Stupid overused things in movies that annoy me
Posted: July 13th, 2008, 12:30 am
Does anyone else get annoyed by these stupid things that are overused in Hollywood movies?
- Why is it that during a sex scene or a lovemaking scene, the phone always has to ring, and the couple always has to stop to answer it, and then one of them has to stop the sex and suddenly leave on an emergency? In real life, people don't stop sex to answer the phone. That's stupid and overused.
- Why is it that in action movies, when the bad guy points a gun at the action hero, he always gets really close to him so that the hero can grab the gun or arm and take out the bad guy? That's so stupid, obvious, predictable, and unrealistic. Anyone knows that when you point a gun at someone, you do it from a safe distance so that he can't grab it or suddenly attack you. That's common sense. Yet they always so that in movies, especially those involving Steven Seagal or Chuck Norris.
- Why is it that in a group of criminals in a shoot 'em up action movie, the leader of the bad guys usually abruptly shoots one of his teammates as soon as he has no more need for him anymore (In the movie "Cliffhanger", the bad guy leader even shot his own wife, which was totally implausible) yet the other bad guys on the team continue following the leader as though they don't realize that they too will be shot as soon as they are not needed? Come on. Instead, they think "Oh great, one less person to share the loot with, I'm sure our bad guy leader will treat us fairly and give us our share of the loot, just like he promised!"
Yeah right. Gimme a break.
These kind of things insult my intelligence.
- Why is it that during a sex scene or a lovemaking scene, the phone always has to ring, and the couple always has to stop to answer it, and then one of them has to stop the sex and suddenly leave on an emergency? In real life, people don't stop sex to answer the phone. That's stupid and overused.
- Why is it that in action movies, when the bad guy points a gun at the action hero, he always gets really close to him so that the hero can grab the gun or arm and take out the bad guy? That's so stupid, obvious, predictable, and unrealistic. Anyone knows that when you point a gun at someone, you do it from a safe distance so that he can't grab it or suddenly attack you. That's common sense. Yet they always so that in movies, especially those involving Steven Seagal or Chuck Norris.
- Why is it that in a group of criminals in a shoot 'em up action movie, the leader of the bad guys usually abruptly shoots one of his teammates as soon as he has no more need for him anymore (In the movie "Cliffhanger", the bad guy leader even shot his own wife, which was totally implausible) yet the other bad guys on the team continue following the leader as though they don't realize that they too will be shot as soon as they are not needed? Come on. Instead, they think "Oh great, one less person to share the loot with, I'm sure our bad guy leader will treat us fairly and give us our share of the loot, just like he promised!"
Yeah right. Gimme a break.
These kind of things insult my intelligence.