"Bad" Movies You Love

Here in this thread, we can talk about "bad" films that we all love. We all have them too.

Oh. and why the quotations around the word "bad"? Well, how BAD can they be to you, if you love them?

I'll start:

'Sucker Punch'



A hyperbolicly-maligned film that isn't NEARLY as bad as the interwebs would have you believe. Is it a little confusing? Sure. Is the message a little tough for "Joe Average Movie Goer" and "Steven Internet Critic With A Smaller Brain Pan Than They Think Robitowitz" to grasp? Definitely. But the acting was good for what was expected, the visuals were more often than not stunning, and the pace was good.

I like it.

'The Last Dragon'



Bruce Leroy. Sho'Nuff. "The Glow". Kung-Fu. Ernie Reyes Jr. This movie is so over-the-top, but so endlessly watchable, that I have loved it since I was a kid. Shoot, watch it for Sho'Nuff ALONE. He chews up scenery, spits it out, and then roundhouse kicks it a half mile.

Oh, and the guy who plays Johnny? Guy was funny as hell and had good on-screen presence. Sucks that his career went absolutely nowhere.

So... How about some of yours?

Either people are unwilling to admit they like any "bad" movies, or this site is full of film-snobs.

Whatever though, I'll just make this thread about ME then.

'The Postman'



Another movie that is hilariously maligned, but chances are from people who have only seen it "secondhand". The story has some VERY good ideas in it, with some very decent acting to boot.

Nuclear war has devastated the world. The US is full of scared individuals, who huddle together in mostly namelss towns, menaced and controlled by the "Klan". I'm sure you can guess what Klan that is. Costner was forced to join, and at the first opportunity, deserts. On his travels, he finds a dead Postman, and takes his uniform to keep warm. Coming upon one of these towns, he misrepresents himself as a Postman for the "Restored United States of America", in order to get supplies from the townsfolk. What he starts he never could have imagined. It really is better than you've heard.

The one big negative I will give it is, that it is just too long. Costner became a little too "into" excessively long films by this point. 'Dances With Wolves' was just shy of 4 hours. 'Wyatt Earp" was nearly 5 HOURS LONG. 'Waterworld' was over 2 hours. 'The Postman' clocks in at 3 minutes from a 3 hour runtime. A little more trimming of scenes, a much tighter pace, and all the hyperbole about this film would vanish.

If you haven't seen it, give it a shot.

'Soldier'



Kurt Russell as a genetically-altered super soldier flops? How???

Well, the weak supporting cast didn't help. But see it just for Russell's Soldier. Where else can you see a man let a snake menace a little boy, in order to teach him to kill?

Agreed about SOLDIER. It really is Kurt Russell that carries the film. The sign of a great actor is how he connects with audiences with little to no dialogue.

So, my favorite "bad" film?



SHOWGIRLS. Critics panned it and call it a genuinely bad film, but with a guy directing this like PAUL VERHOEVEN, you must assume he's onto something just like he was in all of his films. One said that what makes this work is if you watch this as a satire on Hollywood and primetime soap opera, right down to the over-dramatic acting "BITCH!" *slap*. It bombed and was critically savaged, but Verhoeven gets the last laugh as it sells like hotcakes on DVD (though I'm sure most of those folks bought it for the tits). Oh yeah, and Gina Gershon stole the entire flick. I think that's its real weakness that the protagonist is less interesting than the Gina's character.

It would only be another two years before he makes STARSHIP TROOPERS, another misunderstood flick that was intentionally made as a futuristic propaganda film (complete with Niel Patrick Harris in a Nazi SS overcoat "IT'S AFRAID!") with the same hints of satire and ultra violence found in ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL. Whatever you can say of Verhoeven's flicks, you can never deny that it has personality that most of Hollywood is lacking these days. The recent TOTAL RECALL remake looked like a snooze-fest and now there are the upcoming remakes for ROBOCOP and STARSHIP TROOPERS. Who wants to bet that those flicks will completely miss the point of the original films, much like the sequels?

