Bad Movies You Liked

Zardnaar

Hero
Bad being movies that flopped, underperformed at the box office or were critically panned like most of the Transformers franchise.

My 3.

Labyrinth
This movie was a flop back in the 80s but I loved it. I was something like 8 and this movie has since become a cult classic. Still it cost a lot to make and I think I fell in love with Jennifer Connolley.

2. God's of Egypt
Watched this on Netflix. It wasn't great but I kind of liked it and was going on an ancient Egypt D&D design binge.

3. Assassin's Creed
Better than God's of Egypt I liked this a bit more and would give it 7/10. It was no Detective Pikachu though.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
define under performed
Didn't lose money but was expected to make a lot more. Probably one with an average to meh IMDb rating. No blockbusters or movies generally regarded as good/successful.

Flops that are good are fine, flop being movies that lost money.

Another one.

Dune (1984).
Critically panned on release, I kinda like it. It's not great.
 
Last edited:

MarkB

Hero
John Carter.

Not superb, but entertaining. Felt like if they'd only left the "of Mars" in the title, it'd have stood at least a chance of finding an audience beyond those already familiar with the source material.
 
"Bad" is so subject to interpretration, but if you're talking solely about box office flops then I'll go with Dark Phoenix. It wasn't great, but it was much better than the Last Stand and still a decent movie. I didn't feel like my childhood was destroyed like I did with the Last Stand.

Here's a list of 52 box office flops:
https://www.workandmoney.com/s/highest-grossing-war-movies-d0c142c1cf3942dd

What strikes me is that the vast majority of those were actually pretty bad (imho, of course). At best, they were "OK." So they bombed for a reason.
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
Waterworld. Not even sure if I saw if at the movies bit I thought it was a cool movie.

Had no idea that Labyrinth was considered a dud. Seen that movie so many times because of how great I think it is.
 
Conan the Destroyer. I am not proud.
My problem with the Destroyer is that The Barbarian was actually a really good movie, one of the best fantasy flicks ever made - a true classic. It was as if with the sequel they remembered the era and they made just another silly 80s fantasy movie, in the vein of Krull, Beastmaster, and Sword & Sorcerer.


​But yeah, it is kind of fun.
 

ccs

39th lv DM
My problem with the Destroyer is that The Barbarian was actually a really good movie, one of the best fantasy flicks ever made - a true classic. It was as if with the sequel they remembered the era and they made just another silly 80s fantasy movie, in the vein of Krull, Beastmaster, and Sword & Sorcerer.


​But yeah, it is kind of fun.
It's like they took D&D and made a movie out of it....
 

ccs

39th lv DM
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?
 

Zardnaar

Hero
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?
It's fine basically post whatever. Its just things like Transformers that made a boat load of money but aren't really good as such.
 

ccs

39th lv DM
It's fine basically post whatever. Its just things like Transformers that made a boat load of money but aren't really good as such.
Hey, I'm just pointing out that your standards of bad don't make much sense. Especially your obsession with how much $ a movie makes.

I mean if you actually want to know a bad movie I like I'll point you to Plan 9 from Outer Space.
It's the gold standard of bad acting, bad writing, bad plot, & bad technical.
Or the unreleased 1994 Fantastic Four movie by Roger Corman. (Terrible, but oddly still better than the most recent FF effort)
I'm also entertained by a great amount of the 70s-80s sci-fi shlock (again, thank God for Roger Corman! :)) that I can stream via Amazon. Well worth my Prime membership fee!
 

trappedslider

Explorer
Hey, I'm just pointing out that your standards of bad don't make much sense. Especially your obsession with how much $ a movie makes.

I mean if you actually want to know a bad movie I like I'll point you to Plan 9 from Outer Space.
It's the gold standard of bad acting, bad writing, bad plot, & bad technical.
Or the unreleased 1994 Fantastic Four movie by Roger Corman. (Terrible, but oddly still better than the most recent FF effort)
I'm also entertained by a great amount of the 70s-80s sci-fi shlock (again, thank God for Roger Corman! :)) that I can stream via Amazon. Well worth my Prime membership fee!
oh you said that you like nvm you left out the Star Wars Holiday special https://xkcd.com/653/ and Hobgoblins.....*shudders*
 

ccs

39th lv DM
oh you said that you like nvm you left out the Star Wars Holiday special https://xkcd.com/653/ and Hobgoblins.....*shudders*
Well yeah. The thread, though having some flawed criteria for what constitutes bad, is about stuff you like.
The SW Holiday Special:
1) Isn't a movie. It's a TV show.
2) Unlike P9, it brings zero amount of entertainment for its awfulness. You can laugh & marvel at P9. The SWHS? Nope.

Hobgoblins. Hmm. Never heard of it. The (cess)pool of bad movies is vast & deep though, so I'm sure there's all sorts of stuff I've somehow missed.
 

Imaculata

Adventurer
And here I thought I would be alone in liking Masters of the Universe. The soundtrack is amazing too, and Frank Langetta is having such a great time as the villain.
 

trappedslider

Explorer
Hobgoblins. Hmm. Never heard of it. The (cess)pool of bad movies is vast & deep though, so I'm sure there's all sorts of stuff I've somehow missed.

[video=youtube;o0fhewrzBRM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fhewrzBRM[/video] I'm sorry.....the only way i've seen this movie was MST3K and it came close driving them insane
 

Raunalyn

Adventurer
My problem with the Destroyer is that The Barbarian was actually a really good movie, one of the best fantasy flicks ever made - a true classic. It was as if with the sequel they remembered the era and they made just another silly 80s fantasy movie, in the vein of Krull, Beastmaster, and Sword & Sorcerer.


​But yeah, it is kind of fun.
My problem was the uber-cheesy make-up/special effects. And the fact that it did not have the incredible Basil Poledouris for the soundtrack (it had a cheesy knock off that did a poor job of trying to sound like Basil Poledouris).

It wasn't great, but it was fun.
 

Advertisement

Top