As my mind wandered during my drive home from work this evening, I recalled the various threads we've had here about irritating music lyrics, least favourite songs, hated and loved films, and so on.

I found myself wondering why, in the Director's Cut of Blade Runner, if Deckard was meant to be a replicant who didn't know it - the current position of Ridley Scott - why he alllowed himself to be beaten up quite so badly by practically every other replicant he came across during the film.

Surely replicants are all bred to be super-tough, so they wouldn't end up battered and bruised, and wouldn't be unable to jump between buildings cleanly? Is Scott's post-justification just a way to sell his Director's Cut version? Or did he just re-cut his film to allow more ambiguity.

Blade Runner is one of my favourite films, by the way, and I think the Director's Cut is a big improvement on the original, which I liked anyway.

So, my questions are:

1. What plot flaws or non sequiturs most irritate you about a particular film, whether it is one you like or one you hate?

2. Can you explain someone else's least favourite plot flaw in a way that makes sense within the context of their nominated film?

Gee, Julian, you may not believe it, but I prefer the theatrical version of Blade Runner to the Director's Cut. I LIKE the voiceover by Deckard (Harrison Ford) because there are too many times things happen on screen that don't make any sense without the narration telling us why it important.

Another thing that bugs me are camera shots that linger on a particular item---like a gun in a drawer, for example---as if to tell the audience, "Pay attention. Later on when the hero/heroine needs to get out of a jam, that gun will be important!" Well, why not just have a arrow pointing to the gun with a pop=up that says, "IMPORTANT PLOT DEVICE."

And after the last two installments of The Matrix if I never see another fight scene waged by guys wearing sunglasses and long black trench coats that can defy gravity and strike with enough force to knock down redwoods, I will be a happy man.

Any scene where a man and woman are running away from someone or something, and the woman trips and falls, either spraining her ankle, breaking the spiked heel of her shoe, or both.

Does it take a gay movement to get movies of women wearing sensible shoes?

Irritating characters-definitely Adam Sandler when he played that annoying guy in Little Nicky. I get upset even thinking about it.

The use of wires in staging fight scenes. Think crouching tiger.

Casting popular actors for any role that involves a forign based character. I HATE fake accents. You cannot expect me to beleive there are no actors of caliber--Irish, French, Persian-- availible.

Bad remakes of foreign films, La femme nikita, the Ring, any bad attempt at Kurosawa films.

gimps who become kung fu blood sport warriors just in time for the last battle.

I am sick of the martial arts! Hello SO over done!

Ever see an actual fight and they are nasty, brutish and very short. Don't ask me to beleive you can be pounded mercilessly by several people then stand up and give a Bruce Lee come here hand signal and go all rocky balboa on em all.

Asking me to beleive Matt Damon could whoop anybody's backside.

the hero is being destroyed by the No. 1 baddy and with his body destroyed he becomes Superman and suddenly gets a second wind from Mana and is ready to triathalon.

60 year old men with 20 year old women. No 20 year old is going to be attrached to a man whose testes now hang to his shins and his lower cheeks flap in a stiff wind.

the car rolls 20 zillion times and the characters immediatly get out and run. The shock alone kept me on the ground. I couldn't crawl let alone run.

Zombies!

the character behind it all at the end that is so suprising because not one single clue was ever given. and the stretch to get their is actually audible.

Desert Eagle .50 can't be slung around all casual like.

that john woo casual firing position, couldn't even hit the air that way.

Someone fires off an automatic from hell and can still hear the whisperd snappy line utered seconds later.

rouge cops who haven't been sued into non existence.

that Tom Cruise is actually taller than 4 feet.

Meryll Streep? What?

Wide screen edition for my 21 INCH SQUARE TV.

I personally cannot see mainstream actors as anything other thanthemselves.
Bruce willis Samuel Jackson, Deniro. How about trying some no names.

and I'm sorry but samuel jackson and deniro can kick anyones butt and I'll never beleive otherwise. so don't even cast the in weak roles.