James Stocks wrote:It would only be another two years before he makes STARSHIP TROOPERS, another misunderstood flick that was intentionally made as a futuristic propaganda film (complete with Niel Patrick Harris in a Nazi SS overcoat "IT'S AFRAID!") with the same hints of satire and ultra violence found in ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL. Whatever you can say of Verhoeven's flicks, you can never deny that it has personality that most of Hollywood is lacking these days. The recent TOTAL RECALL remake looked like a snooze-fest and now there are the upcoming remakes for ROBOCOP and STARSHIP TROOPERS. Who wants to bet that those flicks will completely miss the point of the original films, much like the sequels?

Well, as long as 'Starship Troopers' hits the mark the book was going for, I will love it that much more than the "original". Have you read the book by chance?

Here's hoping they have the "Master Chief"-ish Cougar Exoskeleton's that pre-dated 'Halo' by about 40 years.

James Stocks wrote:It would only be another two years before he makes STARSHIP TROOPERS, another misunderstood flick that was intentionally made as a futuristic propaganda film (complete with Niel Patrick Harris in a Nazi SS overcoat "IT'S AFRAID!") with the same hints of satire and ultra violence found in ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL. Whatever you can say of Verhoeven's flicks, you can never deny that it has personality that most of Hollywood is lacking these days. The recent TOTAL RECALL remake looked like a snooze-fest and now there are the upcoming remakes for ROBOCOP and STARSHIP TROOPERS. Who wants to bet that those flicks will completely miss the point of the original films, much like the sequels?

The ultra-violence, over-the-top sexuality, satire and general wit were always Verhoeven's trademarks as far as I know. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised if some of his sensibilities go over the head of John Q. Public but you'd think the jackoff movie critics would be a bit better informed. You know? Able to contextualize the thing. Then again, "criticism" long ago became a pissing contest between critics about who can be the most "clever".


Weirdsville. If somebody were to come along and say that Weirdsville is Snatch for Canadian drug addicts... well, I don't have a rational argument to the contrary. On the other hand, I do think it has enough originality to it to be enjoyable.


Behind The Mask- The Rise of Leslie Vernon- Tough to describe but I guess "non-documentary" isn't bad. It's fairly original as slasher movies go. The problem (in my opinion) is that the "documentary" stops pretty much right as the climax of the movie begins and it becomes a standard slasher movie. Even so, there's a twist in there somewhere that I think is pulled off pretty effectively. You'll know it when you see it. If you see it.

Not sure if either of those count as "bad" but I think both kinda missed their full potential.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:It would only be another two years before he makes STARSHIP TROOPERS, another misunderstood flick that was intentionally made as a futuristic propaganda film (complete with Niel Patrick Harris in a Nazi SS overcoat "IT'S AFRAID!") with the same hints of satire and ultra violence found in ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL. Whatever you can say of Verhoeven's flicks, you can never deny that it has personality that most of Hollywood is lacking these days. The recent TOTAL RECALL remake looked like a snooze-fest and now there are the upcoming remakes for ROBOCOP and STARSHIP TROOPERS. Who wants to bet that those flicks will completely miss the point of the original films, much like the sequels?

Well, as long as 'Starship Troopers' hits the mark the book was going for, I will love it that much more than the "original".

You see, I was kinda hoping for the same thing with the TOTAL RECALL remake... Look how that turned out. So that makes me wonder, for the upcoming STARSHIP TROOPERS are they going to actually go back to the source or will it be just another cynical cash grab like TOTAL REMAKE 2012? I'm hoping for the former, but expecting the latter.

Have you read the book by chance?

Nope, I'll get around to that eventually. Assuming the worst happens with the remake, I might just read the book on opening night as my way of protesting.

'Over The Top'



An action movie centered around arm wrestling. Yeah, loved it since I was a kid.

'The A-Team'



This movie deserved so much more than it's box-office take. The marketing SERIOUSLY let this film down. I remember seeing the cheesy, jokey trailers and saying "No thanks". It wasn't until it hit On Demand that I gave it a chance, and I regret not seeing it on the big-screen.

It's a good movie.

i like the A Team too got the unrated/uncut dvd of it. nice fun action film.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II

Often ranked as the worst of the series, but I find it too much fun to hate. Often remarked as negatively "way over the top", "campy", "insane", "absurd", ect. Heck it steals the plots from NOTORIOUS and TO CATCH A THIEF, I can't deny that. But I say this: IT'S JOHN FUCKING WOO! One of the few action directors out there that turns gunplay into an elegant ballet or opera. As far as action blockbusters go this was probably one of the last biggest conventional flicks of its day (since then there's usually been a sci-fi/superhero twist to them). It's definitely absurd and the film is not shameful of it, it wears its absurdity on its sleeves if you will. If more people tried coming to terms with that I think they'd have more fun watching it.

