Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas

Can we make it one of the worst films of all time? 1,5 on IDMb; 0% on RT; 4 Razzies. Is it bad enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.163.191 (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We need independent reliable sources that directly say that it is the "worst film ever made" (or something similar). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Why Kirk Cameron's 'Saving Christmas' is the worst movie ever..." --The Oregonian

Is this a good source?

• http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kirk-camerons-saving-christmas-rated-worst-movie-of-all-time-2014612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packer1028 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an independent reliable source saying it is the worst movie ever made. That's an independent reliable source saying users at IMDb have rated it as the worst movie ever made. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would you not consider the Razzie to be an independent reliable source saying it is one of the worst movies ever made? Should we also disallow best-picture oscars as sources for lists of good movies? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't say that. They say that it's the worst movie of the year, which isn't quite the same. DonQuixote (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite grasp the logic of rejecting a worst movie of the year from a list that is split up into decades and has more than 10 entries for many of those decades. Nor do I see the logic of striking "ever made" when the source specifically says "of all time". It seems to me that this film is being held to a lower standard than many of the films on this list. Not meaning to offend, could there be some sort of unconscious bias at work here?

Multiple reliable sources consider winning a Razzie or being at the bottom of IMDB to be notable:

• "Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas won four awards, including worst picture and worst actor, at Saturday night's 35th Golden Raspberry Awards ceremony. ... 'This is a vanity project that Kirk Cameron put together,' Razzie founder John Wilson told BBC Radio 5 live after the ceremony. 'It's about on the level of a super 8 movie from when I was a kid. It has no cinematic value at all.' He pointed out that the film was rated number one worst movie of all time on international movie database IMDB.com. Saving Christmas is also only one of two films last year to score a zero rating on the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. " --BBC

• "Razzies: The best of the worst in film – The Golden Raspberry Awards, or the Razzies, go to the films and performances judged the worst of the year. Kirk Cameron's "Saving Christmas," a "family film" about putting Christ back in Christmas, won for worst picture and worst screenplay. The former "Growing Pains" actor and evangelical minister won for worst actor and worst screen combo, a distinction he shared with 'his ego'." --CNN

• "Looks like somebody needs to save Kirk instead! Kirk Cameron's new holiday movie Saving Christmas has been rated the worst movie ever, according to IMDb's user-rated Bottom 100 chart... Cameron's PG-rated film also has a zero percent approval rating among critics." --US Magazine

Then there are the bad reviews. Really, really bad reviews. Worse than the reviews of many films already on this list:

• "Unfortunately, this clumsy film is really more like a home movie, set in Cameron’s own house, and cast with his family members and friends. ... This may be one of the least artful holiday films ever made. Even devout born-again Christians will find this hard to stomach." --Chicago Sun Times

• "This is a film that has been presented in such a cheesy manner that it is barely a step up from a home movie shot during last year's festivities at Casa Cameron (and considering the number of Camerons and Doanes in the credits, that may not be that far from the truth). Essentially, what one is getting for their hard-earned ticket money is roughly an hour of two guys sitting in a car in a driveway talking, very occasionally interspersed with brief storytelling asides that boast the production values of your average junior high pageant. Then, after realizing that 60 minutes does not cut it as a feature-length film any more, Doane and Cameron stretch things out to a still-anemic 80 minutes with such filler as two prologues, an endless final cookie following the equally endless end credits and an extended dance number set to a hip-hop rendition of "Angels We Have Heard On High" that may be the single whitest thing ever seen... To be fair, I had hoped to ask some of the other attendees at the public screening I attended what they thought of it to see if they were satisfied with the slapdash proceedings, but, alas, I was the only person there...'Saving Christmas' is a terrible movie... If watching shoddily filmed presentations of shoddily constructed arguments justifying a self-absorbed perspective is the kind of thing that strikes your fancy, then it may indeed be up your alley after all. Those who are not of that mindset would be better served donating the price of a ticket to a food bank or shelter, where the money could do some real good during the season. You will be glad that you did." --RogerEbert.com

• "An unholy mess ... Virtually everything about this production feels thrown together." --LA Times

• "...you half-expect the camera to pull back to reveal hostage takers... 'Saving Christmas' has been minimally edited... The movie further stalls with pregnant pauses, broad comic mugging, an endless dance routine and outtakes." --New York Times

• "I’m irritated at how dull and didactic this film wound up being... Director Doane offers no storytelling pizzazz; the lighting is careless, the pacing is deadly, the occasional stabs at comedy fall flat." --The Wrap

• "It uses slow-motion and lingering, near-still shots to summon all the breathless momentum of a PowerPoint presentation (save for a baffling early moment where former music-video director Doane employs dropped frames and zig-zagging handheld camera for a simple indoor dialogue scene)... Any meager narrative potential, though, gets lost in home-video-quality production and weirdo-on-the-subway-quality lecturing. ... Cheap, poorly made holiday crap. " --AV Club

• "Why Kirk Cameron's 'Saving Christmas' is the worst movie ever - and why many moviegoers love it: Kirk Cameron is the producer and star of 'Saving Christmas.' Watch out, Ed Wood. You might have some competition for worst movie director of all time." --The Oregonian

• "How do you prove a horse is an animal? Because I like Sweden. That's the style of absurd logic that happens in 'Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas'." --Arizona Republic

In my opinion, Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas belongs on this list. Should I create a WP:RfC to get some more eyes looking at this? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep the note at the top of this page in mind: "Ensure that it is widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics. There are hundreds of "bad" or even "crappy" films, this page is for the worst." We have a long list of such films that never quite made it into this article. The reviews you provided are pretty "bad" and "crappy" but the only one that even questions the possibility of it being the worst movie ever made is The Oregonian. That may or may not be enough coupled with the unreliable fan scores sourced to reliable sources, I'd like to hear what others think before I make my decision.LM2000 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Keith Lemon: The Film?

I think this film could probably be included. It has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and Mark Kermode called it as awful as Sex Lives of the Potato Men, which is on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.13.124 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

When do we add United Passions (2015)?

