Daniel Drezner points to this Joe Queenan essay:
To qualify as one of the worst films of all time, several strict requirements must be met. For starters, a truly awful movie must have started out with some expectation of not being awful. That is why making a horrific, cheapo motion picture that stars Hilton or Jessica Simpson is not really much of an accomplishment. Did anyone seriously expect a film called The Hottie and The Nottie not to suck? Two, an authentically bad movie has to be famous; it can't simply be an obscure student film about a boy who eats live rodents to impress dead girls. Three, the film cannot be a deliberate attempt to make the worst movie ever, as this is cheating. Four, the film must feature real movie stars, not jocks, bozos, has-beens or fleetingly famous media fabrications like Hilton. Five, the film must generate a negative buzz long before it reaches cinemas; like the Black Plague or the Mongol invasions, it must be an impending disaster of which there has been abundant advance warning; it cannot simply appear out of nowhere. And it must, upon release, answer the question: could it possibly be as bad as everyone says it is? This is what separates Waterworld, a financial disaster but not an uncompromisingly dreadful film, and Ishtar, which has one or two amusing moments, from The Postman, Gigli and Heaven's Gate, all of which are bona fide nightmares.Six, to qualify as one of the worst movies ever made, a motion picture must induce a sense of dread in those who have seen it, a fear that they may one day be forced to watch the film again - and again - and again. To pass muster as one of the all-time celluloid disasters, a film must be so bad that when a person is asked, "Which will it be? Waterboarding, invasive cattle prods or Jersey Girl?", the answer needs no further reflection. This phenomenon resembles Stockholm Syndrome, where a victim ends up befriending his tormentors, so long as they promise not to make him watch any more Kevin Smith movies. The condition is sometimes referred to as Blunted Affleck.
I don't think that can be quite right--is waterboarding really objectively better than invasive cattle prods? But I take the general point.
Dan nominates Caligula; Alex Massie goes for the Sicilian. I'm torn between Far and Away and The Road to Wellsville. I saw the latter with my then boyfriend, who was the son of an economist. Ten minutes into the movie, he said "Let's go."
I demurred. "We paid three dollars for these tickets. I'm going to watch the movie."
Ten minutes later, he whispered more urgently "Come on, it's just getting worse. Let's go."
"No," I insisted, "I am not wasting three dollars on twenty minutes of movie."
The rest of the movie passed in a sort of a nightmare that has become associated in my mind with Mark Twain's description of opera:
The banging and slamming and booming and crashing were something beyond belief. The racking and pitiliess pain of it remains stored up in my memory alongside the memory of the time that I had my teeth fixed
By the time the lights went up, we were the only people in the theater. This on a Saturday night.
My boyfriend looked at me and said "I'm taking you to meet my father."
"Why?"
"Because someone needs to explain the concept of sunk costs to you."
The Road to Wellsville was dreadful, however it had enough nudity to make it watchable. Although there are limits to what nudity can accomplish in this respect. Showgirls featured veritable acres of naked flesh, yet was so horrendously bad watching it was a chore nonetheless.
Mad Dog and Glory (1993)
Tagline:
A cop who'd rather be an artist. A mobster who'd rather be a comic. And a woman who'd rather be anywhere but between them
And me, the moviegoer, who would rather be anywhere else.
Vanilla Sky.
With about 20 minutes to go, Tom Cruise ran out into the lobby of an office building. The guy sitting behind me yelled "Somebody shoot him so this movie will be over!" Everyone else cheered.
Yes, Mad Dog and Glory was very bad. But Vanilla Sky was worse because it had Tom Cruise in it, and I hate Tom Cruise.
Mad Dog and Glory
Just the name of this film causes me to retch reflexively.
I don't understand the need for pre-emptive negative buzz.
The rest make sense, as there has to be a "there" there to make failing at it notable.
You might as well say the worst movie needs a well known critic lose credibility because their review was ghostwritten based on press releases.
The Avengers
Lady in the Water
I beg anyone to see this movie and watch ANY other movie afterwards and tell me by comparison, the second isn't better. Go ahead, try it.
James B - Oh dear lord, I'd forgotten about that abomination. Thanks for reminding me, you bastard.
I have to think Shining Through qualifies. Especially because there are people who think it's a good movie.
In fact, I would add to Queenan's list the requirement that the film must have its defenders. Because nothing makes you hate a bad movie more than people trying to tell you it's a good one. That's the reason the movie I hate most in all the world is Jerry Maguire. not only is it bad, but it was a critic-loved, oscar-nominated film that has legions of admirers. And the more they try to tell me how wonderful it is, the more I hate it.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
I am a big fan of Star Trek in its many permutations, but it has been 28 years, and I have still not found the gumption required to sit through the entirety of the first movie. It makes Star Trek V appear to be Oscar material by comparison.
