My Least Favorite Movies

Another boring film, this film is not right. A white guy acting like a black guy? get over it. Welcome to my worst movie list!!!!!

Not interested to see this pathetic, rubbish and disgusting film. But I unfortunately did, I dunno why and how? it didn't scare me, I just didn't like it, very disturbing, sad and intense, death scenes. This isn't a horror film it's a gore type film---I wish gore was a genre.

The worst comedy film ever made. Why did Leslie bother acting in this film.

Weak direction. Weak script. Weak cast. Busta Rhymes is obnoxious as Freddie Price, an entrepreneur of an internet web cast called Dangertainment, who selects 6 high school clichés to spend a night in Myers childhood home. OF course, Myers trashes the party, and offs people in a way that doesn't go with the Halloween movies. In earlier movies, the violence and the gore was kept to our imagination. We would see the events leading to it, the flash of a knife, and then we would imagine the rest. "Resurrection" has blood and gore like there's no tomorrow, and it felt like I was watching some tacked on slasher movie, not one of the many sequels to Halloween.

The Halloween movies were a rare franchise, that was intelligent, and always had the ability to shock, and entertain. The first movie sets the standards for all of todays slasher flicks. Halloween II was slightly dodgy with its story, and the pace was slow, but it was entertaining. Things dipped a bit in the late 80's, early 90's, but by H20, new life has been breathed into the series, and I thought things could only get better. How wrong I was.

I almost feel ashamed for watching it all the way to the end. Saying that, I will watch it again. It's Halloween after all, and every movie franchise has a bad turkey (Phanton Menace, Freddy Vs Jason, Any hellraiser movie after the third...) All in all, as long as your pi$$ed as a fart, you wont care, and will gladly cheer on Micheal as he slashes his way through 90 minutes of total torture.

The worst movie ever made.

They kill off one of the best actress in the beginning. (Julianne is always the lead in her films). I mean without her in this movie, then there's no point of continuing making this crap.

This film was pathetic and rubbish. Music sucked, cinematography was the best, though. It had tons of F words--They really hurt my ears. They got some annoying actors.

The story was bad, nothing made sense. I didn't get it, why the hell were people crazy in the film? This film wasn't original, they ripped off War of the Worlds. And why do they call this piece of crap a sci-fi? it looked like it was set in the 1950s.

This is actually the first movie I ever fast- forward just to see what happened at the end. I couldn't friggin' stand it.

Why do Brits continue on making apocalyptic films? they suck at making 'em, just like 28 days later--disgustingly pathetic film with yet tons of F words.

Brits are great at making Spy and comedy films--I adore them, not sci-fis including apocalyptic ones.

I need my 1hr and 10mins back.

This is a stupefying bad film.

It would be easy to "blame" it on Sidney Pollock, who, like George Cukor before him, seems to excel at making a "woman's picture," but unlike most of Cukor's work, this film is just dull, dull, dull.

Nevertheless, when it came out, the critics were unanimous in their praise. Meryl Streep was the darling of the film industry, Brandauer was the European star who every one wanted, and Redford was Redford. In truth, Streep's Dutch accent was nothing, if not annoying, and Brandauer looked as if he were on life support. Redford? The Englishman? This movie drove him out of acting and into directing. Name one important acting role he has had since this pretentious movie.

Sure, it was based on an autobiography, but the story, if there was one, was not compelling.

You see, stunning photography and an exotic locale, together with name stars, do not make a great movie. You have to care about the characters, and what happens to them. The stilted dialogue, the lack of action, Brandauer's indifference, Redford's wooden acting, the weak story line, the formulaic direction, and the excessive length of the picture trump what may have been an interesting autobiography written by a woman who moved to Kenya in the early 20th Century.

This film was a bore. Many stupid scenes should've been deleted, especially the talking ones. What the f*ck was wrong with the Oscars that year!? How could this win 7 awards including best picture and best screenplay? I don't mind the cinematography and the music, 'cause they were good. I would have just given an Oscar for best music and/or maybe cinematography, that's it. Two Oscars are enough. Other nominees/winners were just OK, not Oscar-worthy at all (except the 'best screenplay' and 'best film' winners). The screenplay sucked. The plot was so bad.

One of the worst stories for a film ever.

Bad film, it's not about its PG-13 rating, I like PG-13 horror films, but this film is made in poor story line and it was shot poorly. I just liked the suspense of it.

