Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What's the worst movie you ever sat through?


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

(question inspired by TNPanther's "Fifty Shades of Grey" thread)

 

So what's the absolute worst piece of cinematic dreck you've ever managed to sit through all the way to the bitter end?

 

Flipside Question: Have you ever seen something so incredibly bad you couldn't even finish watching it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh man, there were so many. Let's see:

Robocop 3

Twilight

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Sabotage

Batman & Robin

Terminator 3

The Breakfast Club

Green Lantern

Dumb & Dumber

Gigi

Majority of Nicolas Cage's films

Never Back Down

The Expendables 2

Any recent Adam Sandler movie

Etc

Etc

Etc

Etc

 

Ya stop in the middle of any of those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Johnny Depp Lone Ranger movie.

Now if you'd asked about movies I hope I never have to watch again, I have a list of them.

That's an interesting sub-category.

There are movies I genuinely liked, but given the opportunity to watch them again, I'd pass.

"In the Bedroom" falls into that category. It's a film about two parents killing their late daughter's husband because they believe he killed her. Very well made movie, but left me feeling like I'd just taken part in doing something awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark Skies was abysmal. And I honestly couldn't sit through Lincoln. Daniel Day Lewis may be an inspiration to the acting world but in mine he is a cure for insomnia.

Vampire Hunter was a much better Lincoln movie. Whoever decided having a fight scene with stampeding horses is a genius. Also it has Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Rocky Mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...