For me, the runner up is the fourth Star Wars movie, The Phantom Menace. What a horrid movie!
1999's Stigmata
Wow was that terrible!
Also, I disagree with this:
I think to qualify, a bad movie experience should be like a kick in the testicles- painful and a complete surprise.
Between my 8-year old daughter and me, the prize is taken by the Bridge To Terabithia. Neither of us have read the book (at least by then, I hear it is part of 2nd grade reading...). We were sold on seeing it by the 30 seconds of CGA that constituted 95% of the trailer -- the only 30 seconds of CGA in the entire movie.
Which reminds me of Broken Arrow featuring Steven Seagal prominently in the trailer despite the fact he only had a short cameo in the picture proper. But that movie wasn't terrible - for the genre, anyway.
I have to add that it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to think that I haven't watched ANY of this thread's nominees. Well, except The Avengers :(
AI
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Any movie with Nicolas Cage in it.
"Far and Away" is a terrible, terrible movie. "No where would be anywhere without you, Megan!"
Peter,
I beg anyone to see this movie and watch ANY other movie afterwards and tell me by comparison, the second isn't better. Go ahead, try it.
I walked out of Lady in the Water, but I'll still take that challenge.
Dungeons and Dragons
Freddie Got Fingered
Danger: Diabolik
The Astro-Zombies
The Bad Bunch
Street Fighter
Each of these movies make Battlefield Earth (let alone Lady in the Water) look like Citizen Kane.
Note that three Tom Cruise movies have been nominated. Which is central to my point. (Although I didn't actually hate Jerry Maguire.
So many choices.
I go with the 1970's Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, though I am not sure #5 above fits - had high expectations with Frampton, the BeeGees, Billy Preston, Steve Martin, Alice Cooper, Donald Pleasance, others. Really, really bad, though.
Runner up might be Glitter, the Mariah Carey movie, though this might violate #4.
My personal biggest disappointments as a Sci Fi fan were Star Trek I and the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Both utter contemptible.
I'm going to go with Battlefield Earth as the worst that I've seen at least. Hardly a surprising choice, but it's budget and source material should have allowed it join the legions of bad but forgettable sci-fi movies, but the execution was so terrible despite basic competence. There were no glaring continuity errors or people tripping over their lines, but the acting and plotting managed to be horrific none-the-less.
One element that I've found to be shared amoung of truly terrible movies is that the suspension of disbelief never fails outright but the characters are so 1-dimensional, abjectly stupid, or otherwise incapable of stimulating empathy that not only do I cease to care about their fate, I develop a vague antipathy towards them - a smidgen of pity overwhelmed by the desire for them just to go away, like one might feel about an acquaintance who insist upon telling pointless anecdotes and unfunny jokes until you come up with an excuse to leave.
...we were the only people in the theater.
You missed one. I didn't have the heart at the time to call your attention to the silent man in the front row who had gouged his own eyeballs out and stuffed them in his ears. The look of blissful relief on his face almost broke my heart.
/The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover/
/The Draughtsman's Contract/
Or possibly just any Peter Greenaway movie.
Actually, I thought that The Road To Wellville was kind of amusing. I probably wouldn't see it again, but I didn't consider it a waste of 2 hours.
coyote wrote: My personal biggest disappointments as a Sci Fi fan were Star Trek I and the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Both utter contemptible.
The fact that you were disappointed doesn't mean that Hitchkiker meets any of the criterion set out here for a bad movie. It probably means you were expecting a recap of the book plot, when Adams himself had rewritten the plot at least four times for different media and noticeably retailored it to suit in each case -- the movie interpretation being no exception.
Agreed, the dolphin chorus of “So Long and Thanks for All the Fish” alone was worth the price of admission. It was better than the original BBC miniseries enjoyable on its own as a standalone movie.
My biggest personal disappointment for a sci fi movie was the Fifth Element even though it had both Bruce Willis and Gary Oldman in it. I still don’t understand why some people like that movie (and no the alien chick wasn’t that hot). The one thing I walked away from the theater with was the realization that I really, really, really effing hate Chris Tucker.
I actually liked lady in the water, a lot.
But, I liked Ishtar too, so you can't trust me.
Nobody has mentioned Hudson Hawk yet, which was notoriously bad, although both my wife and I think it is hilarious.
Shadowboxer
Nobody has mentioned Hudson Hawk yet, which was notoriously bad, although both my wife and I think it is hilarious.
