I do apologize to those who want to move on from this, but I find this far more fascinating than the original premise of this thread. I should know better, and yet I can't help myself!

Your argument here rests on the premise that a movie can be good or bad, in addition to being liked or disliked. I actually share that philosophy. Gladiator is an example I like to cite of a good movie that I personally did not enjoy. I thought certain elements were good, but it had an artificial feel to it that kept me from ever getting into it. But I would never say that my inability to get into the movie is proof that it's a bad movie, and that's a leap you seem intent on making.

A good actor is consistent from one performance to the next, as he or she merely taps into something specific to the role. If an actor tried to be something entirely different each time out, the only way that would actually work is if the actor was clinically insane and capable of substituting fancy for experience in a way that most people cannot. What you see as monotony, I see as authenticity.

I'll have you know I was voted Most Individual (Male) by my graduating class. I've never been one to chase fads. But I also know that rejecting anything simply because it's mainstream is equally asinine. The first half of Titanic bored me, but the sinking of the ship was spectacular.

Teehee.

Movie critics aren't supposed to be concerned with what fans like. Their job is to critique the art itself. You seem to be trying to have it both ways here. You're a populist when it comes to rejecting the critics, but an elitist when it comes to pubic opinion. I'm starting to suspect you're really Armond White. And for what it's worth, now that I've done some living and maturing, I find myself more regularly in agreement with the critics than I did when I was younger and less experienced. Maybe just seeing enough movies was sufficient, but I'm pretty sure it has more to do with my own personal evolution.

Already addressed.

"Horrible" is a value judgment; it is not objective. Also, I think you and I define depth differently. I don't see it as being a diversity of drastically different types of roles and movies, but rather the ability to convey the growth of a specific character within the story. Seeing Portman's Black Swan persona take hold was jarring, relative to her modest White Swan persona. That's the depth of which I speak.

"You didn't care about...?" You meant to type, "I didn't care about..." Think before you speak and all that. And no, I personally wasn't terribly invested in the characters, either.

The premise was not terribly original, I'll grant you that. But I saw this with an audience of families and was amazed that every kid was completely rapt with attention for a good half an hour with virtually no spoken dialog. That, to my mind, is quite an accomplishment in itself. That I found myself just as invested may invite ridicule from you, but I was nonetheless.

Oh, you were doing so well with your critical thinking arguments! Now we learn you shy away from thinking about real issues?

I still haven't seen this, but I intend to at some point for this year's Academy Awards Challenge. I still have to question the remark about swords and lasers, though, which suggests to me that perhaps you're allergic to reality?

My thoughts on The Godfather are well documented, but I'll repeat myself here. I admire the film, but it left me cold. I'm convinced that being Catholic is required to fully appreciate this movie.

I could riff on you for such obvious choices, but I won't. Instead, I thought it might be interesting to see what your Cinescope personality type is, so I plugged them in and got:

You are the Chosen Adventurer

"Chosen Adventurers are open-minded and cultured heroes who want to know as much about the world as possible, whether through traveling or taking on new experiences."

There's hope for you yet, but I think you've got a lot more adventuring to go before you're qualified to make the kinds of assertions you've been throwing around.

I agree completely with all of that. I never said that just because I couldn't get into a movie that it was bad. I would never say that. I can recognise that a movie is good and still not like it. And I can recognise that a movie is bad in the "good-bad movie" but still like it. I already said that. And I can also recogonise when a movie is simply bad. I think that even you can agree that there are some movies that ARE bad. Right ? Some quite obviously bad movies...

Hamlet (riffed on Mystery Science)
Defeated

Can you add to the list of bad ones ?

Justin Bieber's movie.

Me too. I own what I want to own and don't care how anyone else feels about it. I don't believe in guilty pleasures. If it is something I enjoy, why feel guilty about it?

Off the top of my head, I would have to say these are some of my guilty pleasures:

Both Harold and Kumar Films
The American Pie Series (Original Trilogy)
Showgirls
A Guy Thing
The Foot Fist Way

There's probably more... but that's all I can think of specifically at the moment. For the record, I don't love these movies but I did enjoy them enough to have the DVD's in my collection.

As for what other people would perceive as a guilty pleasure: I am a huge M. Night Shyamalan fan. However, I am not ashamed of this fact at all.

