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 Dharmabum420 (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 18 May 2007 (''Cutthroat Island''). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Before adding a movie to the list:

  • Ensure that it is widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics. There are hundreds of "bad" or even "crappy" films, this page is for the worst.
  • Check the list of films removed from this article to see if it has already been considered. If so, ask on this talk page before re-adding it.
  • Cite a good source that calls it "one of the worst films ever".
    WikiProject iconFilm List‑class
    WikiProject icon
  • Film portal
    • This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
    ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

    ..."This list is in a constant state of flux"?

    Alright, listen. I know that as Wikipedia editors, we strive for quality in the way we present information to its respective readers. However, there are often times where I read the articles here and it makes me feel like it's some sort of way for people to show how pretty (Sarcastically speaking) their sentences are. "Constant state of flux"? We're not talking about Chaos Theory, this is an IMDb list of the top 10 worst movies. Isn't "constant state of flux" just a little too overdoing it in terms of choice of words? There really is no need for that to be so wordy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.136.69 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Foreign Films

    Shouldn't there be some on this list? It seems English-centric... - Narfness 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anglo-centric. What films did you have in mind? --Thaddius 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't too many films released on the art house circuit that would qualify. Pete Toombs's Mondo Macabro would have examples. Toombs cites, for example, Kunt Tulgar, aka Kunt Brix, whom he calls Turkey's answer to Ed Wood. The Spanish film Accion mutante has a poor reputation. There is also the B and C class cinema in India, which are shown in different theatres and sometimes have topless/softcore scenes added and taken way by projectionists because such scenes are illegal, but often the reason audiences go and are thus cheated. Indeed, one of my colleagues is writing his master's thesis on such films, which Bollywood wants to pretend do not exist. Apparently the Ramsay Brothers films are of this ilk, but I'd have to see them first. My colleague clearly holds the B and C biases and wonders why I would want to see them since I'm not researching the movemement like he is. They are just starting to get issued on U.S. DVD. I want to see Penanggalan most of all.--Scottandrewhutchins 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think of at least a few danish productions that are really in an international scale bad. Gay Niggers From Outer Space Reptilicus Angel of The Night —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carewolf (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Someone please add Van Helsing

    Van Helsing all the way. The stinky one with Hugh Jackman (poor Hugh). Can someone *not* agree?

    201.19.153.149 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear God! Unnammed IP address is right! Van Helsing was so bloody stupid! Second-worst movie I've seen! (... of course, I mean movies that we're trying to be good, but sucked. I've seen worse movies, but they were trying to be bad on purpose, so they don't count.) JimmmyThePiep 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicussing neutrality and weasel words...

    in a topic which is based purely within the realm of personal opinion, is about the most idiotic exercise in self serving navel gazing I've seen in a while.

    I don't know, it's kind of interesting, and come on- this is just wikipedia!


    Subjective Garbage

    Regardless of the movies, I have to wonder why this is listed on Wikipedia. While there can be no-one left on Earth who doesn't know that Wikipedia is full of stuff that should never see the light of day again, never mind not even approaching encyclopedic merit, this article is still garbage even by Wikipedia's low standards.


    It's a fluff opinion magazine / tabloid TV piece that should never see the light of day. There's no way of establishing "Worst Movie Ever" except by some index linked to Box office stats. And you'll never see the genuine figures, so it can only ever be subjective.

    Good for bar chat, pointless for everything else. Please delete it again, and keep it that way, if you are to have any hope of dragging this trivia site up to any kind of mediocre standard.

    That's exactly why the page should stay up. Name one legitimate use of Wikipedia than settling arguments/ bar bets.

    I believe this article should be kept. If this is deleted, every other article about "best movies", "worst movies", "best games", "worst games", "controversial movies" and so on would need to be deleted, which is a large amount to delete. Seeing as how this article has been nominated five times for deletion and has been kept, I think it's safe to assume that your opinion that this should "never have seen the light of day" is only personal opinion.

    Personally, I was expecting to see "Epic Movie" on this list, as I cannot find a single person (and couldn't, right after it was finished) that didn't think the same of it. Wikipedia is used for reference. If people want to refer to a list of movies considered 'failures', then they should be able to, rather than dig through 100 pages of personal opinion on a search engine. Zchris87v 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fantastic Four (2005)

    On what basis is this film considered the worst ever? It has a 6.0 rating on IMDB and slightly negative to luke warm reviews on other sites.

    • Hm, yeah, I agree. 26% rotten tomatoes isn't low enough to be considered the worst ever in my opinion. Suredeath 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I don't see any evidence that it qualifies. I've removed it. Mark Grant 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think whoever put that there was talking about another "Fantastic Four" film, made in 1994. Because of its shoddiness, it was never released, and many bootlegs have circulated. The Green Lantern 01:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Caligula

    Caligual is a famously awful movie--everyone attached to it disowned it. Yet it keeps getting deleted. What's up with that?

