Jump to content

Talk:List of films considered the worst/Removed films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:List of films considered the worst

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 23 July 2006 (rap dab). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reasons for removal

The below movies were removed for one or more of the following reasons.

Lacking in citations

Following up a little on the above, now that we are keeping the article. First I don't understand the "title is POV" suggests. The title, on the contrary, bends over backwards to be NPOV. In line with what I did at List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever, I am going to remove all movies that do not have a citation for being worst movie, otherwise it is just a collection of our own POVs. All films removed will be listed here, and once we have a cite, we can move it back to the article. Pcb21| Pete 14:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The following are a list of movies removed from this list that were succesful financially and/or critically, thus negating most bad reviews/scores that would otherwise make them list-worthy. Despite the ability to find negative reviews, if a movie's a success by any definition of the word, then it disqualifies them from the list with rare exceptions. Pearl Harbor (film), despite personal opinions and real criticism is still a very successful movie when it comes to earnings.

50 Worst Films DVD - Films removed whose main or only citation is being on this DVD

Is simply 'being on a "50 Worst" list really a valid reason for movie to be listed on this page? I also have long held that simply being somewhere on the IMDB Bottom 100 is not particularly notable. (It's got to be better than that. At least the bottom 10 or something. Ideally, having held the very bottom spot at some time.) Here are a few that I have removed because that's their only citation (excepting equally vague references):

Is Wikipedia selling this DVD, and will buying it support Wikipedia? If not, how come its title appears 20 times throughout this list? I understand the need to cite sources, but this seems uncomfortably close to spam to me, especially for such a recent product. At least there's no affiliate link, but maybe it could be moved to a footnote or something? 64.142.95.196'
You have an interesting point. Perhaps we could make footnotes or abbreviations which refer to a reference section, since we keep referring to the same half-dozen or so sources repeatedly. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Special cases

Some directors and (to a lesser extent) actors are widely reviled or mocked for their output; any movie directed by them can be argued to be among the worst ever. A few examples:

  • Any movie starring John Agar from roughly 1950 to 1970 is often considered awful; in particular, his collaborations with Larry Buchanan are argued by some to be particularly awful.
  • Larry Buchanan made a series of TV movies that are considered by those who have seen them to be unusually bad, even for the syndicated TV movie market.
  • Ed Wood's productions were generally shot in one take, and featured dialog that is widely considered among the silliest of the era.

Alphabetical list of removed movies

Before removing movies from the list and putting them on the main page, please discuss it here first, or it is very likely to be reverted.

A

  • A.I. Some films just don't belong on this list; the rottentomatoes.com rating for A.I. Artificial Intelligence is no where near the rotten rating. Most critics found it to be "fascinating" or at least a good film. There will always be naysayers for films, but the films listed should be of a general consensus that they are indeed bad.
  • I deleted AI: Artificial Intelligence from the list. While I didn't like it personally there is hardly a general agreement on whether or not this movie is good or bad. Opinions generally seem to fall somewhere in the middle.
  • Plus, it's included in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.
  • The idea that this film "hurt Gilliam's reputation" is complete bullshit. Today, the film is widely considered to be a good film, and that it shouldn't have failed at the box office. (Ibaranoff24 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
But it still failed at the box office and post-facto reappraisal should not change its status as a failed movie - it should be back on the list. PMA 12:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except... box office failure is not the basis for this article. Many of the movies on here happen to have bad box office because of their lack of quality, they are not lacking in quality because of their bad box office. There actually is a stigma applied to Gilliam for this film's "issues" (even though he came onto the film after the costs went high and a lot of the filming had already been done. Plus, the final product in that mess was the editor's difficult job to clean-up, not Gilliam's, unless he too was an editor for it.) Regardless, none of this is criteria for it to be added to the article. "Worst" films, not "disappointing" films. Dannybu2001 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexander (2004): Hyped as one of the serious Oscar contenders of 2004, Oliver Stone's epic on Alexander the Great was both a critical and financial disaster. The film recieved a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes [1] and made just $34 million by January 30, 2005, rounding to about $116 million short of it's $150 million budget. [2]. It ended up being nominated for six Razzies (It "won" nothing) and landed Roger Ebert's number one pick for the worst movie of 2004 (Tied with Troy). Two general criticisms of the film were both Colin Farrell looking ridiculous with bleached-blonde hair and overall being way too long (In August 2005, an eight-minute shorter Director's Cut was released on DVD). Some critics noted:
"So misconceived, so shrill, so fetishy is Oliver Stone's epic, so unintentionally hilarious a stew of paganism and Freudianism, that it makes Conan the Barbarian look like Gladiator." --Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer
"A lunk-headed train wreck that looks like a tag sale in a 323 B.C. supermarket in old Peking." --Rex Reed, New York Observer
Repeating what I said in the edit summary: nothing more than critical quotes lifted directly from not-quite-'worst-worthy' RT score and citing low box office. Only 1 worst list and didn't even 'win' RazziesDannybu2001 22:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alien 3: third film in the phenomenal Alien franchise — the feature debut of director David Fincher — alienated the series' fans for taking the saga in an undesired direction and featuring a story considered threadbare and uninvolving; its reputation could change, however, with the inclusion of Fincher's original cut for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD box set..
  • Armageddon (Video Release: 1999): This action film, filled with various famous actors including Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton was a major box office smash, garnering millions of dollars. Critically, and in the eyes of many film scholars, this was the worst movie of the decade, and the reviewers at The Agony Booth agreed with critics that it was best described as "a 150-minute trailer". Mostly to blame were the horrific acting on the parts of otherwise skilled actors, and the constant jump-cuts, often to overly-violent or misplaced scenes. The film also made several blatant mistakes in the first 5 minutes, including showing an image of Earth as it was several million years ago, and showing an image of the modern-day continents.
First of all, what's with specifying the video release? Unless you're talking about some kind of a special edition director's cut that overwhelmingly ruined the original film, or a film that performed so poorly in theatres it was rushed to video/dvd to get it out if the way, it's unneeded info (regardless, it's clear from the opening of the article write-up that this 'list' is for widely theatrically released versions of films, not direct-to-video or recuts.) Second, it's ironic that for using a scientific error as a reasonsing for addition, this write-up is a whole year off regarding the theatrical release year; it was 1998. Third, I seriously doubt there is substantial evidence that it was "the worst film of the whole decade" (an unsourced claim) considering how popular it was and how many crap-piles (on and not on this list) that would surpass it by miles for that title. A few cranky, critical film scholars (another unsourced claim I might add) picking on what is obviously a 'popcorn movie' doesn't even come close to cutting it, especially when films like "Independence Day" and "Deep Impact" have the same essence as this film (and dare I say, they were more corny) and clearly do not deserve to be on this list either. By similar criteria I should add War of the Worlds, but way too many critics and filmgoers like it for that to ever be acceptable.Dannybu2001 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B