So for a long time I ranked this as the best of the series, until GHOST PROTOCOL came along which I think very first perfect M:I film in the series, which for the first time actually made me very enthusiastic about the future of the franchise as I thought after III it was dead. The first film had good things going for it but the script was undercooked and turning Phelps into the villain is hard to swallow, the equivalent of turning Captain Kirk into a traitorous murder. Where the second film was a brainless gunplay opera, the third film is just stupid as it takes itself way too seriously that it's no longer fun and I end up having a hard time buying the whole romance story that seems tacked on to give the film something "emotional".

James Stocks wrote:So for a long time I ranked this as the best of the series, until GHOST PROTOCOL came along which I think very first perfect M:I film in the series, which for the first time actually made me very enthusiastic about the future of the franchise as I thought after III it was dead. The first film had good things going for it but the script was undercooked and turning Phelps into the villain is hard to swallow, the equivalent of turning Captain Kirk into a traitorous murder. Where the second film was a brainless gunplay opera, the third film is just stupid as it takes itself way too seriously that it's no longer fun and I end up having a hard time buying the whole romance story that seems tacked on to give the film something "emotional".

III was actually a VERY good flick, up until that sappy ending. I'm just curious as to what exactly is "stupid" though? The action? No. The villain? Uh-uh. The MacGuffin? Possibly. The acting? Debatable.

So please, again, enlighten me....

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:So for a long time I ranked this as the best of the series, until GHOST PROTOCOL came along which I think very first perfect M:I film in the series, which for the first time actually made me very enthusiastic about the future of the franchise as I thought after III it was dead. The first film had good things going for it but the script was undercooked and turning Phelps into the villain is hard to swallow, the equivalent of turning Captain Kirk into a traitorous murder. Where the second film was a brainless gunplay opera, the third film is just stupid as it takes itself way too seriously that it's no longer fun and I end up having a hard time buying the whole romance story that seems tacked on to give the film something "emotional".

III was actually a VERY good flick, up until that sappy ending. I'm just curious as to what exactly is "stupid" though? The action? No. The villain? Uh-uh. The MacGuffin? Possibly. The acting? Debatable.

So please, again, enlighten me....

It's mostly the way the action is handled, much like how BATMAN BEGINS camera work was amateurish with the rapid cuts and close ups, the worst sequence being the helicopter chase where Felicity has a bomb in her brain. The entire plot with Ethan Hunt's wife that brings it down for me (in fact, what happened to Thadine Newton?). The moment that really threw me out of the flick was when Philip Seymour Hoffman starts taunting Ethan Hunt about killing his wife and Hunt just loses it. I can't buy that. He's a 40+ year old veteran IMF agent, a terrorist trying to pull the "I will kill your wife" card should be nothing to him. It's something he should easily push aside like a professional and say "cut the bullshit, and tell me where the MacGuffin is". Now, if this were about a very young Ethan Hunt who just got recruited it might be more believable that he'd fall for that bag of tricks.

As for acting, I can't say anything bad about the cast. Tom Cruise really tries hard to make the script work, so I have to give him a big thumbs up for giving his best. Philip Seymour Hoffman however seemed to really phone it in in some places, but that's not too much of a problem since he only has like 15 minutes worth of screentime and his villain is rather written in a very generic manner "YOU THINK I'M PLAYING? I WILL KILL HER!"

And as I said earlier, there's the cliches reused again from the first two films. The masks were already overused in II, by III it's just ridiculous. And once again IMF has a traitor in its department, HOLY SHIT that place must be infested with moles and double agents. One of the things I love about GHOST PROTOCOL is that it discards those cliches. I like when they're in the process of creating a mask the device breaks down midway and they have to go on their mission without it which brings a little more tension. Very cool.

And this will apply to all the films: I will NEVER understand why none of the filmmakers of all the films ever hired Lalo Schifrin to score the films, he's score many great films after the TV show ended so why was he never hired? He's the only guy that ever really made the theme song exciting. The others just made it generic, which is a shame because I think they made great music elsewhere.