Metascore of 1 and 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. And the reviews are properly bad. Richard Gadsden (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• A few examples...

• ..."one of the most unwatchable films in recent memory" - NY Times
• ..."pure cinematic excrement" - The Guardian
• ..."is the best unintentional comedy of 2015" - UPROXX

---

There's also this review from Des Kelly at the Evening Standard, [1] which calls "United Passions" " the most extraordinary vanity exercise; a vile, self-aggrandizing, sugar-coated pile of manure where Blatter and Co manage to make North Korea’s Kim Jong-un look self-effacing"; he also suggests "United Passions" could be " the worst movie ever made?". The soccer website Goal.com [2] said "Fifa may make its money back on "United Passions". Films believed to be among the worst of all time are watched by thousands of people eager to see just how bad they are. This piece of cinematic garbage belongs to that list." I think the NYT and Standard reviews might qualify as RS saying "United Passions" is one of the worst ever films. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

FeardotCom

Did the film was included and rated 3% on Rotten Tomatoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:71B9:2687:3BBD:496C (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Was the film included and a 6% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:14C8:232D:1A0B:981F (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Stay Tuned

Was the 1992 film hold a 46% rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:7DE6:5D0C:AA68:CD84 (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hocus Pocus

What about Hocus Pocus? It has a 32% on Rotten Tomatoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:B527:3BE9:2718:6C15 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

From the top of this talk page "Cite at least one of those sources (Preferably the most reliable one(s)) that explicitly calls it 'one of the worst films ever'". DonQuixote (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Foodfight!

There is a lack of animated films in this list. This is one of the most hated of the decade, perhaps of the last 50 years. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:A977:5069:ABF1:9F22 (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Source, please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Titanic: The Legend Goes On has a better chance at getting into the list, Foodfight! has been added and removed many times.LM2000 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

So, Escape from Planet Earth and Free Birds. So Free Birds is a Chicken Run rip-off.

All in one: ENJOY! 2A02:582:C55:2A00:20B5:91F9:96DE:3B18 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How about Alien series

How about Spider-Man 3, Elektra, Spawn, Steel, Jonah Hex, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer ([3]), RoboCop 3, Alien 3, and Alien: Resurrection ([4]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:3C64:ABE7:BB61:AA66 (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't Say a Word

Did Don't Say a Word has a 38% on Metacritic ([5]) and a 24% on Rotten Tomatoes [6])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:D192:A947:F2C8:546 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What about Jaws 4: The Revenge 1987 and The Cat in the Hat 2003?

Dear wiki users

I want to thank you for accepting "The Last Airbender" 2010 by the movie director M. Night Shyamalan. I'm sorry he ruined the movie for The Last Airbender cartoon fans and thank you for your patience.

By the way there is a 1980s movie called "Jaws 4: The Revenge" which I've heard the movie critic Roger Ebert say “Jaws the Revenge is not simply a bad movie, but also a stupid and incompetent one - a ripoff." [[7]] Many of the movie critics and Jaws fans complained about the cheap special effects. Also it was the final Jaws 4 movie that ended the franchise. I don't know if there will be a reboot.

Also another movie I've found to be considered the worst kids movie ever is "The Cat in the Hat" 2003 with Mike Myers. I've even heard Robert Ebert say "Dr. Seuss The Cat in the Hat is a triumph above all of production design. That's partly because the production design is so good, partly because the movie is so disappointing." Also Leornard Maltin gave it 1 1/2 stars. Also many of the parents were upset by the gross humor and it caused Dr. Seuss step wife to withdraw "The Cat in the Hat" franchise to the people in Hollywood to have no more live action Dr. Seuss movie adaptation. I can only hope "The Cat in the Hat" CGI reboot will be better because I didn't like the Mike Myers version. So let me know when there will be an article for "Jaws 4: The Revenge" 1987 and "The Cat in the Hat" 2003 movie because they both have enough negative reviews. CrosswalkX (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:List of films considered the worst/Removed films. Both films have been added and removed a number of times. They both have a number of rotten reviews but neither are cited by multiple critics from reliable sources as being the worst movie ever made, which is the purpose of this list.LM2000 (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Angel Was a Devil out, these in

The description for The Angel Was a Devil describes production problems more than reviews of the movie itself (of which there is only one).

Additionally, these films are often considered pretty awful: The Castle of Fu Manchu, Ring of Terror and Lost Horizon. Any thoughts on adding those, as long as we have sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskinnytypist (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Zabriskie Point

Also, I don't think this one quite belongs. The Motion Picture Guide gave it two stars out of five. Roger Ebert gave it two stars out of four. Hardly "worst movie ever" material.

Furthermore, some critics love it. It has even been on [www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000.htm this list], as well as 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Like Heaven's Gate or Cleopatra, it seems to have equally vocal legions of critics who love and hate it.

If we keep this one, we need to (a) find reviews that really call it the worst and (b) highlight the fact that not all critics feel that way. Theskinnytypist (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether it belongs here, it's one of the more controversial picks. I do agree that if it stays its section should be partially rewritten and expanded.LM2000 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic Four (2015)

Do you guys believe the new Fantastic Four could be added to the list? It's been frequently called one of the worst superhero films of all time and is on its way to becoming a box office bomb. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. This film isn't even released yet. It's not doing great, but it's not on on par with 'Plan Nine' or others like that. Czolgolz (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What? It has been released and has been getting creamed in the reviews. Are you saying it's not on par with Plan 9? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cite the sources and it'll be added. DonQuixote (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(apologies, not a normal wiki guy) The movie has now come out. It has a 9% on Rotten Tomatoes, lower than other films on the list (like "That's my boy" with 20%) and on par with Catwoman. It was a box office bomb according to Box Office Mojo, earning worldwide less than its budget (150m) and domestically only 52mio, which is roughly the same as Catwoman's 40mio when you consider inflation; it was a sufficient disappointment that Fox's stock dropped after the release: http://www.thestreet.com/story/13250371/1/twenty-first-century-fox-foxa-stock-drops-fantastic-four-misses-expectations.html It holds a lower CinemaScore than almost any other major studio released superhero film http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fantastic-four-gets-worst-cinemascore-814137 with only exception cited as The Spirit. Here are some select quotes from big name reviewers:

