Total Film's 50 Most Hated Movies of All Time # 34 - Van Helsing

Back in 2004, Van Helsing was probably 1 of the top 3 movies I was jacked for.  Why?  Well, why do think my blogger name is Stephenstein?  Growing up, I read all the books I could on the famous Universal Monsters.  Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, the Wolfman, I inhaled it all.  When the classic Universal Monster sets came out, I bought the set that included the busts.  I was jacked for a movie that would have all three of the "top" Universal Monsters in them and I was especially excited to see them done the right way.


So, I watched Van Helsing in the theatre and the first half an hour or so was great, no complaints, the movie was delivering on all counts.  Then it got...stupid.  Why did Dracula want to be a father? (I mean, every time he turns a human into a vampire, is he not in essence their father?)  Why was The Wolfman basically a thug character?  Who the hell thought up that only a werewolf can defeat a vampire?  What the hell was going on here?


So, did not dig the movie, nevertheless.  I think it was a valiant attempt, but in the end it was not handled the right way.  That being said, I still bought the 3-disc version of the movie.  Why?  Because I still admire the Universal Monsters, I still like them in the movie, even if Richard Roxburgh hammed it up as Dracula and even if the Frankenstein Monster sounded to me like  a bad Broadway actor trying to sound Shakespearean or something.  The fact is, they were still the Universal Monsters, their design was neat and in the end, it was a passable, if not very flawed film. 


Therefore, if I can find myself not hating this film, even if they screwed up royally and I at least have some background with the Universal Monsters and their history, then I find it hard to believe that Total Film has any right to criticize this movie.  Unless they grew up with the Universal Monsters and loved what they were and just loved that whole film series, which I highly doubt, then their disdain for this movie, while being plausible in pointing out the problems with the plot of the film, has no basis to cross into outright hate.  To me, it was nice for Stephen Sommers to try, but at the end of the day, he lacks the skill to pull it off.  Here's hoping that the "reboot" actually works and we get a decent film that actually pays homage to the Universal Monsters properly instead of the half-baked attempt we got in 2004.


Rating: Worth the hate?  If I don't hate it, I don't see why you do.


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #37 - A Nightmare on Elm Street

Now, before you start commenting that they obviously are naming the remake of this movie on the most hated list and not the original, let me stop you -- I know.  The original is considered a classic and obviously the first one wasn't.  What I find amusing though is that this film, Texas and Halloween all made the most hated list, but they still omitted other horror classics that got remade.  Friday the 13th? Black Christmas? The Hitcher? They made a completely useless prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing, why not get mad at that?  I guess we know now where the hierarchy of horror films stands with the person who originally made this list. 


So, let's get down to it -- does this film deserve to be on the most hated list?  Well, as a movie in the series, it isn't really one of the better entries, Freddy for one thing is too short and basically, it's going back to Freddy's origin which quite frankly, has already been covered by the rest of the series, so it's pointless.  Also, calling A Nightmare on Elm Street obviously draws comparisons to the original and next to that film, this one is extremely deficient.  So, all in all, I don't think there's much point to this movie and I can understand if you're a Nightmare enthusiast, not being too enthralled with this film. 


I think though that is an extremely small subset of the population.  The fact is, people have been bagging on the Nightmare series for years, with every film, the reviews just got worse and worse.  Personally, I think the first five in the series are ridiculously solid and above a lot of the garbage people heap on them.  Sure, a menacing Freddy is better than a silly, wise-cracking Freddy, but there's enough imagination and creativity in those films, enough thrills and neat stuff happening to forgive their shortcomings.  Six was a hot mess and Seven is just in a league of its own, I can't even begin to tell you how special Seven is, just for what it goes for and the spin it puts on everything, New Nightmare is a crazy movie that will never be duplicated.  


So, what's my point?  My point is, people have decided they haven't liked the Nightmare series for years, so for them to hate this new addition, you have to convince me that you loved the original series, not just the original movie, but the whole damned thing because if you hate this movie, it's because it perverted everything that made the original movies so good (I'm not accepting "I love the first film but don't care about the rest, either...that's a copout if I ever heard one).  So, is this film a disgrace to the Nightmare series?  Frankly, it's not as bad as that -- somewhat pointless, no doubt and it has it's problems in terms of story, plotting and all the logic stuff.  It does have decent atmosphere though and Freddy is still the showcase of the film so...like I said, unless you have posters plastered all over your residence with Freddy's mug on it, then quite frankly, I don't get the hate. 


