Talk:List of films considered the worst: Difference between revisions

For older, archived discussion, see Archive.

Rationale of this article

I created this article as a means of cross-linking various existing movie articles that already made statements along the lines of "[subject movie] is often called the worst movie ever". This is not intended to be a subjective article, but one reporting on a divergent set of widely held subjective opinions on a cultural subject. I wouldn't object to moving it to a less provocative title, but I think such a list does have a place in Wikipedia. Mkweise 16:37, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article has survived two Articles for Deletion debates. The discussion can be found here. Please do not add movies that do not have proper citation from a reputable source as they will be removed. Reflex Reaction 20:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Let this article stay. I mean, where else can a large base of editors collaborate and make such a list as this? You wouldn't find this in a regular encyclopedia, but you wouldn't find Pikachu's profile or a list of subcultures in a regular encyclopedia either.

And can anyone find something that says that Alexander was exceptionally bad? They all only described the movie as a waste of time.

This article is a disgrace

• How can this be a part of an encyclopaedia!

This is outragous. This is all totally subjective, there is no way around it. I could add the Godfather to this list or Star Wars, as many people I know think they are crap. Go check up on them in the Movie Database movie listings and tens of thousands of people argue that they get 0 out of ten, which surely makes them movies "that have been considered the worst ever."

It is this kind of drivel that makes me want to give up on wikipedia completely.

jucifer 02:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Winning" at the Golden Raspberry Awards is not subjective. 0% ratings at Rotten Tomatoes are not subjective. This article does not report that these movies actually are the worst ever. Just that some reputable source has considered them remarkably bad. See the preceding discussions on this page. I agree that the standards need to be increased. Being "somewhere on the bottom" at IMDb is not particularly notable. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page move was a bad idea in this respect. "Amonth the worst ever" is a sucky nebulous concept, whereas "the worst ever" is precise. Has it been called the worst ever? Yes? Then it's on the list - No? Then it's not. Simple. At least it should be! Pcb21| Pete 07:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• WTF is this?

This article doesn't belong on the Wikipedia. It is totally subjective!!! It is not neutral from the beginning till the end and belongs on another site. 83.134.125.182 20:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue has aleady been debated, and it has twice been decided that the article should not be deleted. I am removing the NPOV dispute tag, since lately the editing has conformed to prior discussions of what list entries should contain, i.e. a citation to some critical source which affirms the movie's "badness". Ellsworth 20:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me state it another way, so all the supporters of this rotten page have no reason to censor me away. The citations made are subjective. Quoting subjective findings and compiling them, doesn't make them objective. The encyclopedial value of this kind of article, is 0.0 and yes, this stinks and a lot!! Has there ever been a poll about this? 83.134.129.26 08:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There have been two votes, and in both voters decided to keep the article. It is unlikely the subject will be revisited again. This article is here to stay. Gamaliel 20:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

But, 83.134..., we invite your contributions if you think certain entries don't belong, or if there is a way we can change the criteria to improve the article. That's why we have the meta-list on this talk page. Ellsworth 22:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• freaking ridiculous list

Use your common sense people. One big name critic and his cult said Titanic is a bad film, and you're gonna ignore all the oscar and the box office report? I may as well list "the Sound of Music" in there and cite Pauline Kael.

• Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The Meta-List:

Movies removed from main article for 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)

A

• The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen (1988): the Terry Gilliam version. Disasters led to the film costing much more then it should have. Failure at the box office hurt Gilliam's reputation.
• 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..
• Attack of the Killer Tomatoes a camp classic that knows it is being funny. Feral tomatoes--some giants--threaten people.