Fantastic Four's death wasn't humane. This was no quick knife between the eyes. Rather, it felt like there had been an open attempt to make the movie stink. Bad acting, bad writing, and bad direction combined to create an unmitigated garbage fire. (Alex Abad-Santos, Vox.com)

The latest reboot of the Fantastic Four — the cinematic equivalent of malware — is worse than worthless. It not only scrapes the bottom of the Marvel-movie barrel; it knocks out the floor and sucks audiences into a black hole of soul-crushing, coma-inducing dullness. (Peter Travers, Rolling Stone)

Fantastic Four is so mediocre that its title seems like a violation of truth in advertising laws. And if anyone walks away completely satisfied, it's truly a Marvel. (Steve Persall, Times Movie Critic)

How bad is the latest effort to establish a cinematic franchise out of Marvel Comics’ iconic super-group the Fantastic Four? Well, it’s the worst to date - which is a substantial achievement… a dull, sour, claustrophobic mess: 80 minutes of tedious origin story followed by 20 minutes of more-tedious-still climax. (Atlantic)

My notebook usually remains near my lap, but at this movie, it made involuntary trips over my mouth to cover all of my gasping. The entire experience is shameful - for us, for the filmmakers, for whoever at the studio had the job of creating the ads, in which the cast appear to be starring in hostage posters (Grantland)

An outstretched, moronic, drama-less time-suck that somehow manages to be less fun than Pixels, which was only slightly more enjoyable than slamming a door on your face. (Redeye)

I'd also keep a lookout over coming months as it almost certainly will rake in many Razzie nominations and likely wins. Given all the above (mainstream critics ravaging it, incredibly low RT score, box office bomb relative to expectations) it seems to me it is worthy of inclusion in the list. 74.66.134.136 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad reviews are useful references here, but the make-or-break criteria for inclusion is that a significant critic has explicitly said the magic words "one of the worst films ever made". Has that happened yet? --McGeddon (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The term used has been "one of the worst superhero films ever made". DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Frozen

What about Frozen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:1071:D3C7:D996:9C8F (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What about Frozen? It has nothing to do with this page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DreamWorks Animation and Free Birds

Are Bee Movie, Shrek the Third, Free Birds, and Shark Tale are the worst animated films ever? Was Free Birds go 18% on Rotten Tomatoes?

Not even close. Those were all poorly received films, but you have to dig deeper to find a real stinker. Foodfight!, for example, really belongs on this page.2601:246:0:30C3:38A8:E574:3E3B:EF9C (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seconded – Foodfight! really deserves to be added to this list. Yakaji (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Foodfight! (2012)

As mentioned above, Foodfight! almost certainly deserves a spot on this list. At this moment, it has a 1.8 rating on IMDb, though it only lists one critic's review on Rotten Tomatoes and thus no percentage score. As the Wikipedia page mentions, though, it's gotten articles in the New York Times and on the A.V. Club website. It's also become a target for internet critics looking for bad movies like JonTron, the Nostalgia Critic, Ruthless Reviews, and MovieRussianRoulette. It's full of Humphry Bogart parodies, flat humor, and thinly disguised sexual fetishes. It spent a decade in development and cost tens of millions of dollars, only to wind up with a limited UK theatrical release and video sales. If any movie has a right to be on this list, I'd contend that Foodfight! is it. Yakaji (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely; I agree 100%. Can we have it added? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

IMDb polls can't be used because MOS:FILM#Audience_response and YouTube critics don't qualify as WP:RS. However, Indiewire called Foodfight! " one of the worst animated films ever made." [8], AV Club claimed "Foodfight! doesn’t just represent one of the entertainment world’s most appalling lapses of taste, restraint, and judgment in recent memory; it’s one of those fall-of-civilization moments", [9] and the New York Times did note that was "seized upon by Internet purveyors of bad cinema". I'm not sure how reliable Hollywood News is, but they called it "by far the crappiest piece of crap I have ever had the misfortune to watch." [10] These have all been posted in previous discussions. I recently discovered that the only review posted on Rotten Tomatoes, by Antagony & Ecstasy says: "This is, in all sincerity, one of the very worst movies I have ever seen". With this most recent finding, I now support its inclusion in this list.LM2000 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to include anything from IMDb. I feel like, however, there is plenty elsewhere to label it for being deserving of this list. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I agree.LM2000 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested: Miami Connection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Connection

"Considered the worst" sources from the wiki article: "The Orlando Sentinel said that it was the worst film of 1988," "Rob Humanick of Slant Magazine commented that the film should have been featured on an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.250.162 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2 is hardly widespread agreement, particularly when 1 isnt saying "worst" just that it would be fun to make fun of. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deep End of the Ocean

Was this the film was included and gave them a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes?

what is your question? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Franchise Pictures

Did all of the Franchise Pictures movies had negative reviews and considered the worst films ever?

Did Heist and Spartan are the only Franchise Pictures movies to go fresh on Rotten Tomatoes?

