I for one am a pretty big fan of movie romance, when it's done right it can turn the most coldhearted, puppy kicking curmudgeon into warm, drippy sap. But when it's done wrong, well that's pretty much why so many puppies get kicked in the first place. Unfortunately for every Princess Bride or Ever After or fucking Titanic there are about a billion others that make it clear why so many people avoid romantic movies like AIDS. The biggest mistake that even an otherwise good romance movie can make is to center the film around two people that are simply impossible to believe in as a couple. Here are four.

Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) and Benjamin Barry (Matthew McConaghey) in How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days:

Category: Love based on a lie.

Very few romantic comedies in years past have pissed me off quite like this one. In it Kate Hudson plays Andie, a magazine reporter yearning to be taken seriously at her job. First things first, do you take Kate Hudson seriously? No? Not even a little bit? Because she was pretty good in Almost Famous... Still no? Okay just making sure. But back to my point, in order to prove herself at work she takes on her biggest project yet, How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days, an experiment in which she will snag some poor bastard, act like a clingy psycho bitch for ten days (behavior she seems to believe all women subconciously display) and then write a story about it. Little does she know, Ben, her unwitting conquest has made a similar bet with his coworkers. If he can get a woman to fall in love with him in, you guessed it, ten days, then he will score the big diamond account. It's a cute concept for a movie, but holy fuck did they execute it in the worst way possible. As many problems as I had with the horribly contrived plot, the ending was probably the biggest disappointment of all. Here she's been acting like the aformentioned clingy psycho bitch for ten days and he's been going along with it for reasons too retarded to get into again, and when they finally find out the truth about eachother what do they do? They fall in love of course. In spite of the fact that they're both ruthless liars who essentially know nothing about each other, they decide to enter into a relationship because the plot calls for it. I guess movie bosses believe as long as the leads are both attractive enough there's no reason for us to question the validity of their decisions, but I for one have no reason to believe in this seriously shallow movie couple.

The amount of time it will take for their trust issues to get the better of them and realize that they are both pretty despicable people: Ten days.

A version of this movie couple that inspires a but more optimism: Josie Gellar (Drew Barrymore) and Sam Coulson (Michael Vartan) in Never been Kissed. Sure the 1999 Drew Barrymore comedy is cheesy, but the love story at the center is a lot more buyable. In the movie, Barrymore plays a reporter who goes undercover as a high school student and ends up falling for her hunky teacher, played by Vartan. Creepy student/teacher relations aside, this setup could possibly lead to a lasting romance because she only lies about her age, not who she is.

Ben (Seth Rogen) and Allison (Katherine Heigl) in Knocked Up.

Category: Love based on obligation

Now, I must say that I like this movie. It's funny, but that doesn't change the fact that its central couple is a match made in hell, in fact that's pretty much the point of the movie, so why in its last act does the film bend over backwards to try to convince us otherwise? Ben is a lazy, immature pothead with a heart of gold and Allison is a smart, responsible career woman who is (contrary to Heigl's personal feelings about the character) pretty nice herself, but like she says in the film "just because we're two nice people doesn't mean we belong together" and she's completely right. When Ben gets Allison pregnant during a drunken one-night stand, suddenly the man she happily thought she would never see again becomes the most important person in her life. Overtime she realizes that he's not so bad afterall and he realizes that she makes him a better person. This all works really well, it's totally believable but it's never enough to convince me that they should be anything more than really good friends who just happen to have a kid together. In the end they're just too different.

The Amount of time it will take for them to realize that they're only staying together for their kid and their lives have become a really bad fat idiot with hot wife sitcom: three years

A version of this movie couple that inspires a bit more optimism: Jimmy (Jimmy Smits) and Isabel (Elpidia Carrillo) in Mi Familia. In another cinematic marriage of convenience Ex-con Jimmy and Illegal Immigrant Isabel are coerced into marriage in order to keep her in the country in spite of the fact that they barely know eachother and she annoys the hell out of him. He laments the situation at first (instead of kissing the bride he dourly replies "you owe me") but his attractive, spirited new wife eventually shows her vulnerable side and gradually claws her way into his cold heart, leading to a charming onscreen romance that would have had some real staying power... had she not died tragically in childbirth that is, which leads me to my next item on the list.

Romeo (Leonard Whiting) and Juliet (Olivia Hussey) Romeo and Juliet

Category: Love based on infatuation

This story has been adapted an infinate number of times, so I'm just going to go with my favorite theatrical adaptation. I'm cheating here, because I, along with the rest of the universe know that they die at the end, but does any logical human being really believe that they would have stayed together forever had they not conveniently iced themselves? Don't get me wrong, Romeo and Juliet is a perfectly valid love story, if not one of my favorites. Aside from the fact that the intense chemistry between the two leads totally sells it, its interpretation of passionate, hormone driven teenaged love is timeless and actually somewhat accurate. But the fact is, love based on hormones isn't real love. They never take into account what they may be leaving behind in order to pursue their thoroughly immature romance. If they had escaped their grisly fate and rode off into the sunset together, how long would it have taken the two starry eyed youngsters to grow utterly bored with eachother and realize that burning every bridge they had may not have been worth it? Probably as fast as it took Romeo to get over Rosaline the moment he laid eyes on Juliet. The moral of the story, most teenagers are flaky bastards who, for the most part, don't know dick about love.