    Is there any evidence that it's considered one of the worst movies ever? Just because the people who worked on it disliked the end result, that doesn't automatically qualify. Mark Grant 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind, famously awful doesn't necessarilty = "worst ever". The main reason for people insisting on stringent criticism for films is that this page easily has the potential to become FLOODED with films that were just mediocre[sp] at best, or highly divisive ones (EG. Titanic (movie)), which will then just dissolve this into a huge flame war. 68.39.174.238 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very surprised that this article has survived so many AfD's! This is non encyclopedic, and imho, should be changed simply to a list of the the Worst ever films. This does not belong as an encyclopedia article. Thor Malmjursson 10:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Bite Me!!!'[reply]
    I don't see why that would matter: there's no objective way of determining the 'worst ever films', but there are objective ways of determining 'films considered the worst ever'... for example, having won a 'worst movie' award from a notable critic or organisation. And on that subject, I still don't understand why Caligula is listed? Cheesy and bizarre, certainly, disowned by some of the people involved, yes, but I don't see any justification on the page for it being considered among 'the worst ever'. Mark Grant 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So anyway, can anyone think of a reason why Caligula should be on a list of 'films considered the worst ever'? I'm not aware of it winning worst movie awards or being judged as such by important critics, and there's no mention of any in the article: if it was a list of 'movies disowned by people involved' then fine, but currently I don't think it belongs here. If no-one can come up with a reason in the next few days I'll remove it, or if there is an objective reason we should add it to the article. Mark Grant 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Last call for keeping Caligula on the list. In fact, I'm tempted to remove the entire 'Disowned by the makers' section, as it seems out of place here: maybe it should be a separate article of its own? Mark Grant 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, Caligula is gone. If anyone wants to re-add it, please include an explanation as to why it's 'considered the worst ever' rather than just being disowned by many of the people involved. Mark Grant 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, the article says that Roger Ebert is a reliable source to call a movie the worst ever, and I quote (from him):
    He continues with:
    ...and finally ends with other peoples' opinions:
    The IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are two other sources that are often referred to in this article. It has a 4.5 at the IMDb, and has a 35% at Rotten Tomatoes. If this isn't grounds to be included, then I don't know what is. That being said, I'm adding it back in. Helltopay27 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I was going to remove it again, but the Ebert quote may be enough to keep it. It's still debatable, though, whether one comment by one well-known critic is enough. Mark Grant 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "It has a 4.5 at the IMDb, and has a 35% at Rotten Tomatoes"--Here lies the problem. It's a bad movie. We get it already. But movies in this place are agreed to be the worst ever, almost universally. The other movies in this list has almost 0.0 at IMDb and 0-10% at Rotten Tomatoes and 20% at most. While I usually agree with Roger Ebert's, he's but one critic.Suredeath 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The ratings are just supposed to varify that it's a bad movie. However, the films have been bashed and criticized by every big time critic, and the infamy of each film causes more exploitation fans to seek it out, and since exploitation is their thing, they enjoy it, and give it good ratings (I know this to be true, because I am one of those people. The people I talk to online do the same thing, even though we are aware that they're some of the least competently made films ever. Besides, how the hell else would Cannibal Ferox have an 80% at Rotten Tomatoes?! I, for one, gave it an 8 at the IMDb, though I know it sucks in the real world). Anyway, I've searched everywhere, and I just can't find reviews of Caligula and I Spit on Your Grave by Siskel or any other huge critics (though I know they've reviewed it, and I know that at least Siskel as given zero stars to btoh). As of now, however, the two films fit the criteria laid out in the opening paragraph. I think that it should be discussed first before you go and just take them off again.
    Oh, and if you ask me, there's less evidence provided for Showgirls than any of the other two. Helltopay27 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed a lot more movies being added lately. I think that pretty soon the article is going to need a cull to the 'worst of the worst', because it's too long already. Either that or it should change to the format of the 'greatest ever' movies article which has brief descriptions of a lot of movies rather than long descriptions of a few. Mark Grant 14:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You discussed it BEFORE added it in, not added in then discuss. That's how we ended up with Titanic on the list for a while. Do you realize the significant of 45% rating? That mean almost half of the critics that have seen it think it's good. That's not abysmal at all. Suredeath 21:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Jaani Dushman: Ek Anokhi Kahani"

    http://imdb.com/title/tt0326983/

    If you think that the "Turkish Star Wars" belongs in this article please see this film its absolutely hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Its a recent horror Bollywood film that rips off various Hollywood films such as Terminator, Mission Impossible, Matrix etc.

    Though not well known in Western circles this film was derided by the Indian public which is a lot considering the amount of poor quality films produced in India that are considered classics at home.

    This film is easy to find on ebay, you don't even need subtitles to enjoy it (though it may enhance the hilarity due to poorly written script). I honestly think that this would make the article so I would reccomend that you watch it for a quick laugh.

    I've removed it for the moment (along with 'Alien Beasts') as both sound bad but neither has an assertion of being considered among the worst ever. Feel free to add it again if you can cite some support for that claim. Mark Grant 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inconsistency

    Why is it that "Immediate additions" lists a film from 2005, yet other sections include films from 2005 and 2006? If 2005-6 isn't too recent for the other sections we don't need an immediate additions section. Ken Arromdee 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that section should go too, though maybe 'Alone in the Dark' should stay in a different part of the article. Mark Grant 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I didn't know where to fit those two films into the "Reasons" list when I created it so I left it there. If they can be integrated into a section explaining why it failed, it would definately help clean up the page. 68.39.174.238 21:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved "Alone" out of there. I don't know where to stick "Material", "Stars" maybe? 68.39.174.238 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disowned by the makers

    It seems to me that most of the movies listed as 'disowned by the makers' do have legitimate claims to being considered among the worst ever, but it's not clear to me why they're in a separate section? Is there a good reason for separating them out in this way, particularly when it encourages the addition of other movies (e.g. 'Burn Hollywood Burn' and 'Caligula') which may be disowned but don't include an assertion of being 'considered the worst ever'? Mark Grant 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of those films I couldn't fit into the "Reasons" hierarchy when I threw that together, so left them there. If you can fit them in somewhere in a section describing the reasons for their failure, I'll gladly see that section disappear. Infact, let me see if I can do some of that myself, now... 68.39.174.238 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Got rid of Catwoman (Moved to new section). Not sure about the rest— someone more knowledgeable about them should see if they can go elsewhere or just delete some. 68.39.174.238 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'Burn, Hollywood, Burn' seems the only one of dubious merit for the article as the others have at least one critic or award claiming they're one of the worst movies of their year, or worse. I'll see if I can move the others around and delete the section, but it may take a few hours as I have to go shopping soon :). Mark Grant 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think I found reasonable homes for them in the end. I'm not certain about 'The Conqueror', but from the online reviews I read it does seem that John Wayne was seriously miscast and that was a major contribution to the failure of the movie (I'm sure I've seen it in the distant past but don't remember much). Mark Grant 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Getting all lists on the page into a coherent, unified hierarchy definately makes this page look better and should help prevent the addition of one-off dislikes (Especially new contentious films in the "Immediate additions" one). 68.39.174.238 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Authenticity of Supernova Editor

    "All hell is about to break loose." One of the crowning cinematic taglines in history.