This page is for discussing how to best represent what reliable sources have considered the "worst film" (also please sign your comments.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of films considered the worst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013042500/http://www.castleforrester.com/media/guide/0907.htm to http://www.castleforrester.com/media/guide/0907.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516051117/http://www.meionorte.com:80/noticias,--Eu-era-uma-crianca-sem-maldade----diz-dancarina-Carla-Perez-sobre-E-o-Tchan,47976.html to http://www.meionorte.com/noticias,--Eu-era-uma-crianca-sem-maldade----diz-dancarina-Carla-Perez-sobre-E-o-Tchan,47976.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041223032452/http://www.prnewswire.com:80/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-11-2004/0002171569&EDATE= to http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-11-2004/0002171569&EDATE=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution

I nominate DBE as one of the worst. It didn't do well among the fans and among everybody who's watched it. --H8149 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Movies don't get nominated for this list. You have to provide a notable number of reliable sources that says that they're the worst. DonQuixote (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure (2012)

I think The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure would make a good addition to this list. This movie was released in August 2012, and upon its release, it became one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. Most critics hated this movie, and when it first opened on August 29, 2012, it was #17 out of 2,160 theaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhenzo (talk • contribs) 03:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a big box office bomb and was not received well critically but I don't recall any critics calling it the worst movie ever made, which is required for inclusion in this list. It's far more notable for failing at the box office.LM2000 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Left Behind

Just felt that the 2014 adaptation of Left Behind with Nicolas Cage should be added to the list. It has a 2% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 3.1/10 on IMDB, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TroySchulz (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see the notice toward the top of this page titled "Before adding a movie to the list". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Doogal (2006)

Doogal (the US version of The Magic Roundabout Movie) would make a good addition to the list. It was panned by critics, and often cited as one of the worst films ever made. On Rotten Tomatoes, it received an aggregate score of 8% based on 49 reviews (4 "fresh" and 45 "rotten"), with the consensus: "Overloaded with pop culture references, but lacking in compelling characters and plot, Doogal is too simple-minded even for the kiddies"; the website ranked it the 82nd worst reviewed movie of the 2000s. It has got a score of 23 out of 100 ("generally unfavorable") on Metacritic, and a F rating from Entertainment Weekly writing that "very young children should be angry... where is it written that 4-year-olds don't deserve a good story, decent characters, and a modicum of coherence?". Flickchart named Doogal the worst animated film ever made, topping its list of the top 50 worst animated films of all time. It was placed #5 on Ebert & Roeper's Worst of 2006. Michael Phillip of the Chicago Tribune described the film as "Eighty-five minutes you'll never get back."

Randy Miller of DVD Talk says that: "Doogal is, after all, one of the worst excuses for a children's film during this or any year---and if you're really looking for an in-depth analysis of why it's so awful, you don't have to look hard. Filled to the brim with pop culture references and other such gags that'll be even less funny a few years from now, it's like Shrek without the occasional bit of charm and surprise".

Frank Scheck of Hollywood Reporter wrote "The key frame animation, based on three-dimensional models, is rudimentary, with none of the characters proving visually arresting."

Ned Martel of The New York Times wrote "In Doogal setting the world right again involves a badly paced quest for three diamonds, assorted jokes that don't land, and a daringly incoherent climactic confrontation". On May 2006, it became the lowest ranked film on Internet Movie Database Bottom 100 list. Jamster93(talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad Movie Watch- The Ridiculous 6

This is a note that based on the early reviews, there will probably be a debate about whether or not the new Adam Sandler movie Ridiculous 6 should be included in this article. I neither advocate nor oppose its inclusion, and before anyone says anything, I know that even if the reviews are horrible, it can only be included if numerous sources say it's one of the worst films ever. I'm just giving a heads-up that there will probably be a debate. Evernut (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Recently a new animated movie came out simply known as Norm of the North. It has been universally panned by critics and the few who did watch cited it as one of the "worst animated movies of all time", thus making it considered one of the worst films of all time. I send this request because I think a film like this if it has that kid of reception and panning should have a chance on the list. 108.248.167.214 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done You must provide multiple reliable sources which explicitly describe it as "the worst movie ever made".LM2000 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New suggestions

Considering the recent reassessment Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate as a "modern masterpiece" I'm not sure that this film still qualifies. Especially since there are many others that do qualify. Such as:

• An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn
• Baby Geniuses
• Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star
• Date Movie
• Epic Movie
• Jaws: The Revenge
• Meet the Spartans
• Saving Christmas
• Supergirl
• Speed 2: Cruise Control
• The Starving Games
• Vampires Suck

Among others. Charles Essie (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate needs to stay. The recent Criterion cut was well received, the original cut which debuted in theaters in 1980 was one of the most poorly received movies in history and I think we describe this in its section. Jaws: The Revenge has been removed many times, the only source which explicitly called it one of the worst ever made was a passing mention in the obituary of the film's composer. Saving Christmas and Alan Smithee have also been removed previously for lack of sources. If sources are found for the Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer films then I'd recommend merging a section with Disaster Movie and including their entire series in one entry.LM2000 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad

Can I add Megan Is Missing to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:C955:FB80:9AE8:2C72 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that got OK reviews. 37% on RT.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

this film is removed from this list, can you put it back on there?

The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002) The Adventures of Pluto Nash is a 2002 Australian-American science fiction comedy film directed by Ron Underwood and starring Eddie Murphy (in a dual role), Randy Quaid, Rosario Dawson, Joe Pantoliano, Jay Mohr, Luis Guzmán, James Rebhorn, Peter Boyle, Pam Grier, and John Cleese. This film received negative reviews and was considered to be among the worst films of all time. The film was a huge failure in terms of critical reception, being panned by critics and moviegoers alike. Rotten Tomatoes ranked the film 79th in the 100 worst 2000s decade movies list, with a rating of 5% based on 87 reviews. The majority of critics lambasted the movie for its acting, dialogue, lack of humor, and crude special effects. Pluto Nash was nominated for five Golden Raspberry Awards in 2003 including Worst Picture, Worst Actor (Eddie Murphy), Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Screen Couple (Murphy and himself cloned), but failed to win any. It was later nominated for Worst Comedy of Our First 25 Years at the 25th Golden Raspberry Awards in 2005, but lost to Swept Away. Eddie Murphy poked fun at himself in an interview with Barbara Walters, saying: "I know the two or three people that liked this movie." was a massive box office bomb; its budget was estimated at $100 million with marketing costs of $20 million and domestic box office $4,420,080 and $2,683,893 overseas. It had a total worldwide gross of $7,103,973. In 2014, the LA Times listed the film as one of the most expensive box office flops of all time. The film performed better on DVD, with US DVD rental gross of $24,983,000.