I'm with you on the first Harold and Kumar movie. It was a lot funnier than I was expecting it to be. The only American Pie movie I like is Band Camp. As for Showgirls,....I don't know. I liked the individual people in it, but when you put them all together in the same movie...I just don't know. It didn't work for me. It did have a lot of hot ladies in it, though.

My brother is really into "cut, cut, stab, stab, murder" movies as I call them, but I don't get it myself. They're not bad movies, per se, they're just not my kind of movie. I do like the Scream movies, the first 3 Nightmare On Elm Street movies, and this really creepy movie called They Wait, but that's about it. Cut is good, too, if only for the "cheesy" factor. And it does have Molly Ringwald as the main character.

Hate to say this but I enjoy Mamma Mia. I grew up listening to ABBA a lot because my mom is from Sweden and I had two older sisters who loved ABBA.

Could be worse I guess, if I enjoyed Glitter.

There you go again. Supposedly you know what other people are thinking and feeling. Get over yourself.

And there is yet another reason to simply ignore everything you say.

I think the guy is just trying to get some attention. At least... I hope so.

You're going to ignore that list I gave just because you don't agree with me ? Who's the one that's high and mighty again ? There is nothing wrong with anything that I said. I was asked to post a list of specific example of movies that I don't like and why. How dare you denegrate me for that ? Just because you don't agree with the list isn't a reason to talk down to me. How would you feel if I did that to you ? I was asked to post examples where the critics liked the movies but that people thought were bad. That's what I did. With the exception of Wall-E, I never said any of the movies on my list were badly made. Just that they were bad movies. And when I say bad, I don't mean what you normally think of as "bad." I mean that they were boring or even pretentious. But I'd never say they were badly made. All the movies on the list were well made movies. Mister Peepers said to back up what I said when I said "Most of the things that critics think are good, most people hate. This has almost always been the case, hasn't it ?" That's what I did. But if you people would take the time to actually read what I said, you'll notice that I said MOST of the things that critics think are good aren't any good. The key word here is MOST. That's the truth. There are a lot of movies that critics have said were good and actually are good. But there's even more that they said were good, but really aren't. Again, I didn't say the movies were badly made, but were just bad movies. Just like everything else, there are exceptions to the rule. Some of the movies that critics have said were good actually are. But nine times out of 10, they aren't. Just because a movie is well made doesn't mean it's a good movie. I just don't get you people on here. You ask what I think about something then tear me down because it's not the exact same thing that you think. What sense does that make ?

Was Citizen Kane boring or not ? Even though it is, doesn't make it a bad movie. I never said that
Schindler's List. Not a bad movie...just depressing.
Saving Private Ryan. When I watched it, I could recognise that it was a very well made movie. It just wasn't interesting and was very boring.
Godfather. Very well made movie, but it was very boring.

Even if you like these movies, can't you recognise that what I've said about them is true ? There's nothing wrong with being a boring movie. I have NEVER said that there was. I just meant that only certain people will like them.

I now realize I've wasted far too much of my time and money over the years on bad films and bad acting performances.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to some movies or acting performances that you believe are truly good.

Besides Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison, that is.

I could care less what other people think, but just to contribute to this thread here are mine:

outlander
a night at the roxbury
bill and ted (both)
escape from new york
pathfinder
the spirit

oh yeah cant forget

friday the 13th part 8 jason takes manhattan

I wish you wouldn't describe those movies as "boring," when there are plenty of people on this forum who don't find those movies boring. I didn't find CITIZEN KANE, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or GODFATHER to be boring and I daresay the majority of those who post here who've seen these movies wouldn't use that word to describe them, whatever their opinions may be. Nor did I find SCHINDLER'S LIST to be "depressing." So, NO, I can't recognize what you've said about these movies as being "true."

I imagine that when you get older and look back at those movies--unless your brain becomes completely inert due to underuse--you will change your opinions.

I fell asleep when I watched this at the theater. I saw the battles at the beginning but then I'd start to doze off, only to awaken to gunshots. Once that was over, I'd end up falling asleep. I also snore and I hope I embarrassed my wife.

It took a 2-3 tries at home to get from start to finish without going to sleep. It's a good film but I just go to sleep during it.

Finally...someone who understands. It was a good movie. Not great, but good. The fighting scenes were especially well done. But I, too, fell asleep during the movie. I've always found WWII movies pretty boring. They're just too recent to be very interesting. I'm more into what they call "sword and sorcery" kinds of war movies. Something about an army going into war with huge swords, shields, and arrows while covered with shiny metal or old leather is just fun. I think because it's not something that's been done for over 400 years is the reason they're so cool. But we see guns every day. Guns seem more real, thereby not as exciting.