    We should question the authenticity of the claim that the movie "Supernova" is listed as one of the worst movies ever made. This movie has developed a huge cult following, and has it's rightful place on many collectors shelves. We will never see another movie with such an amazing plot line or starring characters. Easily James Spader best achievement, "Watch him as he escapes with his life from a supernova! The most massive explosion in the universe!" As quoted by the director.

    Well, I can't comment on that, but I don't think the entry justifies its inclusion. I'd delete it unless there's more support for it being 'considered one of the worst movies ever'. Mark Grant 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed it for the time being. It can be put back if someone can justify it being 'considered the worst ever'. Mark Grant 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Godfather: Part III

    While Godfather III isn't widely considered to be one of the worst films of all time, it has got to be one of the most loathed sequels of all time, in comparison to its predecessors. There have been multiple pop-culture references related to its (lack of) quality (example: Fat Tony of the Simpsons: "I haven't cried this hard since I paid to see Godfather 3.") an it is pretty much universally known to be one of the biggest disapointments in cinematic history. It did recieve an above-average rating on IMDB and a 77% on rottentomatoes, but nearly every positive review unfavourably compares it to the first two films. I believe it should be in the "sequels" section, because it may be the most unfavorably referenced film in pop culture. --C civiero 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Still doesn't make it considered the worst ever. Much as I dislike Godfather III I think I'd delete it straight away if added, as I can't see any way that it meets the requirements. Maybe 'worst acting ever by a relative of the director' :). Mark Grant 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You will delete it "straight away if added"? Does that make you the lead opinion nazi around here? This kind of attitude is a cancer in wikipedia, just because you don't agree (fwiw neither do i) means you get to delete it and feel better about something, probably because it gives you satisfaction to have a tiny bit of control over something. So sad, and pathetic. "I'll delete it straight away!" What a terrible mentality and even worse attempt at humor. Get a life pal.71.234.110.209 06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I love how hypocritical that last statement was. How intolerant and ignorant. Let me try to explain his comment in plainer words. Godfather III has too many sources against it being worst movie ever that it cannot be put on the list. It's Wikipedia criteria, man, to delete untrue statements straight away if added. You get a life. 161.184.179.200 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I've heard more negative comments about it than any other movie, so I thought I'd throw it out there. --C civiero 04:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats because it sucks compared to the quality of the other films, but is an average film by itself. The films on this list should be pieces of shit on their own merits

    Valley of the Dolls?

    I am just curious as to why Valley of the Dolls is not on this list? It is certainly an over-the-top mess, is well-established as a "so-bad-it's-good" camp classic, and received plenty of critical ire when it was released. I am just surprised it's listed neither on this page nor on the "List of movies deleted from this page"! Danflave 17:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What about Xanadu? Danflave 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are they 'considered the worst ever'? Merely being bad isn't really enough. Mark Grant 18:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'd certainly say so - especially Valley of the Dolls. Mark Grant - have you seen this film? Even the films stars admit it was a "terrible" movie (For example, when asked about his early years, Richard Dreyfuss replied: "I was in the last 45 seconds of the worst movie ever made!" When asked why the film was a camp classic, star Barbara parkins replied, "Because it is so... bad") The film is also included in The Official Razzie Movie Guide: Enjoying the Best of Hollywood's Worst by John Wilson as well as The Fifty Worst Films of All Time by Harry Medved with Randy Dreyfuss and Michael Medved. Do I need to continue? Mark Grant - I find it very hard to understand why Material Girls is on this page but not a terrible classic like Valley of the Dolls. Danflave 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Uninvolved passerby): It's probably best to have not seen a film you're going to add. Much like writing about yourself, trying to judge a bad film you've seen tends to produced skewed results.
    Concerning the film itself, if you can find legit reviews explicitly stating it to be "one of the worst..." then, not to be short, but... {{sofixit}}. 68.39.174.238 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the sources the article says can be used. This isn't about our opinions. It's about films that professional sources have dubbed not just bad, not just horrible, but the worst of all time. Wryspy 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The worst ever movies fall far below the "so bad its good" category.

    Arrangement of Article

    The arrangement of the current edition of the article does not agree. I've read about half thus far, and it is disappointing to see that the first portion is arranged chronologically, while the second is alphabetical. As such, I am arranging the whole article chronologically. Crisco 1492 22:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also, where do the first few movies go? Are they there because universally they are considered worst ever? If so, they should have a subtitle explaining that. Crisco 1492 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-ordering sounds good, I was wondering about what order they should be in yesterday when moving things around... Mark Grant 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weasel words

    I'll keep it short: If I were to mention the amount of weasel words in this article, it would take me hours. This article is in serious need of cleanup. Ohyeahmormons 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blood Rayne

    I notice that this movie is left off the list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it earn a 01% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a spot on the 100 worst movies of all time on IMDB before it was even released? I think it should be added to the list. 154.20.135.89 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While there's probably a case for putting most of Boll's movies on the list, one is probably enough for most directors :). To me the general consensus seems to be that 'Alone in the dark' is his worst movie, though I've never seen it. Mark Grant 10:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't seen alone in the dark but BloodRayne is the worst I've seen so far. crappy plotline, crappy acting, crappy everything. Usually I can enjoy an "action" movie like that as long as the action is good, but this failed to do even that. Honestly, the fights looked so slow and clumsy that I'm 100% sure I could have jumped in and kicked all their asses.