B

• 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 unusally bad reviews for its type. It is still sold on DVD at many Toys 'R' Us locations.please do not put this back in the article without a citation
  
• 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.
• 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)

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
• Can't Stop the Music (1980): Starring the Village People, this movie was horribly panned by critics, and was the first film to win a Razzie for Worst Picture. It also won Worst Screenplay. Valerie Perrine, Bruce Jenner, and Steve Guttenberg all have starring roles in this movie.
• Chairman of the Board (1998): Comedian Carrot Top's first foray into film acting was very poorly received by audiences and critics, and also earned a negative reception from Norm MacDonald when appearing on Late Night with Conan O'Brien.
• 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 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.
  • Chaos needs more cites and some serious trimming before being readded
• 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."
• Constantine (2005) [1]
  • There isn't a consensus for Constantine being on a worst ever list. Rotten Tomatos[2] and Metacritic[3] list it as middle of the road, and even most reviews of it were fairly mixed.
• 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." [4] - While a mediocre movie, bad physics doesn't make it the worst movie ever

• Cosmos: War of the Planets (1977): Incomprehensible Italian sci-fi film with three unrelated storylines. Features shiny Flash Gordon-style spacesuits, absurd dialogue, cheesy synthesized music, an evil robot that resembles a pile of old television sets and Christmas lights, and the infamous "Cosmic Love" machine. Filmed in Italian as Battaglie negli spazi stellari and dubbed awkwardly into English. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0075881/ IMDB entry]
• 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 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.

• Cutthroat Island (1995): This uneven swashbuckler starring Geena Davis and Matthew Modine as pirates is in the Guinness Book of Records for the biggest financial loss for a film, though its losses have been eclipsed by Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and The Adventures of Pluto Nash. - Major flop, but not worst of all time.

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.
• 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" ([5]).
• 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.
• Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965) : A film loosely based on the popular British television programme Dr. Who, this film is widely criticised among fans for being out of Who canon.
• Dracula 3000 (2004) : A movie about vampires in outer space, set in the year 3000.
• The Driver's Seat (1973): Comedy of a character played by Elizabeth Taylor making a movie in Rome, Italy; cited in a 10-worst list in The Book of Lists.

E

• Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977): One of the biggest flops in motion picture history. Literally laughed off the screen at its premiere, the film was hastily pulled from release and quickly recut by director John Boorman in a vain effort to salvage it. The revised version fared no better (Boorman's restructuring serving chiefly to make the film even more incomprehensible) and was the only version of the film available for many years, until the release on videocassette of the original cut in the early 1990s. The film greatly damaged the careers of all involved, with Linda Blair in particular going from the enviable position of one of Hollywood's hottest young actresses to being relegated to a future in low-budget exploitation films. First runner-up for The Worst Film of All Time in the Golden Turkey Awards.

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.
• 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
• Fire Maidens from Outer Space (1956): A low budget British sci-fi flick featuring astronauts who find a group of beautiful women on another planet. Leslie Halliwell said of it: "A strong contender for the title of worst movie ever made...Must be seen to be believed." Featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
• 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." [6]

• For the Boys -- Bette Midler's USO tour falls flat
• 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. [7]
• Glitter: Mariah Carey vehicle and disastrous commercial failure that was part of a drastic downturn in the superstar's career.
• 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!
• The Gong Show Movie : movie based on the 1970s TV show The Gong Show.

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)
• 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." [8]

• 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.
• Howard the Duck (1986): One of the first (and biggest) box office bombs in cinema, starring Lea Thompson. The film was so bad, executive producer George Lucas disowned it shortly after its release.
  • Yes, this film should be on the list by reputation. But there are currently no reasonable cites (Lucas dissing it? Yeah, look at the Star Wars prequels, he's not exactly a man of good taste) and I can't find any. Even Rotten Tomatoes has it at 25%, which is pretty darned good really.

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.
• 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.

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.

L

• Last Action Hero: a self-parody of action star Arnold Schwarzenegger, and his first serious box office failure (considered bad by some, but by far not by all: IMDB Rating of 5.4/10).
• 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 achieved cult classic status among horror fans.
• Lost Horizon (1973): A unanimously panned musical remake of the original Frank Capra classic, starring Peter Finch, Liv Ullman, and John Gielgud; hailed as the worst movie of the year by Esquire. John Simon observed that it "must have arrived in garbage rather than film cans."