Rating: Worth the hate?  For non-Nightmare on Elm Street Series fans, I would say no.


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #38 - Clash of the Titans

I've been using a lot of statistics and facts when making my arguments about whether or not I personally believe one of these films should in fact be on the 50 most hated movies of all time list.  As you can tell, the vast majority, I believe that answer is a resounding no.  There are a few where you could make the case to me, based on who you are and what your personal tastes are.  The bottom line is, up to this point, I seriously don't believe many of these films should be on a universal hate list -- after all, I believe it was the Penguin who stated simply but brilliantly in Batman Returns "you flush it down your toilet, I put it on my mantle".  While the analogy is more than little...disgusting, I think it's a very effective way to state that not everyone looks at something the same way.  With Clash of the Titans though, much like Superman Returns, the debate is a little more on the side of hate, in my opinion. 


Why?  First of all it's a remake and not just any old remake, a remake of a classic film.  The original Clash of the Titans was the last film ever made with Ray Harryhausen working on the visual effects.  For those of you who don't know, Ray Harryhausen is a legend in the effects field, the amazing effects we all take for granted today could not have been achieved without Ray Harryhausen pioneering stop-motion animation.  So, when you remake a film involving a legend of cinema, you better be pretty damned good, which this movie actually isn't.  In fact, it's a mere shadow of its predecessor, which is already enough reason to make me dislike the film.  However, there is also the problem with shaky-cam. 


Okay, I think we've all mentioned this to death, but if you've stumbled across this blog for the first time and have no idea what I'm talking about, here's a crash course: shaky cam is that effect where the camera is un-anchored and basically bounces around the frame like a alcoholic stumbling home.  On stationary objects, it's an annoying effect, with action, its annoyance factor increases a hundredfold simply because you cannot see what's going on.  Add to that the fast editing that filmmakers in North America seem to favor and what you have is a total waste of time.  I'm serious, shaky-cam does not add excitement to an action scene, a well-executed and choreographed action scene is exciting enough without tricks.  What shaky-cam actually does is try and mask how really inferior the stunts and the action really are.  


So, this movie did not start the whole shaky-cam process and did not begin the era of the shameless remake, so why the hate?  Because it has all these elements.  The movie is not exciting, it's storyline is full of holes and the you can't see the action.  Everything that you can possibly dislike and yes you could say hate about modern-day movies can all be summed up in the problems this movie has.  That's a reason to hate a movie, not because you're bored with a movie series or because you happen to want a certain genre of movie from a certain filmmaker, it's because you have valid points about what you don't like about movies and then present a movie as an example.  That's what Total Film's list missed out on and that's what I'm trying to figure out and qualify in this series. 


So if you were a fan of the original or if you just don't like your action scenes bouncing around like a ball in an ocean, then I can understand you hating this film.  Hey, Total Film can't be wrong all the time, can they?


Rating: Worth the hate?  Sure. 


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #40 - Swept Away

Hahahahahahaha.


Hahahahahahahaha.


Really?  Swept Away?  Really?


This is a pure movie geek pick.  Back in the late 90's/early 2000's, Guy Ritchie was hot as a pistol.  He had made the British gangster comedy Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it as a sleeper hit.  I own the movie, it's okay, but in my opinion, somewhat overrated.  Then, he made Snatch, which is very much in the vein of Lock Stock, but with a bigger cast and in my opinion and funnier and more interesting script.  So, it was on the heels of that he made Swept Away.  Now, if he made a mistake in his whole thing at all, it was choosing to cast his real-life wife, Madonna, in the movie. 


Now, I'm not picking on Madonna.  I think she's fine, she showed talent in Dick Tracy and A League of Their Own and I'm perfectly fine with her as an actress.  However, she is notorious of making some really bad bombs.  Shanghai Surprise and Body of Evidence comes to mind.  So, when you have an actress who is reviled for making some bad films with a director who is entering a genre that he is not really in his element, you're going to have a movie that is critically reviled and thus, "hated."


