Wikipedia

Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 6

< Talk:List of films considered the worst
Latest comment: 13 years ago by IamTorgo in topic Reefer Madness (1936)
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

A few more thoughts on titles

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

After some more consideration, I think Freddy Got Fingered should be readded. This article discusses how CNN called it one of the worst films ever released, and Ebert all but says it as well. Another thing that I feel pushes it over the edge is that it not only won the Worst Picture Razzie, but was nominated for Worst of the Decade, a particularly rare dishonor. And, while I still want to look into some of the other movies, I have searched for sources on Basic Instinct 2 and The Scarlet Letter and I don't think they belong here. Lots of worst of the year honors, but I find little to suggest lasting power or any feelings that they are contender for the worst ever. Anyone agree, disagree? — Hunter Kahn 05:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Freddy got Fingered should probably go back in then, although maybe we should wait for some other input. I was pretty sure it fit well when I removed it but it just didn't have the sources at the time. Basic Instinct 2 should probably go, I haven't managed to find anything good on it, and it seems neither has anyone else. I'm a bit more hesitant on The Scarlet Letter. It's on Ebert's worst list, although he did give it a full 1 and a half stars, so it could potentially stay or go depending on what else is found for it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark are gone? I think that both can be readded. For example the review of Jamie Russell of BBC say that is one of the worst zombie movies ever made for House of the Dead, while for Alone in the Dark Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle named it the worst film of the decade. The same for Daddy Day Camp, because Kip Mooney of the Dallas Morning News said that the film was the worst kind of sequel and for Jaws: The Revenge is considered one of the worst movies of all time. Also bad movie that can be readded are I Know Who Killed Me, The Hottie and the Nottie and Glitter because they are included in many list of bad movies. I think also that Highlander II: The Quickening, North, It's Pat (added by me), The Scarlet Letter and Basic Instinct 2 should not stay here. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Based solely on what you're saying above, the only movies I think might have a case are Alone in the Dark and Jaws: The Revenge, but both need more than what you've provided. Saying those latter three movies should be listed because "they are included in many lists of bad movies" is really, really insufficient for why it should be on a list of the absolute worst. Somebody calling Daddy Day Campthe "worst kind of sequel" (which I'm not seeing in the link you provided) is also not quite enough; that statement just means this is a good example of how not to make a sequel. He's not even saying this is one of the worst sequels he's ever seen, let alone one of the worst movies. And as much as I absolutely detest House of the Dead, the fact that somebody's calling it one of the worst zombie movies doesn't mean it's one of the worst ever. I'm going to look into Alone in the Dark and Jaws: The Revenge a bit more, though, and I'll post my thoughts here eventually. — Hunter Kahn 13:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, and Yaksar, I'm totally fine with keeping The Scarlet Letter on for now until we can research it a bit more. — Hunter Kahn 13:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Unless anyone objects, I'm going to readd Freddy Got Fingered and remove Basic Instinct 2. Any last minute thoughts on those? — Hunter Kahn 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you post here the source of Freddy Got Fingered that said that is "one of the worst movie ever made"? Also, when Basic Instinct 2 will be removed, we need to talk about Highlander II: The Quickening, because it was added (together with Jaws 4) for the 0% rating that have in the site "Rotten Tomatoes". --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's posted above, but this is the link, which quotes CNN film critic Paul Clinton as calling it "quite simply the worst movie ever released by a major studio in Hollywood history". This article also talks about the extensive hatred for this movie among other established, professional film critics like Roger Ebert. There's also this Variety review that calls it "one of the most brutally awful comedies ever to emerge from a major studio", and the Hollywood Reporter called it "quite possibly the worst comedy ever made". Both of those are definitely WP:RS. And, as I said above, I think the Razzie nom for worst movie of the decade, combined with the CNN/others quotes, means FGF should be readded. As for Highlander II, I haven't looked much into that movie yet. You're saying it should be removed? — Hunter Kahn 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can't find a site that said that is one of the worst ever (Same for The Scarlet Letter). Also I've found in "Rotten Tomatoes" two source 1 2 for Alone in The Dark. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if FilmFreakCentral is a WP:RS, but the Orlando Sentinel certainly is. You might be right, Alone in the Dark could be have potential to be on this list. I'd like to look into that one a bit more before giving my final thoughts though. (I'll do a bit of research on Highlander too.) In the meantime, are you OK with readding Freddy? — Hunter Kahn 22:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes for FGF. However both sources are from RT; and also this and this are from RT --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

As you can see from my above list, I think The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made is one of the worst films--and the most incompetent documentary--ever made. I deleted all reference to it in the article, after all, the article on the film has been deleted, citing it as a non-notable documentary. It is the opinions of one person, Brandon Christopher, who is not a notable film critic. The film is a string of trailers sandwiched between the same bad computer animation 50 times with a narrator presenting Christopher's opinion. He violates the cardinal rule of "show, don't tell," leaving only his word as to why the films are bad instead of showing us scenes that illustrate his points. It doesn't even deserve a mention on this page unless we are going to consider it among the worst, as such, I deleted all references to it. Its title is so similar to the Medveds' book that one might mistakenly think that they were related beyond having the topic in common. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this action. I have also seen The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made and it's not much of an documentary just a bunch film clips strung together. If it is ever to be considered as as source it would at the very least need to have it's own wikipedia page.--Sus scrofa (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I own this movie, and I see it as mostly harmless but definitely subjective list. However, I don't object to it being used as a reference for this page. (The DVD may not have been notable enough for it's own article, but that doesn't mean it can't be linked as a source.) That being said, it should not be the be-all, end-all. In other words, just because a movie is one of the 50 in that documentary, that alone doesn't mean it warrants inclusion here. If the majority here think it shouldn't be used on the site at all, then that's a WP:CONSENSUS and I'm cool with that. But I personally don't think we should be barred from using it altogether, as long as we don't depend on it as the be-all, end-all. Just my two cents! — Hunter Kahn 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Once again I disagree with this. While it is clearly not a seriously researched documentry as something like the subject should be, I think it couldbe noted as a citation. Not a major one mind you, but as a tiny footnote.

Ears4life (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They Saved Hitler's Brain support for inclusion

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1.3/10; 0% with 5 critics reporting.