A very awful animated film, it's one of the worst. The graphics were great including the voice actors Jackman, Winslet and Mckellen were also good too. But the whole film including its story sucked, it was kinda getting similar to Toy Story which is a billion times better than this.

Hi Big Fish, welcome to my worst movie list.

This movie is so bad, it's just nonsense, no plot at all. Tim Burton's worst. The accents were terrible, why did they get Ewan? are they out of American actors? his accent was like it was forced, he couldn't do it properly even that witch (dunno her real name) she's English, her southern accent is very terrible, it's like mixing chocolate with soup. This movie is just nothing. I was always looking forward to it because it looked so beautiful (just like 2001) but they both turned out so bad.

It didn't even make sense, what a boring film.

It's not Big Fish...

...It's Big Flop

The dream at the start is totally obvious. Especially when the door opens when it's looked, then she turns around and it's closed and locked again.

If they knew Micheals history (and they clearly did because they asked about him and spoke about him) then he'd be being transported a lot more securely. That's goof number 1. He'd be in a straight jacket, secured to the bed. And I don't care how superhuman he is, no-one can put their thumb through an adult human skull. That's goof number 2.

The explosion at the gas station was unlikely - A van just pulling out wouldn't have blown up the pump, and the blast didn't kill Loomis. Goof number 3. The little girl looking at the picture of her "dead mother", Jamie Lee Curtis. But doesn't she come back in H20? SO she isn't dead? Why wouldn't she be with her daughter? Goof number 4.

Now you have to wonder why the only living relative of Micheal Myers would want to live in Haddonfield, let alone live in his old house. He gets into their house way too easily as well, don't people lock their doors in a town where people were murdered.

You'd also think the police would more readily listen to the Doctor who looked after Myers his whole life.

Racheal soon ignores her child-minding duties after an argument with her boyfriend. I thought Jamie would know better than to go off without her adult supervision though. I loved the fact that all the guys who had been drinking in the bar all just jumped right into their trucks without a care for the idea of drunk driving.

The Sheriff asks only 1 cop to stay at the little girls house? Hasn't he heard of safety in numbers? Also for an "invalid" as he's described by many people, Micheal sure does a lot of walking and gets around real fast between places. Both Jamie & Racheal thought they were being followed but even Myers couldn't have been following them both at the same time. And how stupid were those 3 boys dressing up like Myers. The Sheriff should have shot them all.

You also known Racheals former boyfriend is going to die at Micheals hands after screwing her friend. And that Myers was already in the Sheriffs house before they locked it all up. Another example of people who don't seem to lock house doors.

The posse of men who'd been in the bar drinking killing a man by mistake shows why people shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Also, where did Myers get his mask? He's very strong for someone whose supposedly spent his entire adult life in an asylum under sedation. How did he get to build that strength? I did question why a child running down the road, at night in a town with no power screaming and shouting somebody help me didn't attract attention in seconds? And a school with an external alarm that you can't hear inside the school. Goof 5. Myers hair magically changing color? Goof 6.

How the hell did Myers get on the back of the truck? He never came out the school and they were on the move. The Trucks were never left alone, MAJOR GOOF! And how Myers was able to hold onto the fast moving truck AND hold onto the knife? Occasionally I wish someone would make a horror film that didn't have glaring holes and goofs in it. And after being shot THAT many times I don't care who you are, you are DEAD! But no, even after being told by Loomis that Myers is dead we're still teased by another scare. The child kills her foster mother just like Myers killed his sister. But why? She had no motive or reason.

Another awful piece of tripe with more holes than Swiss Cheese.

An atmospheric opening sequence set in remote jungles sets this film off to a good start, but unfortunately the opening sequence is the only thing in this film worth seeing, as from then on it's all about as chilling as a Mickey Mouse adventure containing cartoon arachnids. The characters and situations are unoriginal and comedic, and the whole thing has the feel of a Saturday morning sitcom rather than a horror film.

For a start, the plot is just complete gibberish. A creature the size of the biggest tarantulas in the world mating with a tiny house spider? It's like expecting us to believe that a domestic tabby could somehow mate with a Siberian tiger! And the spiders are just rubbery Z-movie monsters. Can you believe that something as big and heavy as a giant tarantula can leap through the air and dangle on strands of web? Even a scientist's pet tarantula seems to have somehow built a cobweb. How clueless do the makers of this film think people are? All through the movie spiders are stamped on, scalded, mutilated and killed in various other gratuitous and brutal ways.