    Cube

    Honestly do not trust the IMDB rating, watch this film and it is honestly beyond the worst film ever made.

    The third act sucks, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's generally considered one of the worst movies ever made... from what I remember it got pretty good press when it was released (probably better than it deserved). Mark Grant 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I thought Cube was excellent, and so have many, many people, including reputable critics. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the largest grossing Canadian film for a while from what I remember. --Thaddius 02:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tidying

    I've removed a few new additions which don't seem to rise to the level of 'worst ever' based on the citations included with them. They all appear to be bad movies, but if merely being bad was considered enough to get on the list it would be as long as the removed films list.

    If citations can be found to support them being generally considered 'the worst ever' rather than just bad then there's no problem adding them back. Mark Grant 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alien Beasts

    If I include the links that were on the page I provided, would it suffice to keep Alien Beasts on the worst list? --Scottandrewhutchins 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see any relevant links on that page, maybe I missed it. To avoid putting every horrible direct-to-video movie on the list, it really needs to have won at least one 'worst movie' award or been called one of the 'worst movies ever made' by a recognized critic... pretty much every single movie on IMDB has at least one person claiming it's 'the worst movie ever', so there has to be some kind of standard to restrict what's included. Mark Grant 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's objectively far less competently made than say, Blood Sucking Freaks. You're right, though, I pasted rather than linking. I'd have to find them again, and they're still not name critics by any means. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews:

    Categories

    It's been a while, so I'll raise this again: the current categories are rather arbitrary and smack of POV. The text inside them (e.g. the non-movie specific text) could be considered original research, and it is certainly not verified. I much prefer the older alphabetical version. Turnstep 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Creeping Terror

    The movie The Creeping Terror pretty much falls flat in all areas and I have heard it considered by quite a few people to be at least one of the worst movies. Plus on the page, it links here. O_o -WarthogDemon 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind. I only now just saw the links up there. ._.;;; -WarthogDemon 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossover / The Covenant / In the Mix

    The above three movies, I believe, are qualified to be on this list. These descriptions are hackneyed (I'm tired and want to go to bed), so make any necessary changes before you add...

    Crossover - A movie that deals with a high school basketball player's struggle to decide between an education or money and fame in the NBA. This movie has received a rare 0% on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer and has a 1.2 overall rating at IMDB. If that isn't enough to add to this list, then I will look up a few critic reviews later.

    The Covenant - A "horror" movie that deals with supernatural forces or something like that. Has a 3% rating on the Tomatometer and a 4.4 on IMDB. The IMDB rating may exclude it from this list, but it has been critically panned by many esteemed critics.

    In the Mix - Usher's debut in the acting genre. A staple on the IMDB Bottom 100 (Usually in the Top 10). Currently has a 2.1 rating on IMDB and a 6% rating on the Tomatometer.

    I will add more to this tomorrow. I would try harder, but I want to go to bed, so good night. Hossmann 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    i agree with in the mix but not the rest

    The Beast of Yucca Flats

    I have often seen this film cited as worst ever, and the Wikipedia page certainly makes a strong case for it without even trying. Why isn't it listed here?--Scottandrewhutchins 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where have you seen it cited as the worst ever? Wryspy 00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search for "worst ever beast of yucca flats" (not as a string) turns up a high number of hits, including quotations from Leonard Maltin, Bill Warren, and Michael Weldon. Maltin called it one of the worst films of all time. Warren called it the worst non-porno science fiction film ever made, and Weldon, in The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film, said it was even worse than The Creeping Terror. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be sufficient as long as you cite the sources that called it the worst. Wryspy 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ishtar

    what about the infamous Ishtar? voodoom 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It got less than 20% approval on Rotten Tomatoes--Vercalos 05:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Financial failure is not the same as being called the worst ever in terms of movie quality. Wryspy 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually seen the film? It's a dreadful, incomprehensible mess, and for years film critics, historians, and movie buffs have cited it as a prime example of an A-class movie in which everything went wrong. It certainly belongs in this category, and I don't understand anyone attempting to exclude it. SFTVLGUY2 13:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many people who like the film, and not all critics gave it negative reviews. We're looking for absolute worst here, and Ishtar isn't it. (Ibaranoff24 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    Reading the recent article about Ishtar in The Onion AV Club reminded me of the horrific reputation that movie has, even among those who have never seen it. I think it might qualify on this perception alone. After all, the article is about films considered the worst ever, whether or not they actually are. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 19:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Find an appropriate external source that considers it the worst ever. That's all we need. Wryspy 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally agreed that Ishtar is horrible. It belongs here. Astruc 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Frogs

    Frogs is the worst movie I've ever seen. It used the same footage for multiple shots at multiple parts of the movie. It also recieved an 8% from Rotten Tomatoes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.59.232 (talk • contribs)

    :Yes, but these movies have 0%:

    1. 0% Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever 98
    2. 0% Crossover 56
    3. 0% Pinocchio 53
    4. 0% Zoom 47
    5. 0% King's Ransom 44
    6. 0% National Lampoon's Gold Diggers 39
    7. 0% Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 36
    8. 0% 3 Strikes 28
    9. 0% Daltry Calhoun 26
    Source: [4]
    Wryspy 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The subtitled Pinocchio got a very positive review in Video Watchdog. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and the grudge two is now at 7% which must mean its pretty bad seeing as its been out what a few weeks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwithbrisk (talk • contribs)