Oh yeah Ewoks, I still hate them.

Always with the happy ending.

and the obligatory, Hey its all over now----or is it?

Jar Jar Binks

I heard a rumor that someones cut over 20 mintues from the star wars episode one and as result has turned it in a pretty good film. I'm asumming a large chunk of that editing is cutting out Jar Jar Binks...

People casually walking away from huge, fiery explosions. As much as I like Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek movies, this plot device is lame.

Flaws make me mad. You know, the simple things. Like in Platoon. Some guy's wearing M60 rounds across his chest. It zooms in, they're in an X. Goes away and comes back, they're parallel to each other. Then back to the X. Then parallel again.

It's mainly little things like that. And in Psycho, where you can see the "corpse" in the shower swallowing.

The Game, starring Michael Douglas could have been a good movie. Unfortunately, the ending was insultingly stupid. The end of this 'game' required that he voluntarily jump to impending death, through a glass ceiling dozens of floors below, on the very spot that an inflated device was placed to catch him. Good grief

My biggest problem with movies is when they lack internal consistency.
It doesn't bother me when movies push the limits of plausibility, but when a movie betrays the world it creates I can't stand it. An example: In Star Wars Episode 1 the heroes are trapped underwater in a Gungan ship when it loses power, later in the movie it is revealed that the canopy of that ship was protected by a forcefield- there was no "glass" in the "windshield". Annoyances like Jar Jar Binks I can write off and just say "this just wasn't my kind of movie", but when a movie betrays it's own internal logic like that it's simply a bad movie by any objective standard.

1. What plot flaws or non sequiturs most irritate you about a particular film, whether it is one you like or one you hate?

There are a few obvious logical flaws that bug me.. for example in 'The Matrix' films. It irritates the pants off me that the machines require human beings, for energy
..energy? The machines (as is explained in 'Animatrix') are impervious to radiation so why don't they just use nuclear power?

What really gets on my nerves though is how films are always remade to fit the format.

For example, in 'Braveheart' we have the Scots wearing blue face paint... Not because thats what they would have done, but because it looks good.

In 'The Lord of the Rings' entire sections of the books were cut away because 'there was not enough room for them' and yet entire superfluous scenes were added which made no difference to the plot what so ever (warg attack?)

Most galling of all though, is how often films are only geared towards the American audience so the rest of the world must time and again watch two people have mad passionate sex...

...wearing a strategically placed blanket. I mean, forcryingoutloud! What does it mean when its okay to watch some guy getting shot by machine gun fire, but its a taboo to watch people being intimate?


2. Can you explain someone else's least favourite plot flaw in a way that makes sense within the context of their nominated film?

Sometimes. It depends on the film...


editted to add:

Grendel72



Ah, but this is a common theme in sci fi movies given that when ever the ship loses power, the gravity always remains...

That often has a lot to do with the demands of the actors and actresses, not just the American audience. They usually charge a higher salary for nudity. Halle Berry was paid something like a million dollars extra to show her breasts on Swordfish.

Yeah, sex in many american films can be really non-exiting...a couple finally decides they're going to do it and usually he ends up just doing 'it to her' in two minutes both with all their clothes on, him in jeans even, while she screams in passion, highly unrealistic.

And who was it that decided for all time that we must never-ever see a penis in film in the States? Its such an aversion youd think men simply dont have them.

I hate when indians are portrayed completely off, like the costumes, jewelry and customs are not that of the tribe of the region depicted, its usually plains indian garb, no matter where theyre supposed to be from. Dancing with Wolves was really bad because Costner looked more like a vegitarian surfer boy than a lonesome soldier of the time, complete with 20th century attitude.

Lighting....ever see the lighting switch sides, or someone say, lets stay and watch the sunset, when the sun is obviously to the east? I think mostly photographers pick up on that stuff.