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" [9].
• Mean Combat aka The Losers aka Nam's Angel's (dir. Jack Starrett, 1970): Bikers bolt machine-guns to their rides and rip up war-torn Vietnam. Dire even when I was 13. So bad it gets a cameo as a motel movie in Pulp Fiction. How much more cult can you get?
• 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.
• Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders (1996): Film that, despite its title, is more of a frightening horror film than a family-oriented fantasy adventure. Stars Ernest Borgnine as a grandfather who tells his children frightening tales as a cautionary lesson. Appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000 in its last season, and topped the IMDb Bottom 100 in mid June 2005.
• Mister Magoo 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.
• 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

New York Minute (2004)

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen's first foray into feature films (after years of direct-to-video features directed toward their pre-teen fanbase), earned $5.6 million, the lowest for any film playing at 3,000 theaters.

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.

• 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

• Paint Your Wagon (1969) Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood sing (enough said).
• 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.
• 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."
• The Real Cancun (2003): Hyped to the public as the first ever reality movie (the equally unsuccessful From Justin to Kelly being the second), this $8 million project grossed less than half its budget at just $3.7 million in it's third week of release. Nominated for a Razzie for Worst Movie of 2003.
• Red Zone Cuba or Night Train to Mundo Fine: apparently budgetless independent film from Coleman Francis and Anthony Cardoza attempts to re-enact the Bay of Pigs invasion with fewer than a dozen extras.
• 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.
• Robot Jox: science fiction

S

• Santa Claus: The Movie: the Dudley Moore epic from 1985.
• Santa with Muscles (1996): Features professional wrestler Hulk Hogan in a Santa Claus outfit, fighting with Ed Begley, Jr for control of mysterious crystals beneath an orphanage. Featuring a Clint Howard cameo, this film has repeatedly dipped to the number one spot on the IMDb's bottom 100, thanks in part to a campaign by professional wrestling fan-site Wrestlecrap.
• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978): a script written around unrelated Beatles tunes combined with some impressive musical cameos turned into a recipe for disaster.
• Seven Dwarfs to the Rescue: a live action Snow White sequel.
• 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.
• 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.
• Solomon and Sheba (1959): The Biblical legend of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (Yul Brynner and Gina Lollobrigida), cited in a 10-worst list in The Book of Lists.
• Space Mutiny (1988): Numerous continuity problems (a killed character later appears alive and well as a prominent extra), and highly suspect acting, directing, and special F/X (all space-related footage was actually lifted from Battlestar Galactica) keep this film perennially near the bottom of IMDB's worst 100 list. Featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
• 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.
• Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): Generally considered to be the worst Star Trek film; even director William Shatner has gone on record as saying "it was not a good idea." It won worst picture at the Razzies by what was at the time a record margin (though it has since been surpassed).
• 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.
• 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

• The Telephone (1988): Whoopi Goldberg tried to sue director Rip Torn so the movie would never see the light of day; she lost. Whoopi earned a Razzie nod for Worst Actress but lost to Liza Minelli in Arthur 2: On the Rocks and Rent-A-Cop. The movie didn't end up ruining her film career; two years later she won an Academy Award for Ghost.
• 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.

W

• Waterworld (1995): One of the rare movies synonymous with the term "flop", along with Ishtar and Heaven's Gate; some critics even took to calling it "Fishtar" out of reverence to the earlier box-office bust. It barely recouped its production costs in international distribution. Despite a $175 million budget, the highest for a film at the time, it opened to a disappointing gross of just $21 million (Batman Forever opened at nearly $53 million just a month earlier). However, the movie is really rather mediocre (as opposed to flat-out bad) and it did make a profit after worldwide box office grosses, video, and television income. Nonetheless, Waterworld deserves a spot on this list for the almost mythical degree of production overspending and box-office disappointment that the very mention of it invariably invokes. Nominated for four Razzies, "winner" of one (Dennis Hopper for Worst Supporting Actor) in 1995. Please do not add this back to the main article without more convincing cites.
• The Wild World of Batwoman (1966): Featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, where Crow summed up the plot as: "It looks like they just put a whole lotta movies in a blender and turned it on really fast!" Also holds a 1.7 rating on IMDB, thus qualifying it as the #14 on the IMDB bottom 100 (as of August 14, 2005).