--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  • None of these sites are WP:RS. Unless I'm mistaken, "Screen Junkies" is a fan-contributor site, the indyposted.com link is one contributor's personal list of worst movies, and Badmovies.org Jabootu, Apocalypselaterfilm are either one-man fan sites or personal blogs. The Total Sci-Fi Online link seems to be referring to the "50 Worst Movies Ever Made" documentary, which you yourself have brought into question on this site. Again, though, I'm not saying They Saved Hitler's Brain shouldn't be included, I'm simply saying the above links aren't enough. I know that film has a bad reputation (and it's not among the list of removed films), so I'll look into whether there's anything out there to justify it's inclusion and weigh in with my thoughts later... — Hunter Kahn 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Worst films ever

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, cute way to vent random hate. Leave it at that and you might get off without getting called on it.130.49.192.156 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So, ermm, can I ask what this is?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
What, the list or my comment?130.49.146.53 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The list.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If I'm not mistaken, this appears to be one random person's personal list of their least favorite movies. If so, I'm going to remove it from the talk page, since this is WP:NOTAFORUM and its just going to confuse things. I'll wait a day or two though to give the user a chance to respond if he wants to... — Hunter Kahn 01:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said, it seems to be an attempt to vent random hate for movies. But I guess I was wrong. He has indeed been called on it.130.49.146.53 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's add No Country for Old Men to the list. Regardless of its Oscar, I thought it sucked. It had what Siskel & Ebert used to call "the idiot plot". Plan 9 was more entertaining and not nearly as long. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A joke, I assume?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a joke. I saw that movie after it won the Oscar. I was impressed by the performances of Tommy Lee Jones and especially Javier Bardem. But the movie itself sucked. When people are doing incredibly stupid things that are obviously being done only to advance the story somehow, that fits S & E's "idiot plot" definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
How does No Country for Old Men have an idiot plot? I am familiar with the concept, but you need supporting evidence. I rank it the #2 Best Picture winner after Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to come off as rude or anything, but your opinion (along with mine and any other editor) of what is the worst means nothing in this case. It needs to be described as the worst by reputable outside sources, regardless of what we think. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of this. I only put these up as suggestions of films to look for or add to the "not considered worst by enough sources" list. The worst ones, interestingly enough, are so bad that they got little enough attention that they are redlinked.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I am quite sure we can find reputable sources for They Saved Hitler's Brain, if nothing else. I find it astonishing that it's not on the list already with the other B movies. Video Yesteryear sold it as a Golden Turkey Award title.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
While I realize that some of these films will never make the cut for this list, here's a bit of a run-through. My bottom three films are obscure enough that no reputable critic has reviewed them, although #1 and #3 have plenty of reviews that fail RS that nevertheless declare them the worst. I have been able to find only one review of #2. That film is an example of what I call "pornographer's hubris" in that they made a story porn that got a good review from AVN so they cut it into a regular movie. #4 I've dealt with below. Freaked gets astonishingly good reviews, presumably because people found the intentional humor funny. I've seen negative reviews for Mutant on the Bounty, but nothing calling it the worst, although many have said that the title is the funniest thing about it--it's another bad comedy. Munchies is generally regarded as a bad film, but I don't know if there are enough RS reviews calling it the worst. This also applies to Quest for the Egg Salad, White Fire, Andy Colby, Invasion Earth, Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny, Mac and Me, The Dungeonmaster, Beasties, Wizards of the Lost Kingdom, and The Fantastic Four, and possibly King Kong and Zombies of the Stratosphere, while Plan 9 is already on the list. A cursory glance over Killer Flick's Wikipedia article suggests it was well reviewed. Rocky got a lot of pans in 1976 that have been largely muted in the wake of its enduring popularity, but none called it "worst" (even though I got attacked for putting too many negative reviews in the article), although it tends to get a lot of votes when people are asked about the worst film to win Best Picture. I doubt most people would dare to put a Lumière Bros. film, even one as ineffective as CM, on a worst list. Weather Diary 3, which consists mostly of George Kuchar photographing his feces floating in the toilet and masturbating in the shower while waiting for a tornado to arrive for him to photograph, actually won an award, probably based more on Kuchar's reputation than the film itself. Most of the others have gotten significant hate, but none on the level of "worst."--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Battlefield earth poster.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image File:Battlefield earth poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Superman IV?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Like batman and robin, Superman IV was a financial success but critical failure. The plot made little sense, special effects were just awful, and commonly known science was broken. Like for the fact that the one girl was able to breathe in space, or that superman carried the statue of liberty by it's finger without the whole damn thing breaking. I say we add it. Opinions? - D33DeeD33Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.128.48 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • It's definitely a bad movie, but it's already on the list of removed films. To be included on this list, it needs to be "widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics" and cited by at least one source that "explicitly calls it one of the worst films ever". Do you have any sources that indicate it fits this criteria? — Hunter Kahn 04:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are some.

I can get more but I think these are sufficient. D33DeeD33Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.128.48 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm don't think ranker.com is a WP:RS, and the myfivebest.com certainly isn't: that's just some reader-submitted list of somebody's least five favorite movies. Digital Dream Door is a bit better, although the fact is that Superman IV didn't even rank in the bottom 100 in that list, but rather was among the "dishonorable mentions". MovieCatcher and the Yahoo picture gallery are also questionable at best as reliable sources, I'd say. Plus those are articles about the worst superhero movies, not the worst overall movies, and the Yahoo site just lists it as one of 21 bad flicks. Paste I believe is a reliable source, but that lists it not as the worst superhero movie but the 18th worst, so unless we were listing the other 17, I'm not sure that's sufficient. Again, I'm not saying Superman IV shouldn't necessarily be listed, but at this point I'm not sure you have enough. Are there any professional critics that have cited it as one of the worst, or any other better-established lists? — Hunter Kahn 22:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
What about a section called "Worst superman movies? We have batman and robin as well as catwoman to add to that list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.128.48 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We just restructured this article to get away from subcategories like this, which I believe was causing lots of problems, including movies that didn't deserve to be here getting listed. Personally, I'd be opposde to a "worst superhero movies" section. — Hunter Kahn 21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Stinkers Bad Movie Awards

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that we can use also this as a source for bad movies. This is the link for the Stinkers. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be, except it hasn't been updated since 2006.Prebys (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alien Beasts

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Still not enough under WP:RS :sigh:

--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Giant Claw

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I do not know, but should "The Giant Claw" be here or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRebo120 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

the movie monster is considered to be among the worst in the history of cinema so I think so, but it needs more then just that Ears4life (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I found 3 reviews citing it was one of the worst movies ever, all 3 came from it's wiki page

at rotten tomatoes both reviews by critics call it entertainingly bad

it's got a 3.5 rating at IMDB


Ears4life (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


See how the sources for the claim on its article fare compared to the rules of the article.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.badmovieplanet.com/3btheater/g/giantclaw.html

http://www.bmoviegraveyard.com/reviews/G/GiantClaw/

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/19353

Sam Katzman of reelfilm.com said "The Giant Claw to be nothing more than a 74-minute endurance test, the film admittedly might hold some entertainment value for those with a natural predilection for movies of this ilk"

The New York times when talking about the bird in the film said "The Claw is not just badly rendered, it is hilariously rendered, resembling nothing so much as Warner Bros. cartoon-character Beaky Buzzard. Once seen, you will never forget this awesomely silly creation"

viewpoints.com said "The Giant Claw is one of those so baaad they are good movies"

dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/ said " The Giant Claw, a 50s Sci-Fi movie that consistently wins polls for the most ridiculous monster"

tvguide.com said ""special" effects are laughable" and gave it 1 star

allmovie.com said the monster in the film is the "worst-looking monster that one could imagine, a ridiculous-looking giant bird puppet that makes the movie seem ludicrous"