64.72.210.21 (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016

i want you to add/extend the overview text, here is what i want to see:

The films listed below have been cited by a variety of notable critics in varying media sources as being among the worst films ever made. Examples of such sources include Metacritic, Roger Ebert's list of most-hated films, The Golden Turkey Awards, Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, the Stinkers Bad Movie Awards, Mystery Science Theater 3000, RiffTrax, the Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies"), and the reviews of the web series; Nostalgia Critic

64.72.210.21 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done We do not use Nostalgia Critic per WP:RS.LM2000 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

so, i have one question, out of curiosity, and i have never seen the film, do you think this film should belong on the list?

Fantastic Four (2015 film)

Fantastic Four (stylized as FANT4STIC) is a 2015 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. It is the third theatrical Fantastic Four film to be distributed by 20th Century Fox, and a reboot of the Fantastic Four film franchise. Directed by Josh Trank, who co-wrote the screenplay with Jeremy Slater and Simon Kinberg, the film stars Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, Jamie Bell, Toby Kebbell, Reg E. Cathey, and Tim Blake Nelson. In Fantastic Four, the team must learn to harness their superhuman abilities gained from an alternate universe to save Earth from a friend turned enemy.

Development of the film began in 2009 after Fox announced plans to reboot the franchise. Trank was hired to direct in July 2012 and the principal characters were cast in January 2014. Principal photography began in May 2014 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and lasted for two months. Dissatisfied with the production, Fox executives mandated reshoots, which took place in January 2015. Fantastic Four premiered at Williamsburg Cinemas in New York City on August 4, 2015. It was released on August 7 in the United States. The film received poor critical reception for its characterizations, storyline and special effects,[4] and underperformed at the box office,[5][6] grossing $168 million worldwide against a production budget of $120 million. At the 36th Golden Raspberry Awards, it won in the categories for Worst Director, Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off, or Sequel, and Worst Picture (the latter tied with Fifty Shades of Grey), and was also nominated for Worst Screen Combo and Worst Screenplay.

i am not demanding this one serieously, i am just asking out of my own curiosity Jetcold0 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It belongs on the list if multiple reliable sources call it one of the worst films ever made (also see WP:WEIGHT). DonQuixote (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Four (2015 film)

Film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 9%, based on 205 reviews, with a rating average of 3.4/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Dull and downbeat, this Fantastic Four proves a woefully misguided attempt to translate a classic comic series without the humor, joy, or colorful thrills that made it great." The website Metacritic gave the film a weighted average score of 27 out of 100, based on 40 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".

Criticism of Fantastic Four was directed at the special effects, performances, slow pacing, and character designs, especially that of Doctor Doom; the film was also criticized for its gloomy and humorless tone, lack of dynamic between the titular characters, and for overall squandering the promise it initially displayed. The film has a lower rating on Rotten Tomatoes than any other film based on a Marvel Comics property.

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave Fantastic Four zero stars out of four, calling it "the cinematic equivalent of malware" and "worse than worthless." Jim Vejvoda of IGN criticized the film as "aesthetically drab and dramatically inert", said that the two previous Fantastic Four films "seem better in hindsight", and that the film did not show enough character development between the members of the team. He also criticized the blatant continuity errors, such as Mara's changing hair style and color and Teller's disappearing facial hair, brought on by the film's reshoots. Brian Lowry of Variety found the film to be a technical improvement over the 2005 release but criticized its uneven pacing and writing, saying "Ultimately, Fox's stab at reviving one of its inherited Marvel properties feels less like a blockbuster for this age of comics-oriented tentpoles than it does another also-ran — not an embarrassment, but an experiment that didn't gel." Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter felt the film is "like a 100-minute trailer for a movie that never happens." He called the film "maddeningly lame and unimaginative" in addition to criticizing the visual style as a "dark, unattractive, gloomy mode." In a review for Screen Daily, Tim Grierson criticized the film's narrative as nonsensical, making the film "progressively more muddled and tedious."

Are the criticisms incorporated on the article of the film? Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

References

i don't know, the fim has the same rotten tomatoes score as Catwoman, plus it nominated for five razzie awards, it won three

Fantastic Four (2015)

Fantastic Four, a reboot of the popular film series of the same name, which in turn was based on the successful Marvel comic book series, was released on August 7th, 2015. It was intended to start a shared universe between the Fantastic Four and X-Men film series. Upon release, the film was immediately criticized for its characterizations, plot line, fake-looking special effects, overly dark tone, which was considered very different from the humorous, light tone of all the previous movies and comics, and its character designs, especially that of Doctor Doom. The film also underperformed at the box office, just taking in $220 million off of a $200 million budget. A sequel was planned for 2018, but was taken off schedule, indicating a potential cancellation. As of May 16th, 2016, the film has a 9% rating on Rotton Tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoebro64 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt

Should Gods of Egypt would be added to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C003:1DE0:7889:394F:E227:4C21 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source should be cited first. DonQuixote (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I, Frankenstein (2014)

Should "I, Frankenstein" be added to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.69.219 (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You should cite a reliable source first. DonQuixote (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

tmnt (2014)

does this film count?

