Jump to content

Talk:List of films considered the worst

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lifefeed (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 19 August 2005 (→‎Fantastic Four). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Eyes Wide Shut deleted

I was pretty shocked to see Eyes Wide Shut on here. Just because some people think its Stanley Kubrick's least good movie, and some people don't like it at all doesn't make it the one of the "worst movies ever".. It has lots of fans, and lots of people consider it as one of his best. Don't usually like to use IMDB votes as "evidence", but 7.0/10 is a _good_ rate, isn't it? This is no turkey. Calling it one of the worst movies ever made is just plain crazy. You don't really find any movies that SOME critic didn't like. Please save this list for real turkeys, and don't throw in art-movies in here just because you don't understand/like them.

E Section

No "E" section yet? I nominate "End Of Days." :)

Any votes for Love Story?

More deletion debate

ARGH. No, no no. First of all, it's generally agreed that Howard the Duck is the worst movie ever made. Second of all, this article has no place on Wikipedia. I mean, Christ, Jimbo is talking about 1.0. Graft 05:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, me and some of my friends actually watched Titanic in the theatre. It's more enjoyable if you laugh out loud when people fall off the boat as it sinks. But anyway, yeah isn't this incredibly POV? Adam Bishop 05:33, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
NPOV'd a little.... Dysprosia 05:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I don't beleive this page can exist in Wikipedia. It needs to be moved to meta. Mintguy 15:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We should have a couple of these "worst" things. Even if there is no one film you can actually say "is the worst", there is ontologically still such a thing as "the worst movie ever made" - people just disagree as to which it is. The title makes the *pursuit* of the *criteria* for the worst, the point, not the worst. The fun part is that people *do* agree on these things, if not unanimously, so, there must be such a thing as "worst".

I agree, it needs to go to meta; it's subjective by definition, and can't adhere to NPOV for that reason. (Besides, if it took this long for Ishtar to make the list.... ;) - Hephaestos 15:32, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, not even meta; meta is for talking about Wikipedia itself. There are several wiki sites that would welcome it though (in fact they probably already have an article on it). - Hephaestos 15:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Even though I added to this page (for fun) it should indeed not be part of Wikipedia. - Fuzheado 15:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The only reason you think Ishtar is a bad movie is because people told you so before you saw it (if you saw it at all).

Rationale of this article

I created this article as a means of cross-linking various existing movie articles that already made statements along the lines of "[subject movie] is often called the worst movie ever". This is not intended to be a subjective article, but one reporting on a divergent set of widely held subjective opinions on a cultural subject. I wouldn't object to moving it to a less provocative title, but I think such a list does have a place in Wikipedia. Mkweise 16:37, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

Discussion is also happening at Vfd, so people may want to look there. Also, the worst movie of all time is unquestionably Millenium. --Dante Alighieri 20:05, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's an article named List of major flops. I don't know why Heaven's Gate or Waterworld are here. Ericd 21:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't know how "famous" Terminal Island is but I know from viewing it that it is one horrible movie. It counts in it's cast most of the actors from Magnum P.I. and Tom Selleck has publicly apologized for it calling it the worst movie he has ever been a part of. I might also add Devil's Rain to the list but, again, I don't know how famous it is for being so bad. Probably it's only claim to fame. StinKerr 11:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Titanic is not 'widely considered extremely bad'. I would say the same for Independence Day, however much I may personally disagree. DJ Clayworth 16:44, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, they have extremely bad scenes, but that does not make them wholly bad. They aren't a sheer root canal to watch end to end. For instance, in Titanic we get to see that wimpy sensitive-guy Leonardo di Caprio actually freeze to death and we get to laugh as his goofy corpse goes to the bottom. And, in Independence Day Will Smith, after a dogfight between his aircraft and a hostile flying saucer, after they crash, still chomping his cigar, hauls off and punches the alien in the face without missing a beat. This was good for a laugh too. Then again most true crap film has such moments.


At the risk of feeding the trolls, my point was that most people, such as the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts, considered Titanic to be very good. The page title says 'widely considered'. DJ Clayworth 17:03, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Should we have a section for B movies, separate from the rest, is it fair to consider Plan 9 and Titanic on the same terms?

Independence Day was quite good, as was Titanic. LirQ

Lists that have bad/worst/best/good in their titles should be removed from Wikipedia as they are an expression of someone's opinion rather than NPOV or fact.