If you're scared of spiders and don't know the first thing about them then I suppose it helps, but personally I found this film to be a collective representation of all the ignorance and irrational fear and hatred that surrounds large exotic arachnids. In fact this film made me feel like being physically sick.

I think this film is more like a Drama than it is a horror. I mean duh, when someone died, we saw the funeral etc--that is what made me sick and disturbed. Also it wasn't even scary, the music ruined it. And, I can't believe the death scenes involved old people, HOW SAD!!

One of the worst film ever made, this is pure crap.

What were the writers and the novelist thinking, didn't they know that this will offend many people. Also the story wasn't even right because in the beginning it turned out to be a family film and in the middle a romantic film and then at the end a gore fest film. Not really right.

BAD film, the ending ruined it more. A main character dies? that's shit. A terrible ending. The whole thing was terrible.

Just watched it, this is one of the worst horror films I've ever seen. Part 1 sucked too. How could a main character die? Salva sucks big time. It was too homoerotic. Salva, get out of the closet? I bet you were horny by writing nude guys in your script.

The script is dreadful. Mind-bendingly dreadful. It's deficiencies take several forms. I shall enumerate them;

1) The dialogue is actually a series of monologues. Every-one is apparently reciting excerpts from their autobiographies, or treatises on whatever is at hand, letters to whomever they are talking to, letters to the editor, political speeches, self-help manuals... It's certainly not conversation.

2) It's portentous. I sometimes like portentousness, it can lend atmosphere. Here, it lends to the tedium. The tedium doesn't need adding to, it's already oversubscribed.

3) It never knows when to stop. Anthony Hopkins has a monologue at the end that goes on for several minutes. You keep thinking it'll end, hoping, praying it will end (this Anthony Hopkins! He could probably read the ingredients of soap and make it sound interesting), and it does, eventually, but by then you slipped even further into a coma and are in no fit condition to cheer. Colin Farrell seems to spend half the movie looking off into space and holding forth at length on, oh, whatever, but always passionately.

4) It's badly written. It's a bad series of portentous monologues that never know when to stop.

Aside from the script (perhaps) the film features other flaws that inhibit it from greatness. Such as?

Pointless time jumps. I have nothing against time jumps. Highlander, Once upon a time in America, Godfather part two, Once upon a time in the West, For a few dollars more, and probably other films that weren't by Sergio Leone... Many great films feature them. But usually they follow a rationale. Usually they aren't apparently random and unconnected. Here, it's like they put a couple of reels in the wrong order.

Sins of omission. While I said that the lack of adherence to historical accuracy was a side issue, not mentioning almost any episode that might actually have been exciting or interesting seems a dubious policy. Alexander, as the posters implied, was the stuff of legend made real. (I make no moral judgement here). Does it mention the phalanx? Any the innovative ways that he overcame apparently unassailable fortresses by looking at the problems from another angle? The political methodology whereby he kept a grip on all of the peoples behind him? The Gordian Knot? Does it hell. It does feature a couple of battle scenes, the second of which is shot in a vivid and pretty colour scheme, and both of which illustrate that he fought at forefront of his army. So that's something.

The most laughable sex scene ever committed to film. Alexander wins over his bride by making kitty-cat claws gestures and noises. There's more, but that's definitely the stand-out feature.

I could go on, but this film has already eaten enough of my life. The only thing epic here is the ineptitude. It actually made me feel nauseous.

Oh my... this film was totally gross, offending and...I don't know what to say. Please watch Thunderbirds instead.

Possibly, another worst film ever made, it had some good action though but the acting sucked and full of unnecessary jump scenes and unsettling screaming by Dracula, it also had some offending sexual dialogue and intense/sad death scene which disturbed/upsetted me psychologically.

This film must be getting so much hype and praise because it's a somewhat interesting but yet bizarre experiment in form, starting at the chronological end and then jumping backwards in time about six minutes after every three minutes that passes. This device is intriguing, and was enough to keep my interest for the first fifteen minutes or so. But once I realized that it wasn't going to stop until the movie was over, I began to go slowly insane. That whole idea was awful.