Now, I did not see this film.  It didn't look interesting to me and even for the purposes of writing this series, I still did not watch it.  Does this mean I hate the film?  No.  See, I can separate hate from just thinking a film was badly made.  For instance, I do not think Battle Los Angeles was a particularly well-made film.  It has holes in the plot, the camera work is dreadful, the characters are not interesting and the action is unwatchable, thanks to the bad camerawork.  However, I do not hate Battle Los Angeles.  I understand it has an audience and while I do not respect the movie opinion of people who like this film, I also realize that every movie has fans, no matter how bad it is.  Battle Los Angeles didn't insult me personally or say someone like me sucks or say people of a certain race or gender or whatever sucks...it's just a bad movie.  I'm sure Swept Away falls into the same category. 


As for Guy Ritchie, he immediately went back to the genre that made him, making Revolver and RocknRolla after Swept Away (as well as divorcing Madonna, who everyone blames for making Ritchie make the film in the first place). Interestingly enough though, he had to wait until making Sherlock Holmes to have another big hit on his hand (and for the record, the 1st was okay, the 2nd Sherlock Holmes sucked ass).  So, did Swept Away really derail Guy Ritchie's career, or was he really overrated to begin with?


Rating: Worth the hate? Unless you're a hardcore fan of Ritchie's previous two movies and just want him to make English comedies, I would say no, it's too generic to hate it.


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #41 - Constantine

Well, I think this one is pretty straight forward.  It's pretty obvious that everyone out there is a huge John Constantine fan from the comics and they were appalled that he was played by Keanu Reeves, an American, when everyone knows that John Constantine is British.  I mean seriously, they tried that crap before with Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and we all know how that turned out, hell, they made fun of that very thing in the Mel Brooks spoof...


I'm sorry?...what's that?  You...you didn't know John Constantine was British?  Oh well, that's okay, you probably haven't gotten around to reading Saga of the Swamp Thing, which is where he first appeared.  That's cool, you're probably reading a million comics right now.


What's that?...I'm sorry?...you...oh, you didn't know he first appeared in Saga of the Swamp Thing.  Did you know that his series is called Hellblazer?  Uh-huh.  So, did you know anything about this character before the movie?  Did you even know he was a pre-existing comic book character?  Um...okay...so you didn't.  Why exactly did you hate this movie again?  Oh you, don`t like Keanu Reeves.  Keanu Reeves of the Bill and Ted`s franchise, Speed and the Matrix films, all of which were enormous hits.   Was he really that bad?  I mean, if you don't even know the character, how can you say he was bad for the part?  Just because you don't like him?  He was perfectly fine in the Matrix, though?


I don't get the hate for this movie unless you are a die-hard John Constantine fan.  This movie has nice effects, it has a good storyline, it has thrills, you're not quite sure how it's all going to turn out, there's mystery...if you are into occult stuff or the supernatural or lore, then this movie is for you.  Yes, Keanu Reeves is not John Constantine, but until recently, I knew little about the character and I'm thinking unless you're dying over the character, there's little for you to bitch about. 


Rating: Worth the hate?  Only if you love the comic John Constantine.


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #42 - Jersey Girl

...
...
.....
.......Jersey Girl?
Why Jersey Girl?


I mean, I know this is coming from the era of when Ben Affleck was everywhere and very over-exposed and people decided to hate him because they realized he was being over-exposed for no good reason, but really? Jersey Girl?  Why not Gigli, or Changing Lanes or one of the truly awful films he did from that era.  Why...Jersey Girl?  I mean, if you want to talk about a totally unoffensive movie, that's Jersey Girl.  I can't really explain it other than the Ben Affleck factor...oh and let's not forget Kevin Smith.


At this point in time, Kevin Smith had been known for his adult, somewhat crude comedies where his characters talk on and on about geek topics and taboo topics and it all falls somewhere in between mildly amusing and extremely hilarious.  Mostly mildly amusing, but Jay and Silent Bob had it's moments.  I found the first five of the View Askew films to be so good to own four of them on DVD (I didn't get Clerks 1 as I just found it boring...and Clerks 2 was fine until the last third of the film).  Anyhow, the point is, that until his last few fans, I was a fan of Kevin Smith and I did see Jersey Girl.  What did I think?


I thought it was okay.  Not great, not let me bust down the door and buy this DVD, but it was okay.  A nice little story.  However, the thing that stood out was that this was by far Kevin Smith's most mature work. 


Uh-oh.


