Movies that insult your intelligence.

You can tell your intelligence has been insulted when you reflexively say “Yeah, right!” in a sarcastic tone out loud in the theater.

This happened to me during Mission: Impossible when the spy guys fake a fire alarm at CIA headquarters, then show up dressed as firemen in order to gain access to the building. Now, you’d think a group of firemen running down a crowded office hallway led by a uniformed guard toting an UZI would get everyone’s attention, wouldn’t you? I mean, that’s not the kind of thing you see every day, unless you work at a really flammable security-concious abortion clinic or something. Anyhoo, Emmanuelle Béart casually slips away from the group of pseudo-firemen and ducks into a conveniently unlocked utility room and no-one notices! The bullshit factor on this movie is high to begin with; this particular moment was a eye-roller all by itself.

Anything with Rob Schneider in. Most things with Adam Sandler. All of the Nerds movies (and any of their ilk.)

Bryan Ekers - my favorite part in Mission: Impossible is the scene in which Tom Cruise types “Job” into a search engine, and it returns “Job not found.” Helicopter into the Chunnel? No problem, but “Job not found”?! C’Mon!!! :slight_smile:

I wouldn’t be too hard on your friend. Moulin Rouge is a movie that people either love or hate - there isn’t much middle ground.

But for a movie that everyone can detest: Kangaroo Jack. It’s not even out yet, and I already hate it! I know it’s aimed at children, but still. . .

Right… but the protagonists were immersed for lengthy periods, w/ Leo’s character handcuffed and Kate’s character saving him in the nick of time. The water is swimming-pool blue and there’s no indication that it’s cold. Not even stiff nipples. (I checked. :wink: ) The lack of any indication (other than Jack lamely saying “Shit, that’s cold” once,) of how cold the water would be bugging me for a long time- They’d been exposed to (and submerged in) freezing water repeatedly, for at least an hour-- when they weren’t actually in the water, they were mostly in the night air off the coast of Newfoundland, in April, in wet clothes. If you’ve ever been in glacial water, you know how painful it is-- yet Jack doesn’t seem to suffer from the icepick-in-the-forehead effect while trying to retrieve the key and unlock the gate-- most of which takes place in total submersion. But in the two or three minutes between the sinking of the ship and the discovery of the bit of flotsam to cling to, out comes the blue makeup to indicate hypothermia. No sign of exposure, exhaustion, or shock before then- Jack was strong as an ox,l the ship went down, dodging bullets, strong enough to lift Rose straight up onto the guardrail after pulling himself up there. They both would have gone into hypothermic shock and have curled up and died long before. They certainly wouldn’t have had anything resembling the manual dexterity required to perform any of the heroic acts of the last half hour – vasospasms, intended to preserve body-core temperature, would have made their extremities quite remote to them by then.

This may turn into a hijack, but I have to say that it’s nice to see some like-minded people w.r.t. movies with gaping plot or logic holes; nice to see that I’m not the only person in the world for whom such holes detract from the enjoyment of the film.

I have friends who just don’t understand that at all. If we’re talking about some movie, and I say that I didn’t like it because such-and-such just didn’t make any sense, they respond with, “So what? Why can’t you just enjoy the story?”

Reign of Fire is a good example. The entire movie is predicated on the fact that the dragons pretty much destroy civilization. Well, I’m sorry, but I just can’t swallow that. Faced with that kind of a threat, the US military (not to even mention the military of every other country on Earth) would mobilize, put everyone in fireproof suits, start cranking out the new completely fireproof planes and other vehicles, and the heat-seaking missiles alone would probably be enough to kill all the dragons, I don’t care how fast they reproduce.

So it’s just not realistic. “But,” my friends might say, “Dragons aren’t realistic either, why doesn’t that bother you?”

Well, because that’s the basic starting point of the movie. I’m very willing to suspend my disbelief and “accept”, for the purposes of the movie, that dragons are real.

“So why is that any different than accepting that the dragons wiped out civilization?”

Well, because, uh, it just wouldn’t happen that way.

“But dragons aren’t real, so how do you know how it would happen?”

And I’ve yet to find a good way to explain the difference.

Funny, though, that the plot holes in Minority Report didn’t bother me as much. Maybe that’s because it was just all-around a better movie.

I don’t see how you could detest Moulin Rouge so much and love Romeo and Juliet. You tell me which is harder to swallow: two people fall into a forbidden love and go on absinthe-induced adventures, or 12-13 year olds go running around a feudal post-apocalyptic Miama/LA speaking Shakesperean verse, and actually commit suicide over each other!

