I think Spudly's right; some stipulations are necessary. It has to be a major studio effort of some kind, for one, otherwise it's all about who can track down the most obscure B-movie.
Anyway, I always want to participate in these types of threads, but just don't see many terrible movies. I suppose I've gotten pretty good at figuring out which movies I'll hate, and which I'll find decent, and usually avoid the former. Consequently, I almost never end up sitting through the likes of
Glitter or
I Know Who Killed Me, even though I'm fairly sure I'd hate them both.
I just want to say something about Hollywoodland and what I hated about it. I hated the fact how it had no pace to it. It moved around much too slowly and didn't need to show any of that crap with the detective and his family problems to continue to throw a monkey wrench into the story everytime it seemed like it may start moving along again. It was just downright boring and depressing to me. One high note was I thought Ben Affleck was perfect for the part and looked pretty damn close to how George Reeves looked back then.
I hear what you're saying about pace;
Hollywoodland definitely felt a bit disjointed to me. For awhile, it looked like it was trying to get some sort of
Rashomon multi-perspective thing going, but it spaced them out so far and it never really brought everything together. Still, I thought it was solid. Put it this way: I didn't regret buying the ticket.
But, I imagine the ambiguity of it all was probably intentional. And you're right, Affleck was very well cast in the role. I'd like to see him get back to this kind of work on a regular basis. While some of his bigger roles have been appropriately maligned, he's not a bad actor by any means.