Hudson Hawk gets a bad rap. What's not to like about a movie featuring Bruce Willis lounge-singing "Swinging on a Star" next to oddly oblivious security guards? Or a movie that features a secret Vatican batcave with a secret Vatican train system?
Bunny...
Ball-ball.
Not as bad as The Last Boyscout.
Shinyk,
Danger: Diabolik at least fails interestingly and campily, making it somewhat fun to watch, kind of like Plan 9. It's elicits more of a "WTF?" than "I can't watch this." I'll give you Dungeons & Dragons achieving the same level of pure terribleness as BE though.
I'll add another common trait of truly terrible movies; their shittiness preempts successful parodies. If you feel like you can laugh at those involved, it's too good; you should end up wanting to say cruel and degrading things to them.
Bridget Jones. The follow-up. **gag*gag**puke**
"Far and Away" wasn't a bad movie...not a great moveie...but not a BAD, BAD movie.
If the last 3 minutes had been different, you would never have said it was dreadful.
Bridge to Terabithia was a pretty good movie although the advertising for it was very misleading. It's quite faithful to the book, and since the book is about (spoiler!) a child dying and the advertisements seemed to be about a fun filled fantasy land, I can understand why Max and his daughter didn't like it.
I wonder which movie is the most universally bad. I mean, so bad that to be a sentient being is to recognize its badness. Or maybe in which a failure to recognize its badness would be a moral failing, even in an alien. . .
(and no the alien chick wasn’t that hot).
Multipass!
It's twisted, but that turned me on.
Hmmmm... I actually liked The Road to Wellville...
And like you, it would take a lot to get me out of a movie I'd already paid for.
My sister and I love Rowan Atkinson, but we hated, hated, hated Bean (the Mr. Bean movie, the first one).
I actually kind of like "The Avengers"...I mean, it wasn't great, but the bad press before it was so bad, that it met the low, low expectations I had for it. That's where I think Megan's point about the movie having to build up negative buzz isn't a good one--once there's so much negative buzz around it, it's hard to view it objectively.
My nomination: Batman and Robin. That's the one with Arnold and Uma Thurman. This movie, to quote the New Yorker review, was "a monstrosity of nothingness."
Another vote for both 'Far and Away' and 'Vanilla Sky' in that order. Both are also qualifiers for what I think might be an additional criterion - that said movie have been directed by someone not normally given to producing utter dreck. Sorry, Ed Wood, if you've never directed a good movie, your crap is merely expectable.
'Far and Away' is, hands down, the worst movie Ron Howard ever directed or is ever likely to. Tom Cruise's ludicrous stage Irishman accent is just green icing on the corned beef and cabbage cake. Even supporting players who are usually fine are unaccountably bad in this film - I'm talking to you Colm Meaney.
'Vanilla Sky' similarly blights the escutcheon of Cameron Crowe who, with the exception of this singularly repellant exercise, comes about as close as does any director currently working to walking on water. I blame the two Latin American co-authors for the general wretchedness of the film, but Crowe agreed to work with them and direct the result so he can't escape blame entirely. Cameron, buddy, from here on out, no collaborators, okay? You don't need any and, on the evidence available, you're no good at picking them anyway.
The only things keeping 'Vanilla Sky' from being quite as dreadful as 'Far and Away' are the marvelous, though brief, peformance of Cameron Diaz and the solid supporting work of Jason Lee. The female Cameron does some of her best work and gets a little bit back for the male Cameron in an ultimately doomed project.
I know the criteria above aren't met by this one, but it deserves a mention because it was meant to be serious and is quite possibly the worst motion picture ever. Manos, the Hands of Fate is the worst piece of trash to ever fill a screen. http://imdb.com/title/tt0060666/ if you want to read more about it.
Eye of the Beholder. Ashley Judd kills people for no reason. Ewan McGregor watches (also for no reason). Jason Priestley shows up about two thirds in. Any attempt to further describe the film wouldn't do it justice.
I agree with Battlefield Earth
Event Horizon
(and, agreed with Battlefield Earth and the Fifth Element)
I'm voting for Starship Troopers. Despite the fact that they used a few incidents from the novel it was nominally based on, it was basically a Nazi propaganda flick sort-of trying to be a parody of a Nazi propaganda flick. They seriously misunderstood the source material. I also want to nominate it for the vilest movie of all time, and any other bad categories you can think of.
A lot of movies only work for a specific audience, perhaps one in a specific mood.
I thought Vanilla Sky was great, but this was weeks after a bad break up, I was in that kind of mood.
I thought Hudson Hawk was great too. But it was a JOKE people.
Even the Postman was OK, if you used it as visuals for the book, rather than as a movie in its own right.
