Bad being movies that flopped, underperformed at the box office or were critically panned like most of the Transformers franchise.
So you don't really want to know what
bad movies I like.
You want ones that fit one, or both, of 2 arbitrary criteria (critics opinions - wich don't phase me at all, & $).
Ok, here's 3.
*Hamlet (1996, Kenneth Branagh)
Critics liked it.
IMDB says it cost 18M & it's US take was a bit shy of 4.5M. I don't know what it's global take ended up being, but I seriously doubt it made $. The un-cut version
(wich is the only cut you should be watching as this was meant to be an unabridged version put on screen) clocks at 4h & some minutes. And theatres HATE eating up that much screen time for something that'll draw so few viewers. And if you're not a Shakespeare fan I bet you don't want to sit through even the "short" cut of this (2.5 hrs)....
So obviously it was a failure, right?
Wrong. It's purpose seems to be Award season bait + a continuation of Branaghs love of the Bards work. I don't think it was even a concern if it made a dime. Award wise it won 9/24 it was nominated for (
but not stuff anyone outside the industry cares much about)
It's also a really good version of Hamlet. You can sit there with the play in one hand & virtually read along. And it's presented in plain English & set in a clean, bight, polished, 19th century Europe - making both it easy to watch and easy to listen to.
*Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom
Looks like it made a good chunk of $ for it's time. (and more since) Critics score is only a 57. Not hated, but no real love.
But this is far from a bad movie, just not loved by the critics.
For me Raiders & Temple are tied. I love them both. Then Crusade.
*Stardust (2007)
Ok with the critics, for whatever that's worth. But looks like it only made 1/2 it's budget back here in the US. And by a year later the rest of the world had pushed it to about double its budget. That makes it a bad movie in your book doesn't it?