For me it's a tie between House of the Dead and the new 2009 version of Last House on the Left.
of course the 2006 The Wicker Man could also be a contender
of course the 2006 The Wicker Man could also be a contender
Sorry but i honestly cant take advice from someone as arrogant as yourself, calling me tasteless just because i dont like the same movies you do isnt what i'd call professional in ANY sense of the word.jthm said:No, for me to be trolling I'd have to be trying to provoke a reaction from someone. I'm not doing that.Fronken said:You do know that the only one who's been trolling here is you, right?jthm said:Yes. Yes you are. I'd go into the reasons, but it's easier to just say that you are a troll because I say so.Fronken said:So im a troll because i didnt like a couple of movies that you liked...?jthm said:They see me trollin' they hatin'Fronken said:For me its a tie between 300 and Sin City.
Both of them just sucked balls, they didnt entertain me even a little bit, 300 for its extremely childish way of telling a story and its rampant use of Slow-motion, and Sin City for its annoying "art"style, generally bad acting and craptastic story, though it did include an armed hooker mob...that it does get some style points for.
Yeah if you aren't trolling, you're officially the worst critic on this board.
For me? Blair Witch Project. Hell, it wasn't even a good student film, it should've never seen a major release.
So if i were you i'd look up what a troll is before you start to accuse others of being one, cause a troll blaiming others for trolling is nothing more than pathetic.
And I did leave another option for you if read the original post. I said in different words that if you weren't trolling then you have no taste in movies. So if you genuinely weren't trolling by claiming 300 and Sin City (very popular movies amongst our demographic which makes me think you were trying to provoke a reaction) belonged anywhere NEAR the list of "worst movies evar" and you actually believe that, then fine you aren't a troll. You're just tasteless.
Protip: what I'm doing is called flaming, it's what you call the reaction most trolls are trying to provoke. Learn your internet terminology!
oh damn, I forgot about that one. Watched it on pay per view. Almost shattered the remote after throwing it at the TV. Good god that was a baddy.fatboijim said:the happening- wen it went ovr THE ENTIRE CINEMA went n tried to get our money back. actually... n i am the only person who noticed the fact the whole way through it u cud c the speakers for the actors (the big fluffy thing)
and and anythin with christian haydenson (im a...a...wizard...no anakin ur a jedi, wtf is wrong with u!!)
hell yeah, epic movie is really good humor. i cracked and cracked and cracked up first time i saw it.Booze Zombie said:Overreaction of the year.Heppenfeph said:Epic Movie, a friend paid for me to see it, needless to say, we aren't friends anymore.
Damn. Beat me to it. I was actually looking forward to this movie, and after seeing it, left a very bad taste in my mouth. And Casino Royale was excellent. Like eating a pile of shit after having a slice of delicious cake.pantsoffdanceoff said:Quantum of Solace was dreadful and I've seen it so I'd go with that one probably.
ummm WHAT? I do not want to know what do you consider as a good movie.necromanzer52 said:Gladiator. Russel Crowe is just awful.
Its just not a movie for you. Sin city was'nt just another movie. It was something... well i dont know what it was, but i felt in love with it.Fronken said:For me its a tie between 300 and Sin City.
Both of them just sucked balls, they didnt entertain me even a little bit, 300 for its extremely childish way of telling a story and its rampant use of Slow-motion, and Sin City for its annoying "art"style, generally bad acting and craptastic story, though it did include an armed hooker mob...that it does get some style points for.
The Academy and the general public would disagree with you.necromanzer52 said:Gladiator. Russel Crowe is just awful.