Christopher said it, the whole older actor/20 year old girl scenario is very
irritating and a bit of an odd adjustment to social reality. Likewise actresses in their 40's begin to get cast in old mother roles. Fat, old male actors are always accepted when most females in movies havnt eaten anything but carrot sticks in 20 years.
Even a woman as beautiful as Latifah has been 'encouraged' to lose weight for castings. Id like to see a more realistic depiction of women in film, which is coming along a bit.

One thing that is wierd is people in american film and tv never seem to have apartments, houses or cars that correspond to their economic level. No wonder people around the world think we are all rich. Young people have these enormous lofts in NYC, bachelors have super designer apts, single moms have big beautifully furnished and never messy houses ( while she works two jobs), cops own expensive sports cars.

Of course Hollywood is about fantasy, however european and south american films usually show more realistic versions of peoples lives, social situations and economic diversity, as well as a less cleaned up version of everything , including intimacy between people. Can you imagine a Hollywood version of 'Trainspotting'?

(Christopher, I have to agree on Hollywood remakes of european films, like The Femme Nikita, they doll up girl in question and she never has a bad hair day, bleeding out all personality aspects and everything that made it great to begin with.)

Sorry Julian, Ive noticed plot flaws in the time but cant think of one right now.
I suppose I most notice errors in portrayal situations.
I adore Blade Runner but havent seen the directors cut.

Edited to add:

Movies like 'The Mexican" and previous of that same story are based on the original "The Mariachi".
They are supposed to be a bit fantastical in the way that mexicans often do film, incorporating superstitous beliefs, not real to life. IMO Hollywood didnt do a bad job of it, but as usual its americanized, maybe watch the original.
If you like these PE, have you seen, "Like Water for Chocolate'? Its a beautiful film (for family too) which shows how mexican filmmakers add fantasy, ritual and superstition to a story that appears to be in real time. (you will love it.)

The movies where some man's family is being threatened by some psycho and the man is too stupid to go buy a gun.

OK, this is one that does annoy me- you see it more on television than in the movies, it seems, but I hate when a character who can barely make ends meet lives in a gigantic apartment in New York.
OK, that's one that really annoys me as well.

Hugo,
Then you would have no movie.

Interesting point though. The most hated thing in movies is when you know exactly what will happen, who is lying, and becomes predictable and noone obviously defends themselves.

On the other hand, great shots of this genre were in one of the Harrison Ford flicks where the Alladin type character wields a big sword, shows a bunch of cool moves and Ford justs pulls out a gun and shoots him.

I also loved in a Sopranos episode, Janis gets into an arguement with her new husband, he slaps her around, she goes into the other room, gets a gun and blows him away face to face without a thought or pause, nor being shaky about it. No discussion, he dies. It was quite unexpected.

I haven't seen Like Water for Chocolate, but I have seen Chocolat, which I do love.

I do not like the "requisite" love scenes. Many times they offer nothing whatsoever to the overall plot, just a bit of skin for titillation and to bump up their maturity rating.

The Coen Brothers did a great spoof of this technique in their first feature film "Blood Simple". I believe it is a cigarette lighter which is hidden under newspapers, but the camera lingers on it. Sometimes it is the foreground while the actors do things in the background. Throughout quite a bit of the film, you think eventually it will come into play. Yet it never does. Pretty clever.

As a film student and wannabe film maker, I'm extremely lenient with films and their flaws. I know continuity errors are hard to avoid no matter how hard the continuity checker works. It's inevitable, particularly during the editing stage when the first half of a performance is great in one take (but the second half sucks) and the second half of a performance is great in another take (but the first half sucks). When you use both performances, there will probably be continuity errors.

As for irritating film flaws, I think the red dots they use to prevent in-theater recordings is obnoxious. One of my pet peeves is when the cinematographer crosses the line of action. In other words, if a car is driving from left-to-right and in the next shot, it's going right-to-left. This rarely happens, but when it does, it's jarring.