That's like having the Jackass guys try and remake Dr. Strangelove.  The Dr. Strangelove guys would be pissed because quite frankly, if you absolutely have to remake this movie, you DON'T want the Jackass guys doing it.  As for the Jackass fans, they would be pissed too.  Why are you trying to be all good and remake a classic!  Go do something stupid!  Run down the hall and slam your head into a wall!  Staple your testicles to your leg!  That's what they're paying for.  They paid for Jersey Girl to have a bunch of Kevin Smith-style penis and fart jokes and you know what?  They didn't get it.  They got a somewhat serious rom-com that had no toilet humour in sight.  In other words, Kevin Smith was trying to branch out and do something different and they murdered him for it.  That's why they hate this movie.  They think this was the start of Kevin Smith's downward spiral.  Without Jersey Girl, we don't get Cop Out.  He wouldn't be trying to go mainstream and please the world instead of his legion of insanely loyal, not-insubstantial fan base.  This is my opinion:


The guy can do what he wants.  He tried and to me, it worked, but because of the negative backlash, because this wasn't Jay and Silent Bob part 6, people hate it.  It's like Sean Connery -- he did Zathura after Bond and everyone hated it because they wanted Sean Connery to be Bond.  I say hey, Connery is the best as Bond, no doubt, but the man has the right too to be something other than James Bond.  Kevin Smith had the right to go mainstream if he wanted...it's a shame this movie is "hated", because quite honestly, it's not half-bad, but because of the stupid expectations by his fan base who only want a certain style of humor, it's reviled.  Which point-blank, isn't right.


Rating: Worth the hate?  Nope.


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #43 - Resident Evil

When Total Film came out with the little gem that Resident Evil # 1 was the 43rd most hated film of all time, I have to admit, I was more than a little baffled.  Hasn't Resident Evil spawned 3 (soon to be 4) sequels?  If a film series keeps going, then what does that mean?  Ladies and Gentlemen?  It means...they are successful.  Successful.  Let me look that up for you:

suc·cess·ful/səkˈsesfəl/

Adjective:

Accomplishing an aim or purpose: "a successful attack on the town". Having achieved popularity, profit, or distinction. I'm sorry, what was that word in the second definition?  No.  NO!!!!!!!! Does that say...does that say the word...popularity?  The opposite of hated?  Popular?  NO!!!!!! Total Film...movie website...can't...be...wrong...must be...error!   The bottom line is this.  Yes the Resident Evil films have been critically lambasted.  The first film received the highest rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 34 percent, the others have hovered around the 20's.  This is the sole reason that Total Film has listed it in its Most Hated list.  When I read the reason why Resident Evil was on the list, I was given the reason (and I'm paraphrasing here), that Resident Evil launched the movie series that has lacked distinction and no one cares about (as in no one cares about these films they keep making).  So, no one cares about the series.  Box Office Mojo, can you please step in here, please? Resident Evil: 102.4 million worldwide Resident Evil: Apocalypse: 129.3 million worldwide Resident Evil: Extinction: 147.7 million worldwide Resident Evil: Afterlife: 296.2 million worldwide This is not even counting DVD sales, merchandise and other profit-making arenas.  What this tells me is 2 things.  1) The Resident Evil movies continue to make more and more profit with every movie (and the budget remains under 100 million) and 2) Total Film clearly did not take into account that worldwide, this franchise is huge (over 50 percent of all earnings have been from overseas films).  The fact is, this is a very, very profitable series and as long as it remains a profitable series, there will be more movies.  Total Film looks at things from a purely newspaper critic, North American view, which means they are very narrow-minded indeed.  So in closing, let me do a simple mathematical equation to sum up my feelings about this film being hated: Popularity + Profit = Continuing Movie Series. And that formula is simply hate-proof.  Rating: Worth the hate?  You're joking, right?  5 films and counting... - Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #44 - Fantastic Four

You know, comic book movies or should I say, the reaction to comic book movies (and specifically for the purposes of this post, the Marvel Comics movies) is weird these days.  First and foremost I guess is the Marvel Studios films where movies range from the really good (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor) to the not-so-good (Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk).  New Line had a good thing with Blade, until the 3rd one sucked the joint out.  20th Century Fox usually have hits with the X-Men series (though I don't really know why, the movies aren't that great) and Columbia Pictures have either had hits (Spider-Man 1 & 2, Ghost Rider), or misses (Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider 2) or colossal bungles (Spider-Man 4...okay, it hasn't come out, but the movie looks like ass).  Which leads me to the Fantastic Four series.  Yes, all the series I've mentioned previously have had their ups and downs, but it seems at least with the Film A-hole and Rehab Troupe (or FART, if you will), this series is among the most derided.  The question is, why?