My own worst ever is "Crybaby", but despite the famous cast this has disappeared from popular memory and has probably been deliberately burnt. I only watched it because it was a double feature, and I wanted to see the 2nd film.
And 5th Element deserved the Noble Prize. It was brilliant. Even though they got a 12 year old to play the alien chick.
Titanic is the worst movie ever in my book. The sappy, horrible dialogue made me want to gag and scratch my eyes out through most of the movie and I'm still pissed that I wasted four hours of my life watching it. And to add insult to injury, my butt fell asleep from sitting in the theater for that long. Does anyone else remember James Cameron accepting the Oscar for Best Director to a silent Kodak Theater? I remember throwing a few things toward the TV while he was giving his speech.
I'm going to go rent Rod to Wellville, which Meghan calls Road to Wellsvile. I bet it's a great movie. Since Megan's wrong about everything, e.g., the Iraq War, her hating the movie already makes me like it.
By the way, do any of you idiots ever read movie reviews before you go and pay for movies?
Everyone:
Highlander 2.
Not only was it unspeakably brutal on its own, but it negated the surprisingly good original Highlander (which by then had a large 'cult' following), by coming up with a ridiculous explanation for the essential conceit of the films that contradicts what was stated in the original. It also featured gratuitous, sadistic cruelty, grainy cinematography, and Sean Connery cashing a check.
They then piled on a bit a couple years later by making Highlander 3, which basically ignored Highlander 2, and was only terrible.
When we left Highlander 2 a few of us in the group independently offered that we felt violated. So there you go.
Somebody actually tried to defend Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and attacked The Fifth Element in the same paragraph. Now that's a first.
I swear, I tried watching HHGTG a second time and the only satisfaction I got was that the first time really was as horrible as I remembered.
3000 Miles to Graceland
Kurt Russell
Kevin Costner
Courtney Cox
Christian Slater
Any of who by themselves isn't bad and can actually be good. But this film put them together in something akin to the perfect storm- bad writing, bad acting (really bad overacting), bad action shots (the worst use and over use of slow motion that I can recall).
And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, Ice-T comes on screen. Thankfully he dies just a few minutes later. But the way he dies is so laughably bad. Did someone really think this was going to work!?
I MEAN COME ON PEOPLE!! Sorry. I had to go to counseling for months after seeing this movie. I was worried that I would have a lifelong fear of going to the movies, wondering if I was going to be traumatized again by a movie I thought would be at worst bad, but instead was psychologically scarring by the shear awfulness of it all.
One thing my wife and I unequivocally agree on is the horrendous nature of "The Game", with Michael Douglas. My spouse gets close to violence at the mere mention of the title.
Am I the only one who has seen Plan 9 From Outer Space? Now, that's bad.
There are so many bad movies and movies in specific areas like comedies, romance, war movie, chick flicks, sci fi, horror, porn movies, steve seagal movies that arguments on which was the absolute worst would have to be refined to "by category" and as males, females vote.
I would nominate Battlefield Earth as the worst sci fi film ever based on budget, coming from a best-selling novel, full of stars who had decent turns elsewhere..The conventional wag is that "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is the worst movie of all time, but it was low budget, based on no novel or even a plot, and the only "star" in it was a has-been, an opiate addict who died halfway through filming.
Maybe also distinguish between serious movies and the cynical, low budget, but profitable crap that the Jewish moguls make. market, and pronounce as crap before it leaves the studio, fit only for the American cattle....(Louis B Mayer - "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of those goy Americans...")
Thus Blackula, horrible but profitable, did just as expected in the blackploitation niche the Moguls identified...
As a male voter, I would be unable to discern which chick flick, where 5 or more women just sit around for the whole movie alternating between being catty, sorry, bitching and moaning - was the worst.
Towards the bottom you would have women fighting about worst bukkake porn movie - ever - their perv heel ex-lover was ever caught with, and men about Steve Seagal flicks if anyone actually dared admit they watched them...
EVERY LASSE HALLSTROM MOVIE. OH GOD MAKE IT STOP.
Assuming you guys have a few days to waste, the Agony Booth tears some of these movies apart. I had forgotten one piece of dreck -- Armageddon. The movie so bad Agony Booth had to break up the review among different authors.
In fact, any movie done by MIchael Bay has to be on the short list. Armageddon, Pearl Harbor (Ebert described it as the Japanese staging a surprise attack on a love triangle), The Island.
ugh.
Roissy the expert pickup artist has a thorough and detailed post outlining what he likes and doesn't like in adult-oriented movies. Extremely NSFW, as you might have guessed.