IamTorgo (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Something to think about before suggesting films

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Remember, while technically the requirement for getting onto this list is just a few reliable sources that call a film the worst ever, our goal is not necessarily to increase the list as much as possible. Rather than hunting high and low for ways to get a specific movie onto the list, I'd suggest looking for movies generally considered the worst by many. Compare this list to a list of best movies of all time. Movies like Citizen Kane, the Godfather or Casablanca are widely identified as being great (it's often the only thing people know about them.) Ideally this list should be the same. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, until I read this post, I never considered looking at the article List of films considered the best or even thought such an article existed. The methodology for that article is entirely different. Rather than try to somehow produce a list of films which are good, they only list the TOP film, according to a specific set of sources. It's arguably significantly less subjective than this list.Prebys (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Prebys, I am not sure how the two articles differ, at least in the intentions. Neither contains, or should contain, anything subjective, and both should only list the best/worst film as defined so by reliable sources (important critics, serious polls...). If you find something subjective here (or elsewhere), be sure to remove it. Goochelaar (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, one primary difference is the sourcing. It seems more reasonable in a review to say that a film is the "worst ever", while a review saying a film is the "best ever" sounds rather sophomoric. In reality, both are likely hyperbole when used for a film that just came out. For this reason, I put more credence on lists of, say, the "Ten Worst Films Ever". A lingering problem is survivorship bias: some of the worst films ever made barely see the light of day. While a big budget turkey like, say, Waterworld will see wide release and a marketing effort to try to cover as much of the production cost as possible, smaller, far worse films end up dumped into direct-to-video or very narrow releases where reviews are few and far between. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, who reorganized the article to be sorted by year? And why? Please tell me why you thought that was a good idea. Thanks.
—AOC25 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous categories were somewhat arbitrary and subject to a lot of POV problems. The decision to switch to the obviously NPOV chronological order was the result of a discussion you can find above on this talk page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

it bombed

ign.com gave it 1 1/2 stars

the AVClub said "Even Uwe Boll could have done better; at least he makes terrible videogame adaptations with a little personality."

it has a score of 17 at Metacritic

allmovie.com gave it 1 star, as did tv guide, commonsensemedia,and Kevin Carr at .7mpictures.com

Entertainement Weekly gave it a grade of D-

The village voice said the film has "Idiot plotting and dialogue "

Newsblaze.com critic Cam Williams in her review said "at least after this fiasco I only need 9 more movies for my next 10 Worst List. "

The Mountain Xpress said "Not only is this a strong early contender for worst film of the year, it could well be a candidate for the worst film ever made. Quite simply, this is nothing short of a triumph of bad writing, bad directing and bad acting. It survives for a while on unintentional hilarity, but even its value on that score ends long before its 96 minutes are up."


I believe this meets the criteria to make the page

IamTorgo (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Does anyone besides Mountain Xpress call it one of the worst ever made? (Also, what is Mountain Xpress?) And is it on any worst-of lists that you know of? I've never heard of it, but at a glance I'm not sure it reaches the level of infamy that some of these other movies do... — Hunter Kahn 18:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
So far you have Cam Williams and Mountain Xpress. EW giving it a D- is definitely not enough of itself. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mountain Xpress is a newspaper

bdkreviews.cpm says "As a fan of the video game series, I can honestly say that this is hands down one of the worst films I have ever seen. I might even go on record as to saying this is one of the worst movies that will ever be made. It is so bad that it is worse than stuff that hasn't even been made yet."

Marc Savlov of the Austin Chronicle said the Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is "Based, in name only, on the classic Capcom video game"

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is on newsarama.com list of The Worst Movies Based on Video Games

the film is also on The Five Worst Video Game Movies list at seattlepi.com, which is a newspaper

askmen.com named Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li the 5th worst video game movie ever

listphobia named it on their list of 10 worst video game movies ever

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is also on Sky Movies list of worst video game movies

IamTorgo (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, "worst video game movie" doesn't really mean "worst movie ever," especially considering how relatively few video game movies there have been.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, especially with the lack of movies based on games, but I think the bdkreviews.com review making mention of it as just one of the worst films ever, not specifically as just one of the worst films based on a videogame puts it over the top


IamTorgo (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

anyone else have thoughts on this?

IamTorgo (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mountain Xpress only has a citculation of 29,000 so it might be to small time to count as a notable source. Otherwise I can only echo Yaksar when he says that "worst video game movie" isn't strictly the same as "worst movie ever".--Sus scrofa (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

even if you don't count the lists I posted above there are still Cam Williams, The Mountain Xpress, bdkreviews.com

IamTorgo 18:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamTorgo (talk • contribs)

Nominees for the list

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm surprised "Ishtar" and "Heaven's Gate" aren't on the list. Aren't they generally considered to be bad (but not the so-bad-it's-good kind)? Kwyjibear (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Just remember to read through the discussions on the talk page to get a sense of the requirements for this list.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Theodore Rex?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Whoopie Goldburg as a futuristic cop with a dinosaur as her partner......need I say more? Was Critically panned and was finacial failure and she was nominated for worst actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D33deed33guy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, this was no Citizen Cane, but we need sources calling it the worst film/movie. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114658/usercomments

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/movie-pages/movie_worst.html http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-copmovies/10/ http://madnessmonster.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/theodore-rex-review/ http://tophatsasquatch.com/699/the-10-worst-dinosaur-movies-of-the-90s/ http://www.flixster.com/movie/theodore-rex (1 star out of 155 reviews) http://tesla-thismortalcoil.blogspot.com/2009/06/theodore-rex-1995.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by D33deed33guy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad. We need reliable source] calling it "the worst". IMDb users don't cut it, digitaldreamdoor.com is a blog. Is the Comcast article a reliable source? Not sure, but it's for the best and worst "Buddy Cop Movie", a fairly narrow category. Another blog" madnessmonster.wordpress. In addition to being a blog, tophatasquatch.com names it the "Worst Dinosaur Movie of the 1990s"... User ratings are not a reliable source, 1 star/155 reviews is not clearly stating "worst" and, inexplicably, 21% of users liked it. Another blog: teslathismortalcoil.bogspot.
I don't see anything compelling in the comcast.com source. Any other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You've just about summed up every comment I could have about those links. I'm certainly in strong agreement with ya.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This film was direct-to-video. 160.79.74.62 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bieber Movie

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

1.1 (lowest) IMDB rating. Needs to be added.94.193.134.98 (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The general criteria for this list is at the top of the page, just having a low rating on IMDB the week the movie comes out isn't sufficient to add it to the list. Dayewalker (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Plus, it doesn't actually look like the reception was bad at all. I think the IMDb rating is probably more attributable to generic internet Bieber hatred than anything else.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur with not including it. Even if there was any merit (like RT having near 0%), it would be recentism to add a film to this list so quickly after its release. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What Dayewalker, Yaksar and Erik said. :) — Hunter Kahn 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should revisit this after the Razzie awards