  • Barb Wire (1996): Pamela Anderson's first starring role — based on a comic book and the film Casablanca — was a perfect example of all hype and no movie. Anderson promoted the movie at the Cannes Film Festival and her then-husband Tommy Lee recorded a song for the soundtrack. With her contract on the television show Baywatch soon to expire and her marriage deteriorating, Anderson later regretted this movie as a bad choice. It earned back half of its cost at the box office. The film also earned 6 Razzie nominations, Anderson winning one for "Worst New Star."
  • Beverly Hills Cop III (1994): Eddie Murphy phones in a half-hearted effort to extend a franchise that arguably shouldn't have even had one sequel, much less two. The film is notable for its sheer boredom factor: at 1 hour, 45 minutes, critics agreed that it could have been cut at least in half without losing any plot. Most experts also feel that the film marked the beginning of the end for Murphy's film career; he would go on to such duds as Vampire In Brooklyn, Metro, Holy Man, sequels to both The Nutty Professor and Dr. Dolittle, a ghastly I Spy remake, and the inexcusable Adventures of Pluto Nash. As for Beverly Hills Cop 3, it amassed a very low 8% at Rotten Tomatoes and was nominated for two Razzies.
  • Blank Check (1993) (Not to be confused with the 1970s game show of the same name): A Disney family film that got unusually bad reviews for its type. It is still sold on DVD at many Toys 'R' Us locations.
  • Blood Feast (1963): Pioneering, if not the first film in the "gore" genre. Called worst movie of the year by Time magazine, but it has accumulated a very sizable cult over the years.
  • Bolero (1984): The Razzie winner for the worst movie of 1984, this film finds Bo Derek (Razzie winner of 1984) searching the world for her ideal lover. The movie is widely criticized as being only good for Derek's nude scenes; some state even those weren't enough for redemption. Roger Ebert gave it one half a star, stating that "There are two Good Parts, not counting her naked ride on horseback, which was the only scene in the movie that had me wondering how she did it. The real future of BOLERO is in home cassette rentals, where your fast forward and instant replay controls will supply the editing job the movie so desperately needs."
  • The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990): Based on Tom Wolfe's novel, the movie was directed by Brian De Palma and starred Tom Hanks in what might be considered one of his worst performances ever. The movie earned horrid reviews from critics and was a box office bomb. Ironically, Julie Salamon's book, The Devil's Candy, which chronicled the making of the film and its disastrous release, was very successful.
    • I am reluctant to have dropped this from the article, but it needs a citation stating it is "the worst" according to some recognized measure. I agree that the film was a big disappointment, but this article is not about disappointments per se, it's about the worst movies ever made. Ellsworth 22:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brown Bunny (2003): A road movie about a motorcycle racer, actor-director Vincent Gallo, who reunites with his girlfriend. He goes to McDonald's, washes his van, and visits a pet store, but nothing much happens until the notorious final scene where Chloë Sevigny performs unsimulated fellatio on him. A version that ran 118 minutes was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, and was voted by Screen International as the worst movie ever shown there ([3]). A later version cut out 26 minutes, and was given much more positive reviews. Subject of a notorious (if resolved) feud between critic Roger Ebert and Gallo ([4]).
    • I honestly did not feel like The Brown Bunny should be removed from the list. But, as it's written, it needs more 'proof'; especially since the post-film festival version was better received. I would like to see this one re-added merely by reputation (never seen it myself), but as is, it's stretching, and that could be construed as POV. Find some more cites, please! Dannybu2001 18:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Basic Instinct 2 (2006)
Belated sequel to the 1992 smash hit Basic Instinct, it was plagued by delays involving legal and financial disputes with Sharon Stone and the producers. Late changes to the director (Michael Caton-Jones) and male lead (David Morrissey) also occured. When the film was finally released to the public on March 31, 2006, it performed extremely poorly at the box office, earning a mere $3.2 million dollars in its opening weekend.[5] It currently has a rating of 6% at Rotten Tomatoes[6] and also holds a spot on the IMDB bottom 100.[7] Kyle Smith of the New York Post said "Basic Instinct 2" is not an erotic thriller. It's taxidermy."[8]
  • No problem with sources or anything, but after reading some reviews and so on, I cannot really see anything that points to it being one of the worst ever. All I can see is that it has bad reviews, fell very short of opening weekend boxoffice numbers and a controversial production history. i dont know, but to me, it seems a bit far to list it. Cvene64 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C

  • Caligula (1980): Sexually explicit film about the Roman emperor. Largely financed by Penthouse. Perhaps the oddest thing about it is that it stars some of the best British actors of their day---Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, and John Gielgud. Last minute changes prompted the actors to demand that their names be taken off the billing. Widely panned by critics. Roger Ebert gave it zero stars, describing it as "sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash," and writer Gore Vidal, McDowell, O'Toole and director Tinto Brass would all disown the film.
    • Please include a citation for "worst" in accordance with the discussed standards for this article, if you put this back on the list. Ellsworth
  • Chaos (2005): A film about two girls who are brutally murdered and raped (not necessarily in that order). Almost every critic has panned it, many pointing out the similarities between it and
    • I've added a rather lengthy summary of the hatred surrounding "Chaos," of which you can get a good idea of here, here, here and here, but I feel that it may need some cleanup (and maybe a bit more information should any develop). If you feel it needs any cleanup or changing, feel free to do it yourself or suggest it or whatever. Sillstaw 01:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chaos needs more cites and some serious trimming before being readded
Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
This holiday movie was based on the John Grisham book, Skipping Christmas. Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis starred as the title characters, Luther and Nora Krank, who decide to skip Christmas in favor of a Caribbean cruise, much to the chagrin of the neighbors who all usually decorate lavishly. Although it was a commercial success, this movie was a critical flop. At Rotten Tomatoes, it only garnered a 4% rating. [9]. It made Roger Ebert's list of the worst movies of the year, landing at number two, after he gave it only one star in his review and referred to it as "a holiday movie of stunning awfulness." [10]
  • Only made an annual bad list, as far as I can see, has not been mentioned as one of the worst films ever. Fails to cite how it was a pretty big success at the box office. Cvene64 14:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleopatra (1963): 20th Century Fox was in financial trouble in the late 1950's (due to the departure of Marilyn Monroe and a string of box-office flops) and chose an ambitious project: the story of the famed Egyptian pharaoh Cleopatra. Joan Collins was originally cast as the seductress, but was soon replaced by Elizabeth Taylor (Taylor signed a hefty contract that would eventually earn her $2 million). Production started in 1960 in Rome (and then in Great Britain). The cast and directors then were switched (Richard Burton was among them). Then, the news came from Fox head Darryl F. Zanuck that the studio was nearly bankrupt and the picture needed to be finished. The studio had to fire several of its stars including Marilyn Monroe, Joan Collins, Robert Wagner, and Barbara Eden (the Fox studios finally recouped its loss with The Sound of Music). In late 1962, with publicity swirling around the Taylor-Burton affair, the film was completed behind schedule. When released in 1963, it was hailed as a "monstrous mouse" and was cut from its original length of 7 hrs. to 2 hrs. Throughout the 1960's, whenever Hollywood insiders mentioned a flop, they meant another "Cleopatra"-ish film. It took a decade to recover its costs.
    • Don't see how bad production processes and slow earnings make it a worst ever. The notoriousness of it as a flop in the 60's could almost qualify it, but not quite.
  • Congo (1995) : A dumbed-down version of Michael Crichton's novel about lost African diamond-mines inhabited by vicious apes, the movie is widely cited as an example of a bad movie. San Francisco Examiner movie critic Barbara Shulgasser's comments are typical: "In stupidity," she writes, "this movie ranks up there among the greats."
  • Cool as Ice (1991): This vehicle for Vanilla Ice, loosely based on Rebel Without a Cause, is infamous for its awful dialogue, bad acting, and overall clunky and stupid plot. It won Vanilla Ice a Razzie for "Worst New Star". Notorious for the line "Drop that zero and get with the hero!".
  • The Core (2003): A movie about a team that drills to the center of the planet to restart the spin of Earth's core. Intuitor Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics features the movie prominently and claims, "It's the worst physics movie we've ever viewed." [11] - While a mediocre movie, bad physics doesn't make it the worst movie ever
  • The Cotton Club (1984)
    • Critical reception was mixed for the film as a whole. However, if memory serves, Hoskins, Gwynne and the Hines bros. received almost unanimous praise, as did the technical aspects of the film (photography, art direction, costumes). Anyway, I don't see how anyone can put this in a class wih Gigli, Plan 9 and Killer Tomatoes. But de gustibus. Ellsworth (old comment moved here)
  • The Crawling Hand (1959): When an astronaut dies in an explosion in outer space, one of his severed hands is left. It strangles townspeople and possesses the main character named Paul, a nerdy teenager. Burt Reynolds auditioned for the character of Paul and reportedly did such a terrible job acting that he was asked not to return to the set. Alan Hale Jr. appeared in this movie before he did in Gilligan's Island. Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made and featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
  • The Creeping Terror (1964): Infamous monster movie about a roving, hungry shag-rug from outer space and the many vacuous rural Californians that end up in its maw. Memorable for having had most of its dialogue lost (the sound equipment fell in a lake) and so dubbed over by an omnipresent narrator explaining to the audience what the people on screen are saying. Featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
  • The Crippled Masters (1982): Simplistic kung fu movie in which an armless man and a legless man become kung fu masters and fight against their evil teacher who maimed them. Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.
    • I really don't want to remove the entry for this film. The description kind of speaks for itself. However, I'm not sure if apppearing on a 50 Worst list constitutes a viable candidate for "worst ever". Does anyone have a better citation? -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, I've removed it. Maybe find some more cite. This ONLY on the Worst 50 DVD citing thing is getting obnoxious. I think films need to been overwhelmingly considered worst, with multiple citations.Dannybu2001 19:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D