Also, the structure implicitly asks you to take it for granted that when you reach to the end, everything is going to make sense in terms of character and motivation. Without going into any details, let me just tell you that it doesn't.

The acting was good, and the writing, in terms of dialogue, was competent. The music sucked. And there were a few good moments that made use of the memory-loss theme effectively. But in general, I think that history will find this movie little more than a mostly-failed exploration in form.

Overall, this a bad film. There's nothing special in it.

This was so bad, it made no sense at all. These film deserved a 0, but the guy that played Jack Swallows really looked, sounded, and acted like Jack Sparrow--which was good and I liked that only, everything sucked really. All of the other characters are so annoying, this is truly an embarrassment.

Sick film!

Oh very disgusting and not too funny, too rude! I liked part 1

Very bad, even though it did have its moments, but still it was so boring and the music by Hans Zimmer was appalling it was like techno.

So boring and not thrilling

Boring and a very dark film.

The Last Crusade was terrible, full of bad humor, jokey villains, horrid effects and witless action. What an embarrassment to the first film! This film was more like a spoof movie that parodied Raiders.

It certainly couldn't be Last Crusade which is a terrible film for so many reasons. Let's begin at the beginning. The opening sequence with River Phoenix as young Indy was very wrong. By this point the Indiana mystique was so high, someone felt the need to explain many of Indy's trademarks, so in one 10 minute sequence, we get the origin of his hat, his whip, his fear of snakes, the scar on his chin and his basic sense of right & wrong. If any 40+ year old human being could claim that so much of their personality comes from a single 10 minute incident as a child I would laugh in their face. Aside from the completely ridiculous nature of the sequence, even getting into the spirit of fun is next to impossible when the effects are so bad... the "animals" looked like refugees from Disneyland. When "Anaconda" had a snake that bad, people rightfully laughed, yet here people seem to think this makes for good filmmaking.

A couple of characters return from the first movie but as a fan I have to ask why? Did they bring Brody back to act as a mentor to Indy, to regale him (and us) with his exploits as a young archaeologist? Nope, they brought him back to turn him into a bumbling buffoon. Was Sallah brought back to act as Indy's contact & right hand man, to help him through strange and exotic lands where Indy may not be able to secure the resources he needs, but Sallah can? No, he was brought back to make camel jokes.

Now as for those famous Indy action scenes: in Raiders, Indy got the snot kicked out of him but always relied on his brains to survive (passing under a truck was a great stunt and a deft move for Indy to take). In the tank chase here, does Indy's intelligence save him? Does his skill? The answer is no, it's pure, blind luck. And who really thought he was ever in any real danger? Besides how dangerous is a poorly blue screened tank anyway?

While Sallah & Brody were reduced to cartoon characters, Indy himself became a joke, playing straight man to his father whose dialogue seemed to come from a TV sitcom, the only thing missing was the laugh track.

Of course, the only people more comically inept that Indy & friends were the Nazi villains. It's hard to imagine these wanna-be keystone cops taking over a bowling alley let alone most of Europe. But of course, this plays right into the idea that hapless Indy can't face an actual challenging villain that might require skill and intelligence to defeat since in this movie, Indy displays no skill or intelligence.

Overall this movie is a hapless, witless exercise in attempted crowd pleasing that only succeeds in pleasing those hapless & witless enough to accept whatever drek the filmmakers give us, INSTEAD of demanding real characters, real adventure, real thrills and real humor. This film was so boring.

This kinda films suck, it had a bad plot, they all didn't know how to act except Brittany. School of Rock is also a music film but it's based based on rocking, it was way better. Please don't compare these two films!

First off, I am very, VERY aware this is another Japanese horror remake.

Unfortunately, as far as remakes go, 'One Missed Call' looks like a poor excuse for a clone of the earlier and far superior Japanese remake, 'The Ring.' Both focused on technology, killing good looking college aged kids, ghosts, child abuse, and a race against time to stop a pattern based curse from spiraling out of control. And let's face it, even in The Ring, these plots are a stretch to the imagination. I don't know anyone who freaks out upon finding an unmarked videotape, and I highly doubt anyone will be afraid to pick up their cell phones or check their messages.