    Tom's midnight garden

    This is a terrible film, and i could find a lot of people who agree with me. seriously, watch it. it sucks. to hell. and back.--The leprechaun tells me to burn things 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been trying to find it for ages. It won several awards, so it's not going on here. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it won awards doesnt mean its a good film. my class at school were subjected to it, and not one of the 26 people there enjoyed it.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 09:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And how does that response qualify it for this page? It doesn't. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we're meant to suggest crappy films, and I am, and this one is really crap, so I think it deserves to go on this page.--Andy mci 11:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robot Jox

    No one knows enough about this horrible film. I recommend everyone to pick it up for $8 on DVD (came out finally last year). I guarantee you'll be disgusted, but you'll want to keep the DVD after viewing it. Then... it can make this list.

    that was one of my favorite movies as a kid, no joke, and as an adult, or at least far more of one than i was when i was 5, the movie is pretty bad, i now know why my parents were so reluctant to rent this for me after i had seen it the first time--Manwithbrisk 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow

    Just stumbled upon this article and it couldn't be more useless. I'm just wowed by the time wasted by so many people to create an entirely opinionated and useless WP article. I don't know what is more impressive, the ammount of time spent molding purelt artistic opinions into just barely neutral copy OR the fact that this entire article is one giant opinion peice. This is a bold Example of an article that should never be in Wikipedia. It is the antithesis of encyclopedic in that it is purely speculative and based on but a sliver of the American pop culture perspective. Worst movies of all time? Considered the worst? Considered by who? A collective group of people who've managed to spend a long time finally agreeing on the meta? How can you reference an art criticism? Is there an article of "paintings considered to be the worst ever"? How about, cartoons considered to be the worst ever?

    Really sad to see that this article has been nominated for deletion multiple times, and over and over people have ignored the rules of wikipedia, that information must be ENCYCLOPEDIC and not just someone's or a group's opinion. This is the kind of article that people use just to fill their own sails and have their personal perspective seem universal for their own self justification. It is the very kind of article that makes one question everything one reads in wikipedia. To think, articles are deleted everyday that contain basic, factual information on things like Podcasts and Radio Shows or Actors or Journalists because they are considered "not notable", while the wikiNazi's have allowed this giant zit of an article to remain on Wikipedia's overgrown ass. Please, save some face, delete this entire article, and do a little bit to restore credibility back to the Wikipedia community. For once and for all, using Rotten Tomatoes to prove your point does not make the information factual. 71.234.110.209 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe this article still exists. It will never be finished, as long as two people are alive on this planet there will be differences of opinion on this title; it is not fact! *groaning at the fact that this even needs to be said* Blow this damned article away! Amargosa 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's purpose is questionable (as is the purpose of many other Wikipedia articles), it is definitely not a biased article in any way. Simply go search one of these movies on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB. You will see what I'm talking about. MysticLyman 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Changes

    Recently cleaned this article up to try and bring it to a better level. 3 big areas of editing made. 1- I removed all films made in the last year, especially those made this year or within the last 5 years. There is simply no way that such a new movie could already be so universally considered to be the worst ever. 2- I removed the movies that only mentioned rotten tomatoes or metacritic or straightdope opionated reviews as references. One said "Only 5 of 57" positive reviews on rotten tomatoes, sorry, that's 5 reasons it couldn't be added to the list. This should be almost exactly like the article for 50 worst movies of all time, suprisingly few of them are listed on this page. 3- Got rid of some purely speculative and leading material that does not live up to the wikipedia standards.

    I'm sure the same dozen people will ravage the sensible edits I've made and ad Zoom (2006) staring Tim Allen back to the list, because afterall, it's been out for less than a year, so it's gotta be considered by everybody to be one of the worst films ever.(sarcasm) See what I mean? Use your heads people, respect wikipedia, Less is always more. Take your arguments to rotten tomatoes where the editors there can treat you like the bickering children you are behaving like. Just because you didn't like a movie and found 50 reviews agreeing with you, does not in fact make it actually one of the movies that everyone considers to be one of the the worst, ever.

    Final Note- The soundtrack for Sgt. Peppers (which was included before my edits) is a phenominal 2 disc collection of some of the most popular Beatles songs ever. Almost every song on the sound track is in the movie, I don't think you can have this good of a soundtrack in a "musical" and it be fairly considerd the worst film ever. 71.234.110.209 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, you did not read the inclusion criteria. The films are among the worst ever, which is a lower bound for inclusion - it does not require critical unanimity, which you seem to require, merely a preponderance of criticism. Furthermore, your assertion that movies only released in the last few years cannot be considered amongst the worst ever is horrifically untrue - when Battlefield Earth was released, critical consensus was near-universal: it was amongst the worst films ever released. Your assertion that rottentomatoes and metafilter are inappropriate for judging critical consensus is simply spurious - the inclusion criteria for the list include the aggregate of critical opinion. What do rottentomatoes and metafilter do? That's right, they aggregate critical opinion. Finally, your use of the speedy deletion tag was totally incorrect, to the point that it borders on abuse. Captainktainer * Talk 14:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You use the type of shallow language often employed by snarky newspaper critics. And you pretty much proved my prediction about ravaging all my sensible changes. Using semi-popular opinion sites such as rotten tomatoes to substantiate any sort of inclusion in this article is absurd. Such sites cannot be tracked, nor can be they held accountable for their results. That's the entire points. Those systems are easy to game, this one obviously is too. You also miss the entire point of my edits. An attempt at a paradigm shift for this entire article, trust me- eventually this will be purged and wikipedia will be better off. But again- thank's for proving my point about how this article itself seems to be merely a confidence booster for those who aparently cannot think for themselves. Its like standing in a modern art gallery in SanFran and people are oohing and ahhhing over some painting, gushing, while other neanderthals are mocked for their simplicity or bad form.