IamTorgo 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamTorgo (talk • contribs)

This really isn't even a remote option, this movie received average and positive reviews and is not considered the worst movie of all time. 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)'

oh please… the only reason that movie has that low rating on IMDb is because probably heaps of bieber haters voted negative and most of those "haters" probably haven't seen that movie either

The Scarlet Letter?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

First of all according with the discussion above consensus wasn't reached. On RT the movie as 15%, and this is too high. The movie only win a Razzie for worst sequel, and the rating on IMDb is 4.6/10, again too high. I think that this movie should not stay here. This film is bad, but consenus wasn't reached and as a 2011, none of the sources said that Scarlet Letter is "one of the worst movie ever made". Anyone else have any thoughts? This movie can be removed? --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, go ahead and remove it. Please add a note at the movie's entry at removed films list. Swarm X 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, when the users added the movie, they don't remove the film from the removed films list. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason we need more people watching and controlling this page. It's not that it's vandalized, it's just that the content is out of control. Swarm X 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that after only 2 people saying to remove it, which isn't a concensus, it was removed

that having been said there's nothing saying it's the worst of the year it was released or of all time so it doesn't make the page

IamTorgo 06:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamTorgo (talk • contribs)

The user that addedd the movie don't remove it from the page of the remover films. We don't need more consensus to remove this, Also this is not "one of the worst movie ever made". --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


oh ok, thanks for clearing that up for me IamTorgo (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

List purge

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Despite sources-- including being singled out by Rotten Tomatoes' editors as especially bad-- my efforts to include Ben and Arthur have been met with almost immediate revision by 1-2 editors. The more aggressive of these editors is of the opinion that the film does not qualify because it has been called the worst "gay" movie of all time by two of the sources I have provided, even though one has retracted that statement and named it "the worst"; it is an editor's further opinion that the critics who have reviewed the movie have invalid opinions because they nominally review gay oriented movies. The more aggressive of these editors has the further reaching goal of removing films from this list that have not explicitly been named the worst, even if they have been named the worst of a given genre. In the interest of equal opportunity from removal, I am nominating the following films for removal from the list:

  • The Creeping Terror: Only on the list for being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000
  • Monster a Go-Go: Only on the list for being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and being called "an anti-masterpiece" by All Movie Guide (which isn't even necessarily a criticism)
  • Hobgoblins: Only on the list for being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000
  • An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn: Only on the list because Roger Ebert gave it a negative review, which did not even refer to it as the "worst" anything
  • Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever: Not referred to as "the worst" anything by anyone; it just received negative reviews and Roger Ebert hates it
  • Catwoman: Only called the worst superhero movie, not the worst movie

I feel that, even with the sources I have provided, if Ben and Arthur does not qualify, it is hypocritical to maintain many of these films-- notably the ones whose only claim to "fame" is being featured on MST3K; after all, how is it any different to be singled out by MST3K than it is to be singled out by Rotten Tomatoes?209.34.51.198 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For The Creeping Terror see this and this
For Hobgoblins "It shoots right to the top of the list of the worst movies we’ve ever done" is a good source.
For Monster a Go-Go read this and this
For An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn read this
This list could include also "Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)", "North", "It's Pat (1994)", "From Justin to Kelly (2003)" and "SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004)". --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If "It shoots right to the top of the list...." is good enough for Hobgoblin, why isn't If Tommy Wiseau's The Room is the over-wrought, melodramatic and self-pitying heterosexual camp classic of choice, then Sam Mraovich's Ben & Arthur is its gay equivalent" good enough for the Room? They're both instances of a small group of people who watch a lot of movies singling out a particular movie as exceptionally bad.209.34.51.198 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I've also got no interest --or the ability to-- shell out the cash required to view your sources.209.34.51.198 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if you don't have the cash, according with those source the movies are "the worst ever made" and thay will stay in the page, while Ben and Arthur no.--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The point is that you can say those articles contain whatever you want them to contain, but unless someone has the money to spend they can't verify them. You're also not supporting your "Hobgoblin" argument very well. Why is MST3K an acceptable source in this instance but Rotten Tomatoes is not?209.34.51.198 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Because on RT no one review this movie.--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The Rotten tomatoes editors singled out the movie for the staff picks of worst movies-- did you not even look at the citations for the entry you so speedily deleted?209.34.51.198 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I think that under Hunter's guidelines, Ben and Arthur might be a "borderline." Rotten Tomatoes doesn't call it the worst ever, although it is compared to The Room, an established worst-ever, and said to be a sort of distaff version of it; Queerty definitively calls it a "worst ever," as does Cinemaqueer. I'm not incredibly gung-ho on purging a lot of the stuff listed above, though I could probably be convinced some of it should go; I simply want my contributions to be treated equally to the contributions made by previous editors.209.34.51.198 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Believe me, no one is trying to discriminate against your contributions. The list was just pretty crappy as of a few months ago, and is still basically undergoing a big overhaul, so just because something is on the list now it doesn't mean it should be once we get it all fixed up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Grammar's my primary thing, and I've been steadily reediting the blurbs for the extant list. What's the current order of business on the current list?209.34.51.198 (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I looked in the archives and it was repeated over and over again that The Last Airbender should be revisited after the Razzie Awards. It took home Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Supporting Actor, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Eye-Gouging Mis-Use of 3D.

this newspaper called it the worst movie of 2010 http://www.channel24.co.za/Movies/Features/10-Worst-Movies-of-2010-20110103

it has a 6% rating at RottenTomatoes

Roger Ebert gave it half a star and said "As "The Last Airbender" bores and alienates its audiences, consider the opportunities missed here. (1) This material should have become an A-list animated film. (2) It was a blunder jumping aboard the 3D bandwagon with phony 3D retro-fitted to a 2D film. (3) If it had to be live action, better special effects artists should have been found. It's not as if films like "2012" and "Knowing" didn't contain "real life" illusions as spectacular as anything called for in "The Last Airbender."

I close with the hope that the title proves prophetic."

the AV Club gave it an F

totalfilm.com gave it a half star

Cole Smithey said ""Battlefield Earth" has a new rival for the title of "worst-film-of-the-last-20-years." M. Night Shyamalan extracts some of the worst melodramatic acting performances ever from his largely child cast in a 3-D movie that works best unseen" He also gave it an F and 0 stars.

Two reviews, links below, said there was racially inappropriate casting in the characters in the movie didn't have the same race as the characters as the tv show the movie is based on.