First of all, I think unlike some of the other movies mentioned, this comic book movie series is actually fun.  Yes, that's right; FUN!  Imagine a comic book series that's actually fun.  We can't have that!  We can't have fun!  Where is all the brooding if we have fun?  The grittiness?  The realism? NO!  No fun!  Movies are not fun, they are serious educational pieces about how a billionaire who dresses as a bat could realistically clean up the city! NO FUN!  You see my point.  The Fantastic Four was not gritty, no realistic, no brooding, not taking social issues of today and trying to jam them into a place they don't really belong.  The Fantastic Four was just a jolly good time and nowadays, that is not permitted, at least not if FART has anything to to do with it. 


Secondly, it appears there are problems with at least one of the actors and we know who we're talking about.  It's not Michael Chikilis or Ioan Gruffald.  It was Jessica Alba.  At the time (and I suppose this still goes on today, though her career appears to be in a black hole right, now), Jessica was one of our resident hotties, a girl who got more press for her looks than for her talent.  Right or wrong you can debate until the sun goes down, but the more people panted for her physically, the more it seemed that the rest of the critics, the serious people mind you were more than willing to rip down her talent as they could not do so with her looks. We're talking about a woman who has been nominated for 4 Razzies for 11 films she made (including both Fantastic Four), so that may have something to do with the movie's hate label as well.


The third reason and this might be the most deserving reason why these films are "hated" is because they made some bad choices.  Look, I really do like these films and would consider getting them on blu-ray at some point, but in both films, they kinda screwed the pooch a little.  They didn't use Dr. Doom enough in part 1 and they completely frigged up Galactus is part 2.  We heard about these bad choices all over the 'Net and I do agree, these were mistakes.  However, I feel that looking at the sum of the movies, (and the sum of other movies as well), these mistakes while not being completely forgiven, can at least be put on the backburner a little bit.  The 4 look good, they have their powers, they have their origin, they do have a big fight with Dr. Doom at the end, they have the right personalities for their characters...what more do you want?  Yeah, I could have used more Dr. Doom as well, but the Director's Cut gives you a little bit more as well...I don't know what else to say.  For this film to be hated, it just boggles the mind. 


So, that's my analysis of Fantastic Four.  A movie that is hated for being fun, hated for the publicity giving to the main actress and hated for some mistakes in their story.  If not following the comics to a T is cause for hatred, then all comic movies, including the blessed Dark Knight and the rest of the Marvel movies should be hated as well.  


Rating: Worth the hate: NO!  


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #45 - Halloween (2007)

When they first announced they were going to remake Halloween, I'll be completely honest with you -- I was angry.  How dare they remake a horror classic!  Mind you, this was a complete knee-jerk reaction on my part because by this time, why not ,they were remaking every other horror classic!  It's just I like the first film so damned much, I just didn't see a point to doing this film.  Rob Zombie was doing it and it seemed though that everyone else was on board with it.  I thought they all were afterwards as well, as there was a part 2 which J-Man reviewed a few months back on this very website.  Needless to say, I may have been mistaken considering it's on this list now...but then again let's delve into this a tiny bit deeper...


I only saw the work print of this film, I guess you could call it the director's cut?  I'm not sure, but from what I saw, yeah, I didn't like it.  The first part was just pure backstory, trying to justify why Michael Myers turned out to be a knife-toting psychopath.  Umm...wasn't it that he was just purely and simply evil?  Must everything be explained ad nauseum?  Why did I go bald?  Well, you see Stephenstein, there are hair follicles and stuff happens sometimes...yeah, we don't need explanations for everything, especially considering we had a perfectly good reason in the first place.  The second half was like Halloween's greatest hits, just with more annoying people.  