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 a NSA employee to take down a terrorist organization in Europe. Among the critics and public, it is a controversial like/hate movie.

Y

• You Got Served (2004): This dance film went straight to the top (bottom?) of IMDb's worst 100 film list in the immediate aftermath of its release. The contrived plot, Lil' Kim's cameo, and incomprehensible dialogue were instantly spoofed in the South Park episode "You Got F*cked in the Ass".

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.

(copied from above so it doesn't get lost) 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)

---

A couple of movies have been put back in, citing a poor number of positive votes on Rotten Tomatoes. Is this a good solid indication of a bad movie? Seems a bit weak to me. Pcb21| Pete 05:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't solid. This is a list of "worst", not "bad" or even "extremely bad" movies. We'll eventually end up with a list of everyone's personal disfavorites if such weak provisos are allowed. Maybe we can keep the movie with the worst score, though, if there is a clear winner (loser). Fredrik | talk 08:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

So, I added Roger Corman's Fantastic Four 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)

I've removed it from the list altogether; since it was never released theatrically (or even on video), it cannot have a fair evaluation Dannybu2001 19:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Waterworld

Waterworld keeps getting added without a citation. I decided to try and find one so that it could stay and prevent an edit war and I can't actually find a citation for it being the worst ever. Google reviews show it as having an agregate of 2.5/5 which puts it spot on mediochre rather than bad. While it was certainly not a huge sucess and I thought it was a pile of crap, I can't find a justification for it being listed here. Indeed this quote by Roger Ebert indicates that it should NOT be in here.

"The cost controversy aside, "Waterworld" is a decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me. It could have been more, it could have been better, and it could have made me care about the characters. It's one of those marginal pictures you're not unhappy to have seen, but can't quite recommend."

Could the person who keeps adding it please give some justification for doing so? MrWeeble 15:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Could the person who keeps adding it please give some justification for doing so?

Apparently not, since they never add any actual text and certainly not any citations from notable sources. But I've run through my three reverts for the day so it's up to everyone else now.

Atlant 16:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

For those who want a running commentary on this user:

• 12th August: Special:Contributions/141.154.226.85 - Added Waterworld.
• 15th August: Special:Contributions/141.154.239.76 - Reverted four times. Accuses Atlant of vandalism.
• 16th August: Special:Contributions/151.203.244.213 - Reverted twice. Gets in a row at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Does a whole load of reverting.
• 18th August: Special:Contributions/151.203.24.89 - Reverted once. must have been a slow day.
• 19th August: Special:Contributions/141.154.49.158 - Reverted three times.
• 22nd August: Special:Contributions/141.154.249.110 - Reverted four times.

For what it's worth the IPs are all from Verizon's DSL netblock. It'd be funny if it wasn't such a pain in the arse MrWeeble 19:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• 23rd August: Special:Contributions/151.203.236.223 - Added VFD template to page, though without saying why in the appropriate place MrWeeble Talk Brit tv

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)

The Meta-list 2:

Popular and/or succesful movies removed from the list

The following are a list of movies removed from this list that were succesful financially and/or critically, thus negating any 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. Case in point, Titanic, despite personal opinions and real criticism, it is still the most successful movie ever when it comes to earnings.

You could call this the holding ground for movies that folks attempted to add before and should be used as a guideline of what to not try and re-add without serious citations.

