There’s clips of it floating around on the 'net…
No funny stuff…misdirected woo, which is pretty much any John Woo film. --Homer S.
It’s a comedy featuring an action-movie star as the main character.
Another sure-fire sign that a movie sucks:
The critics quoted in the ads compare the film to other well-known movies.
F’rinstance, the review quoted for The Fifth Element said it was “The Star Wars of our time!”
And the ads for Penitentiary quoted a critic as saying “It makes Rocky look like pat-a-cake, pat-a-cake!”
I liked MST3K’s take on this type of hype:
“This is just like Star Wars except it’s not very good.”
or
“This is just like 2001…nails driven into my eyeballs.”
Speaking of which, a really really OBVIOUS sign a movie sucks is that you’re watching it on MST3K. 
Or on a related note, if you’re talking older movies, it stars Tor Johnson or is directed by Ed Wood or Coleman Francis.
Man, I miss that show. Is it syndicated anywhere these days?
Any film starring Madonna. (Save one. Well, all right, two.)
Any film based on a 1960s sitcom. Did you see the 1999 My Favorite Martian? Gawd.
Sadly, no.
After watching the Coleman Frances Trilogy: *Red Zone Cuba *, *The Beast of Yucca Flats *, & *Skydivers *, I am willing to concede that there may actually be a Hell and these three movies, along with *Manos The Hands of Fate * play there 24/7 in 3D with THX sound with the amps turned up to 11.
Frances makes Ed Wood look like Speilberg, Coppola, Hitchcock, Kurasowa, and Scorsese rolled into one.
At least Ed Wood loved his job. Frances just wanted to hurt people.
“Flag on the moon. How did it get there?”
When the ads have positive blurbs from sources you’ve never heard of.
“This movie rocks”-Joe Guy from KPTV, Channel 62, Poduck, MO
OR
When the previews use two or more blurbs from the same source. I tells you that they couldn’t find any other good reviews.
If Jay Sherman says “It Stinks!”.
Any movie where the blurb says “It’s the funniest movie of the year!” and it’s Feburary.
I hate John Woo movies too.
Also: “A Jerry Bruckheimer production” (okay, Pirates was good).
Stupid questions in the trailers. My current favorite is for I, Robot: “We trust them with our homes. We trust them with our children. We trust them with our lives. But can they be trusted?” Yes, if you trust them, they obviously can be trusted. You’re trying to ask ‘Are they trustworthy?’ to which the answer is ‘I don’t give a shit.’
My big one is “the best of the [year/time period/season” and it’s not even the time they describe. It doesn’t really count as the best if the competition hasn’t come out yet.
When the poster is as follows:
I shit you not, this is what the posters around Tokyo all looked like. Well, they were centered and had a little picture at the bottom, but you know what I mean.
“Starring Oscar Winner X! Starring Oscar Winner Y! Starring Oscar Winner Z! And poor schmuck you’ve heard of who hasn’t won an Oscar yet.”
If you’re selling the film on the past glories of the stars, the film itself isn’t worth seeing. As a big for instance, note that “The Terminal” is not being marketed as “Starring Oscar Winners Tom Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones.” It’s just their names. Therefore I hold out some hope for the flick.
But he’s the driving force behind “Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo!” 
You can tell a lot from the trailers. Generally, bits of the best parts make it into the trailers (glaring exception: The Iron Giant.) Therefore, if no footage from the movie makes into any of the trailers, the movie sucks.
Other things to look for in trailers:
A major national landmark explodes or is otherwise damaged in the movie.
Two actors turn to each other and scream at the top of their lungs. This only worked once in Raising Arizona.
An actor or director introduces you to the film.
Khamchakurian’s “Saber Dance” is the background music.
The announcer yells some variant of “They…kick…!” and the trailer cuts to a shot of someone getting kicked in the naughty bits.
All of the plot points are revealed.
