Top 10 List of Movies I’ve Seen and Have No Desire to See Again

Some of the most powerful movies ever done are some of the movies I have no desire to ever see again. So once again, here is at Top 10 list, this time, of the movies I have seen once and have no desire to see again.

  1. Schindler’s List — I know, powerful, critically acclaimed and moving. But I have no desire to ever see this movie. Why? Because it was powerful, critically acclaimed and moving… but moving me in the wrong direction. Sometimes too much is just too much and this movie falls into that category. As one critic put it: “It is the saddest movie of all time.” Once is enough.
  2. Cast Away — Tom Hanks at his best. Just think about it, he spent 90 percent of the movie talking to himself and a volleyball, which really showed his ability to act. But alas, the pay off for the movie wasn’t worth watching him take out that tooth with an ice skate. I still cringe over that scene.
  3. The Passion of Christ — I’ve only actually seen about 20 minutes of this movie. The Jesus in that movie was not the Christ of the Bible. It was far too bloody, etc… plus, I have Second Commandment issues.
  4. Me, Myself and Irene — can we be debased for the sake of being debased and make it funny too? Nope. The producers failed on those two accounts and I haven’t seen a Jim Carrey movie since. I should have walked out on this one.
  5. Scarface — watched this movie as a non-believer and found the foul-mouthed drug dealer way too much. Can’t imagine finding anything redeemable about this movie now that I have been redeemed.
  6. Clockwork Orange — again… watched as a non-believer and was repulsed by it. I know, it’s critically acclaimed, but so is dung on a portrait of the Virgin Mary. Not worth watching or listening to critics.
  7. Training Day — let’s see how far we can take a Denzel Washington character… OK, this is it. No sense in watching it again.
  8. I Am Sam — Sean Penn trying to make a serious movie by making a movie very similar to Rain Man. Don’t waste your time watching this movie. Just watch Rain Man instead.
  9. Moulin Rouge! — drop some bad acid, watch a bad musical, add a depressing ending and you get Moulin Rouge!
  10. The Story of Us — Rob Reiner at his worst as a director. I walked out.

There you have it. I’m sure there are a few more, but those seem to come to mind the quickest, which is good since this is a Top 10 list, and not a Top 13 list.

What movies come to mind that you have no desire to ever see again?


10 thoughts on “Top 10 List of Movies I’ve Seen and Have No Desire to See Again

  1. Two questions for you, Timothy: 1. Did you think being lashed 39 times with a leather and bone whip, having a crown of thorns jammed onto the head, spikes in the hands and feet, etc. wouldn’t produce much blood?

    2. Second amendment issues?


    • Hi Mark,
      True, all that produces a lot of blood. But the Bible never describes it in the detail given, and there is no requirement that I have to watch it, or like the movie. I know that many feel like they have connected more with Jesus because they watched it, but our faith is to be built upon what we know from God’s word, not Mel Gibson’s interpretation. I’m beginning to feel like attacking this movie is an actual attack upon Christ Himself with the way some respond when I don’t fall down and worship this movie. Goodness, you would think that the first 2000 years of the church was in dark heresy because they didn’t have this highly violent depiction of Christ.


  2. For your consideration, some additional films, all of which are excellently made but may find their way onto a future, extended list:

    Irreversible (2002)
    Dancer in the Dark (2000)
    Happiness (1998)
    Dead Man’s Shoes (2004)
    Dogtooth (2009)


  3. Tim,

    I saw the passion before becoming “reformed” so i have mixed feelings about the 2nd commendment. The danger really comes to the people who do not hold the 2nd commandment and are Ok with pictures and icons. The jesus actor seems like a humble guy from tv interviews I’ve seen. definitely bloody though.


    • I have more issues with the movie than just Second Commandment issues. It also adds to the word of God, which we are warned against in Revelation 21. We are neither to add to or take away from God’s word, and Mary mopping up the blood is clearly doing just that.

      Also, faith comes by hearing, not by seeing. Too many put such a great emphasis on this movie as a tool for the gospel, but that is not God’s means to bring people to Himself. He uses the fallen preachers to preach the gospel for that. Not movies or shows, etc.

      Also, far too many treat this movie, because of the emotional aspect of it, as if it should be the 67th book of the Bible. If you criticize it, they get all emotional on you as if the Jesus presented there was any thing like the Christ of Scripture. It is all based on emotionalism, not faith and not God’s truth.

      I know I’m swimming against a tide of evangelicalism with my views on this, but it needs to be said. We don’t need movies to advance the gospel and should never use those means to do so. We have been given God’s word, the 66 books of the Bible and preachers to preach. Anything else is an invention of man and given our sinful history, not worth holding up and using.


      • First, I’m not in the least interested in defending Mel Gibson or his movie. End of THAT problem.

