desert landscapes. But, as I have said before, he surpassed his inspiration. The acting is also indifferent, with Jeffrey Hunter, Vera Miles, Ward Bond, and Natalie Wood giving mundane performances. Some critics say that this film has John Wayne’s best role in it, but with a film career that basically in voled playing himself anything different has surly got to be a “career best”. Don’t listen to all the undeserved praise, and watch something decent by Ford, like “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon”.
I tend to hate sometimes a certain element of a film ie; actor(s), special effects, music etc.
Oh there are movies I hate. Ones where my intelligence is insulted repeatedly and there’s nothing redeeming about it.
case in point is Dawn of the Dead the 2004 version which completely crapped all over the legacy of George Romero by inserting Olympic sprinters for zombies and crap characters that had no business living in a horror movie. They added nothing to the original and I ended up losing 101 minutes of my life.
PS thankfully Zach Snyder redeemed himself ten fold by directing an amazing version of Watchmen.
hahah 
I didn’t read your comments on The Searchers, John Welles… because I just bought it and haven’t watched it yet… but I will be back on that one
i just had this problem myself when viewing Thriller… the slow mo effects really took the film down a few notches for me
I agree with you Stanton. I also prefer this subtle kind of Horror. The sudden appearance of the twins also struck me.
Talking about alternative actors I have to say, that discussions like that are completely senseless. We don’t know how flicks would have been with another cast. Nicholson or HAckman? Who knows? Both actors have strong and weak performances. Maybe Hackman would have been weak in this one? Who knows?
[quote=“Dillinger, post:55, topic:1962”]I agree with you Stanton. I also prefer this subtle kind of Horror. The sudden appearance of the twins also struck me.
Talking about alternative actors I have to say, that discussions like that are completely senseless. We don’t know how flicks would have been with another cast. Nicholson or HAckman? Who knows? Both actors have strong and weak performances. Maybe Hackman would have been weak in this one? Who knows?[/quote]
doing the whole “what IF” scenario can go forever… I’d rather just discuss what really did occur in the movie - the production, the behind the scenes, the reception, its critique, etc.
but then in a way, everything is really a What If discussion when it comes to critiquing a film… if you say you don’t like an aspect of a film, that’s assuming it would of been better had it been done a different way… but since it wasn’t done a different way, you really have no way of knowing and it becomes a What If? 
like I said forever and ever and ever…
I don’t agree. when I talk about movies I never or rarely talk about “what if”. There’s still so much to illuminate.
I am not trying to argue here, just trying to give an example of my abstract way of thinking on “What If”
This could be considered a “What If”, because you’re saying- “What if that scene never became famous? Would the film be better?” we can never know… its a what if
“i’m just sayin…”