  • Daniel: Der Zauberer (2004): A low-budget film from Germany, starring singer Daniel Küblböck as himself. Küblböck was voted Germany's Most Irritating Personality in 2003, causing the film to be predictably unsuccessful. The title isn't even accurate, as it implies that Küblböck is "Der Zauberer" ("The Sorcerer"), who is actually a different character (played by Ulli Lommel, the writer/director of the film). Went straight to #1 on the IMDb Bottom 100, and remained there for most of 2004.
  • Devilman (2004): A Japanese tokusatsu adaptation of Go Nagai's Devilman manga series making use of CGI effects. The film was universally panned, even by fans of the original manga, citing reasons such as the CGI being hideous, and the casting of various nationally-popular models and teen idols, many of whom had not starred in a movie prior to this one. In addition, reportedly, CGI was used for the fight scenes because director Hiroyuki Nasu did not know how to direct one with live actors. One year later, the movie won Grand Prize in the Bunshun Kiichigo Awards, the Japanese equivalent of the Razzie Awards.
  • Dirty Love (2005): Roger Ebert gave it his third zero star rating of the year, calling it "hopelessly incompetent," and "an affront to cheese" with reference to another review calling it "cheesy," saying that one scene verged "on dementia," and that he is uncertain whether "anyone involved has ever seen a movie, or knows what one is" ([14]).
Doogal (2006)
The US dub of the UK film The Magic Roundabout was written by Fairly OddParents creator, Butch Hartman. It was on the IMDb Bottom 100 list as of May 2006, and had a 5% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. [15] Some reactions to the film:
"The key frame animation, based on three-dimensional models, is rudimentary, with none of the characters proving visually arresting." (Frank Scheck, Hollywood Reporter)
"Eighty-five minutes you'll never get back." (Michael Phillip, Chicago Tribune).
"In "Doogal", setting the world right again involves a badly paced quest for three diamonds, assorted jokes that don't land, and a daringly incoherent climactic confrontation." (Ned Martel, The New York Times)
I removed this bfor the following reasons:
Reviews don't speak out as "horrible"
The movie had very little promotion/hype
It wasn't reviewed for critics, so its rating on RT isn't very relevant
A bad animation movie doesn't mean one of the worst animation movies ever (Has anyone even heard of this movie??)
  • Doom (2005): Big screen adaptation of the popular video game, starring The Rock and Karl Urban. Was not well received by critics. Ebert and Roeper both gave it "Thumbs down," and Roeper called it "one of the worst films of the year." In his review, Ebert comments "No, I haven't played [the video game], and I never will, but I know how it feels not to play it, because I've seen the movie. 'Doom' is like some kid came over and is using your computer and won't let you play." [16] The film currently has a 20% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. [17]
    • I was reviewing the history and saw this one added and was going to remove it, but someone thankfully beat me to the punch. I'm sure this movie sucks, but this isn't a list of "Movies That Suck", that, and it just came out! It needs more time to 'earn' being a 'worst' movie. Besides, the cites were very weak; quoting both Ebert and Roeper and a not-so-bad-when-compared-to-many-movies-NOT-on-this-list RT score simply does not cut it. Do not re-add until the initial reaction to this movie has died down and it's been 'proven' more 'worst' worthy.Dannybu2001 16:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dracula 3000 (2004) : A movie about vampires in outer space, set in the year 3000.
  • Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971): A Dracula with an afro joins forces with a mad scientist, Dr. Duryea (played by J. Carrol Naish in his last film role), to resurrect the Frankenstein monster, whose face appears to look like a raw steak. Like Naish, Lon Chaney Jr. also makes his last film appearance, playing an axe-wielding maniac who is a henchman to the mad doctor. Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made. Previously held a spot in the IMDB Bottom 100.
  • The Dukes of Hazzard (2005): A remake of the late 70s early 80s TV series The Dukes of Hazzard, this movie was slammed by Ben Jones (Cooter on the original TV series), saying it was an insult to fans of the TV show and the TV show itself. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave it zero stars, stating "There's a stink coming off the big-screen Dukes of Hazzard that even fans of the TV series (1979 to 1985) won't be able to shake out of their nostrils".
    • The film earned over $99M worldwide (as of this writing.)
    • The Dukes of Hazzard movie was removed from this listing. The original "Cooter" and a critic from Rolling Stone's dislike of the movie do not make it the worst ever. Also, contrary to the listing, the movie is now a financial success. It's 4.5 rating on IMDB would suggest it is a mediocre movie, but not within the realm of worst movies ever.
    • Added it back in - it is on Roger Ebert's worst list, which is listed as one of the prime examples from the top of the page. Turnstep 20:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-deleted, it made a profit and Ebert's opinion can't be the sole reason. This isn't the "list of movies that sucked", it's "list of movies 'considered' the worst"
        • Well, Ebert does give a lot of weight to the film's quality. And profit doesn't mean anything. Like you said, it isn't a "list of movies that were commercially profitable," it's a "list of movies 'considered' the worst." And the fact that most movie theaters kicked it out after two weeks also has something to say, although I don't know quite what. - Hbdragon88 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dumb & Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003): Prequel to 1994 hit Dumb & Dumber paled in comparison and played to universally bad reviews. Most reviewers used puns like "Dumberest" to categorize the film. It also received a 9% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. [18] Some statements made by reviewers about the film include: "Relies on double entendres so obvious they wouldn't get a chuckle from Beavis and Butt-head"; "I'm not laughing"; "I can’t hate this film enough"; "I wouldn't want you to consider even renting this thing"; and "Whenever you have to draw on the former Full House dad for comedic salvation, you're seriously hurting." Reviewer Scott Von Doviak of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram called the movie "the most ill-conceived attempt at extending a franchise since the Pink Panther movie that was stitched together from outtakes after Peter Sellers died." Was also nominated for 3 Razzies.