I really hate post-production slow motion. This means the director didn't plan ahead for slow motion and decided later to make it a slo-mo shot. In-camera slow motion is very fluid--look at David Fincher's "Panic Room" when Jodie Foster is searching for her cell phone. It's very slow but also moves with clarity. Post-production slow motion is basically taking frames and doubling them up. This creates a jarring, spastic slo-mo effect.

I'll think of more and add to this later.

It is irritating to see certain actors using some physical habit,
that they seem to be unaware of, in film after film.

Here are a few expamples:

Robert DeNiro and that weird smirk he manages to incorporate into
each and every character.

Julia Roberts flashes a huge smile, and it's like, "Okay, hon, you
have beautiful teeth. Now can you get (back) into character please?"

Hugh Grant used to have a weird facial gesture that seemed to emerge
in his films, but I haven't seen it of late. Perhaps he got a handle on it.

Jim Carrey and all of his facial gestures couple with his slap-stick body moves. I cannot see his movies because if it.

Adam Sandler and his talking like a retard (it's an insult to retards).

I hope you don't mean that you will be skipping out on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, one of the very best movies I've seen come out of Hollywood this year. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the best movie released so far this year. If you can, check it out. And don't worry, Jim Carrey's mannerisms are kept in check throughout the film.

I've noticed most of the "flaws" mentioned are mostly artistic choices, not necessarily flaws. One of my biggest pet peeves is using CGI to replace a human character. This occurred in the Lord of the Rings films, but often occurs in various other movies. Harry Potter is guilty of this, I remember being disappointed by its usage in The Matrix sequels and Spiderman, even in Blade 2. This is generally replacing stuntwork--CGI characters, however, still do not accurately reflect the movements of the human body. Unless used for artistic purposes (such as in Peter Pan), CGI should be kept to a minimum.

The Michael Bay school of editing grates my nerves. Every half-second, the film cuts to another shot. I'm only thankful for filmmakers such as Gus van Sant and Brian DePalma who use extended takes without resorting to such bombastic editing techniques. They may not always make great movies, but they're easier to watch.

Finally, David Fincher is my hero. There, I said it.

Although I have never seen Alien 3, every other Fincher film has been in contention for the greatest film of the year when it is released. I loved The Game, Fight Club, Seven, and The Panic Room! I am sad that he has no directing efforts in the last 2 years (and currently nothing in the works), but I imagine he has earned the right to be very picky with his projects and when he does settle on something, it will be fantastic! His resume is short, with a film every 2 to 3 years, but they are all worth the wait!


I hate CGI driven movies as well. If used properly, CGI is a great tool. If used improperly, it takes you out of the setting of the movie and reminds you that the world you are seeing is fake. I understand needing it to make some of the quidditch scenes in Harry Potter, I don't understand using it for routine stunts (a la Spiderman, where it was inserted for no apparent reason in many scenes).

I hate films that try to surprise you at the end but give away so many clues as to what the surprise is that it becomes a test of patience waiting for the obvious to happen.

Female characters that are put into films for no other reason than creating a love relationship that has no bearing to the story are also irritating. If a character doesn't move the plot along or at the very least provide comedic relief have no business in the movie (that goes for males or females, but women are the most common to be used in a weak attempt to make a male lead seem more human).

One thing that drives me NUTS is action movies that try to be funny and serious at the same time. You know, the main character is fighting off all these bad guys, and cracking lame jokes at the same time. I could kill them.

On a related note: MMWBWS (Making Movies While Being Will Smith) should be an offense punishable by death.



Michael Bay . Don't even get me started on that cretin. The man couldn't direct himself out of an empty parking lot. He is responsible for such abominations of epic proportions as Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Rock, and more. What angers me the most about his movies is that does not bother to research things that he has no clue about, things that you can Google in 5 seconds. READ A BOOK MICHAEL!!! VX is neither green, nor a blister agent.