The amount of time it will take them to realize that they are flaky bastards who don't know dick about love: 2 months (that is if they weren't dead)

A version of this movie couple that inspires a bit more optimism: Diane Court (Ione Skye) and Lloyd Dobbler (John Cusack) in Say Anything... Lloyd and Diane will work out as a couple because, even as teens they're wise enough to consider everything that's wrong with the "love conquers all" ideal (or at least she is), and decide that they truly care enough for each other to face those problems, not run away from them. In the end they work it out and find a way to be happy without casting everything else aside. Which is probably why they don't end up having to kill themselves in the end.

Ariel and Prince Eric: The Little Mermaid

Catagory: Love based on an idea

The Little Mermaid is another example of a love story I really like in spite of it technically being a horrible love story. In a romantic setup that's fleeting even by Disney standards, teenaged mermaid Ariel ventures to the surface and lays her eyes on Eric, the first human she's ever seen up close. She falls instantly in love with the handsome prince and is suddenly willing to give up everything to be a part of his world. What the film fails to get into, however, is the fact that Ariel probably would have given up everything to be in his world anyway, even if it didn't include him. She was a fish obsessed with being human and escaping her sheltered existence, and she saw Eric as a way out. Although she may have developed feelings for him later they were never as strong as the thrill provided by her first taste of freedom. As the film progressed I couldn't help but think that she was more interested in her breathtaking new surroundings than the guy she was with. As for Eric, he fell in love with Ariel without ever actually hearing her speak. He's a nice guy, but seriously, who could stay in love with someone that shallow?

Note: yes, I realize that there was a sequel in which Eric and Ariel were happily married for many years with a daughter, but I don't acknowledge Disney direct to video sequels, and neither should you.

The amount of time it will take the independant Ariel to realize that being married to a prince is every bit as stifling as being the daughter of a king: 1 year

A version of this movie couple that inspires a bit more optimism. Aladdin and Princess Jasmine in Aladdin. This is one of the few Disney movies that actually gives the central couple a chance to get to know eachother before deciding that they're in love, otherwise, Aladdin has a lot in common with The Little Mermaid. They both feature a repressed princess who finds adventure with the help of a handsome stranger from a different world. The difference is, Jasmine takes matters into her own hands when it comes to escaping her predetermined destiny. Ariel will eventually come to find that she doesn't need a guy in order to realize her dreams, Jasmine knew that all along, The guy is simply a plus for her.

Of course I could be wrong, maybe if these couples really existed they wouldn't crash and burn like a 19th century horse drawn carriage in a Michael Bay movie. But what I know about love goes against everything that these four and so many other films portray, not that that couldn't have worked. A good romantic movie doesn't necessarily have to end with the couple walking away hand in hand (see Chasing Amy) and perhaps these four would have been stronger had they taken that notion to heart. Except of course The Little Mermaid, that would have been one hell of an effed up kids movie without its superficial happy ending.

Even the snobbiest of movie snobs enjoy a bad movie now and again. Sometimes it's fun to feel like you're better than the thing you're watching, sometimes you're just in the mood to cut your brain off and sit through something as unchallenging as possible, the kind of film you can tune out for and hour and still comprehend with no problem. But every once in a great while a bad movie comes along that you fully, genuinely love in spite of, or sometimes because of its relentless awfulness or unpopularity. We all have at least one, whoever says they don't is a pretentious dick. So in no particular order, here are mine. Judge me if you want but you know deep down inside that you have your's too.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: I fully understand the hatred for this movie, it's about the dumbest thing to happen to cinema since smell-o-vision and practically an insult next to the infintely superior Raiders and Crusade, but it's so puppy dog affectionate and consistently entertaining, especially when you go in with the lowest of expectations. Even its stupider moments are cause for self-satisfied snickering. This film doesn't warrant repeat viewings, in fact, I'd advise against it, but in those blissfully stupid two hours I have to say, I had fun.

Sugar and Spice: Not terrible as much as hopelessly underrated, this pregnant cheerleader bank heist romp is actually a pretty funny, skillfully made dark comedy which had the misfortune of soaring over the heads of its intended audience back in 2001, and for good reason, teenaged girls are stupid, they don't get satire and by the 30 minute mark the ones that had shelled out for a ticket were probably wondering why nobody had used the adjective cheertastic and why James Marsden was still wearing a shirt. This is just as much the movie's fault as it is theirs. A tree falls in the woods conundrum, If a movie is marketed to the wrong demographic and they invariably hate it, does the movie suck?