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/article_c0628cf2-8470-11df-b6f8-00127992bc8b.html

http://www.trespassmag.com/review-the-last-airbender/

IamTorgo 05:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamTorgo (talk • contribs)

It seems that of those sources the only one that potentially calls it one of the worst movies of all time is the Cole Smithey review. From what I've researched, he doesn't seem to be a particularly authoritative or well known critic. The other sources, such as the ones criticizing special effects or discussing potential racism may highlight lots of problems with the film, but certainly don't indicate it could be the worst.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't have supported it a few days ago, but its sweeping the Razzies, I think, should at least give us pause when considering it for entry onto the list.209.34.51.198 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The Last Airbender was a huge success at the box office, in the IMDb has 4.5, too high for a worst movie ever; so I think that this movie cannot stay here. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
regarding it's IMDB score, North which is on the list, has a score of 4.2, just a bit below The Last Airbender
Given the large amount of negative reviews and golden raspberries (9 nominees, 5 awards) I feel Last Airbender should be on this list. The list contains many movies that weren't bombs such as Showgirls (mainly due to high rentals) and Freddy Got Fingered (just). Regarding IMDB ratings Myra Breckinridge got 4.0, Showgirls got 4.1, Howard the Duck got 4.1, and North got 4.2; so 4.5 isn't too high.

and I found a review, link below, where the reviews says "I hate everything about M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender. I hate that it’s racist. I hate that it takes a great, easy-to-adapt show and completely disrespects the material. I hate the performances. I hate the special effects. I hate the borderline non-existent 3D that serves only to jack up ticket prices. I hate the lack of imagination. I hate the embarrassingly bad script that would be laughed out of a Screenwriting 101 class. I hate the consequences if this movie is a success at the box office. I hate the consequences if it fails at the box office. I hate that this movie exists. And “hate” isn’t a strong enough word." The review continus saying "I’m calling it: The Last Airbender is the worst movie of 2010. It’s too disturbing to consider that there could be something even more hideous out there." He gave it a rating of F.

http://collider.com/the-last-airbender-review/34998/

additionally, hyphenmagazine.com said it was the worst movie of the year

IamTorgo 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The article need a source that said "worst movie ever", not "worst movie of the year". --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, this article isn't for horrible, horrible, horrible movies; it's for movies that are widely considered the worst of all time. Film has been around for over a century, every film that's considered the "worst of the year" can't be taken to mean "the worst of all time". Swarm X 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Ebert also said the film "is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented." Certainly a description befitting something that's the worst of all time.

E! suggests it as the worst film ever made: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b188788_last_airbender_worst_movie_ever.html

As does iVillage: http://www.ivillage.com/last-airbender-worst-movie-all-time/1-a-215574

And even Time: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2000996,00.html 160.79.74.62 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the box at the top: "Ensure that it is widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics." Swarm X 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle said "it's the worst use of 3-D in the modern era"

additionally, disgrasian.com said "‘The Last Airbender’ May Be The Worst Movie Of All Time" IamTorgo 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamTorgo (talk • contribs)


eonline compared the movie to Battlefieldearth

IamTorgo (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Birdemic: Shock and Terror for Consideration

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Having spent some time beefing up the article, I would like to throw Birdemic: Shock and Terror in for consideration here. I've got the Huffington Post calling it "truly, one of the worst films ever made" [1], Variety saying "one more in the pantheon of beloved trash-terpieces" [2], a long article from IFC.com comparing it to Plan 9 from Outer Space [3], an article from Slate that compares it to The Room (which is entitled "The Worst Movies Ever Made") [4], and this little article from The Atlantic about the film that is titled "Is This the Worst Movie Ever Made?" [5]. Just as a little extra, the movie has 9% on Rotten Tomatoes [6] - however, I grant that there aren't many reviews on the RT page at the moment, so that might not really mean anything. But there you go. What do you think? PerryPlanet (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it works IamTorgo (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So...there's one vote in support. Anyone else want to weigh in? PerryPlanet (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Speed 2: Cruise Control

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

should we add Speed 2: Cruise Control? i mean, that's considered one of the worst sequels ever made. multiple Razzie Award nominations and it recieved a 2% approval rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.249.88 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources calling it "the worst". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben and Arthur

Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I'm nominating Ben and Arthur for inclusion. Rotten Tomatoes has named it #15 on its list of "Films so bad they're unmissable," in which it is equated with a "homosexual version" of The Room. It was a box office bomb, netting only $40,000 per its producer/director/star/editor/etc., and among gay film critics-- the movie's target audience-- it has gotten a scathing response, being declared "the worst gay movie ever" and "worst movie ever" by at least two established queer cinema review sites. Also, I know IMDB is shaky criteria, but it's consistently been on the Bottom 100 for the past seven years, and currently occupies spot #6.209.34.51.198 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got a worthy cause here. I haven't seen it yet, but based on the unanimous opinion of absolutely everyone who has, there's no question that in terms of sheer (lack of) quality, this film belongs here. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a single review by a "mainstream" critic. In fact, it's probably the only movie I've ever heard of with NO reviews at RottenTomatoes ("The Room" has 13), and it doesn't even appear at Metacritic, so getting it onto the list might be tough. Good luck, though, and thanks for that "Films so bad..." list. I'm definitely going to be watching some of those (and this) in the near future.Prebys (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem appears to be that, since it was initially aimed at a narrow audience (even the gay reviewers who have treated it regard it as "gay film"), it didn't get a lot of critical exposure, despite getting a fair amount of audience exposure (a quick glance at IMDB shows that at least 4,500 people have rated the film). FWIW, here is a review from Queerty, which by its very nature isn't a "mainstream" critical source but is certainly a legitimate source for information on gay-oriented popular culture (it's been cited by Newsweek in discussing gay pop culture issues), which this film certainly falls into.209.34.51.198 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find some more authoritative sources that call it the worst movie ever made. Not "gay movie," but movie. The lack of rotten tomatoes ratings probably indicates that won't be too easy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Queerty article does call it "the worst movie ever" in addition to "worst gay movie."209.34.51.198 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
And I won't argue that Queerty is not a reliable source. However, it's certainly hardly an authority when it comes to movie reviews (and I'm going out on a limb and assuming that, had this not been a movie concerning gay culture, it probably wouldn't have received an in depth review or indeed even a review at all.) But that's just my two cents.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
While I'm not going to claim homophobia here-- because I don't think that comes into play at all-- I do feel like this policy is limiting when it comes to including counterculture films that may be aimed at, and seen by, a wide audience, but not many film critics. This is often the case with gay cinema, as well as with films that fall under the umbrella of other non-mainstream categories. Taking The Room as an example, it only received critical attention because it received fan attention, via word of mouth, at IMDB, and, yes, probably at Wikipedia. No one from Entertainment Weekly was at the premier, or any screening of that movie until it became a fan phenomenon; but the movie's badness preceded that phenomenon; the phenomenon did not change the contents of the film to make it bad. Likewise, for the thousands of people who have seen it, Ben and Arthur has been called, across the board, one of, if not the "worst movie ever;" that it has nominally been reviewed in the homosexual press should not prevent it from being acknowledged. The fact that Rotten Tomatoes went out of its way to do a write-up on the movie even in the absence of mainstream critical reviews should be enough to underscore that the film is more prolific than a DVD that only a handful of people have seen.209.34.51.198 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The issue isn't that it was reviewed by the gay press, it's that reviews from the publications that normally don't do reputable movie reviews don't really mean as much. It's nothing to do with homophobia; I'd make the same point if, say, a motorcycle interest publication reviewed a new biker film.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Reviewing some of the later movies on the list, many of them don't appear to meet the criteria of being called THE worst movie ever, only a very bad movie and/or the worst of a given subgenre. Catwoman, for example, is here cited as the worst superhero movie ever, and From Justin to Kelly the worst musical; neither of these movies are sourced as being the worst ever. Nor is Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, even listed as the worst anything, just incredibly bad and hated. As Ben and Arthur has been called both the worst ever and the worst gay oriented movie ever, by at least three reliable sources, I think that its inclusion needs to be reconsidered. Despite its lack of mainstream critical reviews, the website Rotten Tomatoes itself went out of its way to mention the film as one of the worst, which I think merits some attention.209.34.51.198 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Queerty considered a valid source? For that matter, why isn't CinemaQueer (the title pretty much says it all on that one). These are both reputable sources for film reviews; the fact that the films being reviewed are of a homosexual orientation shouldn't matter.209.34.51.198 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you've watched the movie (as I just did), you'd know that this list is simply incorrect without it. I think the Queerty, CinemaQueer and RT references are enough to include it.Prebys (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think people need to be aware that it's virtually impossible to list every single bad movie in this article and leaving one out doesn't make the article woefully incomplete or "incorrect". The fact that Ben and Arthur has been on the IMDb Bottom 100 really isn't relevant either. That list is easily manipulated by IMDb users with multiple accounts, and there are various films that have been listed there for years that aren't listed here. While I agree that Ben and Arthur is terrible, it hasn't been widely reviewed enough to be considered one of the worst films ever in the context of this article. If the film starts getting the coverage that say, The Room gets, I think it would be worthy of inclusion here. Pinkadelica♣ 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Rotten Tomatoes went to the trouble to specifically mention it in a list of "worsts" doesn't count for anything?209.34.51.198 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm personally somewhat troubled by both the general lack of reviews overall, as well as the fact that the list seems to give off more of a "so bad they're good" vibe rather than a "worst ever" one. And remember, this is a list written for rotten tomatoes by critic Michael Adams, not some sort of official statement.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, we can't find review because on "RT" no one review this movie. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