IP posted entire reception section of film LM2000 (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a 2014 American 3D science fiction action comedy film and a reboot of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film series. The film is based on the characters of the same name, directed by Jonathan Liebesman, written by Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec and Evan Daugherty and stars Megan Fox, Will Arnett, William Fichtner, Minae Noji, Whoopi Goldberg, Abby Elliott and Tohoru Masamune while featuring the voice talents of Johnny Knoxville, Alan Ritchson, Noel Fisher, Jeremy Howard and Tony Shalhoub. The film was announced shortly before Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles co-creator Peter Laird sold the rights to the characters to Nickelodeon in October 2009. It was produced by Nickelodeon Movies and Michael Bay's production company Platinum Dunes and distributed by Paramount Pictures. The film was released on August 8, 2014. The film received generally negative reviews from critics and earned $493.3 million on a $125 million budget. The film won the Worst Supporting Actress at the 35th Golden Raspberry Awards in 2015 and also received nominations for the 35th Golden Raspberry Awards for Worst Picture, Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay and Worst Supporting Actress. Conversely, it was also nominated at the 28th Kids' Choice Awards for Favorite Movie, Favorite Movie Actor and Favorite Movie Actress. A sequel, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows, is scheduled to be released on June 3, 2016. The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes calculated a 22% approval rating based on 133 reviews, with a rating average of 4.2/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Neither entertaining enough to recommend nor remarkably awful, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles may bear the distinction of being the dullest movie ever made about talking bipedal reptiles." On Metacritic, the film has a score of 31 out of 100, based on 33 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film a B grade on a scale of A to F. Kyle Smith of the New York Post gave the film one out of four stars, saying "The comedy-action mash-up is as weird as if the Dark Knight took a break from belting the Joker to plug Pizza Hut and bang out a hiphop beat on his nunchucks." Sandie Angulo Chen of the Washington Post gave the film two out of four stars, saying "While this reboot is fun, it's also forgettable and occasionally infuriating." Joe Neumaier of the New York Daily News gave the film zero stars, saying "Even youngsters may wonder why any hint of charm or fun has scurried away. Those new to the franchise may withdraw their head into their neck, turtle-like." Rafer Guzman of Newsday gave the film two out of four stars, saying "Rougher and slightly funnier than the 1990 original, but still harmless junk at best." Peter Howell of the Toronto Star gave the film one and half stars out of four, saying "Not much of an effort is made to differentiate the personalities of the turtles, who all frankly look as grotesque as a Terry Gilliam cartoon." Nicolas Rapold of The New York Times said "Attached to this movie, the title no longer sounds zany; it looks like a series of keywords." Mark Olsen of the Los Angeles Times said "There is something half-hearted about the entire film, as if those behind it were involved not because they wanted to make it, not because they should make it, but just because they could." Kyle Anderson of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C+, saying "Too-brief thrills only shine a harsher light on the film's laborious pacing and cringeworthy one-liners spilling from the maws of the ninja teens." Justin Lowe of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a positive review, saying "Liebesman relies on his genre-film resume to keep events moving at a brisk clip and the motion-capture process employed to facilitate live-action integration with cutting-edge VFX looks superior onscreen." Justin Chang of Variety said the film is "Neither a particularly good movie nor the pop-cultural travesty that some were dreading." A.A. Dowd of The A.V. Club gave the film a C+, saying "What the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles lacks is not fidelity, but a spirit of genuine boyish fun -- the sense that anyone involved saw more than a very specific shade of green in the freshly digital scales of these 30-year-old characters." Soren Anderson of The Seattle Times gave the film one out of four stars, saying "If ever there was a movie that should not have been made, this is that movie." Drew Hunt of Chicago Reader said "The light, comedic tone is weighed down by unimaginative pop-culture references and half-witted one-liners." Bill Goodykoontz of The Arizona Republic gave the film two out of five stars, saying "It's just kind of a mess, as unfocused and immature as the four mutant turtles at its core. Stuff happens, stuff blows up and this is probably a good time to mention that Michael Bay produced the film." Alonso Duralde of The Wrap gave the film a negative review, saying "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a movie that takes its characters and its premise seriously, until it doesn't, and that operates at two speeds: tortoise (ponderous) and hare (head-spinning)." Nancy Churnin of The Dallas Morning News gave the film a B, writing "The turtles (engagingly voiced by Alan Ritchson, Noel Fisher, Johnny Knoxville and Jeremy Howard) look terrific" and "The best part is that the film has heart". Adam Graham of The Detroit News gave the film a B-, saying "There's enough turtle power to please kids and fans of the original series." Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer gave the film two out of four stars, saying "The kind of cliched, misfit crimefighters-versus-demented villains scenario that Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird happily parodied when they came up with the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic books way back in the 1980s." Tom Russo of The Boston Globe gave the film one and a half stars out of five, saying "The repartee, as ever, is weak. Even with all the extra layers of digital detail, it's still tough to keep these four straight." Cliff Lee of The Globe and Mail gave the film one and a half stars out of four, saying "For having gone to the trouble of making a self-descriptive movie called Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, its producers seem ultimately unsure about its most basic concept." James Berardinelli of ReelViews gave the film one and a half stars out of four, saying "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles doesn't so much provide brainless enjoyment as it pummels the viewer into submission. "Shell-shocked" is a reasonable description of the experience." Chris Cabin of Slant Magazine gave the film one out of four stars, saying Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles only leaves one with the dim afterglow of forced normalcy, of a film so overworked to ensure mass-market appeal that it loses the charming oddness and loose goofiness that has allowed these characters, and their "frothy" appeal, to endure."

No, You've posted a lot of content, but nothing you've provided claims this film is the worst ever made.LM2000 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

batman vs. superman: dawn of justice

does this film count?

