Vote now for the WORST movie EVER It's taken us more than a week, but we're finally ready to raise the curtain on the contenders for the worst movie ever title. We're still a bit groggy after days of wading through the most malodorous cinematic effluent as nominated by you, our beloved readers, so while you get on with the voting you'll excuse us if we go for …
Simply because Doom's not a film, Doom's a game. What they sold off as a film was some resident evil bastardry. I sat through this flick with a couple of Doom co-vets; we had some fun or rather made fun of it and therefore it disqualifies for the worst film. The only other member of the audience were two ubernerds who babbled something about a written Doom story - they took it seriously serious.
Surely the question to ask is what is the best film ever? The number of worst films is far too large a sample to use. Ease of use would mean that all films not on the great list are considered utter kack by default.
My personal view is that one should condemn in terms of years...in other words the last good film was in 1982 - Blade Runner (for example) and everything since was as watchable as anything by Tom Six or Takashi Miike.
Pint - its bloody Friday right ?!?!
Hmmm. The Matrix is a damn good and thoughtful sci-fi film made after 1982. Just like Bladerunner it defined (even if it didnt really invent) a lot of things we now take for granted (bullet time etc).
A metric I use amongst friend for films is "how quotable is it?". Films like Aliens, Bladerunner, Highlander, Terminator and The Matrix score really high on this, with Matrix topping out for me with so many memorable lines (I bought the script).
Well Aliens is a given (1979)...
However Highlander (in my humble yet fascistic view on film...people like Mr M. Bay should be kept away from anything film related or shot) was in no way equal to Blade Runner or Alien.
You do however make a valid point with the first Terminator and I hate to say it yes even the first Matrix film was pretty damn good. I am happy to conceed these points.
My point though is that it is it (or feels like) that it is decades between decent films and then you get a whole slew of films that are really rather good.
Then again I thoroughly enjoyed Rambo's latest outing so what the hell do I know?
Pint - in praise of Rambo - First Blood and Rambo
I agree, I enjoyed Rambo (4).
And I hope you'll enjoy the Onion News article, worth looking up for the whole thing:
Michael Bay Signs $50M Deal To Fuck Up 'ThunderCats'
"I couldn't be more excited to completely fuck this up," said Bay, who plans to begin production on destroying the live-action adaptation next month. "ThunderCats has a great story, endearing characters, action, adventure, space-travel, and fantasy. It will be an honor to run it into the ground."
I couldn't agree more. "The Room" was properly awful in a way the others can only aspire to.
i) the acting was so very, very bad
ii) the lead (& director) couldn't speak properly - his intonation was all over the place
iii) the characters were ridiculous
iv) the storyline was ludicrous
v) why were they throwing that football around while stood so close to each other?
vi) seriously, nothing happened!
vii) (spoiler alert) I was so mind-numbingly bored by the end of the film that when the lead committed suicide I was unable to feel relief
viii) did I mention how bad the acting was? It does warrant at least one more mention
Blimey, only four votes so far for that abortion of a film.
Never heard of it until I went looking after seeing this list. It is truly abysmal and plausible to think the director truly thought he created a masterpiece. It is utter trash even for its meagre budget.
Apparently he drove up and down hollywood boulevard promoting his film during the sundance festival or something, played annoying sounds from the film and had crappy bird graphics adorning his car, he spelled the film wrong on the crudely written banner!
The rest of the movies on the list (with a few exceptions) at least had slight redeeming moments such as interesting action sequences or watchable sfx. Birdemic is all out unintentional comedy.
P.S. How come no movies that have shown on Sci-Fi UK Channel are on here? They're bad in a really bad way too.
Well, you want a big-name director, and you're going to have to turn a script-doctor loose on the screenplay.
How 'bout James Cameron? So the groom becomes a disenchanted researcher into robotics, biology, and physics (especially temporal plication), so some humanoid-looking cyborg killing machine arrives at the wedding to commit mass murder, and the movie climaxes with an H-bomb detonation at the reception?
[You *would* *not* *believe* some of the stuff that got cut from the first draft screenplay of "Titanic"; Sarah Connor's grandmother on the boat, iceberg under the control of Skynet, nuclear bomb plus kill-droids hidden in the coal bunkers, etc etc etc.]
Out of every film ever made people are nominating WOTW, Avatar & Titanic? That's equivalent to asking a teenager "who's the greatest black man ever" and being told "Obama".
You're confusing "not liking" with "bad". A 'worst film' should be terrible in every possible department - no redeeming graces AT ALL. Terrible music and SFX must be included in that.
For "worst recent popular blockbuster" which is what most of these are, I nominate the remake of "Day the Earth Stood still" even though nominations are shut :)
Having watched most of the movies that didn't make the cut, and considering that they were, by and large, worse then the ones that did, and none of them come close to being the worst I have seen, I have to conclude that "worst" means different things to different people.