I believe this meets the criteria to make the list IamTorgo (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, not every bad movie is going to make this list. Ben and Arthur being "singled out" by the editors of Rotten Tomatoes doesn't exactly make the film "the worst ever". I believe the threshold for inclusion should be if the film has been extensively reviewed by critics and cited by critics as being the worst. Bad or poorly made does not mean "the worst". Further, I've yet to see Ben and Arthur gain the same cult following as The Room or even Troll 2. In my opinion, Ben and Arthur is a niche bad film that will probably never achieve the cult status level as some of the other films it has supposedly been compared to. Perhaps it is because of the subject matter but I think it has more to do with the fact that it is just a crappily made indie film that only gained a reputation because of the internet and its presence on the IMDb Bottom 100 and YouTube. That can be said for a lot of bad films though. Pinkadelica♣ 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I found an article from [the Huffington Post] calling Ben & Aurther one of the worst movies of all time IamTorgo (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think this article necessarily meets muster. If I'm not mistaken, many of HuffPo's articles are citizen-contributed, not written by professional writers. This doesn't appear to be a legit film critic, but rather one of those non-professional bloggers. — Hunter Kahn 15:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Part 6

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

There is nothing in the Leonard Part 6 section calling it "the worst movie of all time." Yes, it did win a lot at the 8th Golden Raspberry Awards but it's not exactly the same. I think it might be time to start potentially removing Leonard Part 6 from the main article.

IamTorgo (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing Leonard Part 6 would be something like removing Plan 9 from Outer Space. Quoting the Bangor Daily News from July 1990, "The last, unmentionable movie was 'Leonard Part 6', which ranks with 'Ishtar' and 'Howard the Duck' among the most infamous bombs of recent times.... Cosby was asked if the wounds of 'Leonard' had healed." It used to be smack at the top of the IMDB Bottom 100 -- not sure if it's moved from there, but I doubt it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
A "Box office bomb" is merely one that did poorly financially. If financial failure is one of the criteria, we have some financially successful films to remove. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Success like Catwoman and Highlander?--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Highlander 2, you mean -- Highlander did just fine. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The one in the list.--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The Room is likely in the black by now. Whatever. The point is that box office take is not an indication of quality, unless Never Say Never was a brilliant cinematic masterpiece. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
...and Batman & Robin (film) grossed $240 million on a budget of $140 million making it, I guess, a pretty good film, right? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Generally, I thought we were looking for critics to say the film was the worst ever (side note: "one of the worst" is not the worst). No doubt he's right that it sucked. However, someone that close to a film might, just might, be prone to hyperbole. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

SummerPhD is right, I believe we're looking for critics to call it one of the worst, not someone directly tied to the film. IamTorgo (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Has anyone found anything calling it "the worst film of all time" or something close to that? IamTorgo (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that this movie can be removed. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kekkomereq4. It can be deleted. However, it can be returned to the page if someone finds reliable sources calling it one of the worst films ever. IamTorgo (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

When will be deleted the user can add the movie in the list of removed films. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it to the the list of removed films after it's been removed. IamTorgo (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been over a week since this was discussed and in that time no one has cited a critic saying that Leonard Part 6 is "the most movie of all time" or something along those line. Therefore I am going to remove it.

IamTorgo (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

IP user 96.240.45.170

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems something may need to be done about 96.240.45.170 (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly added previously-removed films to this page despite reversions from several editors, and despite an explicit warning by me not to continue doing so on his talk page. I've never gone about reporting an IP, but if this behavior persists, it may be necessary. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

North, Pat, Ballistic, FJTK, Catwoman and SuperBabies

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

For those movies I can't find a source that said "worst movies ever". North is here due to the review of Ebert that said that he hate this movie, but the movie has 11% on RT, too high for a worst movie ever, also has 4.2/10 on the Internet Movie Database. Elijah Wood was also nominated for Best Performance by a Younger Actor during the Saturn Awards and during the Young Artist Awards the movie was nominated for two awards, including Best Family Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical and won for Matthew McCurley in Best Performance by a Young Actor Co-Starring in a Motion Picture. I have personally added It's Pat when the movie arrived in the Bottom 100, but I've never found someone that said that the movie is one of the worst ever made. For both From Justin to Kelly and Catwoman should delete due to "Worst Musical" and "Worst Superhero film ever made". I'm trying to delete also Ballistic that is here only because is the worst movie reviewed on RT (but not "worst ever made") and SuperBabies, because is here only for the rating on the IMDB. Anyone else have any thoughts? Those movies can be removed? --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're way off on North. In addition to Ebert's "hate" filled rant in his review he also said "North is a bad film – one of the worst movies ever made." Viewpoints.com on the film said "Rob Reiner misfired on every level here" and named North in the category of Worst Kids Films. Richard Roeper named North as one of the 40 worst movies he has ever seen, saying that, "Of all the films on this list, North may be the most difficult to watch from start to finish." Also cited withinthe enrty is that North is listed on the Top 50 of 100 worst films ever at Digital Dream Door ranking at #16. Additionally, The Globe and Mail a newspaper named North one of the worst kids movies ever.