IP posted entire reception section of film LM2000 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a 2016 American superhero film featuring the DC Comics characters Batman and Superman. Directed by Zack Snyder and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, the film is a follow-up to 2013's Man of Steel and is the second installment in the DC Extended Universe. The film was written by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, and stars Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter and Gal Gadot. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the first live-action film to feature Batman and Superman together, as well as the first live-action cinematic portrayals of Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg and the Flash. In the film, criminal mastermind Lex Luthor manipulates Batman into a preemptive battle with Superman, whom Luthor is obsessed with defeating. The film was announced at the 2013 San Diego Comic-Con International, after the release of Man of Steel. Snyder stated that the film would take inspiration from the Batman comic book series The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, but clarified that it would follow an original premise. The incarnation of Batman in the film would also be different than the character's portrayal in the previous Batman film trilogy, serving as a cinematic reboot of the character. The film is also inspired by narrative elements from the "Death of Superman" story arc. Pre-production began at East Los Angeles College in October 2013, with principal photography starting in May 2014 in Detroit, Michigan. Additional filming also took place in Chicago. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice premiered at the Auditorio Nacional in Mexico City on March 19, 2016. It was released in the United States on March 25, 2016, in 2D, 3D, IMAX 3D, 4DX, premium large formats and 70 mm prints. Following a strong debut that set new box office records, the film experienced a "historic drop" in its second weekend and never recovered. Despite turning a profit, it was deemed a box office disappointment and received generally negative reviews from critics. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice received generally negative reviews. Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 27% approval rating based on 333 reviews, with a rating average of 4.9/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice smothers a potentially powerful story – and some of America's most iconic superheroes – in a grim whirlwind of effects-driven action." However, audience polls have a 67% approval rating with a 3.7/5. Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average to critic reviews, gave the film an average score of 44 out of 100, based on 51 critics. Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale. It earned "B–" from men, "B" from women, a "B from under–25 and a "B–" from those over 25. BBC News reported that, "the film had been widely praised by fans after its first screening in New York last week. But critics have not been so positive about the long-awaited movie." Lindy West in The Guardian described it as "153 minutes of a grown man whacking two dolls together", asking "(h)as the definition of 'movie' changed from 'motion picture story that a human wrote on purpose' to '700 only tangentially related 12-second grey and red vignettes'?" A. O. Scott of The New York Times wrote: "The point of Batman v Superman isn't fun, and it isn't thinking, either. It's obedience. The theology is invoked ... to buttress a spectacle of power. And in that way the film serves as a metaphor for its own aspirations. The corporations that produce movies like this one, and the ambitious hacks who sign up to make them, have no evident motive beyond their own aggrandizement." Writing in The Telegraph, Robbie Collin called the film "humorless" and "the most incoherent blockbuster in years". Cynthia Fuchs of PopMatters said, "As you’re watching this movie, you might also contemplate your own part, in being swayed into consuming so much of what you’ve consumed before." Adding, "Wonder Woman’s remains Batman v Superman‘s most compelling story, precisely because it’s untold." Matt Patches of Thrillist wrote "what Batman v Superman can do, it does, at the cost of coherency and thrills. The movie is bat-shit crazy. A dour, disdainful demeanor, plus a gluttony of complex plot twists, dissipates most of the contact high." Michael Philips of Chicago Tribune wrote, "A near-total drag, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice plays like a loose, unofficial quarter-billion-dollar remake of The Odd Couple, in which Oscar and Felix are literally trying to kill each other." On his podcast Hollywood Babble-On, film director Kevin Smith, a long-time friend and collaborator of Affleck, praised Affleck's performance but panned the film, commenting that it "didn’t really have a heart" and was "humorless", arguing that "there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of what those characters are about. It’s almost like Zack Snyder didn’t read a bunch of comics, he read one comic once, and it was Dark Knight Returns, and his favourite part was the last part where Batman and Superman fight." On a second viewing, however, Smith via his Instagram lightened his stance. Actor Jeremy Irons expressed displeasure with the film, feeling it was "deservedly so" savaged by critics and calling the feature "very muddled" while expressing hope that Justice League Part One would be better due to its story being "...a lot smaller, it's more linear". Conversely, David Betancourt of The Washington Post and Scott Mendelson of Forbes praised the film's visual spectacle and the performances of Affleck, Gadot, Irons and Hunter, though Mendelson also called the film "an utter mess of thinly sketched characters, haphazard plotting, surprisingly jumbled action". Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called the film "better than Man of Steel but below the high bar set by Nolan's Dark Knight, adding that "Dawn of Justice is still a colossus, the stuff that DC Comics dreams are made of for that kid in all of us who yearns to see Batman and Superman suit up and go in for the kill." Jake Coyle of Associated Press wrote, "it hurtles not with the kinetic momentum of Mad Max: Fury Road nor the comparatively spry skip of a Marvel movie, but with an operatic grandeur it sometimes earns and often doesn't." Mark Hughes of Forbes called it "the follow-up to The Dark Knight that many viewers and fans wanted or hoped for", adding that it's "visually stunning, with powerful emotional storytelling and awe-inspiring action spectacle." Andrew Barker of Variety said "as a pure visual spectacle... Batman V Superman ably blows the hinges off the multiplex doors." Charles Koplinski of the Illinois Times called it "a brooding, but most importantly intelligent take on the seminal figures of our 20th century pop culture mythology, a movie that at once pays tribute to these characters' roots while offering up modern incarnations of them that ring true for our times." Nicolas Barber of the BBC called the film "a four-star epic" praising Affleck's performance as Batman and the visual grandeur of Fong's cinematography. Jordan Hoffman of The Guardian gave an ambivalent review; he especially criticized the "very bad writing", but conceded "there are a lot of moments... that work" and praised Affleck and Gadot's performances, calling Gadot as Wonder Woman the best thing in the film.

No, please provide just sources which call this the "worst movie ever made".LM2000 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution

Many moviegoers agree that this film is far worse than the last airbender, an extremely poor adaptation of the franchise, and possibly the worst film ever made.

Perhaps this movie should be included in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.248.131.89 (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation

The film was considered the worst adaptation of a video game and has a 3% on Rotten Tomatoes, with only one positive review. A sequel to the bearable Paul W.S. Anderson film, it has been criticized for it's story, acting, cheap quality, uninteresting fight-scenes and general underwhelment compared to its predecessor. It was also a box office disappointment, cancelling plans for a third film. Need sources? Down below: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mortal_kombat_annihilation/?search=mortal kom http://www.metacritic.com/movie/mortal-kombat-annihilation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.57.105 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Troppo belli

Troppo belli (Too nice) is an Italian comedy of 2005, directed by Ugo Fabrizio Giordani and script and produced by the journalist Maurizio Costanzo, infamous for his involvement in the Propaganda Due scandal. The film was intended as a vehicle for Costantino Vitagliano and Daniele Interrante, who had become stars of the trash TV playing the role of handsome and macho boys, surrounded by a crowd of adoring girls, in shows hosted by Maria de Filippi (Costanzo’s wife); the plot (two provincial boys looking for love and success) was a bare pretest to exhibit the undeniable bodily gifts of the two protagonists. The film, thanks to the couple’s popularity and the Costanzo’s influence in the show business, got an huge distribution and great publicity, but it was neglected by the public (its profit was a third of the expenses of production) and slated by the critics (“from the ridiculousness to the bore, script under the minimum wage, fix-eyed recitation” wrote Maurizio Porro on the Corriere della sera). The two protagonists, whose inexpressive playing had been particularly censured, must give up any hope of a cinematographic career, and soon despaired by the little screen too. Since its release, Troppo belli is, in the Imdb’s ranking of the worst movie ever shot, in the first place among the Italian productions, sometimes getting also the first place in absolute. So, it's pure justice to make it place in the hall of honour of the worst films in history.