E

  • Envy (2004): This film, which starred Ben Stiller and Jack Black, was so poorly received by test audiences it almost went straight to video. Due to the success of School of Rock (2003) (which starred Jack Black), Envy was finally released theatrically, but was again poorly received. It has a 5% Rotten Tomato rating [19], and both Jack Black and Jeffrey Katzenberg publicly apologized for the film at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. Because of its poor performance in the U.S. it went straight to video in Europe [[20]].
  • Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977): A sequel to the Academy Award-winning original, this film was virtually laughed off the screen at its premire [21], as well as the screen being pelted with garbage and being pulled out of theaters twice to do re-editing.[22]. It is also considered the downfall of Linda Blair's career. Some reviews included:

- :"Possibly the worst film ever made and surely the worst sequel ever made."-Bill Chambers - :"How could such a sure-thing sequel end up so absolutely atrocious? I've no idea."-Scott Weinberg

This film has no genuine cites (yet), stop adding it. Dannybu2001 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F

  • Fahrenheit 451 (1966): This film is an adapted version of Ray Bradbury's novel of the same name. It was directed by François Truffaut, renowned French director. It was his first movie done in English. Reasons this movie is nominated is because of frequent use of stock footage, a repetitive soundtrack that hit the same four notes in a grindingly frustrating pattern, and incredible lengths of 'artistic integrity', including a scene where a woman is smiling as she is burned alive by a kerosene fire. The story deviated wildly from the book, missing the point of the story, and even ruining the ending.
    • At Rotten Tomatoes, it actually has a 100% rating, although it is an old movie, so the ratings can't be too reliable.
  • Fantastic Four was added to the list a few days ago. However, it's hard to find actual citations of this film's badness, largely because it was never commercially released and so it got no professional reviews, wasn't eligible for Razzies, and so forth. Is it legitimate to regard the fact that the studio regarded the film as so bad as to be unreleasable (while lots of studios release lots of bad films every year) as itself a "citation" of the fact that this film was regarded as unusually bad? AJD 21:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm leaning against it. Since it didn't have a commercial release, very few people have ever seen it, so there won't ever be a critical or popular consensus of badness. - Lifefeed 18:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001): A massively-budgeted CGI animated film, directed by a video game creator and funded by Square Pictures, a studio created by video game company Square Co., Ltd. It was hyped as a groundbreaking film that would pave the way for photorealistic animated actors indistinguishable from flesh-and-blood. Instead, many viewers found the stiff motion and glassy stares of the characters uninvolving or unnerving, and the film came to be Roger Ebert's go-to example of the pitfalls of the uncanny valley. The film is now often used in computer animation courses as a demonstration of how not to animate human characters. Worse yet, the story was unable to live up to even its video game roots, disappointing many hard-core fans of the Final Fantasy game series. Almost certainly the biggest box office bomb in history, even adjusting for inflation, the film lost over $120 million, making it Square Pictures' first, last, and only feature film.
    • Yes a bad movie, but mixed reviews according to rotten tomatoes and metacritic
    • I put it here, not so much for the badness (and it is bad), but because the intro mentions "overhyped" as a criterion. The movie was rediculously overhyped, saying that photoreal CGI human characters would soon exist side-by-side with live actors; even many of the positive reviews are "this is a bad movie, but the technology is The Future of Film". Given that a major criticism is how bad the animation actually is, and that this hubris lead to a $120 million loss and the bankruptcy of a studio, I thought it merited inclusion. But I'm willing to defer to other opinions if people generally think it's unworthy of inclusion in the article. --Misterwindupbird 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more of a "Didn't Meet Expecatations" and "Box Office Bomb/Dissappointment" movie than a 'worst film'. The money-factor--on this or any movie--really only applies if it was also critically panned (generally resulting in the bad box office.) It doesn't really seem to 'qualify' as written. As far as 'overhyped', personally, I don't think that has any place as a criterium; that can be said of a lot of movies, and is kind of a Catch-22 considering that other movies are said to fail due to 'lack' of hype (a.k.a. 'advertising'.) Perhaps it should be edited? Dannybu2001 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-read how the 'hyping' thing is written, seems fine as is. I don't think it reads as saying overhyped, box-office failures count as 'worst'; again, it only applies if it's also critically panned, which FF has mostly mixed reviews, with a leaning toward 'not-so-great' more than 'worst', 'bad', or even 'poor'.Dannybu2001 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ; The Fog (2005): This remake of the 1980 horror by John Carpenter was not screened to critics in advance. After the movie was released to the public, critics jabbed it as the worst horror movie in years. They point out that the movie is laden with lame CGI effects, wooden acting, a boring and predictable plotline (Frank Scheck from the Hollywood Reporter says that "Director Rupert Wainwright fails to bring any style to the material, not producing a fraction of the suspense or wit generated by Carpenter in the original even while working with a far lesser budget."[23]), and the stereotypical black guy (who, when he is arrested for "killing" the passengers on a ship, says that he was "just chillin'" in the meat freezer), mainly used for comedic effect and adds no effect of horror in the film. The Fog is currently #100 on the IMDb bottom 100 and has garnered an 8% on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer.
has only been in theaters for a month. Despite it's rather poor reviews, there's no hype as it being one of the worst ever. Worst of the year? Most likely. Ever? No.
  • Frogs for Snakes (1999): A torturous caper film, of which Roger Ebert wrote:

    "I was reminded of Mad Dog Time (1996), another movie in which well-known actors engaged in laughable dialogue while shooting one another. Of that one, I wrote: 'Mad Dog Time is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time.' Now comes Frogs for Snakes, the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of Mad Dog Time." [24]

  • Freddy vs. Jason (2003): While a box office success and fairly well received critically (at least among fans and genre critics), many felt that the film failed to live up to the hype that had been building up for so long for such a highly anticipated film. It was widely considered lame with bad acting, screenwriting, and plot. This is mostly faulted to the plot, which is often cited as adding little to the genre, and the characters being standard slasher stereotypes. While these criticisms are argued to be expected in the genre, others express the desire for something different in a film that they believe should be grander than both sets of predecessors and other slasher films. Some Friday the 13th fans have also expressed a distaste for the way in which Jason is portrayed in the film, although these complaints may have root in the controversial decision not to cast fan favourite Kane Hodder again in the role he played consecutively in the previous four Friday the 13th films. However, one of the most talked about aspects is the final scene, which has caused endless debates among fans of both franchises as to its meaning and who of the two actually comes off as the victor.
Bad horror movie, yes, but not worst EVER. Writeup even admits being dissapointment rather than truly bad.
  • Future War (1995): A longtime entry in the IMDb bottom 100, the film is notorious for poor special effects (including shots of dinosaurs that amount to little more than someone holding a toy dinosaur right by the camera) and badly staged martial-arts sequences. Almost half of the film was shot in a few days with next to no budget, after the original director's cut consisted of only 40 minutes of footage with no action sequences. The producers admitted they expected it to be shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which happened a few years later).

G

  • Gayniggers From Outer Space (1992): A short film directed by Danish filmmaker, DJ and singer Morten Lindberg, aka. Master Fatman. It tells the story of a group of intergalactic explorers who discover the presence of females on planet Earth. Using guns that shoot deadly rays, they proceed to eliminate females one-by-one from Earth, which ensures them the ecstatic gratitude of the previously suppressed male population. Before leaving the planet, they leave behind a gay ambassador to educate the Earthlings about their new way of life. Some consider Gayniggers From Outer Space to be a cult film. Widely regarded as terrible and a torch for internet trolls worldwide.
  • Get Carter (2000): Sylvester Stallone takes up the position of Jack Carter, previously played by Michael Caine. It has a 10% rating at rottentomatoes.com and voters at Screenselect.co.uk named it the worst remake ever. [25]
  • Godzilla: Big-budget 1998 US film based on the classic Japanese monster series drew massive criticism for not only narrative flaws, but an ill-advised CGI "redesign" of the iconic monster and a subplot involving baby Godzillas that were overly derivative of the velociraptors in Steven Spielberg's adaptation of Jurassic Park. Prior to this film's release, Japanese studio Toho had done their final Godzilla film, killing the monster off, but their dismay at this version actually inspired them to revive Godzilla for a new franchise!
  • Godsend I think Godsend would be a viable candidate -- could someone please add this to the article with the necessary references and explanation?
  • The Gong Show Movie : movie based on the 1970s TV show The Gong Show.
  • Great White (1980): The movie is widely decried as an Italian-made copy of Jaws, with its many similarities to Jaws and Jaws 2. Its release in theatres was blocked after Universal Pictures sued the film's makers and won the case. Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.