As for Catwoman at Everyone's a Critic it is ranked #4 on the list of worst movies of all time. Jean Lowerison of the San Diego Metropolitan said in her review that Catwoman "Goes on my 'worst' list for the year, and quite possibly for all time." Jeff Vice of the Deseret News said Catwoman is the worst superhero movie to date. Jay Boyar of the Orlando Sentinel said Catwoman is [ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/catwoman/ "the worst superhero film ever made"] Lawrence Toppman of the Charlotte Observer said

IamTorgo (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok for North, I don't read the complete review of Ebert. Same for Catwoman, the review of Jean Lowerison should stay in the main page --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

the Jean Lowerison review isn't in the page, I'll add it

IamTorgo (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with Torgo on North. As for Catwoman, I'm sort of on the fence about it, but I'm not entirely convinced yet that it belongs on this list. The Vice and Boyar reviews are alright, but as I've said before, somebody declaring something the "worst superhero movie" (or the "worst football movie" or the "worst curling movie" or the "worst whatever movie") doesn't necessarily translate to "one of the worst movie ever". The Lowerison review is much more compelling, but San Diego Metropolitan Magazine is a business publication; I'm not sure whether Lowerison is a credible film reviewer or some business writer who occasionally writes movie-related articles? I'm not saying take Catwoman off the list (yet), I'm just saying I think more WP:RS are needed. (I'll weigh in on the other movies a little later.) — Hunter Kahn 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

virginmedia.com named Catwoman one of the worst movies ever

As for From Justin to Kelly, Heather Havrilesky of Salon.com said it's might be the worst movie you ever see. Lout Lumenick of the New York Post said it's " Arguably the most insipid movie released so far this century.


None of the reviews I linked to above are in the article to the best of my knowledge.

IamTorgo (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been well over a week since this was discussed. In that time no sources have been cited calling Pat, Ballistic, or SuperBabies 2 "the worst movie of all time" of all time. Therefore I will be deleting them from the page.IamTorgo (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Kickassia (2011)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

it definitely should be on that list as it is near unwatchable und without redeeming qualities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.125.90 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. However, we need reliable sources call it "the worst". - SummerPhD (talk)
Wait... It's not even a movie. It's just a 2nd-anniversary special that a group of internet comedians did together. It's not supposed to be good. I see no reason to add it here at all. --Raddaluigi (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Alone in the Dark

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Should "Alone in the Dark" be here? This movie directed by Uwe Boll was post here, but was poorly sourced and was deleted. I found those in the RT site: this, this, this and this. What do you think about AITD for a worst movie ever? --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

looks good to me

IamTorgo (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that threemoviebuffs.com is an WP:RS, and the filmfreakcentral.net link didn't work for me, but I'm not sure if that one is RS either. However, I'm beginning to come around to Alone in the Dark being listed. Besides the Denver Post and Orlando Sentinel articles you listed, Kekko pointed out this one above. (My favorite review I've found is the EW review that said "the film on your teeth after a three-day drunk possesses more cinematic value". lol) I guess I'd like to see another review or two, but as I said, I'm beginning to think it's worth listing. Anyone else have any thoughts? — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
So, this movie respect the criteria?--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I still stand by what I said last month IamTorgo (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In Leonard Maltin’s 2007 Movie Guide on page 28 he gave it a rating of BOMB and said the movie was an "unintelligible time-waster" He continued by saying "The opening crawl is dopey and overlong; what follows is mind-numblingly awful." IamTorgo (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

anyone else want to share their thoughts on this?IamTorgo (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

add it, it never should've been removed to begin with Ears4life (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Myra Breckinridge

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

With all the pruning of this list, I'm surprised no one has brought up this movie. It has a 29%(!) at RottenTomatoes, and the only reference that calls it "the worse" is The Fifty Worst Films of All Time. We currently only have 11 film which came out before that book was published (1978), so if that alone is reason to be included, then our list is at least 39 short.Prebys (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According with this is one of the worst movies of all time. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That's not a movie review; that's a remark made in passing in an article about Farrah Fawcett. If that's the standard for being included, then this list will grow to hundreds of films pretty quickly.Prebys (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
However in his review Medved says that the movie is one of the worst ever, isn't enough? --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Now we're going in circles. That's an article about the book "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time", which is currently cited. As I said (do you read what people write or the links they post?), if that is sufficient reason to be included, then we have to include at least 39 more movies from before 1978. For example, the article mentions "Santa Claus Captures(sic) the Martians", which is on the list, but also "Three on a Couch", which I don't think has ever been even discussed. If you read The whole list, you'll see most movies on it have never been discussed (mostly because they've been forgotten entirely in the last 33 years).Prebys (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
How could anyone seriously consider putting Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible films on a worst list? He also put on films like Last Year at Marienbad, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, and Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reefer Madness (1936)

Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

I checked the arhcives and was quite surpirsed that there was no discussion about adding Reefer Madness on the main article.

it's on the worst films list at everyonesacritic

Christopher Null at filmcritic.com said Reefer Madness is "one of the best examples of bad cinema" he continued saying "Ed Wood would have been proud of this masterwork of bad bad bad moviemaking"

Louis Gasnier at timeout.com called it "One of the most absurdly earnest exercises in paranoia you'll ever have the good fortune to see."

The Los Angeles Times named it one of the worst movies of all time

associatedcontent.com named it one of the worst movies from the 1930's

In Leonard Maltin’s 2007 Movie Guide page he gave it a rating of BOMB. He also said Reefer Madness is "The grand-daddy of all “Worst” movies; one of that era’s many low-budget “Warning!” films depicts (in now hilarious fashion) how one puff of pot can lead clean-cut teenagers down the road to insanity and death.” IamTorgo (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think the Null or Gasnier quotes are enough for an addition to this list (and if I'm not mistaken, isn't associatedcontent.com on the Wikipedia blacklist?), but the Maltin and LA Times ones certainly would be. I will check my Maltin book when I get home to check the exact wording, but in the meantime, do you have a link for the LA Times quote? — Hunter Kahn 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's interesting, I thought that Reefer Madness had achieved somewhat of a cult following in more recent years (indeed, it had a musical made in 1988 and a comedy remake in 2005). But if the refs check out I guess there's no reason not to add it; we do have to be careful, however, of looking at whether opinions were ever revised or reformed over the years.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

the LA Times quote [here] IamTorgo (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