An exhaustive entry about this masterpiece of trashenss and bad taste can be found on the Italian Wikipedia. (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troppo_belli) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.204.220.33 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please consider adding these! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoebro64 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Doogal

I did not see the sources before I reverted so my edit summary, "unsourced", was inaccurate. I won't revert myself though because I don't think it qualifies for this list. Somebody on Flickchart did list it as the worst animated movie of all time but that looks like a user-compiled list which isn't WP:RS. Others call it the worst of the year or one of the worst of the 2000s which isn't enough, this is a list of the all time worst films, not worst of the year/decade.LM2000 (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Foodfight! (2012)

This shouldn't be on the list. While it is derided by almost all who commentate on it, the film is not widely known enough to justify being on the list; case in point, there are only Rotten Tomatoes reviews (one of which is a poor-but-not-damning two-stars). This is likely because the film was straight-to-video in the US and had a tiny theatrical release in other territories. The film does not receive the necessary superlative condemnation from a variety of notable critics. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Nostalgia Critic and JonTron both did reviews of Foodfight on their YouTube channels, although I doubt they'd be considered 'reliable' by Wikipedia since they're self-made videos by random people on the Internet, not professional reviews by a well-known critic like Roger Ebert (who died the year after Foodfight was released). --NovaBrunswick 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Rat Pfink A Boo Boo (1966)

By the same director as The Incredibly Strange Creatures (1964), Rat Pfink A Boo Boo is notable for suddenly changing its genre right in the middle of the film, from a serious dark crime thriller to a superhero spoof parodying Batman & Robin, as well as the misspelled title. The reception for it has been pretty negative, and it is often called one of the "worst movies ever", so shouldn't it be on this list? --NovaBrunswick 16:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide sources which call it "one of the 'worst movies ever'" then yes.LM2000 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

American bias

This list should be retitled into "List of American films considered the worst".--87.160.105.18 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No Orchids for Miss Blandish, Fire Maidens from Outer Space, A Place for Lovers, An American Hippie in Israel, Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam, Things, Troll 2, Highlander 2: The Quickening, Cattive ragazze, Dis – en historie om kjærlighet, Le Jour et la Nuit, Cinderela Baiana, Parting Shots, Honest, Rancid Aluminium, Sex Lives of the Potato Men, Daniel – Der Zauberer, Aag, Run for Your Wife, Humshakals and United Passions are not American films.LM2000 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Things is a Canadian film, while Miss Blandish, Fire Maidens, Parting Shots and Potato Men are British, La Jour et La Nuit is French, and Humshakals is Indian. So we have a pretty diverse mix of nationalities here. --NovaBrunswick 18:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

notable references

here are some references for whitch films are the worst

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Al7Avzwv4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Q_FT6dJBY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664fLQWWQ3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdCKbEhmneo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjHt7VbxGBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOlnEJkBGU

https://www.youtube.com/user/achannelthatsawesome

http://channelawesome.com/category/videos/channelawesome/dougwalker/nostalgia-critic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.210.21 (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

In the Monster a Go-Go! (1965) section, please include a link to Henry Hite.

• Suggested:

...apparent mutation of an astronaut into a monster  [add]  portrayed by the giant, Henry Hite.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C878:CDFF:2DE:659D (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

Thank you --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C878:CDFF:2DE:659D (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Zabriskie Point

I have a have a hard time believing anyone thinks this is the absolute worst film of all time, people cited in this article say it was a phenomenally bad film, but no one goes so far as to say it's actually the worst. Roger Ebert, who's cited in the article didn't even give it he's lowest possible rating. If someone can cite a specific example of a critic or notable person saying this was or is "the worst film of all time" then I think it can be justifiably included, otherwise this just seems an arbitrary inclusion to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.84.68 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

From the article It was included in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time. DonQuixote (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)

Do TV movies count? The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978) [90 mins] is way worse than many of the films on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISAWaUFO (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's a TV Christmas special, so, no. Trivialist (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The award for biggest Hollywood abortion goes to...

Seriously though, why is Dragonball Evolution not on there? That steaming pile earned it's spot on the wall of shame. 97.32.137.22 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The Cat in the Hat (2003)

I know that the 2003 live-action film The Cat in the Hat is not on the list I truly understand, but it got about 10% approval rating based on Rotten Tomatoes and it reward by the DFWFCA for Worst Film, Golden Raspberry Awards for Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie, and even won about 4 rewards in Stinkers Bad Movie Awards for Worst Picture, Screenplay for a Film Grossing, Most Annoying Non-Human Character, and Worst Performance by a Child Actor. When after the film's release as Seuss' widow Audrey Geisel, is not to allow any further live-action adaptations of Seuss' works to be produced.

• Unfortunately those are annual awards which would only count towards "Worst of the Year". This list is for the worst movies ever made so sources need to explicitly call them that in order for them to be included.LM2000 (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

Add Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas 2600:8802:5405:2400:B49A:49C7:7B75:86CC (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done That's one of the films listed in the list of films removed from this article.LM2000 (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

FlickFilosopher

Important: Maryann Johanson's FlickFilosopher (as seen in the Superbabies section) is misspelled here as Flick Philosopher. Could this be fixed?Owen1120 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 DoneLM2000 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)