• Batman and Robin (1997): The fourth film of the Warner Bros. franchise that began with 1989's Batman and the lowest-grossing movie in the film series, this film is often billed as the worst superhero movie of all time, even to the point that star George Clooney says he will refund people's money if they stop him on the street and say they paid to see it. (Contrary to popular belief, director Joel Schumacher is not proud of this film at all). Batman & Robin earned the nickname "Batman on Ice" for a scene in which the titular heroes both inexplicably have retractable skate blades hidden inside their boots. The film was mocked for the poor script, over-extending the campy attitude of the previous installment Batman Forever, the poor casting of other "big-name" stars Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the addition of a poorly portrayed Batgirl. Likely due to this film's extremley poor reception, no more Batman movies were made for nearly eight years, even leading to the the next Batman film--2005's Batman Begins--being a complete reboot of this film franchise rather than an even further continuance of the series.

Regarding Batman & Robin, humorist Michael J. Nelson wrote in his book Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese:

"For those of you who were scared away by the abysmal reviews of Batman & Robin, let me lay to rest some of the prejudices you might have about the film. It's not the worst movie ever. No, indeed. It's the worst thing ever. Yes, it's the single worst thing that we as human beings have ever produced in recorded history."

• • Is a fairly bad movie, but given the criteria for the list it is disqualified. Need some stronger cites than one critic's opinion. The film earned 237.3M worldwide.

• Deep Impact: About an asteroid colliding with Earth, thickly laid on with fake solemnity and melodrama.
  • The film earned $348.6M worldwide.

• 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.)

• 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." [10]. The film earned $450.5M worldwide
• Planet of the Apes (2001): This Tim Burton remake of the classic Charleton 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.

• Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985): Although it was a smash hit at the box office by racking up over $150 million and being the second most successful movie of 1985 (behind Back to the Future), it could not be spared the wrath of critics and Razzie-voters alike. Critics say that the second Rambo replaces the emotional depth and plot that made First Blood such a well-made movie with mindless shoot-em-up action scenes. Others say that this movie is pro-American propaganda, since they feel that it is an excuse for patching up the failure that the United States suffered in Vietnam. The second Rambo was nominated for seven Razzies, in which it won four (including Worst Picture of 1985, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Actor). The film earned $300.4M worldwide.

• Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones: The Star Wars prequels have divided fans of the films sharply, with critics coming down harshly on the excessively plotted scripts, poor acting, and director George Lucas' failure to recapture the swashbuckling sense of fun of the originals. Fully CGI characters such as Jar Jar Binks were met with particular venom. Given the fact that there was an 18-year gap since the release of the last film during which fans were building very high expectations, it is perhaps impossible the prequels could have avoided disappointing a great many people. Inspired The Phantom Edit, a fan edit of the film removing much of the more offensive material, widely thought of as being superior to the original.

• 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 [11]. However, a backlash against the film followed a few years later: Viewers of the BBC's Film 2003 program voted Titanic the worst ever [12] (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." [13]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.

Star War prequels

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.

Titanic

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)

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)

The Meta List 3: The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

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):

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.

Eegah (1962)

A low-budget shocker, featuring Richard Kiel as a prehistoric caveman emerging in mid-1960s California and finding love with another teenager. Arch Hall, Jr. performs musical numbers with lyrics widely considered to be terrible. Included in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made. Featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster (1965)

Famous in the genre of "so-bad-it's-good," this flick features James Karen as an astronaut who discovers a ship full of cheesy-looking aliens who have sent a hairy space robot, named Mull, to conquer Puerto Rico. One of the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.

Galaxy of Terror (1981)

A low-budget clone of Alien, featuring appearances from Erin Moran, Robert Englund, and Ray Walston. The movie involves a terrifying pyramid found in space that turns many things into horror. One of its unit directors was a young James Cameron, who made maggots wiggle on a severed arm. Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.

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.

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.

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.

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" [14]. Features in IMDb Bottom 100.

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.

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?

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.