    What you are trying to do is not what wikipedia is for. You are the one abusing wikipedia with your subjectivity. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't aggregate "critical" opinion, they collect subjective opinions of art. What makes the information critical? If Roger Ebert says a movie is bad, and so do 85 other critics, sorry pal, doesn't mean the movie is bad, or its considered to be the worst ever. This entire article is a smarmy leap to conclusions based on unreliable data. 71.234.110.209 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stay civil. I have had nothing to do with this conversation and feel your comments above are uselessly abrasive. 68.39.174.238 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry you feel that way. Have a link to the Wiki Policy banning abrasive text? I've been more than Civil thank you very much. If you want to join the discussion go for it, if you just want to misinterpret others' opinions then fine, just don't be coy about it. Abrasive? Yeah, to people who disagree, or those who think you can have 1 wiki article on "Films Considered the Worst Ever". Say it out loud to yourself, see? This entire article should be deleted as its obviously a pet project to gain cross promotion and up the Google rating of for profit sites mentioned above. A wart on the ass of wikipedia it is. Wikipedia's content must be encyclopedic, not based on popular or cult opinion. 71.234.110.209 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Right at the top of the very page you are editing: "Before reacting because this page is "weaselly/biased/POV/unobjective/unverifyable/etc" please note that it has survived 5 AfD, all closed as unambiguous "Keep" (Not "No consensus"). If you see a way to improve this page, address one of those concerns, or want to discuss them, please do, but incivil or sarcastic complaints that don't provide any useful suggestions aren't very helpful" Telepheedian 19:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Change the title

    Change the name to Films widely considered worst ever

    How has this article survived 5 afds? Renaming it with the word "widely" in the title will just make it more weasely. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    True true, in fact, change it to 'Films considered by some people on the internet to be the worst ever" and have a more appropriate description of this article. 71.234.110.209 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Widely" is not objective, though. How will you prove it? You can't. "Some people"? No, a name like that would get the article deleted altogether as ambiguous, excessively broad OR. Wryspy 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How about simply calling it "Widely Panned Films"? It's short, simple and unobjective. Of course, I am open to any constructive criticism. SweetHeart666 00:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Because unobjective=unacceptable. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Resource for Use

    To those who are doing the lead edits on this page -- you may want to look at The Smithee Awards. They've been doing this for 15 years now. Cyberjoek 13:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Zardoz

    Should consideration be given to this stinker's place in the history of cinematic folly? Eddieuny 04:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "All-time worst" is not the same as "hated by some." (Ibaranoff24 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    Exactly. I wouldn't try putting Rocky on here, even though I personally think it's cinematic trash. The most negative reviews I could find were from Vincent Canby and Andrew Sarris, who found almost nothing praiseworthy in it except Talia Shire, but neither referred to it as one of the worst ever made. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Travolting

    The headline of a Denver Post review of Battlefield Earth (12 May 2000) uses Travolting in its headline. The web original is archived by the Post but the Internet Archive has a copy of it in cache.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20010330005309/http://www.denverpost.com/scene/earth0512.htm

    Since I am not well versed as to the Wikipedia way of handling such things, I post this here to affirm that the assertion that Travolting was used to describe Battlefield Earth is cited. LightningMan 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Then why are you saying that here instead of inserting the reference into the article? Wryspy 09:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess you missed the part where I said I am not well versed as to the Wikipedia way of attributing a quote when the only confirmation you have is a cache. Tell me what you do in that instance and I'll do it. LightningMan 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just edit the article. Look where another reference appears and see how it appears in the edit version of the page. Just follow that example when placing the angle brackets and the words "ref" and "/ref". Wryspy 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So it doesn't matter that I cannot link to the actual page, only to a cache of it? That is the crux of my inquiry. I know how to do references. It is the fact that it isn't to a reachable page that has me concerned. Perhaps in your next answer if you could talk about that point (and not the mechanics of making a reference) I'll go ahead.LightningMan 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the reference no longer exists as a reachable page, it's useless as a reference unless it at least cites an original Denver Post newspaper publication. In that case, you cite the newspaper by date, section, and page. Wryspy 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you. This will take a Coloradan looking into the May 12, 2000 issue of the Post, since the on-line cache does not give me the date, section, and page.LightningMan 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eragon

    It may be a bit early to put this one down, but not only did it get 13% at rotten tomatoes, many fans on the rotten tomatoes forums agree that they distorted the book so much that it might not be possible to make the sequel. Telepheedian 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    13% isn't as low as much of what's on this list. Its average rating by critics is 39% (see metacritic.com). While weak, it's not going to earn it a place among the worst ever. It's apparently too mediocre to make this list. Wryspy 10:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if your considering puting eragon on the list because of 13% then what about the grudge 2 with 7% in its opening week that it is still at today?--Manwithbrisk 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone called it the worst ever? Or close to the worst ever? A number of movies listed in this article need to be removed for failing to meet the article's defining criterion. Plenty of movies rank worse than 7%. That rating in and of itself doesn't cut it. What some critics rank as the worst ever could have some diehard fans who jack up the average rating. Wryspy 09:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    most, if not everyone i have talked to who has seen the movie said that it was bland, predicable, and redundant, wiht no steady plotline throught he whole movie, and odd, seemingly random events happening in the movie that were mostly unexplained and did nothing for the movie but to cause more confusion among audiances. this movie was overly hyped, poorly writen, seemed like the director was just making things up as he went along rather than being planed out. its a dreadful movie. if no one has said that it was the worst movie ever made, then i am going to say, I, Manwithbrisk, henceforth do declair that the film "The Grudge 2" is the worst peace of film ever made.--Manwithbrisk 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "everyone" you "talked to" is not an encyclopedic source. You personally are not an encyclopedic source because, among other things, that would violate WP:NOR. Wryspy 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I retain my opinion but conceed the point. not only are we not getting anywhere with this aurguement but your right. --Manwithbrisk 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    the question we need to be asking is, will be remember these films 10 years from now for how terrible they were. If not, they shouldn't be on this list

