Lost Souls, anyone?
Winona R. should give the shoplifting gig another try.
I’ll see you all those movies and raise you “3000 Miles To Graceland.” Oh, my eyes. When I am old and sick and on my deathbed, surrounded by my loved ones to say goodbye to me, I will have but one regret: that I paid money to watch “3000 Miles To Graceland.”
Ah the joy of HBO and other movie channels, you get to see all the crap along with some of the good stuff.
I laughed pretty hard at Charlie’s Angels 2, before you draw and quarter me, I was laughing at the horrendously bad cliches and lame jokes, not to mention the poor actors loss of dignity.
I’ve seen far too many bad movies to make a list, yech.
I did enjoy XXX in the sense if you ignore the entire plot / dialogue, interesting action sequences. Never worth watching a second time.
xXx was also enjoyable not only for the action sequences, but also for the sheer badness of the plot and dialogue. Yes, my friends, i rises (sinks?) to the level of good-badness. That said, I sympathize with those who paid to see it in the theatre.
I liked Charlie’s Angels! It’s like they said, “let’s just have fun and make a live action cartoon.” Everybody in it just looked like they were having such a good time 
My favorite bit: “Thornbirds!”
As far as 2 Fast, 2 Furious…I’d see it just for Cole Hauser…what a hottie in Pitch Black.
Add to the list “the Rookie” starring Colin Farrell and Al Pacino - cheeseball and improbable from start to finish. (CIA agents routinely go out of their way to recruit himbo bartenders for their training academy, yeah.) And watching the legendary Al Pacino degrade himself in such a scenary-chewing stereotypical bad guy — ugh.
Also to be avoided - “Identity.” This starts as a ripoff of one of the most famous Agatha Christie mysteries (ten people gather in a remote place, they are picked off one by one - the killer is obvious from the word go), and then the script adds on the stupidest plot twists, bar none, in the history of movies.
I thought the original “Matrix” was OK, nothing great…so I figured I’d try and watch the first sequel, “Reloaded.”
HOLY CRAP! That was easily one of the WORST movies I have EVER seen! How could an action movie be SO boring?!
Also, I gather from the rather underwhelming box-office of “Revoloutions” that most others felt the same way. You couldn’t PAY me to watch the third chapter of this godawful trilogy.
Musketeer
Horrifying acting, a lead actor who has the charisma of a rotted hessian sack, crappy photography that used wide shots way too often, and edited by a ten year old.
That was enough for me to switch it off about 20 minutes in.
Quick question aside: what do you mean when you say “scenery chewing”?
Well, there’s the “OMG!!! YOU JUST DON’T GET IT!!!” school where all the people who didn’t like it are too dumb to grasp the deep, subtle meaning of what is truly a great movie. Naturally, that’s a bunch of crap, but I felt I should mention it.
Personally, I savor The Matrix since I saw it on opening day and had my world rocked and it was a perfect moment in pop culture. Moment being the key word. I wouldn’t see the other two.
Another vote for House of 1000 Corpses. It has plenty of “gross”, plenty of “sadistic”, but not a speck of “scary”. There’s no suspense, it’s just some kooks torturing and killing a bunch of people.
Imagine Cabin Fever without the plot, so only the makeup effects are left. Now replace the actors with the cast of The Munsters, and tell them they’re playing the Manson family.
The Core. I saw this on a flight to Europe. Laughable.
It refers to an actor who uses all variety of quirks and mannerisms to try to draw the audience’s attention to him, whether he’s the center of the scene or not. It’s fairly easy to imagine a secondary character in a stage play who starts toying with (or even chewing on) a prop while two other characters have their plot-pivotal conversation.
To me, the classic example is Cary Grant in Arsenic and Old Lace. It’s a funny movie, but Grant’s shameless mugging and overacting almost ruin it. By contrast, Raymond Massey gives an almost cadaverous performance and is actually a lot more entertaining to watch, especially when he interacts with Peter Lorre.
I think Al Pacino is often accused unfairly, though. He looks like he’s overacting, but it’s just in contrast to a series of pretty-boy but bland and forgettable co-stars (Colin Farrell, Keanu Reeves, etc.) Stealing scenes from these guys ain’t exactly the Brinks job.
Old School. It was a movie that had the potential to be funny, but decided it only wanted to do so roughly every twenty minutes. The worst part was, when it was funny, it was really pretty damned funny. 