I like both, if only for their originality. I think it’s unfair to bash either of them based solely on the aspect of believability; bad acting, yes; poor music, perhaps; but Baz Luhrmann intentionally takes things so far over the edge that if you go into one of his movies expecting a realistic film, you’re going to be sorely dissappointed. It’s not that he’s trying to insult your intelligence; nor is he simply overlooking the obvious (the ability of 6000 quintillion tons of earth to simply stop moving, a 100-foot space station to spin and produce full gravity, etc etc). This is true for a lot of movies, and unfortunately it often gets them labeled as failures by elitist critics who think they are too cultured to be subjected to such unrealistic and fanciful adventures, and are ashamed to admit that a movie can still be enjoyable even if it’s not believable.

Once you accept this, I think you’ll enjoy the movies a lot more.

That’s my two cents.

Either you get it or you don’t. I’m a horribly hopeless romantic, and I completly fell for Moulin Rouge… it just appealed to me. I got lost in it-- swept away by the pure glitz and love of it…
But whatever-- some people like it, some people don’t.

Evolution took the logo from one of my fave comics and a pretty cool premise and ended up with complete BS…the scene where they figure the alien’s weakness by

Counting down on the perodic table was so incredibly dumb, though i’d been assured it was intentionally comedic…

But, I will admit that some movies like this are just plain bad. Wing Commander, Starship Troopers, Reign of Fire, The Core, just to name a few… along with ANY Rob Schneider or Adam Sandler movie.

No military can moblize instantly, and fireproof suits and planes don’t grow on trees. The idea was that the initial attack was too fast for any reasonable reaction (I mean really, how many people are going to be expecting attack by multiple fire-breathing dragons?). And then the nukes started flying, which didn’t help any.

Granted, there were major problems with the movie, but I think your picking nits that just aren’t there. I think the eating ash and “only one male” thing were far more insulting than the overall premise.

I’m thinking espeially of Wing Commander. The plot to the Wing Commander II video game was incredibly fresh and engaging: rather than follow the adventures of a hotshot young pilot, the hero was a (wrongfully) courtmartialed pilot reduced to flying in the reserves until fate intervenes. Hell, even the non-plot of the first and third games in the series were better than the movie. And the special effects–audio animatronics gone crazy!

Don’t get me started on other video game/movie franchises. Tomb Raider, Super Mario Brothers, Final Fantasy TSW…arrrgh.

Oh, the point I was trying to make was that it WAS possible to have a really interesting and non-derivative Wing Commander story. Instead, Chris Roberts wrote a trashy script and cast Hollywood fifteen-minutes-of-lame actors in a cheesy film. That’s what made it even more insulting.

Star Wars…that movie is so asinine it isn’t even funny.

Battlefield: Earth. So many massive implausibilities, it insults the intelligence of lichen.

I only remember him killing two people - the Neo-Nazi and the golfing guy. Did I forget someone? I thought the gang members were just injured.

Not only do they NOT say that the fellow convict is incorrect, but later ol’ Tommy Lee Jones tells the evil hubby something along the lines of “I’m a law professor and I assure you she is entirely correct [about the double jeopardy misinformation].”

I can overlook plot implausibilities if I enjoy the character portrayals, humor, etc. I liked Blind Fury in spite of its multitude of “oh, RIGHT! :rolleyes:” moments.

Signs!!!

As if this link doesn’t say enough, the way it was determined that water would kill the aliens drove me insane. So let’s see, the guy played by M. Knight Shamawhoever comes to this brilliant realization that water would keep him safe from aliens. The crop circles never appeared by water, and therefore water must be some sort of alien repellant. WHAT?! The circles also never appeared near Al Gore. Shall I stand near Al Gore now in order to keep aliens away? The circles didn’t appear near a lot of things. Are all of those things alien killers? How the hell did he magically deduce it was specifically water that would kill the aliens. Grrr, that bothered me.

How could we forget that?!?!?! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER!

SIGNS wasn’t forgotten…looks like 4 votes so far for (or rather against) that one!! I think it is the easy winning loser for 2002.

My bad. But yes, very, very dumb movie (and Ebert loved it…go figure).

Anybody who hasn’t seen the movie yet and is reading this thread has probably had it ruined for them already, but just in case: Signs spoilers ahead.

What really bugged me about Signs was the whole “something that looks like a curse but turns out to be a blessing” thing - Mel Gibson’s character’s son (I forget all of their names) has asthma, which is why he isn’t killed by the alien (the poison gas doesn’t go into his lungs). Mel Gibson is so grateful about this, I mean, this asthma saved his life! As usual, they completely ignore that the reason the kid was exposed to the poison in the first place was because he had asthma! If the kid didn’t have asthma, they would not have had to go upstairs to get his inhaler, so the kid would never have been left alone with the alien. It’s a kind of nitpicky point, but this stupid resolution is used all the time and it drives me insane.