That being said, I have come to understand that Rob Zombie himself is a big fan of the original Halloween (not to mention horror movies in general...House of 1,000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects, anyone?) and the wanted to pay a sort of homage to the original.  Now, whether or not he should have bothered with remaking it instead of making a part 9 and just making it really well, we could talk about that all day, but the point is, based on the second half and how Michael Myers is treated as a sort of anti-hero, I can believe he is a big fan of the original, if not the iconic killer of the series.  If he was going out with a smart-assed attitude that he would make a better Halloween than the original, (something I doubt anyone could do), than we may have a problem, Houston.  However, based on the fact he just really wanted to show his love for the original (as well as pander to today's audience who clearly all have ADD), then how can the film be hated?


Okay, so it wasn't as good as the original.  Did you think it would be?  Halloween is a classic, one of the first if not the first slasher film and to this day, it still gets me.  When the kid is running and bumps into Michael and you get that sound cue?  Awesome.  When he's chasing Laurie across the street and you have that unbelievably amazing soundtrack?  It doesn't get better than that, ladies and gentlemen.  You could say that I'm letting Zombie off the hook for Halloween while I blasted Singer for Superman Returns, but it's different.  Zombie loves Halloween and you can kind of see it, at least in the work print, which I consider the director's cut.  Singer didn't show any love for Superman in Superman Returns.  That enough is good enough for me to say this movie should not be on the hated list. 


Rating: Worth the hate?  No, but it should have been part 9 instead of a remake.  That may have avoided some of the hate, at least.


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #46 - The Exorcist II: The Heretic

The idiotic A-hole who made this list in the first place decided to break the streak of naming movies that had been released after the turn to the 21st century as "the most hated films of all time" and decided to name a movie that was actually made around or before the time he was born.  I know, I was shocked too.  Anyhow, this will mark a new review for me, because I never actually saw this movie.  However, unlike the drooling halfwit staff at Total Film, I'm actually going to do something they would never do...and actually research something before talking about it.  


So, for those of you not in the know, The Exorcist is probably one of the most popular films of all time.  Released in 1973, it was the talk of the movie world, what with reports of strange occurrences on set, people fainting in the movie theatre during screenings and even hysterical insistence from some people with a few bricks shy of a full load that a demon inhabited the actual film.  Now, all ridiculous mishmash aside, people wouldn't talk this much about a film unless it was really, really good, really, really bad or really, really weird.  The Exorcist is really, really good.  So, I can understand if the sequel came out and it wasn't up to par with the original, that people wouldn't be impressed.  However, one of the worst of all time?


Well, maybe not so much.  I read an article on Wikipedia that some people say that the film has been misjudged and mistreated, that it's not the honking big pile of donkey crap that Total Film would have you believe.  They don't ultimately believe it's that great, but it does not deserve the derision that the film has received from multiple sources.  I find it interesting too to note that there have been 3 sequels after this film and I remember that 4 and 5 weren't received that well either...so, why does get all the blame?  Just because it's the direct sequel to the film?  See, this is the reason why I don't like Total Film or their stupid list: they have no perspective.  They don't question why they feel a film is hated or if there is another reason or if there is something else that causes the hatred.  They just knee-jerk "oh...bad movie...must...destroy...in...list."  My question is this: if none of the films will ever live up to the original, should they not be hated as well?  In fact, every sequel that does not live up to the original should be hated!  The list would be five miles long!


So, what's my point?  My point is, this movie probably isn't as hated as some believe and probably should not be on the list.  There have been other movies that have not only been worse than the original, but insulting by either recycling the original without adding to it (The Hangover Part II) or by crapping on everything that was good about the original (Superman Returns).  Ultimately, there are probably worse movies out there and more damaging ones than the Exorcist II.  However, for some strange reason, it made it on this list. 


Rating: Worth the hate?  Only if you're prepared to put every disappointing sequel on the list as well...


- Stephenstein 

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #47 - Terminator: Salvation

The first three movies I reviewed, I thought were either okay (Daredevil) or sucked (Supes Returns, Texas Chainsaw remake).  This is the first one I genuinely liked and don't get the anger towards at all.  There's a few arguments about Terminator: Salvation being trash and for the record, I don't really agree with any of them.  Let's delve a little deeper. 


In 1984, The Terminator was released and really helped solidify Arnold Schwarzenegger as a top box-office draw.  Seven years later, the movie almost everyone cites as being the best in the series, T2 was released.  Featuring revolutionary effects, pop-culture moments galore, memorable action pieces and a great plot, this movie was a slicker and less gritty sequel to the original.  Twelve years later, T3 came to theatres and while it was not beloved as #1 and #2, it seems to have gotten pretty much a free pass.  Then, 6 years later, the shortest amount of time we got for a Terminator movie, Salvation hits.  Building on the events in the first three films, we finally got the actual war between the machines and the humans, with everyone's (at least the bandwagon jumpers) favorite Batman, Christian Bale as John Conner.  It had action, an interesting storyline, intensity and effects...much like the other 3 movies. So, why the angst?