H

  • Halloween III: Season of the Witch: Bewildered fans of the first two films by having nothing at all to do with them, and making no sense on its own.
  • Havana: Robert Redford starred opposite Lena Olin in this disappointing drama about the Castro-led Cuban Revolution.
  • Heaven's Gate (1980): At the time, it was considered Hollywood's biggest and most expensive movie flop of all time; its failure resulted in the sale of the United Artists studio to MGM. Like Bonfire of the Vanities, the production inspired a well-received book - in this case, Final Cut by UA executive Steven Bach.
    • I dropped this from the article because it falls more in the category of "disappointment" than "worst ever". The film did some receive positive reviews, particularly from European critics. If a citation can be found in line with the criteria, of course, it can go back. Ellsworth 20:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highlander II (1991): This film is an example of a sequel that was so poorly received, it damaged the reputation of the original. Problems with the plot can be traced to principal filming ending 3–4 weeks early and the director being barred from the editing process. Highlander II: The Renegade Version, a director's cut, was released years afterwards. The film was voted no. 10 on the BBC website's list of "The Nation's Top Ten Worst Films Ever" where one commentator lamented that "It stank like a dead cat under my cinema chair". A reviewer from the BBC stated "The script feels as if it were written in crayon on the morning of filming." The poll was taken in 2003, 12 years after the release date, and is proof of the film's "enduring legacy". In addition, at the time of its initial release, Roger Ebert wrote:
    • "This movie has to be seen to be believed. On the other hand, maybe that's too high a price to pay. "Highlander 2: The Quickening" is the most hilariously incomprehensible movie I've seen in many a long day - a movie almost awesome in its badness. Wherever science fiction fans gather, in decades and generations to come, this film will be remembered in hushed tones as one of the immortal low points of the genre." [26]
  • Hobgoblins (1987): Low-budget film about the title creatures destroying three miles of a suburban area. Though this film was not on IMDB's Bottom 100 until August 2004, it was once lower than Manos: the Hands of Fate (q.v.). Also appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
  • Holy Man (1998): Clumsy story of a holy man who reinvigorates a floundering Home Shopping Network by telling the truth about its products. Holy Man recieved an 11% rating at Rotten Tomatoes.
  • Honey (2003): Starring Jessica Alba as Honey Daniels, a hip hop dance choreographer whose dream is to star in music videos. Panned by critics and audiences alike, the film was on the IMDb Bottom 100.
  • Honeymoners The movie Honeymoners (2005)needs to be added. It is a recent addition to IMB worst movies of all time.
  • Hudson Hawk (1991): Starring Bruce Willis, this movie was a notoriously panned big-budget flop and a "winner" of three Razzie awards for Worst Picture, Worst Director, and Worst Screenplay (which Willis co-wrote). Star Richard E. Grant tells in his autobiography of how the script was extensively rewritten during filming. Over the years, it has garnered a fanbase, who see it as an over-the-top parody that most people didn't "get" when it came out.
  • Hudson Hawk is more of a "bad in its release year" movie, than a 'worst film'. Multiple Razzies, sure, but again, it reads as an 'at the time' listing than as it's in the 'big picture'.

I

  • I Spit on Your Grave (1978): This motion picture centers on a woman writer who goes to the country to work on her novel. Catching the attention of four cretinous country bumpkins, they kidnap her and brutally rape her. The rest of the movie features her getting her revenge by killing them in various sick, demented and unrealistic ways. Roger Ebert gave this movie zero stars.
  • The Ice Pirates (1984): In the future, water is a priceless substance. Space pirates are captured, sold to a princess, and enlisted to help find her father. This Space Opera has sword fights, explosions, fighting robots, castrating machines, monsters, bar fights, time warps and inexplicable blobby monsters.
  • The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies (1964): Billed as "the first monster musical ever made", the movie was made by and also starred Ray Dennis Steckler (a.k.a. Cash Flagg), who made the film on a budget of $38,000. Named the worst movie ever made on a 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made. Also appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
  • Ishtar (1987): Would-be comedy starring Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman that failed at the box office, losing $42 million; very near, but not currently in, IMDb's Bottom 100. Had only slightly better opening business than the low-budget Canadian horror film The Gate, which opened the same weekend. Seen in The Far Side as the only movie in Hell's video collection.
    • I know this is 'Ishtar', being a famous box office flop can't being the only cite. C'mon now, find something more juicy.

J

K

  • Kazaam: Shaquille O'Neal stars as a rapping genie.
    • Seriously, that just about sums it up, don't it? SHAQ IS A RAPPING GENIE. -hx, not logged in.
  • The Killer Shrews (1959): In this film, a mad scientist creates shrews the size of dogs, which were actually dogs with fake hair and fangs glued on them. One of the stars of this film, James Best, went on to play Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane on The Dukes of Hazzard. Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made. Also appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
  • King's Ransom (2005): Anthony Anderson portrays Malcolm King, an obnoxious but rich businessman who stages his own kidnapping to avoid paying a heavy divorce settlement to his wife. In the process, various film cliches like the mistaken identity and the bumbling white guy (Jay Mohr) come into play, but no plot devices could save this movie from ignominy. While relatively benign in comparison to the other films on the list, it deserves a spot nonetheless for its mix of offensive "humor" (Charlie Murphy has a cameo as a gay gangsta), a barely-discernible plot, and next to no comedic value. It is currently Metacritic's third-worst movie of 2005 (behind Chaos and Alone in the Dark), but it is also the 19th-worst movie ever made according to that metric, checking in with an extremely low score of 11/100.

L

Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (2006)
This movie, starring Blue Collar TV's Larry the Cable Guy, was panned by critics and bombed at the weekend box office during its release in March 2006. Within three days of its release, it already had the #1 spot on the IMDb Bottom 100 though it now holds a top 20 position within the list. It also currently has a 4% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. [28] Lou Lumenick of the New York Post described it as "For masochists only" and "virtually unwatchable and laugh-free." [29]
    • There are several new movies on the IMDb Bottom 100, Aquamarine, ATL and Medea's Family Reunion being some of them; all of which recieved average reviews on RT. Yes, it was a bomb and recieved horrible reviews, but there's little likelihood it'll be remembered in three weeks; also, Lumenick is a rather tough critic. If it won't be remembered in three weeks, it's forgettable, not one of the worst ever.Ohyeahmormons 01:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Last House on the Left (1972): Leonard Maltin and Gene Siskel both rated this movie "no stars", rare occurrences for both critics. However Roger Ebert has always spoken favorably of the film, and it has therefore achieved cult classic status among horror fans.
    • The Last House on the Left, and some telling of how depressing and hopeless it was. (Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune said that he "would only recommend it to my worst enemies, [and] even then I'd flinch.") At an L.A. screening, the audience was given copies of Roger Ebert's zero-star review (a rarity for him, although he also gave one to Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo the same weekend) as well as their response letter defending it. At the Q&A after the screening, the director (David DeFalco, a former wrestler) talked of how "hardcore" it was, adding that he was a "demon" and "the king of violence and evil;" however, when the audience began attacking the film, he and the producer began defending the film as a "cautionary tale." The audience then pointed out how the film was exploitative, which prompted DeFalco to essentially threaten the audience ("You saw what was on the screen, you know what I'm capable of"). Even the actors in the film are ashamed of it, having crashed the L.A. screening to criticise the film and DeFalco; they originally signed on to do a remake of Last House on the Left, but the film was changed into its current form and they were obligated by contract to work on it.

Is this talk of a remake? "Last House" was directed by Wes Craven not David DeFalco.

Answer to above question: This is actually referring to the film "Chaos" - a 2005 film directed by David DeFalco which is a "Last House" ripoff.