-Aranel ("Sarah") 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm stopping now. If I wanted to be truly ruthless (actually I kind of do, but I don't want to be stoned</small), 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)

The 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

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)

Article edited Dannybu2001 19:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Format Discussion/Suggestions

Short list

What happened with the slimmed down list here? Is there a process for getting films on the list? Mark Richards 00:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We decided that all films listed needed a citation i.e. who considered that the worst ever. The article was turning into a dumping ground for any movie some editor didn't like. See VfD above, and my comments below it. Pcb21| Pete 00:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Mark Richards 04:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Higher standards

Or maybe I should say "lower standards". I'd like to propose some standards for IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes based inclusions. This is what I would suggest:

• 0 positive reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes. (Maybe permit just one or two, or some low percentage. 5%? I'll have to poke around and see what that would mean in practical terms.)
• Documentable appearance at the very bottom of an IMDb list.

If we're going to claim that someone considered these the "worst ever" (or even "among the worst ever", which I think is unnecessary here), we should pick the ones that are truly shining examples of bad ratings. Being somewhere on the IMDb "worst" lists or having somewhat low reviews at Rotten Tomatoes is not particularly notable. Lots of bad—but not awful—films meet that dubious distinction.

If, of course, a film had only five positive reviews at Rottem Tomatoes, then there's a good chance that some notable film critic said something sufficiently scathing to merit inclusion. I'm just saying that the Rotten Tomatoes (or IMDb) rating alone should be not sufficient.

Comments? Concerns? Better suggestions? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure if anything should go here on the basis of nothing more than Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB, unless it is at the absolute top of the worst list. The bar should be high - or low rather. Zero percent at RT (lots of movies accomplish this) and in the bottom 50 or even 15 at IMDB are my suggestions. Gamaliel 19:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Personally, I think films need to have a distinct combination of badness. i.e. at least the bottom 10 or 20 at IMDB, 10% or less at Rotten Tomatoes, at least one critical review (such as Ebert, Maltin or the others), and either have mutiple Razzie nomination regardless of 'wins', or 2 or more Razzie 'wins' regardless of nominations. Also toss in some bad box office, even some of the worst movies did well before WOM could take effect. Finding one or two cites, saying essentially 'everybody hated it', noting low box office, or it JUST being in a worst list SOMEwhere (i.e. The Book of Lists, Worst 50 DVD, etc., Esquire reader polls?!) just doesn't seem like enough. Dannybu2001 12:21, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Come on, guys. This article is hardly a serious academic work, and it says so in the introduction; we needn't have any kind of strict, arbitrary guidelines (i.e., "at least the bottom 10 or 20 at IMDB, 10% or less at Rotten Tomatoes", etc.)for inclusion. If somebody puts one up that's way out of left field, we can deliberate its deletion on this page, but to have somebody (no offense intended, Dannybu2001, but please!) come in and delete over half of the entries because he, by himself, didn't feel they deserved to be on the list... that's not right, either. Many of the movies you removed had met their burden to be considered on this list, and, what's more, some of the ones you added seemed to fall short of your self-expressed standards! While I don't agree that every film on the list should (or even could) be considered the "Worst of All Time", it's really a gathering place for the truly bad movies, the universally panned films, that have graced the big screen. I mean, you removed Heaven's Gate?!! Because it didn't meet your narrow criteria? We're talking about perhaps the mother of all flops, the original "unmitigated disaster"... it must be on this list. Otherwise, what's the point of the list? We'll just have a collection of low scores from the post-Razzie/post-RottenTomatoes era. Contrary to popular belief, life did not begin with the advent of the "Information Age"... yet, that will be the list we'll have: "If it didn't score low on MetaCritic, well, by God, it's not one of the worst films ever!" So let's consider our deletions and revisions, discussing them in this forum, rather than unilaterally picking and choosing the films whose presence here we don't agree with and then deleting them, okay? Davis21Wylie 3:26, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say for the record that the only one I added was "Envy" and it IS quite universally hated, so where does "some of the ones you added" come from? The rest of my 'additions' were existing write-ups I reinforced with more info (case in point, Jury Duty had one slim cite and I checked up and found more). And I didn't have 'narrow' criteria, many of the ones I deleted (and moved to this talk page for later review) had such convincing cites as "it appeared on MST 3000", and that was it. A couple only had one bad review from Ebert, and if he doesn't like it, then on the list it goes? I know some are famous for being bad (Heaven's Gate and Howard the Duck) and certainly 'deserve' to be on here by reputation, but as they are written, there's not much proof, and without proof, it's POV. As far as Internet info, some were on here with the cite of "appeared low on the IMDB Bottom 100", well, wow, that says it all don't it? I actually tried to be as 'un-Interent' focused as possible with this, and the only one I really trusted was Rotten Tomatoes since it's a combination of reviews from real-live reptubale critics. I don't even use/read Metacritic. I know I was pushing it on a couple of them (Batman and Robin did suck), but the majority of the ones I removed didn't follow any kind of standard but finding one cite (or, as I like to call it, "excuse") to put it on, and with that as a rule, Titanic would officially be allowed. I mean, The Book of Lists? I looked that one up and the last updated publication I could find was 1993! Add some back if you like, but don't blanket revert the list just because I removed 'too many' in you opinion. Dannybu2001 20:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Title (Read before moving)