Nah, it doesnt hurt anything. LirQ

First of all, I'm not sure this article belongs here because of POV issues. Regardless of that, the article title is perhaps the most awkward sequence of words that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Is that really the best anyone could come up with: "famous for being widely considered extremely bad" ? What about List of famously panned movies or List of widely panned movies or even List of movies that are famous for being widely panned? At least make the title readable. -- Minesweeper 11:44, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deep Impact, a wholly decent movie, is on this list but Armageddon remains absent. Please. This is a totally subjective list, and the commentary after each movie does nothing to remove that stigma. -- goatasaur 05:05, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So remove Deep Impact, or add Armageddon. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I think this list should more closely mimic the List of movies that are famous for being widely considered extremely good where recognized authorities or polls are cited for each film to be included. - SimonP 13:05, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

I nominate this page for worst article title in Wikiland. Paul Klenk 13:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Removed the 3 quotes, because they look so ugly, but if you really want them, keep them.2toise 09:00, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How did Star Wars make this list? Is the criteria for being extremely bad that a movie makes a lot of money. Both Star Wars films are in the top 25 all-time grossing movies. I only wish I could make a movie so bad. Rmhermen 13:08, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

You know, I always thought this page would remain intact exactly as titled as an easter egg in Wikipedia with no serious attempt to make it part of the mainstream. Look at the edit history and look at the title - List of movies that are famous for being widely considered extremely bad It's a parody on the NPOV policy by using weasel words to describe what, as you pointed out, are "The worst movies." Even the early edit history had comments like, "This article should be deleted, but I'm adding..." :) Fuzheado 08:53, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that as it stands this page is too subjective. Rather than deleting, I propose splitting the page in two:

which would, under each title give details of budget and gross box-office (information availible under Box Office and Business on IMDB see Data on Heaven's Gate for Example). This should also have the caveat that a film can eventually recoup it's losses in the video rental market and TV syndication.
which would have at least one quote (and preferably more - especially if the film does not have an article associated with it) from an established film critic/reviewer supporting its inclusion as an atrocious movie

Once all the titles were on one (or both) of these lists it could be removed or converted into a disambig if there are any articles left pointing to it that it is not clear which type of failure or "bad movie" they are talking about. Any Thoughts? MrWeeble 00:26, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree that deleting would be less attractive an option than dividing into 2 or 3 sections (financial flops, disappointing sequels/adaptations, and the truly bad); while a lot of the titles here have been widely viewed as failures on virtually all levels, the list mixes them to too great a degree with titles here for other reason. A few of the titles here - Munchausen, Tron, The Cotton Club, for instance - are genuinely good movies; they were big financial failures, but neither critics nor audiences found them truly bad; I can easily watch any of them free of either guilt or smug derision. (BTW, someone might add some notes on the associated murder case to the Cotton Club page; I don't have enough background to add them myself.)

Some of the others - Alien 3, Batman and Robin, Episodes I & II, etc - might be grouped under diappointing sequels (and/or adaptations). Godzilla, Cleopatra and Last Action Hero - among others (maybe For the Boys belongs here) - should probably be categorized simply as hugely expensive or ambitious movies that didn't do as well as was hoped; Heaven's Gate fits this description, though to a much greater extent. I'm not sure where The Postman fits in here; I think it kind of suffered from piling on at the time, though those who actually saw it didn't think it was that bad. (Some fans of the book may disagree.)

I can't fathom why Deep Impact is on here; it was a big hit (though not as big as Armageddon the same summer), and audiences generally liked it. MisfitToys 01:24, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Worst ever? Pearl Harbor barely sinks to the depth of "mediocre." Heck, I saw it in the theatre and didn't even leave before it was done. Disappointing, OK. (imdb, click, click) I see Roger Ebert gave it one-and-a-half stars and described it as "a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours" OSo, OK, maybe it was worse that mediocre, perhaps you could even call it bad, but worst ever? C'mon, we can set the bar lower than Pearl Harbor. Dpbsmith 16:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The above talk mainly seems to focus on an (inevitably) failed attempt at deletion. Perhaps now we should turn our hand to NPOVing the article? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

VfD Part II: This sucker won't die

(a fine name for a bad movie)