I'm guessing one of the reasons is the director.  McG directed the Charlie's Angels movies before T4 and I think just based on his name (he sounds like something you order off the McDonalds menu...yes, I would like a McG!), the fact he made a somewhat brainless pair of action movies revolving around hot women and he just hadn't established himself as a SERIOUS FILMMAKER (or seemed to pretend to want to), that was enough for the elitists to start crying into their soups.  Then there was the infamous blowup on the set of T4 (apparently Christian Bale is sensitive about lighting guys) that was parodied and ridiculed ad nauseum, but all joking aside, it started things on a bad foot, because as soon as something like that comes out, it seems people just don't ridicule the event, they're getting ready to ridicule the whole damned show and to me, that is grossly unfair. 


The the elitists who made the 50 most hated movies of all time would tell you that no one really wanted another Terminator movie and too much time had elapsed between movies for people to care.  For the record, as stated previously, this was the shortest time period between Terminator movies.  Secondly, no one wanted to see another Terminator movie?  How about the television show that lasted 2 years?  Let's also look at the worldwide box office for the movies.


Terminator: $78.371 million
T2: $519.843 million
T3: $433.371 million
Terminator: Salvation: $371.353 million


Keep in mind too, these are profits without 3D adding another $20-40 million in take.  So, yes, even though Terminator Salvation made in the same range as the other far "superior" Terminator movies, no one wanted to see it.  Sure, sure.  What is more explainable is the pompous idiocy that reigns supreme in garbage websites like Total Film that dreamed up this list in the first place, or the same sort of trashy, stupid commentating in sites like JoBlo that promotes this garbage, spouting from personal opinion instead of fact.  The fact is, people still went to see Terminator 4 and would go to see Terminator 5, whenever they make it, so it hardly makes a movie like Terminator: Salvation hated, does it?


Rating: Worth the hate?  Absolutely NOT!


- Stephenstein

Most Hated Movies of all Time # 48 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

What do a beaver, a nun and the Queen of England all have in common? Chances are, Michael Bay has ruined all of their childhoods.  But, while the man who told TMNT fans to "chill" and managed to make the single worst Transformers movie it was possible to make (at least, in my opinion), there has also been a sub-genre of films where he has managed to anger the fans.  Namely, fans of 70's and 80's horror classics.  Starting with this one and including The Amityville Horror (okay, maybe the original wasn't a classic, it seemed pretty boring to me), The Hitcher, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street and oh no, he's also got his mitts on The Monster Squad to remake at a theatre near you, Michael Bay under his Platinum Dunes aegis, has managed to annoy fans of these films with his pointless remakes of them.  However, we're here to talk about one specifically, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the one that started it all.

Now, I did not see the original Texas film, so me comparing it to the original, isn't going to happen.  Everyone seems to agree the  original was and still is, a classic, so that's as far as we're going with that discussion.  However, I do not necessarily agree with this being on the list...not because it shouldn't be hated, but because I don't believe it is hated. 

Here's a number for you: $80, 571.655.  No, this isn't my salary for writing this post, it's actually much lower than that.  This number represents the North American Box Office for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre Remake.  Add in another $26.5 mil overseas (hey, it seems the folks over there realized there was no point to this remake, at least) and you have $107, 071,655 for a film that cost under $10 million to make.  So, quite simply, if this movie is hated, it would not have made this type of box office, Platinum Dunes would not have gone on to remake every frigging horror film made in the 70's/80's, maybe the other yahoos wouldn't have done so either and you're moral outrage would have been quelled.  However, that didn't happen.  This movie was popular enough that they not only made all those remakes, but they made a sequel as well.  So, there you go.

Yeah, the movie wasn't good, in my opinion and whatever the original was, it had to be better than this, but the plain truth is, I don't think this movie is hated because if it was, they wouldn't have done all the remakes and CONTINUE to do all the remakes.  So, despite the fact that true fans of the original probably aren't happy with this watered-down clanker and despite the fact when Platinum Dunes announces another remake, there's a collective series of groans across the 'Net, the fact is, none of this is possible without the first film being the success it was.