What did you think of 300?

Eh. Up until the last little bit of it, I liked it. I didn't like that they killed off the main character.....though that is what happened in real life. It would've been a much better movie had they kept him alive. I don't see why they couldn't. In the Jurassic Park book, the main character played by Richard Attenborough in the movie, was eaten by Compys. But they kept him alive in the first two movies. Other than that, I thought it was an alright movie. Definately liked it better than Sin City and Spirit. I tried watching Meet The Spartans because I liked 300, but I couldn't make it through even 10 minutes.

I vote for Spottedfeather for King of the Internet!!!!! I shall no longer like something because people tell me to, but not like it because Spottedfeather tells me to.

Is your head up your ass to the warmth ? I never told you to like or not like something. I have no idea of where you got that from. I'll say it again in case you didn't understand. There are popular things that are only popular because people talk about them so much that a lot of people think they're a lot better than they actually are. There ARE bad movies they you can enjoy for the cheesy-ness. And there are good movies that you may not necessarily like just because they're not your type of movie. But there are also movies that are horribly made or badly acted and are just horrible. Anyone can like any movie they choose, but you should be able to recognise if a movie is bad or good. What about that can't you understand ?

But not all of us have that particular gift, which is why we're so grateful to have you, The Arbiter of Good and Bad, to guide us. Your rarefied insights are appreciated so very much.

Again, as I said, there are movies that are bad and movies that are good. Anyone can like any movie, good or bad, that they choose. I have NEVER said that they couldn't. Just because you like a movie doesn't make it good. And just because you hate a movie doesn't mean it's bad. There are well made movies that I, and others, don't like. And there are bad movies that I, and others DO like. How can you not understand that ? I've said it several times already, and I'm getting sick and tired of explaining how that works. For example, I like Pathfinder, which is a bad movie. Bad, predictable acting. But I can like it if I want. I have never said that you shouldn't like a movie just because it's bad. So, please take your sarcastic self out of this thread and leave it for people that actually want to contribute a thought that is capable of being discussed, alright ?

Here's the thing. So far, what you've said about the movies you dislike is that they are "bad," "boring" and/or "pretentious." The first two characterizations are entirely subjective. There is no way you can quantify "bad" or "boring" in a meaningful way. "Pretentious" is an easier label to slap on a movie (American Beauty is my go-to example, what with that bag in the wind shot), but even then it's arguable.

In short, none of the things you've said about movies can be proven as "true." You'll be better served to quit insisting your opinion is fact and simply accept that it's how you feel about a given movie. It's okay. I'm sure you probably had a teacher who told you that, in a debate, you should never present your side as being an opinion. That's only for certain contexts. Discussing art isn't one of them.

Allow me to demonstrate:

I personally can find no redeeming qualities of Hulk. The screen was entirely too dark for too much of the time, I never found a reason to invest myself in the story or its characters and the closest i came to feeling excitement was when Hulk fought a tank...because it was like watching someone else play a video game I know I'd be no good at playing myself.

Notice I took responsibility for the opinion as my own, and I refrained from insisting that any of the flaws I found with it were inherently part of the film. Someone else may have loved it, but by framing my remarks as my personal opinion and being more specific than just "bad," "boring" and/or "pretentious," I've given them something to address.

See, what you don't seem to fucking grasp - as if folks here are speaking to a particularly obtuse second-grader - is that you don't decide for anyone else what is good and what is bad. It's purely a subjective valuation, yet you continually chime in with unsolicited declarations that so-and-so is "good", "sucks", "boring", blah, blah, blah, instead of "I found ______ boring/great/terrible", something everyone could at the very least least tolerate as as opinion (look it up), however outlandish it may be. You're like one of those yutzes who interrupts conversations loudly and often with ill-informed, annoying "statements of fact". The person at the party who walks up ready to bloviate, and everyone in a little grouping "ahems" awkwardly and excuses himself to go to the bathroom. As numerous others have written, get over yourself.
I shall decide that on my own. Your input on the matter has been noted and duly discarded. However, I do tend to have little time and patience for interlocutions with brick walls, especially arrogant ones, so I think I'll leave you alone here with the one or two people still willing to engage your narcissism.