List of movies that have been considered the worst ever

Silly list. Inherently POV. Wyllium 01:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Valid topic only if started over as a properly referenced list of professional reviewers calling movies the worst ever. Fredrik 01:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been around since August 2003 and there have been nearly 200 edits. It needs some work but it should not be removed. Acegikmo1 01:49, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. A movie's entertainment value is perhaps its most critical metric. We have other lists of subjects sorted by the metrics that are most important to those subjects. Why should we exclude the most important metric to movies simply because it's subjective? As long as each entry on the page is defended (some certainly need to be expanded), then the page serves its use. RADICALBENDER★ 02:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just the title uses weasel words and is POV. The entire article is based upon the opinions of its creators. Delete it before more of its ilk have time to sprout. Guanaco 02:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like the title much myself, but there are many movies downright notorious for being bad, and it's nice to have a list of them. The article as stands has useful information, though perhaps it could be pruned a bit. VV 03:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an obvious content issue. All we need to do is state by whom the movies has been considered the worst, and voila, it is NPOV, and people will undoubtedly find the page interesting. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Pete; keep. James F. (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's marginal, mostly because the research to reference who considers them "the worst ever" is unlikely ever to be done. But I have to say that the fact that the article has received so much attention and so many contributions and edits—and real edits, not reversion wars—weighs in the balance. If I had to give a rationalization, it would be that a page that receives that much ongoing attention is probably in the process of improvement. I'd add that "reasonable judgement based on personal expertise" is not the same as "biassed point of view." Dpbsmith 13:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (what, Lord Bob, making a keep vote? Incredible!). Pretty borderline, really, but a list like this belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. POV title, but the content is worthy of keeping. Lord Bob 17:00, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Abigail 00:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete But if you really want to keep it, record box office stats, dvd sales, and production/advertising budget and compile a biggest money-losing movies of all time, then it would be encyclopedic rather than POV. siroxo 00:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whilst it's not the most encyclopaedic article ever-written, and unashamedly POV, it is interesting and (dare I say) fun! Julianp 00:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already been here once, several months ago, for mostly the same reasons. The title needs work, true, but that title was made weaselly because it was supposed to be "more NPOV" that way. There are of course too many moviegoers who have seen clinkers for every such opinion to have, or need, a reference. Perhaps move it to something like "List of notoriously bad movies." Smerdis of Tlön 03:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some movies are note worthy only because they are the worst. Tomatoes and Plan 9 for example. IMDB has its own list of 100 worst. Why shouldn't we? Most of these movies have good annotations, the rest should either be similarly annotated, or removed from the list. Note on Titanic being on the list--comments attached with it are well balanced, and I would have to agree with them, despite liking the movie myself. --ssd 04:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It has no chance to be neutral and well-grounded. Mikkalai 05:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no chance to be NPOV. - Tεxτurε 17:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course it can be made NPOV. I can also imagine someone finding use in such a list. I second Ihcoyc's suggestion to rename it "List of notoriously bad movies." -- Wikisux 18:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the Razzies Awards?? Muriel G 08:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, wikipedia is all about npov RustyCale 18:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lighten up. MK 07:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Meta-List:

Movies removed from main article for lack of citation

Following up a little on the above, now that we are keeping the article. First I don't understand the "title is POV" suggests. The title, on the contrary, bends over backwards to be NPOV. In line with what I did at List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever, I am going to remove all movies that do not have a citation for being worst movie, otherwise it is just a collection of our own POVs. All films removed will be listed here, and once we have a cite, we can move it back to the article. Pcb21| Pete 14:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A

  • The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen (1988): the Terry Gilliam version. Disasters led to the film costing much more then it should have. Failure at the box office hurt Gilliam's reputation.
  • Alien 3: third film in the phenomenal Alien franchise — the feature debut of director David Fincher — alienated the series' fans for taking the saga in an undesired direction and featuring a story considered threadbare and uninvolving; its reputation could change, however, with the inclusion of Fincher's original cut for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD box set..
  • Attack of the Killer Tomatoes a camp classic that knows it is being funny. Feral tomatoes--some giants--threaten people.

B

  • Blank Check (1993) (Not to be confused with the 1970s game show of the same name): A Disney family film that got unusally bad reviews for its type. It is still sold on DVD at many Toys 'R' Us locations.please do not put this back in the article without a citation
  • The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990): Based on Tom Wolfe's novel, the movie was directed by Brian De Palma and starred Tom Hanks in what might be considered one of his worst performances ever. The movie earned horrid reviews from critics and was a box office bomb. Ironically, Julie Salamon's book, The Devil's Candy, which chronicled the making of the film and its disastrous release, was very successful.
    • I am reluctant to have dropped this from the article, but it needs a citation stating it is "the worst" according to some recognized measure. I agree that the film was a big disappointment, but this article is not about disappointments per se, it's about the worst movies ever made. Ellsworth 22:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C

  • Caligula (1980): Sexually explicit film about the Roman emperor. Largely financed by Penthouse. Perhaps the oddest thing about it is that it stars some of the best British actors of their day---Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, and John Gielgud. Last minute changes prompted the actors to demand that their names be taken off the billing. Widely panned by critics. Roger Ebert gave it zero stars, describing it as "sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash," and writer Gore Vidal, McDowell, O'Toole and director Tinto Brass would all disown the film.
    • Please include a citation for "worst" in accordance with the discussed standards for this article, if you put this back on the list. Ellsworth
  • Chairman of the Board (1998): Comedian Carrot Top's first foray into film acting was very poorly received by audiences and critics, and also earned a negative reception from Norm MacDonald when appearing on Late Night with Conan O'Brien.
  • Cleopatra (1963): due to its then-unprecedented astronomical costs, it nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox. Perhaps out of a sense of corporate embarrassment, the film was almost unavailable until a recent DVD release. It was popular on its release, and a new generation of viewers finds much to like in it, including some good performances and a literate script. It is indeed a contender for "worst ever" but only as an example of moviemaking production management.
  • Constantine (2005) [1]
    • There isn't a consensus for Constantine being on a worst ever list. Rotten Tomatos[2] and Metacritic[3] list it as middle of the road, and even most reviews of it were fairly mixed.
  • Cosmos: War of the Planets (1977): Incomprehensible Italian sci-fi film with three unrelated storylines. Features shiny Flash Gordon-style spacesuits, absurd dialogue, cheesy synthesized music, an evil robot that resembles a pile of old television sets and Christmas lights, and the infamous "Cosmic Love" machine. Filmed in Italian as Battaglie negli spazi stellari and dubbed awkwardly into English. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0075881/ IMDB entry]
  • The Cotton Club (1984)
    • Critical reception was mixed for the film as a whole. However, if memory serves, Hoskins, Gwynne and the Hines bros. received almost unanimous praise, as did the technical aspects of the film (photography, art direction, costumes). Anyway, I don't see how anyone can put this in a class wih Gigli, Plan 9 and Killer Tomatoes. But de gustibus. Ellsworth (old comment moved here)