All the Pretty Horeses
Starred Matt Damon and Penelope Cruz and directed by Billy Bob Thorton, this might be the most infuriating movie I have ever seen. I was really excited about seeing the film version of one of my favorite novels--Cormac McCarthy's pulitzer prize winning novel about alienation and the west--and yet the story made no freaking sense at all. The plot jumped around to the point where I not only didn't know what the hell was happening, I really didn't care. The books finer and more moving moments were shortened, skipped, or put in the wrong place entirely; Damon, far from portraying Grady as a man with no life to return to and no real country to live in, comes off, remarkably, as both whiney and stoic at the same time; he's nearly schitzoid.
Hated this movie. Hated every faux deep moment interspersed with quasi western violence. Hated every piece of nonesense spoken during this craptastic waste of $10. Don't watch this. If you want to see a movie about complex cowboys watch The Searchers ; John Wayne's Ethan Edwards is 100 times more interesting than anything Matt Damon has ever done and John Ford knows how to edit a damn film.
All the Pretty Horeses
Starred Matt Damon and Penelope Cruz and directed by Billy Bob Thorton, this might be the most infuriating movie I have ever seen. I was really excited about seeing the film version of one of my favorite novels--Cormac McCarthy's pulitzer prize winning novel about alienation and the west--and yet the story made no freaking sense at all. The plot jumped around to the point where I not only didn't know what the hell was happening, I really didn't care. The books finer and more moving moments were shortened, skipped, or put in the wrong place entirely; Damon, far from portraying Grady as a man with no life to return to and no real country to live in, comes off, remarkably, as both whiney and stoic at the same time; he's nearly schitzoid.
Hated this movie. Hated every faux deep moment interspersed with quasi western violence. Hated every piece of nonesense spoken during this craptastic waste of $10. Don't watch this. If you want to see a movie about complex cowboys watch The Searchers ; John Wayne's Ethan Edwards is 100 times more interesting than anything Matt Damon has ever done and John Ford knows how to edit a damn film.
Ow! My brain had deliberately killed off the neurons responsible for remembering Highlander 2. Now I'll have to kill them off again. More alcohol is needed.
How, I ask how, has nobody said anything about Alexander yet? Huge budget, lots of gigantic fight scenes, but the directors and writers somehow made it into complete garbage. As I see it, the movie had basically three components: scenes emphasizing Alexander's wanting gay sex, scenes emphasizing his wanting to have sex with his stepmother, and the battle scenes. Thing about those was that they all were exactly the same. Over and over again, we get the same close-up slow-motion shots of horses dying, and homogenous individuals fighting and falling over. Which wouldn't have been too bad if they hadn't taken up half of the three-hour movie. Three hours, ladies and gentlemen. Just wanted to emphasize that.
All the pretty horses was so bad it drove josh to double post! But yeah that sucked - though it didn't get sufficiently bad reviews.
Michael Bay is in his own special hell, but Armageddon had its moments. Any scene with Liv Tyler was awful but it wasn't until they left Mir (and blew it up) that no slightly humorous or redeeming scenes remained.
Showgirls was so bad that it couldn't keep several teams of highschool rugby players even remotely interested. Granted there was beer and girls around, but naked women and lesbian scenes still can normally attract at least a smidgen of attention from 16-18 year olds...
I still like the Fifth Element. Milla is hot.
(Here comes some of that defense)
I want to throw a shoutout to all those defenders of the Fifth Element. Great movie. Not serious - a comedy. And I liked Chris Tucker - hilarious!
Also, I thought "The Game" was awesome - one of the few movies out there that had me guessing until the very end. In the words of a college room mate "It f*cks you, then it f*cks you again. Then, when it can't get any more off the rails, it f*cks you again!". I mean come on, the scene where he wakes up in the grave in Mexico is just completely awesome.
Alexander - watch the Blu-ray extended edition, if you can trust the advice of a stranger. The added scenes put back about 3/4 of the plot and make it a cogent, understandable and likable film (I think). I didn't watch it in any other version, so no doubt the theatrical release is terrible. But watch the Blu-ray version if you want to see the real movie (like extended cuts of Lord of the Rings).
Finally, a shoutout to Highlander 2. Man that movie is awful. And think of all the money that was blown! Something like $150 million in the eighties! They all thought they were going to be rich! And nothing!
My least favorite movie ever is Million Dollar Baby. But if you really want to see awful, a cousin of mine directed a movie called Kettle Of Fish, starring Gina Gershon and Matthew Modine. Terrible, terrible movie. Hilariously so. The conversation I had with her and her parents about that movie was one of the most awkward things I've ever been through.
Princess Diaries 2. Every cliché known to humankind is ineptly executed in this movie.
Cody Banks 2.