James Stocks wrote:It's mostly the way the action is handled, much like how BATMAN BEGINS camera work was amateurish with the rapid cuts and close ups, the worst sequence being the helicopter chase where Felicity has a bomb in her brain. The entire plot with Ethan Hunt's wife that brings it down for me (in fact, what happened to Thadine Newton?). The moment that really threw me out of the flick was when Philip Seymour Hoffman starts taunting Ethan Hunt about killing his wife and Hunt just loses it. I can't buy that. He's a 40+ year old veteran IMF agent, a terrorist trying to pull the "I will kill your wife" card should be nothing to him. It's something he should easily push aside like a professional and say "cut the bullshit, and tell me where the MacGuffin is". Now, if this were about a very young Ethan Hunt who just got recruited it might be more believable that he'd fall for that bag of tricks.

Actually, the fight scenes in 'III' were far superior to 'Begins', and they used the exact same fighting style. Keysi Fighting.

As to the wife thing, I think you might have overlooked a few things. Such as, Ethan Hunt had never been married before. Never had his wife threatened by someone facing death and acting like he was taking a ride in a convertible. And let's not forget, someone else he felt responsible for died in his arms not a few days before. So he was feeling like it was NOT going to happen again. So he took the steps he did, which just exacerbated the situation, contributing to what we saw at the end of 'Protocol'.

Really, it's all there if you look for it.

As for acting, I can't say anything bad about the cast. Tom Cruise really tries hard to make the script work, so I have to give him a big thumbs up for giving his best. Philip Seymour Hoffman however seemed to really phone it in in some places, but that's not too much of a problem since he only has like 15 minutes worth of screentime and his villain is rather written in a very generic manner "YOU THINK I'M PLAYING? I WILL KILL HER!"

Ah, but you BELIEVE what he says. And that's what matters.

And as I said earlier, there's the cliches reused again from the first two films. The masks were already overused in II, by III it's just ridiculous. And once again IMF has a traitor in its department, HOLY SHIT that place must be infested with moles and double agents. One of the things I love about GHOST PROTOCOL is that it discards those cliches. I like when they're in the process of creating a mask the device breaks down midway and they have to go on their mission without it which brings a little more tension. Very cool.

Well, when dealing with a "franchise", certain things become commonplace. The masks and tech being one.

And as far as the moles and traitors go, it IS a spy-film cliche. But that won't stop it from being done again. And again. And again.

And this will apply to all the films: I will NEVER understand why none of the filmmakers of all the films ever hired Lalo Schifrin to score the films, he's score many great films after the TV show ended so why was he never hired? He's the only guy that ever really made the theme song exciting. The others just made it generic, which is a shame because I think they made great music elsewhere.

Really couldn't say. I do know that Ratner used him for his 'Rush Hour' films though.

Apologist Puncher wrote:As to the wife thing, I think you might have overlooked a few things. Such as, Ethan Hunt had never been married before. Never had his wife threatened by someone facing death and acting like he was taking a ride in a convertible. And let's not forget, someone else he felt responsible for died in his arms not a few days before. So he was feeling like it was NOT going to happen again. So he took the steps he did, which just exacerbated the situation, contributing to what we saw at the end of 'Protocol'.

Really, it's all there if you look for it.

The problem is that the villain has no idea who Hunt is, when he starts barking threats Hunt should know that Hoffman has no idea who he really is or whether he actually has a loved one. By this point he should have already had the proper psyche tests. But he loses his cool so easily and that's enough to convince Hoffman that his suspicions are correct. Also, really cheap of the writers to have Luther slip and give away Hunt's name like that. It all feels so forced just because the writers had no way of figuring out how to bring Ethan's two worlds collide. I think a more effective way would have been to show Hoffman actually DOES know who Ethan is, where he lives and who with. As cliche as the IMF mole thing is, it would work fine if it were Cudrup that gave all that info to Hoffman and that's what rises Ethan's suspicions of who the mole might be. The way it actually plays out, I just don't find it very convincing.

As for acting, I can't say anything bad about the cast. Tom Cruise really tries hard to make the script work, so I have to give him a big thumbs up for giving his best. Philip Seymour Hoffman however seemed to really phone it in in some places, but that's not too much of a problem since he only has like 15 minutes worth of screentime and his villain is rather written in a very generic manner "YOU THINK I'M PLAYING? I WILL KILL HER!"

