Shaky cam - it works in only a few movies. In some it's actually a PREFERRABLE style - depending on what the film is attempting to achieve or demonstrate. Be sure to differentiate between hand-held camera work and fast-cut. Example - The Blair Witch Project is possibly where it really started to become overused. It worked in BWP because it was supposed to BE hand-held camera work and although the movie itself got rather tedious and forced it was a GOOD decision to stick to the live-documentary-footage style.
Fast-cut action - I HATE IT WITH A BURNING SOUL-CONSUMING PASSION. As others have noted it really does seem that it's used only to eliminate the need to actually choreograph fight scenes. I imagine that filmmakers convince themselves that it's an effective technique to convey a sense of excitement and fast-movement. It might have been true if used sparingly but it's used so indiscriminately, pointlessly, and excessively that it never had a chance to actually be a viable technique. It's this technique rather than hand-held camera work that gives me a headache.
Distortion and motion blur - another related technique, often used with hand-held cameras and fast cuts. It's that technique that tends to imply phychadelic drugs, severe mental confusion, etc. that consists of fast pans, vibration, and blurred or washed/altered colors. In a movie like Man on Fire it works (even if still overused) because it does effectively communicate some of the mental state of the main character. But it, too, is a technique that is used excessively and without regard for actually achieving a particular, meaningful effect.
Villains or ANYONE/ANYTHING that suddenly gets up again for a final "scare" when it's supposed to be dead is EXECESSIVELY pathetic filmmaking and I give really severe demerits to any film that tries it.
Hero's leaps - you know those amazing, Carl-Lewis-wannabe, slo-motion, amazing leaps from one building to another, one cliff to another or across any gap that is obviously a realistic impossibility. Often done in conjuction with "outrunning the explosion".
Outrunning the Explosion - in slow-motion apparantly people can actually move faster than even nuclear-detonation thermodynamic reactions. Again, rampant over-use has now rendered it a pathetic device that we simply have to put up with. No filmmaker is now going to show you the hero crashing out a window and falling into the water below and THEN having the window explode outward in a ball of flame. No, the expanding fireball must nip at the heels of the escaping hero, or even close rapidly upon him, all the way down the corridor, through the shattering window and then finally whoosh just over his head as his ballistic downward arc puts him below the windowsill - and the flame will expand up and out but never down. Somewhere back in time the movie industry simply decided that gasoline flames are the ONLY suitable form of explosion for film. Every car that goes over a cliff explodes ON THE WAY DOWN in a ball of flame although it's just been through a 15 minute chase with grenades and .50cal with minimal damage. The only movie in recent memory that seemed to go out of its way to demonstrate otherwise was Blackhawk Down. Gasoline explosions may be "cinematic" but not every explosion needs to be "cinematic".
Hero-pull. This is where the male character will PULL the female character through the entire foot-chase by the hand regardless of how capable the female is or how INcapable the male is.
Bottomless clips. Nuff said.
Shrugging off wounds that should stop a rhino. My favorite example of this is Starship Troopers when Denise Richards character Carmen gets a bug leg the size of a 4x4 through the upper chest but is perfectly capable of standing up and running out of the cave (ahead of the nuclear detonation fireball it should be noted) and indeed only a few minutes later, after many minutes of casual conversation with others walks away with a smile on her face and each of her arms around the shoulders of friends. But usually it's a slightly less eggregious display, such as just a bullet in the leg of a hero who manages to only limp a little for the remainder of the movie or chase without, like, incapacitating pain or blood loss. Still irks me though that only the bad guys ever go down with one shot in the arm
The problem with kids parts in movies is that the kids aren't KIDS. They are either wise beyond their years, foul-mouthed smart-asses, more knowledgable and better behaved than adults, or the like. Never just kids whose only real concerns are who gets chosen for kickball at recess or which Transformer is cooler and whose influence on the doings of adults should be much less relevant to most stories.
As for children in the audience at inappropriate movies - "R" in the American ratings system means, "Noone under 17 UNLESS accompanied by parent or guardien". It's an NC-17 rating that means "Noone 17 or younger PERIOD." The blame therefore is twofold. It lies with lazy, stupid adults whose pathetic parentings skills aren't really your business to call into question at a movie (unfortunately), but also with a pathetic, meaningless, ratings system that doesn't even adequately communicate superficial content like levels of violence and sexuality, much less the VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT underlying messages being communicated to children through that content.
No damn endings. In the last year or two it seems that screenwriters have completely lost the ability to write a proper END to a movie. Too many of them just suddenly seem to be OVER without a proper denouement or resolution. The writing in general is getting quite bad. Lots of lazy writers and too many execs looking to bust blocks rather than simply provide adequate entertainment. When you set out to make a blockbuster you're now almost certain to FAIL quite spectacularly and be left to wonder how simple little entertaining movies are time and again the ones that audiences end up flocking to as they stay away from "tentpoles" in droves. But I've seen a genuine trend develop where for whatever reasons there have been way too many movies that the filmmakers can't bring to a resolution.
Talkers in the audience and other inconsiderate behavior. I've got a friend who has a REALLY bad habit of talking out loud in the movies. It annoys the hell out of me sometimes and he's my friend - he must drive everyone else around us freakin' nuts. The odd thing is that noone ever tells him to pipe down. Cell phones are becoming nearly ubiquitous and people have yet to get it through their thick skulls that they need to be considerate about when and where they use them as well as turning the damned things OFF. Those little PSA's that some theater chains include in the trailers WORK. When people see "Mr. Inconsiderate Cell Phone Man!" up there again I see LOTS of people leaning over, pulling out their phones and turning them off or silencing the ringer. I know _I_ do. Just a couple days ago I had JUST gotten a new phone, forgotten to silence it before the movie started, and then had someone call me repeatedly. So there I am in the dark trying to find where the volume settings are (different than my old phone) and finally shutting it off entirely, cringing as it dingles and chimes it's way through the power-down procedure. If _I'd_ been sitting behind me I'd have been pretty annoyed.
Oh, and the theatre I go to has this one screen out of the 12 it has that I seem to keep getting stuck with. It has a blown speaker or something like that in front and they haven't gotten it fixed/replaced for several weeks now. At certain points in movies it can become very distracting as it screws up the dialogue volume/tone. Had a theater near me a couple years ago when I was still living in the Seattle area. Dead of winter and they have their AC turned down to like 60 and the fans blowing constantly. Complained repeatedly about that one too for weeks and they blew me off every time.
I can't suspend disbelief when I see this, sorry.