(can you tell I'm the parent of a small child? They rush the scripts for the kiddie movie sequels way too quick, I suppose so they can get them out before the target audience grows up.)
From my college days: The Men's Club. Roy Scheider talking about how he can still smell his mistress on his fingers as he sits down to dinner with his wife. Definite low point. To this day, this and Fatal Attraction remain the only movies I've walked out on.
In terms of bad movie aesthetics, I tend to agree with the old 50 worst movies book: There are different kinds of bad.
What you're talking about here is the bad big studio movie, a project that a huge amount of resources, bad choices and simply wrongheaded thinking went into. That doesn't make other bad movies any better, they're just bad in a different way.
And I can imagine it wasn't very good in a movie theater, but at home on a dvd Wellville isn't half bad.
There's a lot wrong with it (including the end) but there's a lot to like too, its picture of self-righteous health groupies was funny but the best part was all the ingenious ways the supposedly abstinent sanitorium inhabitants found to fulfill the sexual desires they weren't supposed to be having.
I liked it much more than Forrest Gump which you'd have to pay me (a lot) to see again.
I usually simply avoid most studio movies I think will be really bad (anything with Tom Hanks, anything with too many guns firing too many bullets and no one actually being shot, etc etc etc)
Plan 9 isn't bad, it's amateurish but surprisingly enjoyable. Robot Monster, on the other hand, is pretty much unwatchable (I'm its target and I found it teeeeedious).
And some movies that are bad by most mainstream criteria often have surprising depths. My current more-to-it-than-meets-the-eye movies are Cannibal Holocaust and Africa Addio, different sides of Italian and western cultural exploitation and recursive storytelling.
I'd say The Island of Dr. Moreau, the most recent version. Truly awful, I saw it in a theater with about ten people. The theater closed about a year later, though, so the attendance may not relate to how bad the film was. Also, I liked The Postman and Road to Wellsville, so what do I know?
My Own Private Idaho. And it's really no contest.
Gus Van Sant directs. Keanu Reeves and River Phoenix star. We have already descended into the Ninth Circle of movie hell. It is an adaptation of -- "loosely based on" I believe is the term of art -- Henry IV, Part 1. No movie can be deemed worst ever unless it is pretentious (which is how I read Queenan's first point), and setting Shakespeare among the street people of Portland, Oregon certainly qualifies. Reeves/Prince Hal is a male prostitute. Phoenix/Falstaff is gay and narcoleptic; he drops dead asleep periodically, while the viewer, alas, remains wide awake, in horrified fascination. The movie was favorably reviewed. Roger Ebert wrote, "The achievement of this film is that it wants to evoke that state of drifting need, and it does. There is no mechanical plot that has to grind to a Hollywood conclusion, and no contrived test for the heroes to pass." Apparently this is praise. I sort of like (mechanical) plots and (contrived) tests myself.
Only one vote for Titanic so far? Let me add two more -- mine and my partner's. Sure, there's the vapid dialog, incomprehensible behavior (all that big ship to choose from, and they have sex in the back seat of a Model T?), and wooden acting, but the real capper comes in the big, dramatic scene when the captain realizes they're - OMG! - headed straight for the iceberg.
"Hard to starboard!" he cries, and the ship turns --
-- wait for it --
-- really, I'm not kidding --
left.
Well, no WONDER they hit the damned thing! The crew can't steer!
By the end I was actively rooting for the ship to hurry up and sink already. DIE, Leonardo, DIE, so I can salvage a few minutes of my life that would otherwise be wasted forever.
Damn but I hate that movie.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is one of my favorite Star Trek movies. Well except it's not really a Star Trek movie. The main core of it has nothing to do with Star Trek and could've been set in any futuristic multi-species world. (Space 1999 to Futurama) It would've been better if it had literally not been a Star Trek movie as being linked to it just got Trekkers going "it's just the Nomad episode all over again."
I'm going to agree with "Highlander 2" though. I'm not sure it fits all 6 rules, but I did have hopes it'd be good and it had real name actors in it. Also "Starship Troopers" was a good choice except I had so much fun laughing at its awfulness, and a suspicion some of its awfulness was intended, that I'm not sure it fits.
If we're counting movies that were on MST3K than "Fire Maidens from Outer Space" might be up there for me. It's one I tried to watch "straight up", not on MST, as they showed it one afternoon on some channel. I was determined to see what it'd be like without MSTing, but after about 30 minutes I couldn't NOT turn the channel. It was just horrible and tedious.
I cast votes for The Game, Event Horizon, AND Titanic (in that order), but I would like to add one additional movie to the list:
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
Not only was this movie unequivocally awful, it left me wanting to take some kind of drug that would erase my memories of anything having to do with it. To add insult to injury, many critics called it "one of the year's best." Baffling.