Ah, but you BELIEVE what he says. And that's what matters.[/quote]After the Scooby Doo bit with the wife not being the wife, I pretty much don't see Hoffman as much of a threat in repeat viewings.

I will say this, GHOST PROTOCOL almost makes that whole wife plot worth it because I think the way it's handled in that flick is very believable. Ethan Hunt can never have a normal life because of his job. Even if he quit there would be enough enemies out there to target him. Like how James Bond can never have a serious relationship, and when he does and gets married his bride get killed in a drive by. In this case Ethan has her set up with a new identity and even though he can never speak with her, the knowledge that she's safe and sound is enough to bring him comfort and move on with his life. I may not be crazy with how it was handled in III, but GP makes the concept work.

Well, when dealing with a "franchise", certain things become commonplace. The masks and tech being one.

And as far as the moles and traitors go, it IS a spy-film cliche. But that won't stop it from being done again. And again. And again.

A cliche for sure, but I say it's best to use it sparingly, otherwise you're making IMF look incompetent having so many leaks like that. This has also been a problem with many of the recent James Bond films reusing the mole/double agent angle several films in a row. It just gets absurd. But like I said, I'm glad GHOST PROTOCOL went another route and avoided them.

James Stocks wrote:The problem is that the villain has no idea who Hunt is, when he starts barking threats Hunt should know that Hoffman has no idea who he really is or whether he actually has a loved one. By this point he should have already had the proper psyche tests. But he loses his cool so easily and that's enough to convince Hoffman that his suspicions are correct. Also, really cheap of the writers to have Luther slip and give away Hunt's name like that.

Once again though, you are ignoring what I said. Ethan had ALREADY been "emotionally compromised" (Star Trek 2009 reference for you) BEFORE they went after him. So that, plus his new wife being out-and-out threatened, caused him to do what he did. He was already feeling the failure of not saving someone he cared for, and felt responsible for.

And yes, him saying his name did bother me when I first saw it. How many movies, dating back to the 50's or 60's, have their been where a character saying "No names!" to someone when talking knowing "bad people" could be listening?

It all feels so forced just because the writers had no way of figuring out how to bring Ethan's two worlds collide. I think a more effective way would have been to show Hoffman actually DOES know who Ethan is, where he lives and who with. As cliche as the IMF mole thing is, it would work fine if it were Cudrup that gave all that info to Hoffman and that's what rises Ethan's suspicions of who the mole might be. The way it actually plays out, I just don't find it very convincing.

Actually, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense for Crudup to let it play out like it did. They BOTH wanted Ethan to go find the "Rabbit's MacGuffin", and this way Crudup gets to trick Hunt into thinking he was on HIS side.

And just WHO do you think told Hoffman's character where Hunt's wife worked??

After the Scooby Doo bit with the wife not being the wife, I pretty much don't see Hoffman as much of a threat in repeat viewings.

Wow. So you're saying THIS doesn't carry any emotional weight with you??



I mean, really?

I will say this, GHOST PROTOCOL almost makes that whole wife plot worth it because I think the way it's handled in that flick is very believable. Ethan Hunt can never have a normal life because of his job. Even if he quit there would be enough enemies out there to target him. Like how James Bond can never have a serious relationship, and when he does and gets married his bride get killed in a drive by. In this case Ethan has her set up with a new identity and even though he can never speak with her, the knowledge that she's safe and sound is enough to bring him comfort and move on with his life. I may not be crazy with how it was handled in III, but GP makes the concept work.

Actually, I think that ending was their way of saying "Not now, but one day..." between him and his wife. I can even see it being Ethan faking HIS death so he can be with her.

In fact, 'Protocol' was supposed to set-up Renner as the new "face" of the franchise. Man, that guy has SOME agent, too. But people reacted so well to Cruise that the sequel will be Ethan Hunt all over again.

And I approve.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:The problem is that the villain has no idea who Hunt is, when he starts barking threats Hunt should know that Hoffman has no idea who he really is or whether he actually has a loved one. By this point he should have already had the proper psyche tests. But he loses his cool so easily and that's enough to convince Hoffman that his suspicions are correct. Also, really cheap of the writers to have Luther slip and give away Hunt's name like that.

Once again though, you are ignoring what I said. Ethan had ALREADY been "emotionally compromised" (Star Trek 2009 reference for you) BEFORE they went after him. So that, plus his new wife being out-and-out threatened, caused him to do what he did. He was already feeling the failure of not saving someone he cared for, and felt responsible for.