filmcritic.com said Reefer Madness ranks as "one of the worst movies ever made" IamTorgo (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you link all those references to help us see? Also, I'm not sure which LA times article you're referring to. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The filmcritic link is here. The LA Times quote is here. The Leonard Maltin quote is from his 2007 Movie Guide so I can't really link that as it's in a book. IamTorgo (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You linked to a search on the LA times site. Do you have the one to the actual article? I looked through all the ones on the search page you linked but I couldn't find the reference you referred to. As for the filmcritic one, I guess it meets the requirement, although I personally feel it's more of a"so bad it's good" kinda description, but I'll leave that up to community consensus, since my opinion isn't particularly important.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I misread is LA Times thing, however I found an article by David McKee of Las Vegas City Life calling it the second worst movie of all time.IamTorgo (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It was named of the worst B-movies of all time in Michael Sauter’s book “The Worst Movies of All Time or: What Were They Thinking” IamTorgo (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

anyone else want to share their thoughts on this? IamTorgo (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It should obviously be included. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

add it! Ears4life (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So that's 4 people in favor of adding it, including myself. Is that enough to add it? IamTorgo (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I don't think you and your brother should be commenting on the same issues.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How many is enough? And why shouldn't my brother and I comment on the smae issues?IamTorgo (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It gives the impression of WP:Sockpuppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry. You should avoid the same pages if you both are going to be editing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also for me the movie can't be included. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But how many "yeses" are enough? IamTorgo (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Worst"

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Basing this entirely on someone using the word "worst" in their review is ridiculous. There are films that qualify for this list and are clearly considered some of the worst ever, but you want to exclude them just because the reviewer said "least amusing ever" instead of "worst". If the least amusing comedy ever made isn't one of the worst, what is? How about If you're looking for the ultimate movie to clear your house of partygoers who don't know when to leave, look no further than this DVD. The "ultimate" DVD to make people leave your house? Sounds like one of the worst to me. You're splitting hairs. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the reviews make it sound pretty bad. "Least amusing ever"? Wow, for a pure comedy film, that would suck. However, maybe there is more to it: are there any redeeming qualities of this film? Is this unamusing comedy worse than the non-thrilling thriller, the suspense-less suspense film or some other very mildly amusing comedy? Is it the worst film ever, in that reviewer's opinion? "Worst" is a strong word. That's intentional. Sure, if a reviewer specifically tried to describe a film as being the worst without using the word "worst" they probably could. But it is unlikely they would. If a reviewer thinks a film is the worst ever, they are likely to say so. Other than that, we would be substituting your impression of what the reviews might mean -- but aren't saying -- for what they are saying. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not just a subjective impression, it's the idea that, logically, things can be the worst without the word itself being used. If a comedy is meant to be funny, then plain logic dictates that the least amusing comedy ever would also be the worst comedy ever. And "the ultimate DVD to clear your house of partygoers"... makes it sound like the worst film of all time. Not even Plan 9 From Outer Space has the distinction of being referred to as the ultimate weapon to get people to leave. Plenty of people can refer to something as "the worst" without it literally being the worst. What is important is the meaning, not the word. It seems the current threshold is based more on the personal word choices of journalists than what can objectively be called one of the worst ever. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Objectively, if a reviewer calls a film "the worst", we know -- objectively -- that it is considered the worst. Other than that, we are left to arguments based on interpretation. Using that simple criterion, we have a fairly substantial list and little room for "Gee, sounds like the worst to me" arguments. Reviewing the discussion here so far, it seems to be the consensus as well. (For the record, there are plenty of offensive -- but not horribly "bad" -- films that will clear out a party quite quickly (depending on the audience). My brother-in-law, OTOH, gleefully plops down in movies he chooses based on claims that they are horribly bad.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's based on journalists choice of words rather than the reality of what they believe. I can't imagine anyone thinking that the "least amusing comedy ever" and "the ultimate DVD to clear your house" do not have the same meaning as "worst". The key terms here are "least amusing" and "ultimate". In a spectrum of bad vs good, these are clearly at the far end of the bad spectrum. Arguing otherwise is missing the forest for the trees. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The current consensus here is reliable sources specifically calling a film "the worst". You want to use your interpretation of what the critics said. Until there is some evidence of a new consensus, I'm reverting any additions that do not follow the current consensus, which I support.

Other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research and I don't appreciate you trying to undermine my position by dismissing it as such. Focusing on a specific word instead of the actual meaning is backwards and totally flies in the face of language as a means of communication. It seems you're now refusing to discuss this and instead making a statement of finality, that you're going to revert anyone who goes against what you believe the consensus is. That sounds like textbook WP:OWN to me. I welcome the opinions of others, however if it just ends up being the same 2 or 3 people who imposed the current "consensus" I will most likely initiate a request for comment to bring fresh eyes. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not specifically trying to undermine your opinion, I simply disagree with you. At the moment, the consensus seems to be that we need a source calling a film "the worst". Until I see an indication of a different consensus, I am going with that. I am, at the moment, removing additions that do no include "the worst" and directing them to the talk page for other opinions. My opinion plus your opinion does not give us a consensus. So, I asked for "Other opinions?" which is neither a "statements of finality" or ownership ("WP:OWN"). Yes, it is your interpretation that "least amusing" or "ultimate movie to clear your house" is the same as any definition of "worst" that I am familiar with: "least favorable", "highest degree of inferiority or badness", "weakest effort or poorest achievement one is capable of", "(superlative of `bad') most wanting in quality or value or condition", etc.[7] To say "least amusing" is, for instance, the same as "least favorable" clearly requires interpretation. We disagree. I'm waiting for additional opinions and following what I believe the consensus to be. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Least amusing is not the same as worst, although in a case where there is clearly an argument being presented that a movie is the worst ever, even if it doesn't use those exact words, it should be interpreted as such. That doesn't seem to be the case with the article in question, however. We'd also need more reviews with superlative criticisms anyway.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"Least amusing comedy" is on par with "worst comedy". However, the sections in this article were scrubbed (there used to be a section for "worst sequels" and so on) so the least amusing comedy doesn't really fit any more (worst comedy is not the same as worst film). Unless we create genre sections in the style of list of films considered the best this movie doesn't fit IMO.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I also think the sections should be put back the way they were before. Ordering it by dates alone doesn't really take the whole concept of "worst" into account appropriately and seems like comparing apples to oranges to me. The categories previously used was far more informative and descriptive. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think it should go back the way it was before. All the new look does is give the movies listed something of a time line. IamTorgo (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Son of the Mask??? The Cat In the Hat???

why not son of the mask? that movie has received massive negative reviews and reception, its even on IMDb bottom 100 and its got a 6% rating on rotten tomatoes and it was nominated for a heap of razzies in 2005.

and also, why not The Cat in the Hat? that movie has also received massive nagative reviews and reception, and it was nominated for 8 razzies for 2003, id say if gigli didnt come out at all that year the cat in the hat wouldve swarmed the razzies that year. That film also caused audrey giesel (Widow of Dr Suess and holds all right to his work) to declare that there would be no more LIVE ACTION films based on dr suess books because she thought it differed from her late husbands family friendly material, and i dont blame her for doing that and i completely agree with that.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst/Archive_6&oldid=1136939762"