M

  • Mad Dog Time (1996): Gangster movie, probably intended as a comedy, with a voice-over at the beginning explaining that it takes place in an alternate universe. Roger Ebert comments in his zero star review that this flop (renamed Trigger Happy for video release) "is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time" [30].
  • The Master of Disguise (2002): A comedy about a waiter who must save his father by using his inherent skills in disguise. Roger Ebert's opinion of this film is that it "pants and wheezes and hurls itself exhausted across the finish line after barely 65 minutes of movie" [31]. Features in IMDb Bottom 100.
  • Millennium: criticized for an outrageous plot, terrible acting, and showing basically the same shots twice from different camera angles for the second half of the film.
  • Mesa of Lost Women (1952): Low-budget fantasy film which features an enlarged image of a puppet spider, sent by a mad scientist played by Jackie Coogan to destroy everything. Won the award of "Most Primitive Male Chauvinist Fantasy" in the 1986 book, Son of Golden Turkey Awards, and included in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.
  • Mister Magoo (1997): Disney's live action version of the cartoon character starring Leslie Neilsen as the myopic (nearsighted) millionare who continually mistakes things for other things. Of ironic note was the disclaimer at the end of the movie to the effect that "the preceding movie was not intended to offend or make light of the problems experienced by the visually impaired". Many audiences neverthless felt that this was an insult to their intelligence.
  • Mitchell (1975): Joe Don Baker plays the direct antithesis of almost all fictional detectives: an overweight, unkempt, unlikeable, incompetent, alchoholic detective. He seems to spend most of his time between seemingly unconnected plotlines in that the burglar shooting early in the movie and John Saxon's shady lawyer character seem to have no connection to Martin Balsam and Merlin Olsen's drug smuggler characters. Mitchell's sleeping with a prostitute, the slow car chase, the argument with the kid, and the somewhat borrowed Key Largo ending are among the other interesting elements of this movie. This movie, along with Manos: The Hands of Fate, has achieved unexpected cult status through Mystery Science Theater 3000 (widely suggested as the only way one should view this film), much to the displeasure of Baker.
    • In it's defense, the MST3K version (which is all most people have seen) is heavily edited, and the full picture without the cuts makes much more sense.
  • Moment by Moment (1978): Love story between John Travolta (playing a character named Strip) and Lily Tomlin. The movie was so unsuccessful it was never released on video. Critic John Simon referred to it as "Aeon by Aeon". Named worst movie of the year by Esquire magazine.

N

  • North (1994): High-profile Rob Reiner movie, where a young boy runs away from home to seek "better" parents, with numerous celebrity parts and cameos, about which Roger Ebert famously said:

    "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it...[it] is a bad film — one of the worst movies ever made". [34]

O

  • The Omega Code (1999): the most successful Christian movie of all time
    • How is this accurate?
      • Yes, arguably a dreadful movie, but not as successful as 'The Passion of the Christ', among others. Should this be changed?
      • I dropped it from the list until a source for "worst ever" is cited.
        • Note: Passion of the Christ wasn't technically a 'Christian' film, there's a difference between Catholicism and Christianity (not by much really, but there is), plus generally 'Christian films' refers to movies made by Christian companies, which sadly, Omega Code was mostly made by the TBN people; 'Passion' was just a Mel Gibson project that happened to get embraced by some in the religious community. Regardless, I've never heard of Omega Code being successful at all, it blew big time even if one ignores the biblical inaccuracies (which is diffult since they tried to make it the point of the movie.) Dannybu2001 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The One and Only (2002) starring Patsy Kensit was concieved as a film to promote a better image for Newcastle-Upon-Tyne receiving funding from the City Council and regional agencies. It was screened for a total of five days in a Newcastle cinema and failed to find distribution. -- I moved this from the article. Movies fail to secure distribution for lots of reasons: the apparent criteria for being included in the article require at least one critical citation of the movie's badness. Ellsworth 17:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P

  • Pearl Harbor (2001): Received six nominations in the 2001 Golden Raspberry Awards but failed to "win" any of the categories. Voted no. 3 in the BBC website's The Nation's Top Ten Worst Films Ever where one commentator stated that "It battered my intelligence with such ferocity I could barely find my way out of the cinema." UK movie critic Ian Waldron-Mantgani stated that it was "A cheerfully offensive rape of history." And the Miami Herald movie critics summed up the movie by writing, "Empire of Japan attacks American love triangle. You want the Japanese to win." It was also the subject of a satirical song in the film Team America: World Police, which includes the lines: "I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark/When he made Pearl Harbor/I miss you more than that movie missed the point/And that's an awful lot, girl." [35]. The film earned $450.5M worldwide
  • Planet of the Apes (2001): This Tim Burton remake of the classic Charlton Heston movie was a box office success but a critical failure. It was nominated for three Razzies (Worst Remake or Sequel, Worst Supporting Actor, Worst Supporting Actress) and won Worst Remake or Sequel. Interestingly enough, one of the locations used for filming the movie was also used for the God-world scenes in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, a fellow member on the worst movies list. The film earned $359.1M worldwide.
  • Petey Wheatstraw (1978) aka "Petey Wheatstraw, the Devil's Son-In-Law". The Devil offers a man the chance to return to earth if he agrees to be the Anti-Christ and marry the ugliest woman on Earth--the Devil's daughter.
Petey Wheatstraw knows EXACTLY what it is, though. It's a low-rent Rudy Ray Moore vehicle, with no apologies for being such. It could almost be considered intentionally bad, if the sequence where Rudy Ray Moore uses his magic powers to turn a fat woman skinny so she can get out of her lawn chair is any indication. I fucking love this movie. -HX 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink Flamingos (1972): Directed by John Waters and starring Divine, this movie is notorious for trying to be as disgusting as possible. Certainly the sex scene involving a chicken would be hard to surpass unless, of course, one were to watch the scene where Divine eats freshly excreted dog feces. From this description the reader should readily apprehend whether he/she is likely to regard the film as nauseating, or as one of the best ever made.

R

  • Raise the Titanic (1980): Based on Clive Cussler's book, this was the first attempt to film one of his novels. Reviews were atrocious, and audiences heavily ignored the movie, which had been criticized for a weak script and the casting of Richard Jordan as Dirk Pitt. Cussler himself admitted he didn't like this movie version of the book. Speaking of the film's titanic losses, producer Lew Grade reportedly commented "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic."
  • Robotech the Movie: The Untold Story: Intended to bridge the gap between Macross and Southern cross segments of the Robotech series, this animated film was created by merging animation from anime OAV Megazone 23 and anime tv series Southern Cross. After an unsuccessful test run in Mesquite, Texas, it was pulled and permanently shelved by Harmony Gold U.S.A. Executive producer Carl Macek reports being unhappy with the film after distributor Cannon films demanded too many changes from his original vision and is said to have disowned it. Those few Robotech fans that have seen it, mostly via rare bootleg tapes, tend to agree that it's better that it was never widely released.