And like I said, I just couldn't buy it. I know Ethan Hunt should show signs of being a human being instead of an emotional-less automaton, but it's funny you mention the Spock thing because I also thought the whole "emotionally compromised" bit was horribly handled too. I mean Spock just gives up his principals within a mere two minutes just because some asshole made fun of his dead mommy? Spock's better than that. He's always had emotions burning inside him but he always kept them in check even in the face of Armageddon, and it was all done just so Kirk could take the Captain's seat. Not by chain of command or earning it after years of service, but by insulting someone's dead mother. But I'll leave that for the Star Trek thread.

It all feels so forced just because the writers had no way of figuring out how to bring Ethan's two worlds collide. I think a more effective way would have been to show Hoffman actually DOES know who Ethan is, where he lives and who with. As cliche as the IMF mole thing is, it would work fine if it were Cudrup that gave all that info to Hoffman and that's what rises Ethan's suspicions of who the mole might be. The way it actually plays out, I just don't find it very convincing.

Actually, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense for Crudup to let it play out like it did. They BOTH wanted Ethan to go find the "Rabbit's MacGuffin", and this way Crudup gets to trick Hunt into thinking he was on HIS side.

And just WHO do you think told Hoffman's character where Hunt's wife worked??

Pretty much, it's all laid out there well enough that if you toy with certain scenes like the airplane interrogation I would have been able to buy into Hunt being emotionally compromised. Hoffman starts saying "Hey, you're Ethan Hunt. I know you. I know you have a wife and where she lives and that if I don't make a phone call within a couple of minutes she will be dead". THE PLOT THICKENS! Not only does Hoffman know Ethan and can get him where it hurts but there's also a mole he'll have to deal with.

After the Scooby Doo bit with the wife not being the wife, I pretty much don't see Hoffman as much of a threat in repeat viewings.

Wow. So you're saying THIS doesn't carry any emotional weight with you??



I mean, really?[/quote]

It really doesn't do anything for me. Best I can say about is that Cruise is really trying hard to make it work, and he almost does elevate a shitty script with his acting. Few actors have enough talent to pull that off, but the shitty script and amateur camera work really brings it down. Cruise is so good in it you don't even need that stupid shaky cam close up TV gimmick. Just place the camera on a tripod, write better dialogue and let Cruise do his own thing to really give it that kick. It's like Abrams thought Cruise couldn't carry it by himself, so fuck with the digital grading and shit!

I will say this, GHOST PROTOCOL almost makes that whole wife plot worth it because I think the way it's handled in that flick is very believable. Ethan Hunt can never have a normal life because of his job. Even if he quit there would be enough enemies out there to target him. Like how James Bond can never have a serious relationship, and when he does and gets married his bride get killed in a drive by. In this case Ethan has her set up with a new identity and even though he can never speak with her, the knowledge that she's safe and sound is enough to bring him comfort and move on with his life. I may not be crazy with how it was handled in III, but GP makes the concept work.

Actually, I think that ending was their way of saying "Not now, but one day..." between him and his wife. I can even see it being Ethan faking HIS death so he can be with her.

In fact, 'Protocol' was supposed to set-up Renner as the new "face" of the franchise. Man, that guy has SOME agent, too. But people reacted so well to Cruise that the sequel will be Ethan Hunt all over again.

And I approve.

I approve too, and I was actually kinda hoping this would be Cruise's last (so he could different possibly better stuff) and Renner taking over. Instead I'd just like to see the whole team return. Very rarely does a FOURTH film in a franchise manage to be that good. Still, I'd like to see Cruise also do some movies that aren't of the action blockbuster variety. His role in TROPIC THUNDER is proof enough that he could do something completely out of the left field and everyone would love him!

I think I have figured out why you are choosing to ignore things, and outright trashing things with zero basis beyond "Well, I didn't like it":

'Mission Impossible III' was directed by J.J. Abrams.

That's it and that's all. Your bashing of 'Trek' '09 and 'III' go hand-in-hand.

Seriously, I ask ANYONE reading this thread to chime in and say if I am off-base, or spot-on.

I liked LOST.

Really though, It's Orci and Kurtzman who I consider the main source of those films' problems.