D

  • Deep Impact: About an asteroid colliding with Earth, thickly laid on with fake solemnity and melodrama.
  • Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965) : A film loosely based on the popular British television programme Dr. Who, this film is widely criticised among fans for being out of Who canon.
  • Dracula 3000 (2004) : A movie about vampires in outer space, set in the year 3000.

F

  • Fahrenheit 451 (1966): This film is an adapted version of Ray Bradbury's novel of the same name. It was directed by François Truffaut, renowned French director. It was his first movie done in English. Reasons this movie is nominated is because of frequent use of stock footage, a repetitive soundtrack that hit the same four notes in a grindingly frustrating pattern, and incredible lengths of 'artistic integrity', including a scene where a woman is smiling as she is burned alive by a kerosene fire. The story deviated wildly from the book, missing the point of the story, and even ruining the ending.
  • Fire Maidens from Outer Space (1956): A British sci-fi flick featuring a group of space women seeking human astronauts. Monthly Film Bulletin wrote: "Even the most dedicated conossieurs of the artless are likely to find this a strain on their patience."
  • Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) virtually bankrupted Square Pictures
  • For the Boys -- Bette Midler's USO tour falls flat

G

  • Glitter: Mariah Carey vehicle and disastrous commercial failure that was part of a drastic downturn in the superstar's career.
  • Godzilla: Big-budget 1998 US film based on the classic Japanese monster series drew massive criticism for not only narrative flaws, but an ill-advised CGI "redesign" of the iconic monster and a subplot involving baby Godzillas that were overly derivative of the velociraptors in Steven Spielberg's adaptation of Jurassic Park. Prior to this film's release, Japanese studio Toho had done their final Godzilla film, killing the monster off, but their dismay at this version actually inspired them to revive Godzilla for a new franchise!
  • The Gong Show Movie : movie based on the 1970s TV show The Gong Show.

H

  • Halloween III: Season of the Witch: Bewildered fans of the first two films by having nothing at all to do with them, and making no sense on its own.
  • Havana: Robert Redford starred opposite Lena Olin in this disappointing drama about the Castro-led Cuban Revolution.
  • Heaven's Gate (1980): At the time, it was considered Hollywood's biggest and most expensive movie flop of all time; its failure resulted in the sale of the United Artists studio to MGM. Like Bonfire of the Vanities, the production inspired a well-received book - in this case, Final Cut by UA executive Steven Bach.
    • I dropped this from the article because it falls more in the category of "disappointment" than "worst ever". The film did some receive positive reviews, particularly from European critics. If a citation can be found in line with the criteria, of course, it can go back. Ellsworth 20:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I

  • The Ice Pirates (1984): In the future, water is a priceless substance. Space pirates are captured, sold to a princess, and enlisted to help find her father. This Space Opera has sword fights, explosions, fighting robots, castrating machines, monsters, bar fights, time warps and inexplicable blobby monsters.

K

L

M

  • Mean Combat aka The Losers aka Nam's Angel's (dir. Jack Starrett, 1970): Bikers bolt machine-guns to their rides and rip up war-torn Vietnam. Dire even when I was 13. So bad it gets a cameo as a motel movie in Pulp Fiction. How much more cult can you get?
  • Millennium: criticized for an outrageous plot, terrible acting, and showing basically the same shots twice from different camera angles for the second half of the film.
  • Mister Magoo Disney's live action version of the cartoon character starring Leslie Neilsen as the myopic (nearsighted) millionare who continually mistakes things for other things. Of ironic note was the disclaimer at the end of the movie to the effect that "the preceding movie was not intended to offend or make light of the problems experienced by the visually impaired". Many audiences neverthless felt that this was an insult to their intelligence.
  • Mitchell (1975): Joe Don Baker plays the direct antithesis of almost all fictional detectives: an overweight, unkempt, unlikeable, incompetent, alchoholic detective. He seems to spend most of his time between seemingly unconnected plotlines in that the burglar shooting early in the movie and John Saxon's shady lawyer character seem to have no connection to Martin Balsam and Merlin Olsen's drug smuggler characters. Mitchell's sleeping with a prostitute, the slow car chase, the argument with the kid, and the somewhat borrowed Key Largo ending are among the other interesting elements of this movie. This movie, along with Manos: The Hands of Fate, has achieved unexpected cult status through Mystery Science Theater 3000 (widely suggested as the only way one should view this film), much to the displeasure of Baker.