If you're going to move this page, please realize that this list is, by nature of Wikipedia, required to be NPOV, so any page title is going to have to satisfy the following:

1. NPOV by it's very nature. The current title (as of this writing), "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made", conveys the requirements for inclusion in this list; i.e., a cite, and preferablly several.
2. Shortness. While not exactly short, "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made" conveys all the information about the nature of the list in as short a space as possible.

Anybody got any other requirements? Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have to get so picky about having all information in the total. A title of "List of worst films" with a lead section that makes clearly that the films in the list have to be cited is perfectly neutral. Pcb21| Pete 12:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would like to point out that "List of worst X" or "List of best X", where X is a noun, is a simply horrible title for an article, being non-grammatical, inherently POV, and a surprisingly large multitude of lesser sins; and that "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made" has the advantage of putting "cite" right there in the title, so that when we remove uncited entries, we can point to the article title as the reason why. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should be titling our articles for the benefit of readers, not for writers who don't read a lead section before trying to contribute to an article. Pcb21| Pete 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An inadvertant problem with the constant moving is double or more redirects created. Someone should delete the unnecessary ones. - Lucky13pjn 15:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed most of 'em so that they're not double redirects. I'm too lazy to fix the articles they link to, though. Anybody care to volunteer for this quite thankless task? Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely there's a better option than the current title, "List of films that have been cited as being among the worst ever made", which is long and painfully convoluted. What was the problem with "List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever"? It's entirely neutral, attributing all the judgement to other sources (which are presumably noted in the article) by means of passive voice. — Dan | Talk 03:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this article no longer reflects it's title? I think it is drifting towards List of bad films rather than its current title. - Lucky13pjn 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No Third Person

The article needs to be written in third person instead of first person grammar. For example, instead of writing, "We movie-goers generally believe...", write, "Movie-goers generally believe..."

Also, there could possibly be a list of criterias for what generally makes a film bad.

It should also be noted that films are subjective, and although the films listed below are considered bad by most critics; most of the critics cited are from American cultures. Our culture affects what we believe to be a bad film or a good film. There are possibly some cultures outside of the U.S. which believe that Battlefield Earth is a great film! This should be explained in the article somewhere.

Specific Listings removal/addition or nomination for removal/addition discussion

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.

The Crippled Masters

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)

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)

Chaos

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)

Dukes of Hazzard(2005)

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)

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"

Godsend

I think Godsend would be a viable candidate -- could someone please add this to the article with the necessary references and explanation?