Also, beware of anything that had to create its own blurbs for print ads. I’ve seen this once or twice. Problem Child with John Ritter sticks out in my mind, with “quotes” from people like Dracula and Darth Vader about how funny it was. This can only mean that the six or seven people who actually watched Problem Child had absolutely nothing kind to say.
And finally, this movie was directed by Tim Burton!!! - yes, the most overrated, undertalented hack in Hollywood. All his movies suck. Yes, even the ones you like. No, there is no defense. He just needs to quit making movies, and somebody should bury the atrocities he’s served up so far. Coleman Francis, Ed Wood, and Roger Corman got nothin’ on this bitch.
My off-the-cuff answer that immediately comes to mind is: anything directed by Kevin Smith. But I see we already have a lot of similare responses so screw that.
Whenever I see a movie ad saying: “THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED” I always think to myself: “THIS FILM IS NOT YET ENTERTAINING.”
Many times when films are not yet rated it’s because the MPAA has yet to view the final cut. And the reason for that is because just weeks before a scheduled release the studio is deperately re-cutting the film after it has been shat upon by test audiences. For me it is a signal that I really don’t need to see that flick.
There are of course exceptions to this. Some excellent films are being recut at the last minute to try to avoid a “NR” or “R” rating so that it will be more commercially viable. Then there is the example of Fahrenheit 9/11, it wasn’t rated until very late in the game because Moore was trying to get a PG-13 rating so that teens could see the film without their parents.
I’m chuckling at the movies I loved, or that were critically praised, that are marked as being sucky so far in this thread: Before Sunset (sequel to film you’ve never heard of), X2 (Halle Berry), X3 ( anything with a number above 2 in it - and I know it hasn’t even been made yet, but I know it’ll rock :)), Wayne’s World, Office Space (SNL movies)… Though I suppose they can be seen as the exceptions that prove the rule.
Worse yet, most of my good ones have already been taken, so I can’t even contribute one of my own yet. Curses. I’ll have to think some more…
The trailer for this movie turned me right off, and like Signs, I doubt I’ll ever watch it.
Yes, I’m familiar with Mr. Shyamalan’s work. I’ve seen the movies. I know who he is. No, really, I know what they’re about and what they’re like. Are you telling me it’s a retread of these movies? No? Then what the fuck do they have to do with anything?
It’s like the quote from an ep of the West Wing. “Yes, that’s what I got last election. What do I get this time?” That’s how I feel about the Village. What new thing are you offering me? I don’t know, because instead of telling me about the new movie, you told me about the old movies I’ve already seen!
pant pant
I feel strongly about this because I thought it was a painfully stupid marketing gimic. Is there any movie goer in America with expendable income who doesn’t know who Shyamalan is and needs a crash course in his work? Huh? Is there?
I’ll add movies with ads that have obviously sarcastic/ironic statements taken out of context and used as promotional quotes. The only one I can think of right now is for a movie made by the Oxygen network (probably a sign right there) that said “Peter Gallagher at his self-important best.”
I see stuff like this all the time.
A sure-fire sign that a movie really sucks is that it proudly wears the three out of four stars it got from some crap newspaper or radio show no one has ever heard of on it’s box cover/movie poster.
You know a movie will suck when one character in an otherwise live-action cast is CGI.
The movie is a sequel that tries to hide that it’s a sequel by giving it a whole new different kind of name.
The movie is a remake of a foreign film that tries to disguise itself by having a whole new different kind of name.
The ads proclaim it the “last week’s #1 comedy/action/romantic comedy/talking-CGI animal/etc. movie” which means that it wasn’t the top grossing movie but maybe the 10th top grossing movie but it was the only comedy/action/romantic comedy/talking CGI animal movie in the top 10.
The movie is live action and “stars” a talking CGI animal.
The movie is a live-action movie based on a TV cartoon or children’s book with cartoon characters.
The movie is a sequel and it’s in 3-D.
The trailers make a very big effort to promote the soundtrack.
Except for LOTR.
Two words: Forrest Whittaker