N

O

  • The Omega Code (1999): the most successful Christian movie of all time
  • How is this accurate?

Yes, arguably a dreadful movie, but not as successful as 'The Passion of the Christ', among others. Should this be changed?

I dropped it from the list until a source for "worst ever" is cited.
  • The One and Only (2002) starring Patsy Kensit was concieved as a film to promote a better image for Newcastle-Upon-Tyne receiving funding from the City Council and regional agencies. It was screened for a total of five days in a Newcastle cinema and failed to find distribution. -- I moved this from the article. Movies fail to secure distribution for lots of reasons: the apparent criteria for being included in the article require at least one critical citation of the movie's badness. Ellsworth 17:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P

R

  • Raise the Titanic (1980): Based on Clive Cussler's book, this was the first attempt to film one of his novels. Reviews were atrocious, and audiences heavily ignored the movie, which had been criticized for a weak script and the casting of Richard Jordan as Dirk Pitt. Cussler himself admitted he didn't like this movie version of the book. Speaking of the film's titanic losses, producer Lew Grade reportedly commented "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic."
  • Red Zone Cuba or Night Train to Mundo Fine: apparently budgetless independent film from Coleman Francis and Anthony Cardoza attempts to re-enact the Bay of Pigs invasion with fewer than a dozen extras.
  • Robotech the Movie: The Untold Story: Intended to bridge the gap between Macross and Southern cross segments of the Robotech series, this animated film was created by merging animation from anime OAV Megazone 23 and anime tv series Southern Cross. After an unsuccessful test run in Mesquite, Texas, it was pulled and permanently shelved by Harmony Gold U.S.A. Executive producer Carl Macek reports being unhappy with the film after distributor Cannon films demanded too many changes from his original vision and is said to have disowned it. Those few Robotech fans that have seen it, mostly via rare bootleg tapes, tend to agree that it's better that it was never widely released.
  • Robot Jox: science fiction

S

T

  • Town & Country (2001): Starring a who's who of Hollywood's greatest celebrities, including Warren Beatty (who co-directed this film) and Goldie Hawn, this movie caused a stir when the movie had to be re-shot repeatedly, and it was originally intended for an October 1999 release, but the movie's release date was delayed 18 months, and its budget skyrocketed to $90 million. The movie eventually became a big-budget flop, barely lasting a month in release, and grossing $6.8 million.
  • Tron (1982): Originally considered a flop, it is undergoing a critical re-evaluation by a later generation and has acquired a cult status (IMDB rating: 6.3/10).

W

  • Waterworld (1995): Barely recouped its production costs in international distribution. Despite a $175 million budget, the highest for a film at the time, this flick could not get people interested. Please do not add this back to the main article without a critical cite as discussed above.
  • Wild Wild West (1999): A fanciful romp, starring Will Smith, but overshadowed by weak plot, disability controversy, lavish special effects, and a massive spider which Kevin Smith has claimed was originally intended for a Superman film. An anonymous person adds, "you can just see the money burn up on the screen."

X

  • xXx (2002)
    Action/thriller starring Vin Diesel, in what many seem to be one of his worst performances ever. Diesel plays a character who is summoned by a NSA employee to take down a terrorist organization in Europe. Among the critics and public, it is a controversial like/hate movie.

Special Cases

Some directors and (to a lesser extent) actors are widely reviled or mocked for their output; any movie directed by them can be argued to be among the worst ever. A few examples:

  • Any movie starring John Agar from roughly 1950 to 1970 is often considered awful; in particular, his collaborations with Larry Buchanan are argued by some to be particularly awful.
  • Michael Bay's directorial style leaves many people frustrated; mixed with his usual subject matter (very commercial films), his movies are reviled by some.
  • Larry Buchanan made a series of TV movies that are considered by those who have seen them to be unusually bad, even for the syndicated TV movie market.
  • Ed Wood's productions were generally shot in one take, and featured dialog that is widely considered among the silliest of the era.