Like in the Ring, the story starts with the picking off of a bunch of arbitrary characters who receive a call from themselves in the future, and get a voice mail of themselves when they die. Beth (Sossamon) is witness to this and wants to get to the bottom of the curse, but nobody takes her seriously, and who can blame them? So she enlists the help of one detective, Andrews (Burns), who does believe her, only because something similar happened to his sister, so he has a motive and reason to help. There's no real character development outside of Beth, but they do however track the calls to a creepy, abusive mother and her two daughters... But of course, things aren't always as they seem as the two dig deeper into the case. Unfortunately, there's no real answer to the 'when does this thing get scary already?!' To be honest, it doesn't.

And let's face it, even without being a remake, even without having a tired, reused theme that really isn't that scary, this movie just doesn't work on any level besides atmosphere. And if I wanted just atmosphere, I'd watch The Cell again. (Guilty pleasure movie. Shut up.) The casting is alright, I guess, but the performances are so wooden and devoid of emotion or terror, as if even the characters know that this is just too weird to be scary. 'You hear yourself die on the phone then die in real life? Oh, um... sure. *Checks messages* Ok, I'm good.' There are of course themes of ghosts, child abuse, and a bit of a twist at the end, but it's nothing that feels new. Nothing that's grabbing enough to make anyone really care. The characters are bland, the story is all over the map yet thoroughly not engaging, and this movie is a failed attempt at horror.

As far as 2008's 'One Missed Call' goes, give this one a miss.

I prefer the book, this film sickened me really.

It's strange how some films become not just successful, but hugely successful. Revisiting this movie recently, it's apparent that not only is it obviously dated two decades later, but it's very much a film which is remembered as being better than it is.

It requires an obvious suspension of disbelief to accept the very arbitrary rules of keeping a Mogwai (WHY does feeding it after midnight turn it into a Gremlin?) That's par for the course for a blockbuster, and not a problem in itself. The Mogwai's mechanical movement can't help but make it look fake, but we can overlook that too. The real disappointment here is that the script, having crawled somewhat in the first half, falls away in the second, almost as if the Gremlins themselves had gotten to it in their chaotic manner. Sure, we see scenes of havoc, but to what ultimate purpose?

The movie got a PG rating, but the Gremlins display the kind of behavior you wouldn't want kids to associate with, especially in the rowdy bar scene, during which Phobe Cates is behind the bar, inexplicably serving them drinks when most people would have high-tailed it out of there as soon as the little devils showed up.

The film also struggles to maintain a consistent tone. Yes, it's a comedy foremost, but with some horror thrown in. The comedy doesn't entirely work, even and especially in the scenes where the monsters run amok, and the film's lack of real tension undermines any attempt at a darker quality.

It is not aided in the least by the totally nondescript Zach Galligan in the leading role. He is so bland that if he didn't keep moving you would lose him in the wallpaper. Hoyt Axton is also ineffective in a stiff, monotone performance as the hapless inventor father, whereas Francis Lee McCain gets to add some beef to her role as typical American Housewife with one of the movie's best scenes as she defends her house, most notably the kitchen, from the Gremlins. Cates and Reinhold are pedestrian in their supporting roles.

The writing is such that the characters pretty much sidle up to an underwhelming resolution, putting the cap on a movie that, like one of Peltzer's inventions, promises much but soon goes haywire.

Oh, my God, please don't compare the first film to this piece of crap. The first one is way better, this probably is one of the worst sequel for a film.

I didn't like it for many reasons including Jack and Elizabeth's relationship, they were always kinda flirting with each other and they also kissed each other--that's so confusing.
In the first film, she loved and Will. She also did love him in this film, well sorta. How could the stupid writers do that. Why is that even in this film Jack and Will have to fight each other? In the first part, they became friends.

Next reason is that Jack's lines weren't even funny. Depp's acting was as if he was forced. The film was slow itself. Most scenes were boring. I hate this film. Why the hell they made it?

Very rude, gross, offending and disgusting.

It would've been a great film without the graphic violence. What was the graphic violence for? To shock us for no reason? Pan's Labyrinth is one of the most OVERRATED film ever made.

Even though the positive stuff in this film was the atmosphere, music and the fantasy theme. While the negative stuff was the graphic violence and the Captain's sadistic nature. Totally unnecessary.

Though this movie was more focused on Vidal than on Ofelia. They showed the real world more, than they showed the fantasy world. The poster tricked me.

It's a disappointment really. The most unusual film ever made. I would rather watch Saw III.