"Also "Starship Troopers" was a good choice except I had so much fun laughing at its awfulness, and a suspicion some of its awfulness was intended, that I'm not sure it fits."
That fits my experience as well - i dumb movie I enjoyed a lot, and I expect the creators were in on the joke.
"The fact that you were disappointed doesn't mean that Hitchkiker meets any of the criterion set out here for a bad movie. It probably means you were expecting a recap of the book plot.."
I had no expectations other than it be at least a little bit funny, and thought it failed completely. I was actually most disappointed in the stuff lifted directly from the book, since I knew it had managed to make me laugh at some point in the past. Not on my worst ever list, but I did give up on it about half-way through.
I really liked The Game. I assume those hating on it couldn't get past the basic concept of it (which was admittedly s little far-fetched)?
Movie I've seen that best fits the criteria: Battlefield Earth.
I have a very high tolerance for bad movies, I enjoyed many of the movies mentioned here, but A.I. really made me angry. It wasn't just creepy, boring and stupid, it was agressively creepy, boring and stupid.
I'd say The Island of Dr. Moreau, the most recent version.
Forgot about that one.
I like the part where Kilmer does his Brando impression. Other than that, I think The Island of Dr. Moreau, for me, eclipses anything else mentioned here.
Dancer in the Dark.
I hated that so much I'm surprised the screen didn't catch on fire from my white hot rage.
Another vote for "Road to Wellville".
I saw it during a year-long unaccompanied tour in Saudi Arabia. In that setting, a movie with abundant nakedness would normally be a crowd pleaser. It was still terrible.
Alphaville; see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058898/
Of all those mentioned above, I actually quite liked The Draughtsman's Contract and managed to intermittently enjoy The Postman.
I was deeply scarred by Fellini's Casanova (1976). I saw it with a cheery young thing at the start of a weekend that promised some serious cavorting. This film made sex so ugly, so frightful, that we were both chilled to the bone. I still cringe.
""Hard to starboard!" he cries, and the ship turns -- "
Port, as it should, given the way the Titanic controls worked. This is well-documented.
Titanic is in the category of movies that it's become fashionable to hate. Hating it proves you're smarter than the masses. I'm not and admirer but I'll admit it's a decent movie.
Universal condemnation has to be part of being the worst movie. I hate Jerry Maguire more than any movie out there but I wouldn't call it the worst of all time since I'm vastly outnumbered by those who like it.
"I saw it with a cheery young thing at the start of a weekend that promised some serious cavorting."
Ok, first of all, that sentence is awesome.
And I'm gonna add another vote for "The Island of Doctor Moreau." I'm not sure if it meets all the criteria, but I agree that The Worst movie can't be a $40 student film or something that's fun to laugh at. It has to be a painful experience. And "The Island of Doctor Moreau" definitely meets those criteria.
And it was a doubly painful experience for me because I'm a big H.G. Wells fan.
Also also, if not for that one line about the eating of sesame cake, Congo would be a completely irredeemable awful movie.
The year: 1991
The Writer: Dan Aykroyd
The Cast: John Candy
Chevy Chase
Dan Aykroyd
Demi Moore
The band cameo: Digital Underground (Humpty Dance)
The movie disaster of all disasters: Nothing But Trouble
Starship Troopers, while not a very good movie, is a satire. It is bad because it just too over the top. However, I can't rank it as one of the worst movies of all time.
A.I. was ruined by Steven Speilberg. I have always wished that I could have seen this movie directed by Kubrick. However, I still don't see it as a terrible movie, just way short of expectations.
Titanic is a great movie. I just don't understand how anyone could say otherwise.
One movie that occurred to me as being really bad is The Matrix, Revolutions. The second movie left a lot to be desired in comparison to the first, but the third movie seem to just to ignore all that had taken place in the second. A massive disappointment that had me cursing as I left the theater.
Highlander 2 is way up there, no doubt. But I reserve a special place for the nightmarish movies that think they're Important and Artistic or at least Emotionally Uplifting.
I'd watch Highlander 2 again if I really had to. Wouldn't be happy about it, but especially if I could shout at the screen while doing so, it'd be tolerable. I don't find myself wishing harm on those involved in its creation; I don't find my ability to enjoy Sean Connery in other things marred.
That's much more than I can say for Crash, Jerry McGuire, A Beautiful Mind, or-- worst of all, and my actual entry-- Dogville.