(copied from above so it doesn't get lost) Following up a little on the above, now that we are keeping the article. First I don't understand the "title is POV" suggests. The title, on the contrary, bends over backwards to be NPOV. In line with what I did at List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever, I am going to remove all movies that do not have a citation for being worst movie, otherwise it is just a collection of our own POVs. All films removed will be listed here, and once we have a cite, we can move it back to the article. Pcb21| Pete 14:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A couple of movies have been put back in, citing a poor number of positive votes on Rotten Tomatoes. Is this a good solid indication of a bad movie? Seems a bit weak to me. Pcb21| Pete 05:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't solid. This is a list of "worst", not "bad" or even "extremely bad" movies. We'll eventually end up with a list of everyone's personal disfavorites if such weak provisos are allowed. Maybe we can keep the movie with the worst score, though, if there is a clear winner (loser). Fredrik | talk 08:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Short list

What happened with the slimmed down list here? Is there a process for getting films on the list? Mark Richards 00:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We decided that all films listed needed a citation i.e. who considered that the worst ever. The article was turning into a dumping ground for any movie some editor didn't like. See VfD above, and my comments below it. Pcb21| Pete 00:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! Mark Richards 04:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed for lack of documentaion

I removed this entry:

It's listed above, but has apparently been reinserted with even less documentation than it had previously (i.e. none).

There are a lot of other entries that are rather POV, of course, but I didn't get to that. The sometimes vague references to "[unspecified] reviewers said" and "is widely considered" make it hard to distinguish fact from speculation. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Round two

The following entries used to be in the main article, but now aren't. There needs to be at least some attempt to document these (other than just describing how bad they are) if they are to be reinserted. Can anyone provide the relevant citations?

  • The Beast with a Thousand Eyes: Another classic awful film, in the vein of Robot Monster. It is especially famous for its "score", which was composed by playing a record behind the camera during the filming.
  • Glen or Glenda (1953): An inept quasi-documentary from Ed Wood about transvestism, this film tells the story of Glen, who enjoys wearing women's clothing. After a nightmarish dream sequence (which is so transcendently bad, it's even worse than the rest of the film), Glen undergoes psychotherapy to help cure his affliction. Bela Lugosi appears for the sole purpose of spouting bizarre psychobabble at the camera. Many aficionados of Wood's films insist that this is a worse film than even Plan 9 from Outer Space.
    • This comes close, but "many aficionados of Wood's films" is not exactly a source. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]]


I was being nice. There are some that are left that have support that is close to the handwaving variety. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've re-added Leonard Part 6, this time with documentation. Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another one, just added

  • The Brown Bunny (2003): Hyped entirely on the "controversey" it created at Cannes, it was in fact declared unpatriotic because it purported to represent American filmmaking.

-[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you are doing trying to keep this article in a good usable state despite the never-ending drive-by additions of regular joe bad movies, Aranel. Thanks! Pcb21| Pete 17:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I readded this, with solid cites. Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

love means never having to say you're sorry *tears up*

Here's another one:

  • "South Pacific" (1958): A film performance of the musical, terrible. A result of reckless directing, as the mood of the drama changed, the image was tinted a different colour.

-[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't save this one. Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And again (there is documentation, but it doesn't establish that anyone thought it was the worst ever):

  • Dungeons & Dragons (2000): Easily defeats Worst of the Year "winners" of other years, typically overlooked, having been a "Battlefield Earth" classmate. Disturbingly bad, baffling judgement on the part of Jeremy Irons to star in this dog, unclear connection to RPG game of same name, and perpetuates circa 1930's African-American racial stereotype courtesy of Marlon Wayans "doing what can only be called a heartfelt tribute to Butterfly McQueen..." (Kalamazoo Gazette, James Sanford)

-[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Re-added D&D. Don't want to write a thesis on this movie, but there's evidence if one looks, like a 10% on rottentomatoes, etc. How long a blurb you want? Other films suffice with fewer words, more 'documentation' means a longer entry, which is totally unnecessary. Suffice it to say, it deserves to be on here. What's wrong with people's additions? It's a 'world' resource, not 'your' resource. Kindly de-nazify your self-appointed 'guardianship.' Just to point out, I *did* say why it's overlooked. It *was* released in the same year as Battlefield. If it weren't this would not be a point of discussion at all, at all... - unsigned comment from 4.8.236.235

Let's keep the conversation productive and civil, please. Gamaliel 08:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I had to take it out again. I agree that there are other films on the list that should be removed for lack of documentation, but that doesn't mean that this one should stay. 10% on Rotten Tomatoes signifies a particularly bad movie, not "the worst ever". 0% on Rotten Tomatoes would perhaps be notable. (I think we need to establish a policy for Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb data.) Just because it was released the same year as another bad movie doesn't mean that important reviewers didn't review it. (You might start by checking what Ebert said.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

North

North was sheer brilliance! What on earth is it doing there? You people don't understand hyperbole. Fishal 00:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • It's included because of the Ebert quote mentioned in the article. (Is that quote being misinterpreted? I didn't put it there and I really don't know.) This article lists movies that were considered the worst ever, and if Ebert really said and meant that, then it probably does deserve to be listed, regardless of whether it is actually in the running for "worst ever". -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace

How can this be a part of an encyclopaedia!