Honeymonners

The movie Honeymoners (2005)needs to be added. It is a recent addition to IMB worst movies of all time.

Renaming

I think this article is truly one of the best sources on awful movies, anywhere. But it's getting outside the scope of its title; very few of the movies on the list could truly be considered the worst of All-Time. And I think people (myself included) know that, but put the movies up anyway. If we were earnestly doing an article on the "Single Worst Movie of All Time", and being honest with ourselves, it would be quite a short list. Like I said, most of the movies currently up (even with the recent housecleaning) are bad movies, no doubt, but not the worst ever by any stretch. But that's okay, because we all know that, and we treat it as simply a list of "really, really bad movies". So why don't we just rename it? Call it "List of films that have been considered among the worst ever". I mean, that's the way we're treating it anyway, right? So why kid ourselves? Call a spade a spade. That way, you don't get people coming in and deleting a ton of movies because they didn't meet some arbitrary standard for "the Worst Ever", because we're no longer claiming that they're the single worst movie ever, but simply a "really, really bad movie". The burden of proof would be much lighter as well. I'd like to rename it, then revert some recent deletions to form a master list of any movie anybody’s put up on the "Movies removed from main article for lacking in citations". This whole thing is blatantly POV anyway, because movie analysis (other than raw box office numbers, which in no way represent a film's quality) is by definition qualitative! Anybody coming in on their high horse saying, "well, that one didn't have enough sources... I'm just gonna delete it without consulting anyone else" has to be joking, because it's all opinions anyway! I just wanted to get some feedback on the idea, though, since this article seems to arouse deep proprietary feelings in people (I have no clue why!). Davis21Wylie 15:26, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think the title is fine how it is - we already have one weasel word ("considered") we don't need a second one ("among"). I don't think the size of the list is wrong in respect to listing the "worst ever." While you or I might have 10 movies that we consider the worst ever, there will be some overlap. Add a lot of people and soon you have a large list. But not too large. :) Although, as you point out, movie ratings are by definition qualitative, we can (and should) still measure somehow. I think we are actually fairly close to a consensus, reading through some of the talk page here. However, I strongly disagree with consideration of how much money a movie has made - as we all know, that in now way correlates to how "good" the film is. Plenty of good movies ("Wizard of Oz") failed at the box office, and plenty of bad movies ("Men in Black 2", "Godzilla") did well. I'll start a new section below on a set of criteria. Turnstep 20:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

How does one determine which movies are the "worst ever"? Here are some proposed guidelines:

• All personal feelings about a movie should be put aside.
• Financial success (or lack of) should not be considered.
• Each movie should have at least two cites, from a movie critic, where "movie critic" is defined as someone who gets paid to write reviews. The more well known and established, the better.
• A "Razzie" nomination counts as at least one reviewer. A "Razzie" award counts as two.
• Each cite should indicate not only that the movie was bad, but that it was (in the reviewer's eyes) one of the "worst ever".
• The movie should roughly be considered a "bomb" but at least 50% of all reviewers.
• Having a few reviewers love the film does not disqualify it, but does merit further scrutiny. There are films (although rare) that truly fall into the "love it or hate it" category.
• Some movies may be the worst of a particular year, but this list should think broader.

Good points, but doesn't this inherently bias against older films? I know MetaCritic doesn't even rate films prior to 1998, and I'm sure RottenTomatoes has a similar cut-off date. Even the Razzies were only instituted in the 1980's. So what about earlier films? There's quite a dearth of citations for films before the internet age, so it's hard to meet the arbitrary 2-source standard above. I still believe that discussion on this page is the best barometer of whether a movie should be here or not, since personal feelings are really the essence of this article. POV cannot be avoided when it comes to "bad movies", so why don't we just embrace it by deliberating the movies here? Not to say that the guidelines above shouldn't be used, but just the opposite: they should, but with a healthy amount of common sense mixed in. Davis21Wylie 16:20, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)