Worst movies ever....

[Shoon]

A lot of you people are saying Waterworld is the worst movie ever. It isn't. It could, indeed, be a very entertaining movie...































... if it hadn't costed 170 million dollars.

Really, Waterworld's agonizing because you think someone put as much money into it as PJ put into the LotR trilogy, for example.

 

[Altalazar]

I love the threads about "worst movie ever" - you all sound like high-minded critics to me. Comparing films that, in the great scope of cinema history rank between 5-10 out of 10 and calling the '5's as the worst movie ever, perhaps even completely ignorant of the vast collection of movies in the 1-4 range.

Calling Waterworld the worst movie of all time? Give me a break. How about "Surf Nazis Must Die"?

I went to film school. I saw what REALLY bad movies were like. Seeing all of these competently done, A-list movies listed in the list of "worst" is just silly.

 

[Altalazar]

A lot of you people are saying Waterworld is the worst movie ever. It isn't. It could, indeed, be a very entertaining movie...

... if it hadn't costed 170 million dollars.

Really, Waterworld's agonizing because you think someone put as much money into it as PJ put into the LotR trilogy, for example.

Oh, and don't even GET me started on that - let me ask you - did you have to pay extra to see it? I HATE with a PASSION critics who complain about a movie because of the COST. Last I checked, the ticket price was the SAME for the 1 million dollar budget indie produced picture and the 250 million dollar produced blockbuster. So cost is IRRELEVANT and has NOTHING to do with quality because the cost to the consumer is the same.

As far as I'm concerned, critics ought to be kept in a media blackout, not allowed to know ANYTHING about the production (or meta-information about the movie) - they should just be blindfolded, kidnapped, and taken to a random location where they will sit with an audience of other kidnappees, then the film rolls, not even knowing the TITLE of the film in advance, and perhaps blanking out the titles as well, so they don't know who is in it, who produced it or directed it, all they have are the images and sounds projected and thus they can form a review based on the actual MOVIE instead of all of the other irrelevant things around it - the hype, the advertising, the trailer, the actors personal lives, the reputation of the actors or director, the amount of money spent, problems in production, etc. As soon as I see ANY of those things mentioned in a review, I discount it entirely as it is no longer talking about the movie, it is talking about crap completely irrelevent.

 

[reapersaurus]

I went to film school. I saw what REALLY bad movies were like. Seeing all of these competently done, A-list movies listed in the list of "worst" is just silly.

I'm not sure if you read the whole thread.
There have been many non-A list movies that have been mentioned, AFAIK.

But I totally agree with you, that too many people actually believe that competently made Hollywood movies CAN NOT be the Worst movie of all time.
See my earlier comment on page 3:

Similarly, some of the movies listed here are not nearly a "worst movie ever", simply they are a movie that you hate, or a movie that many people like that you harbor a dark spot in your heart for (Fargo, Contact, PotC, etc).

There's a big difference.

I can't stand it when people make those same tired supposedly-bad-movie-rants, but this thread has been much better than most of the others I've seen.

 

[Villano]

I love the threads about "worst movie ever" - you all sound like high-minded critics to me. Comparing films that, in the great scope of cinema history rank between 5-10 out of 10 and calling the '5's as the worst movie ever, perhaps even completely ignorant of the vast collection of movies in the 1-4 range.

Calling Waterworld the worst movie of all time? Give me a break. How about "Surf Nazis Must Die"?

I went to film school. I saw what REALLY bad movies were like. Seeing all of these competently done, A-list movies listed in the list of "worst" is just silly.

When a person watches a '50s drive-in film with a script written over the weekend, directed by a first time director, and starring the director's girlfriend who can't act, they cut it some slack.

When a person watches a modern, $100 million dollar film with a script written and rewritten by 5 people (but still reads as if it was written over the weekend), directed by an award-winning director (who can barely keep the camera straight), and it stars well know actors (who, for some reason overact or sleepwalk through it), they aren't so forgiving.

For me, a low-budget movie has to be obscenely terrible for me to completely hate it (Howling: New Moon Rising, Ancient Evil: Scream Of The Mummy). I expect more of a film which actually has talent and money behind it.

To put it bluntly, there's no reason that Batman & Robin should have been what it was. Nothing works in it. The acting is on par with a high school play, the script is mind-numbingly bad, there are simple editing mistakes, and the director could barely keep the shots in frame. There was a lot of talent and money involved (the writers later won an Oscar for writing A Beautiful Mind, for God's sake) and, yes, it is one of the worst films of all time.

 

[DarkSoldier]

Cold Fusion Video has a review of a film called I Stand Alone. Its IMDb rating is around 7, and IMDb "reviewers" have called it "visionary," but when Nathan (the CFV reviewer) watched it, he gave it five beakers. He has never given any other offence to celluloid more than one beaker, it's that bad.