This is outragous. This is all totally subjective, there is no way around it. I could add the Godfather to this list or Star Wars, as many people I know think they are crap. Go check up on them in the Movie Database movie listings and tens of thousands of people argue that they get 0 out of ten, which surely makes them movies "that have been considered the worst ever."

It is this kind of drivel that makes me want to give up on wikipedia completely.

jucifer 02:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Winning" at the Golden Raspberry Awards is not subjective. 0% ratings at Rotten Tomatoes are not subjective. This article does not report that these movies actually are the worst ever. Just that some reputable source has considered them remarkably bad. See the preceding discussions on this page. I agree that the standards need to be increased. Being "somewhere on the bottom" at IMDb is not particularly notable. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The page move was a bad idea in this respect. "Amonth the worst ever" is a sucky nebulous concept, whereas "the worst ever" is precise. Has it been called the worst ever? Yes? Then it's on the list - No? Then it's not. Simple. At least it should be! Pcb21| Pete 07:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Higher standards

Or maybe I should say "lower standards". I'd like to propose some standards for IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes based inclusions. This is what I would suggest:

  • 0 positive reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes. (Maybe permit just one or two, or some low percentage. 5%? I'll have to poke around and see what that would mean in practical terms.)
  • Documentable appearance at the very bottom of an IMDb list.

If we're going to claim that someone considered these the "worst ever" (or even "among the worst ever", which I think is unnecessary here), we should pick the ones that are truly shining examples of bad ratings. Being somewhere on the IMDb "worst" lists or having somewhat low reviews at Rotten Tomatoes is not particularly notable. Lots of bad—but not awful—films meet that dubious distinction.

If, of course, a film had only five positive reviews at Rottem Tomatoes, then there's a good chance that some notable film critic said something sufficiently scathing to merit inclusion. I'm just saying that the Rotten Tomatoes (or IMDb) rating alone should be not sufficient.

Comments? Concerns? Better suggestions? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure if anything should go here on the basis of nothing more than Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB, unless it is at the absolute top of the worst list. The bar should be high - or low rather. Zero percent at RT (lots of movies accomplish this) and in the bottom 50 or even 15 at IMDB are my suggestions. Gamaliel 19:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article page

The following template was added to the article. It is obvious metadata meant for editors so I am moving it here. Make of it what you will.

No, this template is obviously meant for the article page: Any notice of bias belongs on the article because it qualifies the accuracy of the article to readers, and it refers the reader to the talk page, so obviously isn't meant to be posted on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. 119 21:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted some uncited entries

I removed a few uncited films. Feel free to check the diff. - Vague | Rant 11:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

WTF is this?

This article doesn't belong on the Wikipedia. It is totally subjective!!! It is not neutral from the beginning till the end and belongs on another site. 83.134.125.182 20:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue has aleady been debated, and it has twice been decided that the article should not be deleted. I am removing the NPOV dispute tag, since lately the editing has conformed to prior discussions of what list entries should contain, i.e. a citation to some critical source which affirms the movie's "badness". Ellsworth 20:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me state it another way, so all the supporters of this rotten page have no reason to censor me away. The citations made are subjective. Quoting subjective findings and compiling them, doesn't make them objective. The encyclopedial value of this kind of article, is 0.0 and yes, this stinks and a lot!! Has there ever been a poll about this? 83.134.129.26 08:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There have been two votes, and in both voters decided to keep the article. It is unlikely the subject will be revisited again. This article is here to stay. Gamaliel 20:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But, 83.134..., we invite your contributions if you think certain entries don't belong, or if there is a way we can change the criteria to improve the article. That's why we have the meta-list on this talk page. Ellsworth 22:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title (Read before moving)

If you're going to move this page, please realize that this list is, by nature of Wikipedia, required to be NPOV, so any page title is going to have to satisfy the following:

  1. NPOV by it's very nature. The current title (as of this writing), "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made", conveys the requirements for inclusion in this list; i.e., a cite, and preferablly several.
  2. Shortness. While not exactly short, "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made" conveys all the information about the nature of the list in as short a space as possible.

Anybody got any other requirements? Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have to get so picky about having all information in the total. A title of "List of worst films" with a lead section that makes clearly that the films in the list have to be cited is perfectly neutral. Pcb21| Pete 12:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would like to point out that "List of worst X" or "List of best X", where X is a noun, is a simply horrible title for an article, being non-grammatical, inherently POV, and a surprisingly large multitude of lesser sins; and that "List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made" has the advantage of putting "cite" right there in the title, so that when we remove uncited entries, we can point to the article title as the reason why. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We should be titling our articles for the benefit of readers, not for writers who don't read a lead section before trying to contribute to an article. Pcb21| Pete 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


An inadvertant problem with the constant moving is double or more redirects created. Someone should delete the unnecessary ones. - Lucky13pjn 15:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed most of 'em so that they're not double redirects. I'm too lazy to fix the articles they link to, though. Anybody care to volunteer for this quite thankless task? Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely there's a better option than the current title, "List of films that have been cited as being among the worst ever made", which is long and painfully convoluted. What was the problem with "List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever"? It's entirely neutral, attributing all the judgement to other sources (which are presumably noted in the article) by means of passive voice. — Dan | Talk 03:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four