    Ed

    What about Ed?The film was universally panned and is still considered one of the worst? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.246.172 (talk • contribs)

    Says who? See article description for the kind of veriable, legitimate sources that count. Wryspy 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JimmmyThePiep 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)== Concerning movies in the present 5 years == There seems to be too many entries of movies near the present time. Maybe we shouldn't be too quick to judge if the movie is worthy of a "worst ever" award? 84.49.162.193 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Darn good point. Plus, we shouldn't be judging anything. These are supposed to be films that credible external sources have called worst ever. Wryspy 10:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing about that, number one on many lists is the movie "Crossover", which was released just last year. It earned a 0% on rotten tomatoes, is number one on IMDB's list of worst movies ever, and was only shown in theaters for less than a month. In addition, it earned $7 million, which is much less than the production cost for many movies. I don't know whether or not it lost much or gained much, but it couldn't have made much money. That, by many means, allows it to be on this list. But I do agree that too many new movies are on this list. The ones that'll someday be on VH1's "I love the 00's" being made fun of are the ones that probably deserve to be on this list. Not saying that anything after 1997 should be ignored, but the ten-year period is probably a good idea. Tell that to rotten tomatoes and IMDB, since a good chunk of their lists consist of new movies. Zchris87v 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds about right. JimmmyThePiep 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Top of the Talk(:)

    Since the {{comment}} boxes at the top of this page keep getting larger (Usually my doing), I tried to write up something that we can keep on a subpage and link to with a short explanation. I've tried my hand at User talk:68.39.174.238/films and I welcome other people to read, write, respond, etc. 68.39.174.238 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Waterworld

    >$200 Million for that, enough said —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.155.207 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    (I haven't seen Waterworld.) But why does 'Big Budget = Bad movie', in your opinion? Kill Bill had a decent budget and it was f&&&ing amazing.
    (I personally don't like Titanic), but a lot of people do, and it had a big budget. ... yea, it's a bad movie, but it's not the worst movie ever.
    Saw 3? Casino Royale? Big budgets; decent movies. JimmmyThePiep 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    if there was a list of popular but most hated movies, titanic would be on it. but that is one of the highest grossing movies of all time. Women loved it.

    Dumb and Dumberer

    Shouldn't that movie be added? Son of the Mask is on here and its also a Jim Carrey rip-off.

    It's not really one of the movies I think of when I think of "worst ever". A talking duck comes to mind, but certainly not this movie. Keep in mind that because a movie was a "rip-off", that doesn't make it one of the worst movies ever. Plenty of successful rap songs have been rip-offs of older songs, but they turned out to be hits. Zchris87v 06:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    that should be on a list of disappointing sequels but not here

    this movie was fking shit, it should be hre.

    The In Crowd?

    The In Crowd has to be considered for inclusion on the article. It has a 4% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.167.128 (talk • contribs)

    Citizen Kane, Or Rocky Horror Picture show?

    This page seems to be for the most part, Whatever is Rotten On RottenTomatoes.com.

    What about movies that many people hate, but are praised nontheless

    Movies Like citizen Kane. Sure, it was groundbreaking.. many people praise this movie, but just as many, possibly more, hate the heck ouf of this movie.

    What about Rocky Horror picture show? Apparently thats "fresh" on rottentomatoes.com But it got horrible reviews when it first came out. Afterwords it developed a cult following

    And, Date Movie, Epic movie, Dude wheres my car? Scary movie? All of which got bad reviews. All Of which have a Following that really like these movies.

    It seems like this page should either be removed, or Renamed to "Films Considered Rotten" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.128.119 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Please read the notices at the top of the page or got to this list of films to see why films are removed from the list or not included. Thanks!--Lmcelhiney 12:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Ok so basically This whole article is based upon the opinions of the editors ans should be deleted lol

    I'm not sure I understand your point. I think what you're trying to say is:
    Some people like Citizen Kane, but some people don't, so it should be on this page.
    Some people like Date Movie, but some people don't, so it should be on this page.
    ..... Well, if a movie shows up here which the population likes, but Rotten Tomatoes doesn't, then it's a good time to complain.
    But honestly, where are they? None of the movies you listed on are on this page, so why are you complaining? JimmmyThePiep 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Batman and Robin

    I've heard Batman and Robin was criticized for being weaker than the previous films. 67.188.172.165 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    13% at Rotten Tomatoes is pretty low for a movie, but much too high to be considered one of the worst films ever. MysticLyman 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you seen it? Shwartenegger made me realize that an entire movie can be sunk just on the basis of a single actor. (.. btw, Terminator rocks. ... Just shouldn't be in Batman.) JimmmyThePiep 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossover

    MysticLyman 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I recommend someone add Crossover to the list. It has a 0% rating at Rotten Tomatoes and has the current lowest rating at IMDB (1.1-1.3; compare this to the second worst movie there; 1.6) Additionally, users there are starting to sarcastically call it the "best movie ever" and are comparing it to The Godfather.[reply]

    The Phantom Menace

    I think everyone hates 'Star Wars; The Phantom Menace'.

    .... ughh.... .(I cringed when I typed out the name.)

    There's the blatant racial-stereotype alien character. There's the annoying child. There's not nearly enough R2 and C3PO. The queen getting dressed in ever-more bizarre costumes every 10 minutes. And the very dull, dull, dull, extremely dull sections about Star Wars politics. ... not to mention ripping off the Bible with the whole 'immaculate conception' - wait, never mind it's Darth Vader' subplot.

    And to quote Comic-book Guy: "Worst movie ever. I will only watch it 12 more times today." JimmmyThePiep 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phantom Menace, though a disappointment, is far from being considered the worst movie ever made. It actually is considered "Fresh" at Rotten Tomatoes, with a 63%. Anything above 10% on the Tomatometer is too high to be considered the worst movie ever made. MysticLyman 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    most of the star wars fans love it and it was popular enough to make 2 more so no.