        I’m curious about this 2nd Commandment issue. I’ve heard it before. When the Passion was coming out, I was at a Ligonier conference where several discussed it with that concern, people I really respect. So I heard that before. But the 2nd Commandment issue, if it is to be applied here, seems really troublesome. If we are going to say “No pictures or icons” per that commandment (“You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”), then you are going to have to eliminate all movies because they are images of “things in the earth” or “things in the water” or any such thing. The whole Jesus Movie thing is an evil device that depicts Christ and violates this command. The Illustrated Children’s Bible would definitely need to go, too. In fact, all art (drawing, painting, sculpting, etc.) that depicts anything real will need to be excluded. A lot of high church art will need to be eliminated. (Not eliminated from the face of the earth, but eliminated from the life of the godly believer.) If, on the other hand, the 2nd Commandment is NOT speaking merely of “pictures or icons”, but THE WORSHIP of such things (which is the most common view of that commandment), then the Passion problem goes away as well unless there are people who wrongfully WORSHIP that image or the movie. So I’m curious about this issue.

        I’m also saddened by the “adding to the Word of God” accusation. First, a preacher routinely “adds to the Word of God” when he rightly divides the Word for people. He explains what it means (no such explanation exists in the text) and applies it to life (no such application exists in the text) and so on. Beyond that, however, Revelation 22 (it’s not Rev 21) does NOT warn against adding to the Word of God. The text warns against adding to the Revelation. “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” (Rev 22:18). In no case do we want to add to the Word of God. In neither the case of the (right) preacher or the case of the Passion should it be said that they are. “Here’s the text, and here’s what I’m telling you about it” would apply in both cases.

        As for evangelism via the Passion, I look at it this way. “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.” But I’m curious here, too. Since you “don’t need movies to advance the gospel” — and I’m not disagreeing — do you also object to the Campus Crusades’ Jesus film for evangelical purposes? Max McClean performs Scripture. Would that be a bad thing? Just wondering.

        I offer no defense of the movie. The physical suffering of Christ was monumental, and the movie displayed that, but AT NO TIME in the biblical account did Christ cry out from that suffering. No, the REAL suffering of Christ occurred when the Father forsook Him, and no movie can catch that properly. I’m not suggesting you rethink your view of the movie. I’m just asking about your objections to see if they are valid.


  4. Stan,
    You raise a lot of questions. This is why so few have hard and fast answers when it comes to the Second Commandment. I take it to mean the prohibition of images of God at any time, and the prohibition of animals for the purposes of worshiping God at any time. The tabernacle actually had images of animals, as well as the temple, but they were not to be worshiped. So it is not a solid issue when it comes to the use of animals, or images of paintings, etc. I think this Commandment pertains strictly to images of God at all times, and other images in worship, and would include movies with some one portraying Christ.

    Part of the reason is because by portraying Christ, or God, in images, we rob Him of His glory. Our images can never give Him the glory that He is due, especially given the fact that so often He is portrayed as some weak-kneed, effeminate European who hangs out with children and sheep. This gives us a false view of what Christ looks like to the point that we begin to pray to such images in our head. This is the very point of the command, not to pray to an image, but to the God who is.

    As for the Jesus Film used by CCC, this is one of the reasons I have objected to CCC over the years. The command it to and preach Christ, not movie Christ (Romans 10:14ff). I know in the minds of CCC, they thought they were doing the body of Christ some good, but it would have been better to train men to preach in all the cultures we are attempting to reach, instead of doing blitzkrieg style evangelism, where we drop in for a weekend, show the movie and then bail on the newly born Christians leaving them to fend for themselves. If we train men to go over seas and preach, they can stay and nurture these new believers along instead of leaving them to the wolves in sheep’s clothing that Paul warned us about.

    AS for Revelation 22 (thanks for the correction), I do take it to be applied to the book of Revelation first, and the greater principle applied to the rest of Scripture. AS for pastor’s adding to Scripture, in our fallen nature many do. But explaining the passage in light of the culture in which it was given, or adding an illustration to make a point, Christ did the latter, and Paul did the former — although Paul’s expansion of Scripture was divinely inspired. But the point is that we do need to study Scripture in order to explain it to those under our care. This happened when Jesus walked with the men on the road to Emmaus. He was expounding the Old Testament, showing how it pointed to Him. I do not believe we are violating the principle of Revelation 22 when do the same.

    I hope that this helps you in some ways. When it comes to the Second Commandment, I think the greater offense today is that there is no attempt to see it relevant in our lives at all. The same is done with the Fourth Commandment as well. No one uses the Law as it was intended to be used: as a guide to greater holiness and humility on our parts. For the most part, the church just ignores these Commandments and focuses on the Seventh Commandment in condemning divorced people and gays.

    Yet God gave us Ten Commandments for our sanctification. Do we just ignore them because we are no longer under the Law? Are they no longer valid today? If this is true, then there will be a free-for-all when it comes to adultery and murder. O wait, that does seem to be the case in our culture.



Comments are closed.