I mean, I've sat through some dogs in my day-- In comic book movies alone, Catwoman, LXG, Elektra, Batman & Robin, and Supermans III and IV *all* meet Queenan's whole list of criteria, and I've watched every damn one of them, beginning to end, once. I groan about them. But I'm angry that Crash and Dogville exist, and wish suffering upon Paul Haggis and Lars von Trier for their crimes.
"One movie that occurred to me as being really bad is The Matrix, Revolutions. The second movie left a lot to be desired in comparison to the first"
I'll say. I think I disliked the second more than the third, but both are good choices as really bad big movies.
Although truth be told I had some problems even with the first movie. Watching it I came away thinking they were basically slaughtering large numbers of people, as deaths in the Matrix kill real people, so the living can have the chance to live in a cramped boat. I think I'd pick a somewhat pleasant illusion over that.
Cloverfield.
Bowel churningly shakey camerawork.
Half an hour before ANYTHING happens.
No twists.
No jokes.
Just a monster throwing stuff.
From the guy who made Lost. What happened?
Am I the ONLY person in the history of movie-watching audiences who thought that Heaven's Gate was not merely a good movie, but a masterpiece? The final, brief scene of Kris Kristofferson in his yacht on the Med still haunts me.
As a genre, and a relatively recent one, the movies that I detest more than any other are the so-called 'torture porn' flicks like Saw and Hostel. Having read a spoiler review, I have pledged to never, ever see Funny Games. I was never a fan of the slasher flick (I kept thinking whether the parents of Freddy's or Jason's victims ever recovered from having their children butchered) but the new level of nihilist sadism that movies such as The Devil's Rejects achieve is loathsome. The earnest insistence that these represent anything other than the most meretricious tripe merely compounds the felony.
David,
You may the only fan of Heaven's Gate. You are certainly the first person I have ever read of liking it.
On your second topic, I couldn't agree more.
My Blue Heaven
(the one with Steve Martin)
At the time I saw that movie I was in 8th grade, so one might question how sophisticated a movie-goer I was back then. But, you'd have to watch the movie to answer that question. Go ahead, I dare you to.
Moreover, that dreadful movie watching experience was for me equivalent to the "my parents aren't perfect!" psychological smackdown, which then propelled me headlong into an extreme movie review reading and pre-vetting addiction that I've only recently begun to break free from.
I'm sure I've had subsequent bad movie experiences; but this one (gah!!!!) was etched into my very being during my formative years.
I hurt.
'The Sound of Music' was awful. Trite songs, dreadful acting, a stupid plot.
Some people have seen it lots of times and are proud of the fact!
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned it yet.
I remember sitting through What Dreams May Come with a large group of people. Halfway through we paused for a break and there was a moment of silence.
The strangest part was that one person who saw absolutely nothing wrong with the movie.
Mr. Brand! 'The Sound of Music?' Awful?
I didn't see this film until two decades after its theatrical run. Based on the conventional wisdom that it was treacly and cutesy-poo, I was prepared to dislike it. But Rogers and Hammerstein often picked projects with dark centers over which their relentlessly beautiful songs were spread to create an underlying strain and suspense. Neither 'Carousel' nor 'Oklahoma,' for example, have storylines characterizeable as carefree or saccharine.
So I wasn't too surprised to find 'The Sound of Music' to be one of the best anti-Nazi dramas I'd ever seen, cleverly disguised as a G-rated sing-along.
Stupid plot? A high-profile military man in a freshly occupied homeland desperately tries to move his family beyond the clutches of the Third Reich. What, exactly, does it take to engage your interest, sir? Do you find 'Casablanca' similarly jejune? Perhaps you do. My goodness, it even has "trite songs" ("Play the Marseillaise!").
The anti-Nazi heroism in 'The Sound of Music' was rendered all the more effective by keeping actual Nazis all but absent on-screen. Just the odd swastika flag here and stiff-armed salute there. Much more effective than if Robert Wise had had jackbooted Graustarkians strutting about everywhere.
Dreadful acting? There is nothing dreadful here, though the work of some of the actors portraying the children is no better than workmanlike. But Julie Andrews is fine and Christopher Plummer's Capt. Von Trapp is quite good, even riveting, in spots. I commend to your attention the confrontation during the escape pursuit between the Captain and the Hitler Youth former boyfriend of the teenage daughter.
I'm sure there are probably movies out there with the genuine hat trick of trite songs, dreadful acting and stupid plot, but I can't think of one off-hand. Well, actually, I can. I'd managed to forget 'Paint Your Wagon.' Thanks for making me recall that again!
As musicals are little-produced anymore, you may have to be willing to forego the trite songs criterion in selecting genuinely awful movies. I believe, for instance, you may find all the dreadful acting and stupid plotting anyone could reasonably desire floridly on offer in 'Out of Africa.'