Rating: Worth the hate?  Probably, as it never should have been done on a remake, but the fact is, it wasn't, so it probably shouldn't even be on the list.

- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #49 - Superman Returns

Yeesh.  Look at him.  He looks sorta right as Superman from this pic, but if you look closer?  Too dark.  The costume is too dark.  Like the Man of Steel's costume, there was a lot wrong with the film.  Maybe it was casting Brandon Routh as Superman (he can be a supporting guy, but can't carry a lead -- I'm convinced of that after Dylan Dog) and Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane (she looked all of 15 in the movie).  Maybe it was the plot.  Maybe it was the story.  Maybe it was the colossal lack of action.  Maybe it was making Superman into a creepy stalker and having his love child with Lois Lane kill someone (that was weird).  Maybe it was the enormous gaps in logic.  You know what?  It was everything. 


Do I honestly believe that was the reason people supposedly "hate" this film?  Look, I'm sure the majority of people who "hate" Superman Returns are not Superman fans.  Yeah, they know who he is, they may have seen one of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, but they probably didn't collect the comic or anything.  If they did, then you understand why they would hate this movie.  I think this movie is "hated" by the popular set though, because it's so damned boring.  Nothing happens!  Superman doesn't fight anyone!  He spends most of the last act getting his ass kicked and before that, he does what...saves a plane.  Wow!  I've never seen him saving a flying aircraft before, there wasn't a helicopter to save in the first Superman! Lame.  It's all lame, this movie is lame from beginning to end, with nothing to give fans of the character or even non-fans of the character.  It's one of those rare films that sucks for everyone. 


So, do I believe this movie should be hated?  Depends who you are.  To me, if you're a true Superman fan, you should be outraged by this flaming pile of dog doo.  If you're not, well boring movies with nothing happening are the Hollywood du jour, it's not like they crapped on your childhood or anything (unless we're talking about Michael Bay...he basically crapped on everyone's childhood in one form or another), so take it for what it is. 


Rating:  Should this movie be hated?  - If you're a Superman fan, yes!  If not, then probably no, you'll be too bored to care, anyway!


- Stephenstein

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #50 - Daredevil

So, a while back, I posted the list of the 50 "most hated" films of all time according to Total Film.  Well, I didn't really say my individual feelings towards each of these films.  J-Man had his JCVD and Gamera Kaiju reviews, Deceptisean has his nostalgic song posts every Friday...I've decided to have this.  So, once every couple of days or so, I'm going to touch on a brief post on my feelings towards the films in this list by the so-called movie website, Total Film (yeah right, Total). 


When I first saw this film, I thought it was okay.  I wasn't dying, but I did like it.  The backlash on this film though, was incredible.  Why all the hate?  Was the film THAT bad?  I mean honestly, what was it that made people dislike this movie so much?  It wasn't like they were life-long Daredevil fans!  Some people didn't even know he was legitimately a comic book character before this movie came out!  So, what the hell?


To me, it all came down to Ben Affleck.  People were tired of seeing him, he could have made the next great film and no one would have have liked it.  Much like a lot going on these days, the people were burned by a product of their own making.  Everyone was going on and on about 'Bennifer' and all that stuff?  No?  Shaking your head violently, with your nose turned up?  B.S.  These guys were everywhere, they were on all the entertainment shows, where they shopped, what they ate, what johns they used when going to the washroom, it was in all the trash magazines, all the internet sites, everywhere.  That kind of supply can't exist without the demand.  So, maybe rightfully so, maybe not, people were tired of Ben when this movie came out.  Never mind it wasn't actually that bad and he was pretty decent in it (and the director's cut was killer -- if that version had screened, no one had any right to piss and moan.  


At the end of the day, not a lot of people seemed to like the film.  However, in my opinion, the hate was against the lead actor (and why hate the guy anyway, wasn't like he came to your house and shot your puppy...you didn't like him, then change the channel or turn off the television!) and that was it.  The movie was harmless, yes somewhat flawed (thanks Hollywood suits!  Bet you gave this one a standing O when it screened! You jackasses!) , but not worth the hate.  Even hardcore Daredevil fans would have had to admit, at least they got the costume right!


Rating: Worth the hate? -- NO!


- Stephenstein