S

  • Scream, as well as the end of the "Treehouse of Horror II" episode of The Simpsons, in which Homer notices that Mr. Burns's head is affixed to his body. Also appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scream never appeared in the documentary. And I really don't see what that Simpson's episode has to with this.
      • I'm stopping now. If I wanted to be truly ruthless (actually I kind of do, but I don't want to be stoned), there are more that aren't supported by much in the way of actual evidence. I tended to leave ones that were the only ones in their sub-group because I did't want to mess up the alphabetical listing. I'm not saying that this films don't deserve to be listed, just that I think they should have better citations. (You are welcome to disagree.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sex Lives of the Potato Men (2004): The story of the sordid everyday lives of a group of potato delivery men, starring Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook. Roundly condemned by critics for being crude and tasteless, and the fact that public money in the form of UK National Lottery funds were used to finance the project.
  • Shanghai Surprise (1986): Starring Madonna and Sean Penn, it was considered one of the worst films of that year. It received six nominations to the Razzie Awards; Madonna won one for "Worst Actress".
    • This movie has a 0% Rotten Tomatoes rating, but it based on only 5 reviews. That's far too small of a sample size. It wouldn't be a great precedent to consider ratings based on a very small sample size. It's currently #79 on the IMDb Bottom 100, which is really bad, but not quite "worst ever". Carbonite | Talk 16:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This movie has 3 cites against it, and that's not good enough? And people said I was picky. Given the number of movies that exist, even being on the bottom 100, regarless of rank, is pretty bad, though there has been a general consensus that being on it can't be the sole criteria and/or cite. A 0% RT rating regardless of the number of reviews is positively horrible (it actually has 7, but 2 of them don't count for some reason, despite them being pretty scathing; one could even say that the lack of reviews is another bad sign, as the reviewers maybe didn't even want to waste their time to do so, or else RT thought 5 was enough to 'get the pciture'.) All that coupled with the Razzie noms and 'win', squarely qualifies this film for the list. I'll hold off personally re-adding for now, but if I can find this on any 'worst lists', back it goes. That would give it four cites; many of the movies on this list only have two. Dannybu2001 16:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Silence of the Hams (1994): Federal agent Joe Dee Foster(Billy Zane) investigates a serial killer with the help of Doctor Animal(Dom DeLuise), who is isolated in a maximum security jail. This film is a parody of The Silence of the Lambs. Redundant, unfunny jokes are repeatedly littered througout this movie.
    • Bad parodies are evil. But where's the citation?
  • The Skydivers (1963): Film that consists of people skydiving, interrupted only occasionally by the skydivers talking, saying primitive things to each other and drinking coffee. The latest entry on the IMDb Worst 100 Movies, it holds the #3 position as of right now. Featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
  • Shock! Shock! Shock! (1987): A black-and-white direct-to-video production that has been considered a horrible movie, it stars Allen Lewis Rickman as the movie's villain, which was misled in a reference book into saying Alan Rickman was in this film. Most people who made this movie did not make another film afterwards.
  • Son of the Mask (2005): Sequel to The Mask, this critically panned movie finds Jamie Kennedy's dog stumbling upon the mask of Loki and then concieving an infant born "son of the mask". This movie recieved a dismal 4% on RottenTomatoes [37] and as of November 2005 holds a 2.2 rating.[38]. The movie was roasted for mainly being another sequel without Jim Carrey and having horrid special effects. It bombed at the box office, and as of April 2005 has made just $17 million (About $102 million short of the original). Richard Roeper stated ""In the five years I've been co-hosting this show, this is the closest I�ve ever come to walking out halfway through the film, and now that I look back on the experience, I wish I had." [39] Other critics stated:

- ;: "Icky and incompetent (special effects aside) in equal parts, this groaner makes 1994's The Mask look like something you'd study in a film graduate course at NYU." --Mike Clark, USA Today - ;: "Parents who let their kids see this stinker should be brought up on abuse charges; so should the movie ratings board that let this suggestive mess slip by with a PG rating." --Lou Lumerick, New York Post

  • Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997): This was meant to be the sequel for the popular film Speed, but it didn't match Speed's success. It tanked in the box office and didn't even gross 1/4th of its budget. This might have something to do with the fact that Sandra Bullock was the only person from Speed to reprise their role.
These were removed a while ago for reasons already stated on this page, however they have once again been added, this time the reasons given are even more ridiculous:
"Despite all 3 movies being huge box office successes, the prequel trilogy has generally been considered inferior to the original Star Wars trilogy."
There is a large difference between "inferior" and "the worst ever"
"Hard core fans consider the prequels a disappointment."
Utterly biased with no evidence and thats just the first two sentences, Im deleting the films from the list. If this article is kept it'll need to be of a higher standard, and removing biased nonsense like this would be a good start. - Niall42
The article contains this line
"The 1998 advent of Rotten Tomatoes, a website which aggregates reviewers' scores, has greatly assisted the process of selecting infamous films."
and then later this:
"Examples of the former are the Star Wars prequels"
What the hell is this, the star wars prequels may be considered disapointing by a lot of people, all 3 of been rated as "fresh" movies on Rotten tomatoes, and all 3 have been massive box office succeses, they blatantly do not belong in this article. However Phantom menace can be left in the list because of its popular perception as a disapointing film, but the above sentence has to go.
  • The Star Wars Holiday Special Yes, I added The Star Wars Holiday Special to the list. Yes, I know it was a TV movie, but come on, any bad film, tv, whatever list HAS to list this. A perfect example, it is.!
Removed since it was a TV special, not movie, and this list is generally considered for movie's theatrically released. Dannybu2001 21:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swept Away (2002): Remake of 1974 film Swept Away, it was assembled as vehicle for Madonna by her husband, director Guy Ritchie and met with such disaster at the box office that it appears it could completely derail the once-promising career of Ritchie. Had the highest loss of money for two decades prior. After one week, it was only playing in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City.Please do not put this back in the article without an appropriate citation.
I added it back with some judicious editing and appropriate citations for its financial badness.Scarletsmith 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Silver Chalice (1954): The motion picture debut of Paul Newman: he has described it as the worst movie of the 1950s and famously took out a newspaper advertisement soon after its release, apologizing for the film.
    • Reviews I have seen have been mixed and Newman's stunt backfired causing more people to watch (and presumably enjoy the movie)
  • Sinbad of the Seven Seas (1989): This film, starring Lou Ferrigno as Sinbad, was viewed as being so poor quality it was never released in cinemas. Said by a correspondent on The Unknown Movies Page that it "may be the most inept fantasy ever put onto celluloid".
    • Exteremly low IMDB voting, but is a single critic's opinion good enough??

T

  • Teenage Zombies (1958): Jerry Warren was a director in the early 1960s known for editing foreign films and making them into new movies by adding new footage filmed by himself. This is his second most famous, behind 1981's Frankenstein Island, which were films he actually made from scratch (he clearly did better bowdlerizing others' films). Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.
  • Titanic (1997): In many ways Titanic is the most successful film in history, tying with Ben-Hur (1959) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) for the most Oscars with eleven wins, and pulling in a record $1.8 Billion in box office receipts. The film also received an overwhelmingly positive response from critics, receiving an 86% rating from Rotten Tomatoes [40]. However, a backlash against the film followed a few years later: Viewers of the BBC's Film 2003 program voted Titanic the worst ever [41] (although a poll a few weeks earlier had named Titanic as having one of the best endings ever). Robert Altman was quoted in 2002 as saying "Titanic I thought was the most dreadful piece of work I've ever seen in my entire life." [42]The backlash was partly against the overhyping of star Leonardo DiCaprio, who remained a regular feature on tabloid covers for months after Titanic's release, and who followed up Titanic with several films that failed at the box office.
It just doesnt make sense. Sure it has its bad moment, but it's generally well received by critics and movie goers. So... what the hell? I'm deleting this.
I don't give a damn about your source, it's common sense.
I'm in complete agreement. The rating on IMDB.com more than vindicates this movie, something not remotely needed after tying of the record of Academy Awards for one movie. Some nut job added this back on this list due to his personal opinion; I'm deleting this one per two respected establishments.
Why can't a movie be a critical and commercial success *and* be considered one of the worst ever? I would think that as long as there are references provided, we must include it, despite personal feelings. Turnstep 04:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Titanic should be on this list; it may have been a sucess at the box office, but the movie itself was actually quite bad. The only thing worth watching are the effects...once.
^ Thanks for proving everyone's point. IMDB, rotten tomatoes, and practically every ranking sites believed otherwise. Your opinion is as subject as it can get.
Titanic should be removed from this list. Which worst list was it put on? There are a number of "name" movies including Citizen Kane, Casablanca that were awful in the opinion of some critics. Robert Altman who famously critique the movie is not a movie critic, he is a director. The poll that is alluded to in the introduction is a not a critics poll, it a users poll (BBC Film One poll) and not part of the accepted criteria (IMDB, rotten tomatoes). There are many critically acclaimed that certain people will hate and consider the worst movie including Eraserhead, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan and As Good as It Gets; all Oscar winners but they are not listed here. I will remove Titanic from the list. It only appears that there are one or two person who want Titanic on the list, and one reluctantly, while there are several (hard to tell without sigs) who do not think that it is appropriate because of the rankings from many other sites. Reflex Reaction 18:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Town & Country (2001): This romantic comedy about life cost $90 million and pulled in $6.7 million at the box office. In his book, A Year at the Movies, Kevin Murphy cites it as the worst film of 2001.
More of a "bad in its release year" film. Bad box office and cite from the MST3K guy is simply not enough; needs more cites before being re-added. Dannybu2001 18:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troll (1985): A horror/fantasy film with laughable special effects and a queer concept. As famously odd as its sequel (see the below), this film was included in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.
  • Troll 2 (1990): Notable in part for not featuring any trolls (the baddies are goblins from the town of "Nilbog", which is goblin spelled backwards), and for not having anything to do with Troll, this famously odd movie has both topped the IMDB bottom 100, and been cited in most of the few reviews (the picture being slightly obscure) as a "so bad it's good" movie, in the vein of Ed Wood.
  • This one had a bunch of links listed in lieu of actual cites. Needs some retooling before being relisted.
  • Tron (1982): Originally considered a flop, it is undergoing a critical re-evaluation by a later generation and has acquired a cult status (IMDB rating: 6.3/10).