    Darkness Falls

    If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Not even Emma Caulfield added anything to this expensive piece of tripe. JimmmyThePiep 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8% on Rotten Tomatoes... number 86 on the 100 Worst Reviewed Films of All Time... I think we have a good candidate here. MysticLyman 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blood Sucking Freaks

    I removed this after it was removed previously by somoene else. Appearance in the cheap and snide documentary The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made is not justification for any film's appearance on this list, though it may be used to bolster it. The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made is no more a reputable source than http://www.mrsatanism.com/OtherFeatures/videoentertainment.htm . It's written by unknowns and overstuffed with a cheap animation sequence eating into the brief and ad hominem "reviews" illustrated with nothing more than trailers.--Scottandrewhutchins 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is Zoom listed?

    I don't get it. On Yahoo!Movies it got C+ as avarage rating. That's very good in my opinion. So why is it listed? I really don't get it. I found it great, so did others. Y!M is very famous movie database. TheBlazikenMaster 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoom is listed because of its extremely low rating on Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer and the fact that it's featured on Rotten Tomatoes' "100 Worst Reviewed Movies of All Time" as number 11. Being that the Tomatometer shows the cumulative average of bad and good reviews among the critics, you can see why it's seen as one of the worst movies ever made. 68.49.198.196 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alone in the dark

    This is a great page and an awesome resource- I've spent the last hour on netflix adding some of this stuff. It's deatured on a SOMB list of "Best Wikipedia pages." The only thing I'd ask is that we change the summary of "Alone in the Dark" to simply:

    "Tara Reid plays an archaeologist."

    Carnosaur

    Should we add Carnosaur (film) , Carnosaur 2 and Carnosaur 3: Primal Species on the list ? The first movie got a 3.7/7 [[5]] and the second movie got 2.3/10 on IMB [6] and the 3rd movie got 1.9/10 [7] . The movie also got 11% from Rotten Tomatoes [8] .

    Requested move

    The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


    The reason why this has been nominated for deletion five times is probably because the title is a little POVish. Why not move it to Films notable for negative reception (like Video games notable for negative reception that was earlier called List of Video Games considered the worst ever)? 220.227.179.4 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree: This title is a good suggestion, I would go for anything less childish. —Wikibarista 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Films considered the worst ever" is clear. "Films notable for negative reception" sounds like an electrical technical expression. Anthony Appleyard 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support move for reasons nominator has given. Joeldl 05:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

    This article has been renamed from Films considered the worst ever to Films notable for negative reception as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    removed mortal kombat

    Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)
    A sequel to the 1995 Mortal Kombat film. The cast was almost entirely different with only Robin Shou (Liu Kang) and Talisa Soto (Kitana) returning to reprise their roles from the first film. The movie was much less well-received than its predecessor. Though it still possessed the visual spirit of the first movie, it greatly lacked the level of authenticity in both special effects and fight choreography. Additionally, Annihilation suffered from an overtly large and homogenous cast, employed to depict as many Mortal Kombat characters as possible, with a subsequent drop in characterization; in fact, several characters (e.g. Noob Saibot) make only unidentified cameo appearances.
    i removed this because there is not a single source given that lists it as the worst film ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.91.25 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Carnosaur (1993)

    A horror film movie loosely based on novel by Harry Adam Knight was released in May 1993 the movie got a ton of mixed reviews from critics and fans of the novel. The movie was critiqued for poor script, bad acting, poor special effects and almost no connection to the novel. The movie received 11% from Rotten Tomatoes [9] . The movie got a 3.7/10 from IMDB [10] and the move got a C- from Yahoo users [11] . The sequels got even worse reviews [12] , [13] . Gene Siskel however, gave the film as a thumbs up.

    and i removed this because "mixed reviews" and "thumbs up" from ebert and 3.7/10 is nowhere near "worst film ever made".
    Troll 2 (1990)
    Troll 2 is the unofficial sequel of the Empire Pictures film Troll, even there is no relation between their stories. There are no actual trolls in Troll 2, only goblins. The film's hallmarks include atrocious acting, plastic masks for the goblins, an incohesive and sometimes downright incomprehensible plot, and some of the worst dialogue ever to be written.
    see above. this page is dire.

    Star Crash (1979)

    I am suprised to not see Star Crash [14] listed. It's the only movie that I've ever seen in a theater to where most of the audience left long before the movie was over (some of us stayed to the bitter end I think just to see if it could possibly get worse). Bad plot, bad acting, bad special effects.

    The worst reviewed movies on Rotten Tomatoes

    9-0%

    BlueLotas 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hercules

    I recently watched the 1983 version of "Hercules" and the story line rarely made sense and the special effects were extremely low quality. This film received 17% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 2.6 out of 10. The only reason it received some good votes is due to people laughing at such a poor quality movie.

    Rotten Tomatoes IMDb Reviews SquareShot97 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plan 9 From Outer Space

    The entry for this movie states:

    "Due to difficulty in finding a willing distributor, the film was not released until 1959."

    However no other dates relating to the production of this film are given, so it's unclear what to make of this date. I don't know much about the making of this movie, so can anyone add some dates to give some perspective to how much this film's release was delayed? (Liquidcow)

    Cutthroat Island

    Just curious why this film, one of the biggest Hollywood disasters (and, last I knew, credited by the Guiness Book as "biggest box office flop of all time"), isn't here. Or Hudson Hawk (which I am actually rather fond of), Heaven's Gate or Ishtar, for that matter.

    I can see why box office failure is not the only criterion for "worst ever", but surely the mass public's vote in avoiding these very expensive films - the same category Pluto Nash is in - is as significant as reviewer consensus on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which was created long after most of these movies passed out of public conciousness. dharmabum 08:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst&oldid=131737363"