Basically, I Stand Alone is about a misanthropic, mysoginistic, nihilistic sociopathic butcher's really bad day. Written and directed by Gasper Noe, he apparently doesn't know that to have a motion picture, your actors have to move; there are long sequences of people just sitting there, or walking, while the butcher monologues about how much he hates his life and everyone around him. There's even a scene where he beats his common-law wife until she spontaneously aborts.

In short, never allow yourself or anyone you know to see this tripe. It could probably be considered torture under the Geneva Convention.

 

[Altalazar]

When a person watches a '50s drive-in film with a script written over the weekend, directed by a first time director, and starring the director's girlfriend who can't act, they cut it some slack.

When a person watches a modern, $100 million dollar film with a script written and rewritten by 5 people (but still reads as if it was written over the weekend), directed by an award-winning director (who can barely keep the camera straight), and it stars well know actors (who, for some reason overact or sleepwalk through it), they aren't so forgiving.

For me, a low-budget movie has to be obscenely terrible for me to completely hate it (Howling: New Moon Rising, Ancient Evil: Scream Of The Mummy). I expect more of a film which actually has talent and money behind it.

To put it bluntly, there's no reason that Batman & Robin should have been what it was. Nothing works in it. The acting is on par with a high school play, the script is mind-numbingly bad, there are simple editing mistakes, and the director could barely keep the shots in frame. There was a lot of talent and money involved (the writers later won an Oscar for writing A Beautiful Mind, for God's sake) and, yes, it is one of the worst films of all time.

No, it wasn't. I'm sorry. Not even close. I bet I could screen for you 100 movies you would agree are far worse - movies you probably couldn't make it through the first 15 minutes, or perhaps even 5 minutes without wanting to claw your eyeballs out. You see, this isn't a thread about the "worst A-list, professionally done, high-budget movies with A-list actors and talented crews", it is about the worst films of all time, which means you CANNOT give "points" to a film for having a low budget or take points away for a high one. As I indicated above, you should not be allowed to even know what the budget was, because that is irrelevant - you should only judge a movie by what you see projected onto the screen - not meta-movie information that does not come from there - because then you are not judging the movie, you are judging other things that have nothing to do with the experience in the theater.

 

[tsadkiel]

Cold Fusion Video has a review of a film called I Stand Alone. Its IMDb rating is around 7, and IMDb "reviewers" have called it "visionary," but when Nathan (the CFV reviewer) watched it, he gave it five beakers. He has never given any other offence to celluloid more than one beaker, it's that bad.

Nathan is my hombre. We went to college together (I am the friend who was present the night we began the "breast count" tradition to save ourselves from the mind-numbing boredom of the film we were watching) and have been in near daily contact ever since. Over the years, we've each subjected the other to some truly, truly bad cinema*. And he has never, ever tried to get me to watch "I Stand Alone." He hates it that much.

Even mentioning the film to him makes him twitch.

*My personal best: Alicja, AKA Alice

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083537/

Not a good movie by any means, but I've always been strangely fond of it.

 

[Villano]

You see, this isn't a thread about the "worst A-list, professionally done, high-budget movies with A-list actors and talented crews", it is about the worst films of all time, which means you CANNOT give "points" to a film for having a low budget or take points away for a high one. As I indicated above, you should not be allowed to even know what the budget was, because that is irrelevant - you should only judge a movie by what you see projected onto the screen - not meta-movie information that does not come from there - because then you are not judging the movie, you are judging other things that have nothing to do with the experience in the theater.

I "cannot" judge what makes a movie bad by my own standards but have to use your's? Oookay...

I had no idea there were "rules" for what this thread is supposed to be about, anyway. Oh, wait, there they are, written by the guy who actually started this thread!

I don't just mean movies that you didn't like, I'm talking about the movies that really upset you. The kind of movies that your friends are probably sick and tired of hearing you complain about. Those movies...so what are they, and why do you hate them so?

What are your worst?

Okay, so we are supposed to list the worst films we've seen (I'm kind of wondering how you seem to expect us to list the worst we've never seen, but...), and films that "really upset" us and we constantly complain about.

Nope, those rules don't look anything like the ones you want us to use...

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not some snob elitist who only watches big Hollywood films and judges everything by Citizen Kane. Hell, my favorite movies are the low-budget cheapies that most people can't tolerate. I've seen 1000s upon 1000s of films, stuff that would shrivel a normal man's soul, but a little part of me died as I sat through drek like Batman & Robin. And that certainly qualifies by the "rules" of this thread.

 

[pezagent]

OMG...

I just watched about 20 minutes of the Dungeons & Dragons movie on TV... following, a brief review:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Who put up the money for that thing? There are people starving in this world, ya know?

I have to say, it certainly is one of the worst films I've ever seen--a very bad "made for TV" that shouldn't even be shown as an afterschool special. I think Power Rangers has more going for it. Very embarrassing--certainly doesn't make me want to play D&D at all. The game itself is melodramatic because it's a game, who the hell thought that would translate to a movie? Somebody definitely blew a rich old lady to get this movie made. Ug. And somebody was asking how Jeremy Irons ended up in this? He must owe money.

/johnny