Bring it On: Unlike the above mentioned cheerleader comedy, Bring it on is in fact a bad movie. It's aggressively ditzy, slightly demeaning and it stars Kirsten Dunst, not to mention that it inspired a spawn of execrable direct to video sequals, each one more causally racist than the last. But what can I say, this one still gets to the stupid teenaged girl in me. Its oppressive energy levels have a way of sneakily forcing you into a good mood. The routines featured in the movie are way more inventive and fun to watch than anything I ever saw in pep rally and the absurd presence of Ian Roberts as overdedicated cheer coach Sparky "spirit fingers" Polastri is one of the most hilarious things I've seen in any movie, good or bad.  

Charlie's Angels: There's lots of reasons I enjoyed this movie the first time around in spite of myself. The fight scenes are outstanding, the soundtrack is utterly cool and the whole thing is consistently eye pleasing. But there is only one reason I watched it more than once, Sam Rockwell, my god does that man make a sexy villian, and his performance has an above it all charm that elevates the production from garbage to garbage with Sam Rockwell. Swoon.  

Don't be a Menace to South Central While Drinkin' Your Juice in the Hood: Spoof movies are rarely any good, in fact, any one that manages to amount to more than an arbitrary collection of scenes from other movies set to fart jokes can be considered mildly successful, but the Wayans brothers got it mostly right this time. After the too good for this list I'm Gonna Git You Sucka and before they plunged into the comedy deep end with the Scary Movies, White Chicks and Little man, the Wayans made this unquestionably stupid but frequently hilarious spoof of life in the ghetto movies that had just as many timely, relevant and even intelligent jokes as shockingly awful ones.  

Rent: There's just something about musicals, even the worst kind of maudlin crap can be elevated with the help a few showstopping musical numbers and Rent has them in spades. Any movie that tries to make AIDS and drug use look glamorous is inherently terrible, but God if this one didn't grow on me, even when I found myself hating the characters and their proudly irresponsible, hedonistic lifestyles I was too busy getting caught up in the music and dancing to care. Hum along now, shower later.

Stuck on You: I'm not  including this film because I think it's bad, I'm including it because I'm for some reason the only person on the planet who seems not to. Why do people hate this movie? It's easily one of the sharpest, most heartfelt films the Farrelly Bros. have ever produced yet it's almost every bit as unfairly reviled as Me, Myself and Irene. Granted the film's treatment of conjoined twins is a bit too sensitive at times but you have to have a heart of stone not to be at least a little touched by the central relationship between literally attached at the hip brothers Bob and Walt Tenor (Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear respectively).

Josie and the Pussycats: Call it my blind love for all things Archie Comics (I even liked Sabrina The Teenaged Witch), or my enduring girl crush on one Rosario Dawson or the fact that I was all of fourteen when this hit theaters, but this movie is freaking awesome. I loved it when I was fourteen and I love it even more now. Even the rampant product placement, no longer relevant cultural refrences (TRL, boy bands), and the heavy handed message of consumerism gone mad isn't enough to quell my affection for this all but forgotten living cartoon. It's a perfectly enjoyable movie on a few levels, It's fast-paced and candy colored with disgustingly infectious punk infused bubblegum pop tunes, but where it really succeeds is in it's fortunate unwillingness to take itself the least bit seriously. It breaks the fourth wall in the most hilarious ways possible and features villains as cartoonish as their Saturday morning counterparts (Parker Posey, Alan Cumming). And any movie that can make Tara Reid seem attractive and appealing by just having her be the hapless ditz she is is fine by me.

The Day After Tomorrow: Call this the anti-Josie, where that movie was enjoyable because of the way it embraced it's stupidity, this one is enjoyable because it has absolutely no fucking idea how stupid it is. And this is one stupid movie. The plot is completely nonsensical, set in some alternate universe where the devastating effects of global warming take place in a matter of days. Tommorow follows Jack Palance, I mean Jake Gyllenhall as a seventeen year old whiz kid trapped in New York, trying to survive the quickly impending Ice Age by literally outrunning it, while his brother, I mean Dad Dennis Quaid for some reason makes a 70 mile trek through the freezing weather on foot to his rescue as if the presence of one man will somehow make his kids situation any less dire. But of course this is movie world and everything works out fine in the end, except for the millions of people who must have died, but as long as Jake Gyllenhaal is okay nothing else matters. This spectacular B-movie with an A-movie budget (and admittedly dazzling special effects that are almost worth the price of admission alone) is the very essence of so bad it's good. The terrible dialogue, moronic movie science, laughably earnest acting and pitiful moments of forced pathos (two words, cancer boy) lead to more laughs than anything this side of Judd Apatow. Also there's wolves.

Transformers: Michael Bay, Michael Bay, Michael Bay only you could make an epic period drama about World War II, then make a film about robots based on a line of popular toys and have it qualify as a step up. Don't get me wrong, Transformers is every bit as cheesy and moronic as a movie based on toys should be, and Michael Bay clearly attended The Day After Tomorrow school of taking a dumb concept far too seriously. But aside from everything this movie does wrong (and theres a lot) it's still a ridiculously fun, stylish action movie with engaging performances and the kind of special effects that remind you why Michael Bay is allowed to have a career in the first place. Bring on the sequel!

So I'm dying to know, what terrible movie do you blindly love despite its terribleness?