The sequel is better, this one is full of sexuality and nudity. This is not a action/adventure film, in my opinion it's a porn film.

Mediocre films are hard to come by these days. Most films I've seen either fall into the category of the fantastically good or brilliantly bad. Rear Window fits into the mediocre section.

The film starts with the main character Jeff (James Stewart) in a wheel chair. The film carried in at a disabled rate. Confined to his small flat Jeff takes to spying on his neighbourly community. Battling against the social culture of marriage presented in the film, ("I'll do something drastic... I'll get married and then I'll never be able to go anywhere,") Jeff uncovers a neighbours secret and with the aid if his girlfriend, "If there's one thing I know, it's how to wear the proper clothes." (Grace Kelly) and a national insurance home nurse "Every man's ready to get married when the right girl comes along,"(Thelma Ritter) they begin to understand the enormity of what goes on behind closed doors.

Hitchcock's directing skill has, in rear window's case, made a bad film better. The suspense created reached far enough to fill the confines of the small apartment and occasionally touched the neighboring flats. It is also obvious that Hitchcock, wanting to live up to his title of "Master of suspense" has concentrated on making the film a thriller, ignoring the romantic scenes unperfected and full of deviations. Robbing us of the romance of a happy ending kiss, it is totally forgotten.

The 1950's image of woman portrayed in many different areas of the film, was sexist. Unacceptable in today's standards of female rights the film concentrated of the material aspects of woman. It is perceived that every female is unable to survive without superior males and is therefore dependent of their material possessions. The ballet dancer, for example, was a sort of back up entertainment. Whenever the film reached a boring point the camera panned over to show viewers a close up image the ballet dancer "Miss Torso" dancing around in her underwear. I'm sorry, I'm not overly feminist, but I'm just not entertained by this sexist icon of woman.

One of the few aspects that dragged this film up and out of the bad category was the way in which the film was viewed. The camera shots were all based from Jeff's two roomed flat. When the camera zoomed on a close up of the neighboring buildings we were given the impression that we were looking down Jeff's binoculars, or his long distance close-up camera. This allowed the audience to perceive his point of view and empathize with his feelings of curiosity and interest.

From Jeff's window, there is never a clear view of the outside world. We share Jeff's feelings of being hemmed in because of this, and, we can communicate with him when he is placed in a situation where his helplessness (due to being in a wheel chair) becomes unbearable. This is even more apparent when Jeff struggles to stand up. He is forced to sit and watch his loved ones potentially suffer when he knows he can't do anything to help. These feelings inability, are magnified with the stunning skill of James Stuarts acting and the famously edgy suspense created by Alfred Hitchcock.

The main thing that I found hard to accept throughout my viewing of the film was the amount of character clichés filled into the small community. There were all types stereotypical Americans ever thought of crammed into one, short, film; the ballet dancer - Miss Torso, the newlywed couple, the dog loving woman, the social miss- fit Miss Lonely-Hearts, all amount of nagging wives and the frank but firm national insurance home nurse- Stella. I'm not familiar with American neighborhoods, in fact I'm English born and bread, but I find it hard to believe that you'd find all those people in a few tiny blocks of flats.

Not only exploring a murder, this film explores and examines the cultural differences of American neighborhoods, and how social stereotypes are often handed out too freely. There is also some conflict of sexes and the film captures the time when woman were making a stand for rights, and when men were still sceptical of female talents; "Look, Miss Fremont, that feminine intuition stuff sells magazines, but in real life it's still a fairy tale." Rear Window sets a useful reference of a 1950s community in the full.

For a mediocre film Rear window did well in contemplating many public issues of the mid 1950s and addressed them in a way that is still unusual and original today, but with too many sexist throwaway comments and a boring story line, I would not want to relive my boring experience of watching rear window.

This film was bad, awful throughout. Not even a horror film, that's because of the damn score, rock music was playing throughout, I'm not saying Clint Mansell is not good at composing, he is but for this film, this is a horror-type, his score for Requiem, Fountain was the best, no offense to Clint, but he doesn't know how to compose a score for horror films, he should stick with Drama/Romance. Also too much swearing, and The Rock's character overreacted, he wasn't fair.

Similar movies:
Resident Evil 1&2
Underworld
Land of the Dead
Day of the Dead
Saw III
28 Days Later...

A boring film. Wasn't scary nor thrilling.