U

  • U.F.O. (1993): UK "comedian" Roy 'Chubby' Brown stars as himself in what is really a stand-up show for sexist jokes with a slow story. IMDb reviewers criticize it, even calling it a British alternative to Freddy Got Fingered.
  • Undiscovered (2005): Carrie Fisher and Ashlee Simpson starred in this 2005 movie which was not screened in advance for critics and only has a 5% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes [43]. In its first weekend (August 26-28, 2005), its per-screen average was a mere $518. The second week, it set a dubious box office record by falling 86 percent - worse than the 82 percent suffered by Gigli in 2003. Critic Tom Long said: "All this silliness swirls around for about an hour and a half and then you get to leave the theater. Unless you're being held there at gunpoint. And really, that's about the only excuse for being in a theater watching this thing in the first place." [44]
Undiscovered may have flopped at the box office, but it had little hype to begin with.

V

  • Vampire In Brooklyn (1995): Starring Eddie Murphy in a pseudo-love story directed by horror guru Wes Craven. The film is generally regarded as uneven, combining the scares of a romance movie with the passion of a B-grade horror flick. It received an 8% rating at Rotten Tomatoes [45], and was additionally blighted by the death of Angela Bassett's stunt double on the set in a horrific fall.

W

  • Wolf Creek (2005): Based on a series of real events including murder, Wolf Creek was called one of the most violent and sadistic movies of all time. Film critic Roger Ebert gave it a rare zero stars out of four. He wrote; "There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty? There is a line and this movie crosses it. I don't know where the line is, but it's way north of Wolf Creek. I wanted to walk out of the theater and keep on walking." [46] One such reviewer did just that, Seattle Times critic Moira Macdonald, said she walked out of her first movie. She called watching the movie 'punishment' and wondered how someone's real death inspired this "entertainment".[47]
This film and its write-up are not up (or should I say, 'down'?) to the accepted standards of the purpose and scope of this article. Dannybu2001 06:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This film gets way more bad reviews than good. A whole lot more for lack of a better term that I can think of at the moment. Most of the "good" reviews are from a small minority in Austraila and GB. This film is near universally rated as 'terrible'

  • One of the most viciously nasty horror thrillers in recent memory. But the extreme grisliness is purely gratuitous." Rich Cline, SHADOWS ON THE WALL
  • "No new ideas, and runs out of old ones fast."-- Walter Chaw, FILM FREAK CENTRAL
  • "Wolf Creek bills itself as "Based On Real Events," a dubious claim since the film is rife with the sort of boneheaded plotting that can only be found in sub-par thrillers of this nature."-- Matt Brunson, CREATIVE LOAFING
  • The darkest lump of coal ever dropped down a moviegoer's throat on Christmas Day, bought by the Weinsteins for $3.5 million. Next time, could we get a gift certificate instead?"

-- John Beifuss, COMMERCIAL APPEAL (MEMPHIS, TN)

  • What is the point, other than to show up the director's technical skill at presenting mutilation?"-- Gary Thompson, PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS
  • ... the ordeal is excruciating -- for the audience and for the victims..."

-- Sean Axmaker, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

  • "Wolf Creek is an unrelenting, grueling experience."-- Devin Faraci, CHUD
  • It's boring, then it's nasty, then it's over. That last one is its only saving grace "

-- Ken Hanke, MOUNTAIN XPRESS (ASHEVILLE, NC)

  • An initially promising horror film that turns exploitive, Wolf Creek fails to deliver the requisite payoff considering its leisurely pace."-- Kevin Crust, LOS ANGELES TIMES
  • There's no substitute for bad taste. And this one has it double-barreled, both in the timing of its release and as a movie, one said to be loosely based on fact."-- Mike Clark, USA TODAY
  • What Wolf Creek offers is a competently made horror excursion with an unfortunate reliance upon clichés balanced off by some legitimate shocks."-- James Berardinelli, REELVIEWS
  • Wolf Creek is unimaginative, light on the grue and heavy on the faux-serious desperation."

-- Michael Atkinson, VILLAGE VOICE

  • "Viewers eager to embrace 90 minutes of footage featuring women being brutalized, beaten, stalked and slaughtered may want to consider some serious introspection."

-- Tyler Hanley, PALO ALTO WEEKLY

  • "There's no suspense, really, and the movie is carelessly vague about the victims, who have as much personality as lambs lining up for the slaughter."

-- Chris Hewitt (St. Paul), ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS


Some of the more positive reviews:

  • "...its debt to...Texas Chainsaw Massacre is obvious. Still, this is a gritty flick that must be giving Australia's Outback tourism industry a bad case of heartburn. "

-- Laura Clifford, REELING REVIEWS

  • You may need to squirm and recoil a fair bit to get through the film, which involves graphic, sickening violence."-- Liz Braun, JAM! MOVIES
  • Aussie writer/director Greg Mclean has made one nasty little film"

-- Stefan Halley, HERO REALM

  • "A vicious torrent of blood-letting. What more can we want?"-- Harvey S. Karten, COMPUSERVE
  • "Un des films d'horreur les plus méchants et cruels des dernières années."

-- Nicolas Lacroix, ENPRIMEUR.CA

  • "The film is okay, if you're into that sort of thing, but it's an acquired taste."

-- Eric Lurio, GREENWICH VILLAGE GAZETTE


Ok, safe to say its not for everyone. Sure some people like it, but it's a small minority. Some people worship Alone in the Dark, Showgirls, Battlefield, Batman and Robin etc, and all of those are listed here. It was put under gratuitousness because it's just that, gratuitous. It was only made to show gore for no other reason that to show gore and blood. Not really anything else unlike most other horror movies. I saw it, I can deal with a "gorey" movie, but without any reason for it, its just watching a slaughterhouse. Don't worry, I'm not putting it back on, but thats my side.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X

  • xXx (2002): Action/thriller starring Vin Diesel, in what many seem to be one of his worst performances ever. Diesel plays a character who is summoned by an NSA employee to take down a terrorist organization in Europe. Among the critics and public, it is a controversial like/hate movie.

Y

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst/Removed_films&oldid=65312388"