Take Eyes wide shut as an example. Beautifully made and lit, includes Nicole Kidman's arse and various other bits of tasty totty, but a completly meaningless storyline. So bad, I walked out of the cinema before the end. Worst ever? Not even a contender. How about the Postman? Kevin Costner at his self important best? Drivil certainly, but worse then Waterworld or Dances with Wolves? Perhaps, but not by very much.
How many have sat through Eraserhead and only realised that nothing was actually going to happen when the credits rolled up? (Thats the David Lynch one, not the Swarchenegger one).
Bad remakes of bad movies? Rollerball, DeathRace2000, Fame, Posidon, Taxi, Get Carter all have to be considered. All are brutal, but worst ever?
Bad sequals? Jaws2, Back to the Future 2, too easy (see what I did there? 2, too? forget about it?)
Bad Franchises? Fast & Furious, Matrix, Planet of the Apes, National Lampoon, Dumb and ...
I think this competition should start again, but this time with a debate about what makes a movie bad. I am now off to root out my copy of "Wombleing Free!". The true life retelling of the famous storey of the Wombles of Wimbledon Common.
Saw that recently. Terrible, but in a so-bad-it's-good way, like Plan 9.
It's so, so tempting to vote for the execrable dreck that is Highlander 2. But I'm not sure I've actually ever watched it all the way through without giving up.
The Matrix Reloaded and Phantom Menace, however. Both appalling followups to brilliant, inventive originals. Both made to milk as much lucre out of the franchise as possible. It's got to be one of them, but which...
I'd like to nominate, (only a week late and with no hope of making a difference) the worst SciFi film ever made -- Walt Disney's "The Black Hole". From the horribly portentous soundtrack to the cutesy robots...I'm speechless... I'll quote a review from IMDB
"...if the FX are exemplary, the flesh and blood on display are not. Each actor supplies their own black hole; empty, dark voids where there once was talent but now serve only to suck away all the life and energy surrounding it. A shame, since actors like Forster, Mimieux, Schell, Perkins and even Roddy McDowell (in voice only) have all done good deeds on film prior and since..."
There aren't many films on that list where I thought "My God, I've just wasted 2 hours of my life."
Mind you, during Avatar - I walked out of the cinema because I deemed a low priority task to be more important that watching the end.
There's another category film - when a friend mentions it to you and you completely draw a blank. You're sitting watching it on telly and only at a point approximately 45 minutes in, the entire plotline dawns on you and you realise you've watched it at least 5 times. US Marshals/Double Jeopardy (or was it idemnity - the one with Tommy Lee Jones), anyone?
Yep, it reminds me of early Peter Jackson films, like Bad Taste and Braindead. Superb! I think the sheep are getting their own back for having been blown up by a bazooka in Braindead.
Don't bother looking at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (69%) because the reviewers can't resist ovine based puns.
The list contains a couple of true stinkers, but overall it's far better than the worst of the worst. I suspect the method involved in picking the movies for the list is to blame for the overall lack of movies deserving of this vote. With the exception of Plan 9 you'd have trouble finding 10 people amoungst us commentards who've all heard of the same true offenses to cinema.
The only hope you'd have of getting the requisie nominations for the truely horrendous movies out there are the MST fans, and lets be honest. They're not paying attention to whatever cinematic crime is happening in the current episode. The robots making fun of it are much more interesting.
I blame myself for not nominating Bicentennial Man.
I agree with Paul Smith above, there should have been a debate on what makes a bad film. I didn't particularly enjoy Titanic and I know people that didn't enjoy Terminator which is one of my favourites, I think an inability to recognise the difference between a bad film and one that you just don't like is a major failing here as shown by there being two chick flicks in the list.
Having said that, I've only seen 8 of the 20 for various reasons. I've studiously avoided Hitchhikers simply on the grounds that having been brought up on the radio series I have the voices in my head and I knew I'd have hated it even if it had been good.
If we took the criteria as being technically bad movies, meaning poor acting, poor effects, bad backstage work, and a poorly written script, most of those movies wouldn't be on the list. There are a couple I haven't seen and several that I actually enjoyed. One in particular is only bad when compared to 2/3 of the truely great series of which it is a part. On it's own, it's only slightly below par for Hollywood.
Everyone seems to have missed the truly-crappest-movie-of-all-time (so far) which was "The Avengers (1998)" directed (hah!) by Jeremiah S. Chechik. Starring (if that's the word for it) Ralph Fiennes & Uma Thurman.
Utter pants. I paid good money and saw it in a cinema too. I hung on in there in the hope that it might get better - but it didn't. However, it seems so few people voted for it that it didn't even make the "nearly" list.
Compared with "The Avengers", there's no way "Titanic", "Phantom Menace" nor "Avatar" should ever have made the finals.....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