So, I added Roger Corman's Fantastic Four to the list a few days ago. However, it's hard to find actual citations of this film's badness, largely because it was never commercially released and so it got no professional reviews, wasn't eligible for Razzies, and so forth. Is it legitimate to regard the fact that the studio regarded the film as so bad as to be unreleasable (while lots of studios release lots of bad films every year) as itself a "citation" of the fact that this film was regarded as unusually bad? AJD 21:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm leaning against it. Since it didn't have a commercial release, very few people have ever seen it, so there won't ever be a critical or popular consensus of badness. - Lifefeed 18:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Star wars prequels

The article contains this line

"The 1998 advent of Rotten Tomatoes, a website which aggregates reviewers' scores, has greatly assisted the process of selecting infamous films."

and then later this:

"Examples of the former are the Star Wars prequels"

What the hell is this, the star wars prequels may be considered disapointing by a lot of people, all 3 of been rated as "fresh" movies on Rotten tomatoes, and all 3 have been massive box office succeses, they blatantly do not belong in this article. However Phantom menace can be left in the list because of its popular perception as a disapointing film, but the above sentence has to go.

The 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

Is Wikipedia selling this DVD, and will buying it support Wikipedia? If not, how come its title appears 20 times throughout this list? I understand the need to cite sources, but this seems uncomfortably close to spam to me, especially for such a recent product. At least there's no affiliate link, but maybe it could be moved to a footnote or something? 64.142.95.196'

You have an interesting point. Perhaps we could make footnotes or abbreviations which refer to a reference section, since we keep referring to the same half-dozen or so sources repeatedly. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Honeymonners

The movie Honeymoners (2005)needs to be added. It is a recent addition to IMB worst movies of all time.

Kung Pow removed from list

I removed this film from the list for lack of citation. It's 5.2/10 in the IMDB:

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)
In the film, Steve Oedekerk stars as "The Chosen One". He is marked by the sign of the Chosen One, which is the fact that his tongue has a small face, including mouth and its own small tongue, and emits high-pitched screaming from time to time. The Chosen One calls his tongue "Tongue-y". That's all that needs to be said.

Star Wars Fop?

Yes, I added The Star Wars Holiday Special to the list. Yes, I know it was a TV movie, but come on, any bad film, tv, whatever list HAS to list this. A perfect example, it is.!

Nomination & Third Person

I think Godsend would be a viable candidate -- could someone please add this to the article with the necessary references and explanation?

The article needs to be written in third person instead of first person grammar. For example, instead of writing, "We movie-goers generally believe...", write, "Movie-goers generally believe..."

Also, there could possibly be a list of criterias for what generally makes a film bad.

It should also be noted that films are subjective, and although the films listed below are considered bad by most critics; most of the critics cited are from American cultures. Our culture affects what we believe to be a bad film or a good film. There are possibly some cultures outside of the U.S. which believe that Battlefield Earth is a great film! This should be explained in the article somewhere.

Some films don't belong

Some films just don't belong on this list; the rottentomatoes.com rating for A.I. Artificial Intelligence is no where near the rotten rating. Most critics found it to be "fascinating" or at least a good film. There will always be naysayers for films, but the films listed should be of a general consensus that they are indeed bad.

I deleted AI: Artificial Intelligence from the list. While I didn't like it personally there is hardly a general agreement on whether or not this movie is good or bad. Opinions generally seem to fall somewhere in the middle.

Let this article stay

I mean, where else can a large base of editors collaborate and make such a list as this? You wouldn't find this in a regular encyclopedia, but you wouldn't find Pikachu's profile or a list of subcultures in a regular encyclopedia either.


And can anyone find something that says that Alexander was exceptionally bad? They all only described the movie as a waste of time.

Waterworld

Waterworld keeps getting added without a citation. I decided to try and find one so that it could stay and prevent an edit war and I can't actually find a citation for it being the worst ever. Google reviews show it as having an agregate of 2.5/5 which puts it spot on mediochre rather than bad. While it was certainly not a huge sucess and I thought it was a pile of crap, I can't find a justification for it being listed here. Indeed this quote by Roger Ebert indicates that it should NOT be in here.

"The cost controversy aside, "Waterworld" is a decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me. It could have been more, it could have been better, and it could have made me care about the characters. It's one of those marginal pictures you're not unhappy to have seen, but can't quite recommend."

Could the person who keeps adding it please give some justification for doing so? MrWeeble 15:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could the person who keeps adding it please give some justification for doing so?
Apparently not, since they never add any actual text and certainly not any citations from notable sources. But I've run through my three reverts for the day so it's up to everyone else now.
Atlant 16:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst&oldid=21379093"