Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

IMDb bottom 100

I'm not sure that list should be used. While it is certainly a notable website, the lists change rather a lot, don't they? If there were another source looking at IMDb's bottom 100 and noting a ranking, particularly over a period of time, that might be a better indicator. Шизомби (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that of all the "worst" lists used as references on this page, the IMDb list is probably the MOST notable, because of the criteria that goes into generating it. Yes, it is constantly changing, but I don't think there are any movies in this article that rely solely on it's place with the IMDb. The bottom 100 is used more as a back up for other references, and if a movie should happen to drop off that list, it can then be reflected here accordingly. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As of January 21, 2010, the IMDb list requires at least 1500 votes in order for a movie to appear in the Bottom 100 Titles chart. Of the movies in this article, there are currently 19 movies that have remained on the list, despite their ever changing criteria. And 14 of those movies have received more than 10,000 votes! Again, we cannot rely solely on a movie's place with the IMDb, but with additional references, it proves that those movies deserve a permanent spot in this article. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lasers and Rings

Shouldn't Laserblast and Ring of Terror be on here? They're the worst movies I've ever seen, even worst than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. -Golem866 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I Spit on Your Grave

Does anyone else feel that this really deserves a spot on here? Not many reasons were given for its inclusion before, but critics have cited plenty of good reasons, including its mindless lack of complexity, unrealistic scenarios, poor filming quality, and offensively sadistic scenes. And there is no shortage of these critics. (Roger Ebert with his deep disgust and zero star rating is only the significant beginning.) The only real reason that it gained popularity is that they tried to ban it. (Doing that will naturally draw some people to anything out of sheer curiosity, and there is never a shortage of people ready to shout "stop taking movies so seriously".) Looking for support of feminism in this movie is arguably, as critics have also stated, a very misplaced idea, and the only defence this movie ever really gets is that it is pro-feminist. (Comparing a woman to men made to be as pathetic as humanly possible does not prove the good qualities women. And displaying her delight in murdering these men, too hopelessly incompetent to possibly stop her, does not vouch for women's strength.) But even without the moral debate behind its offensive scenes, its dismal production quality alone makes it a standout among poor films. There are plenty of critics and people in general who consider it among the worst ever made. 71.162.2.126 (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence fragments

Is there a reason many of the descriptions begin with a sentence fragment? — MusicMaker5376 02:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians?

Why is Santa Claus Conquers the Martians on here? It was bad (I admit), but many more films such as Laserblast, Ring of Terror and The Horror of Spider Island way worst in comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golem866 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason is that the combination (Santa Claus and aliens) is just so absurdly random and does not fit together in any way. Though they managed to combine the two better than one might expect, the idea just stood out so much that people have always been quick to attack it as one of the worst.71.162.2.126 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have you seen it? Although it was on MST3K, it's quality is much better than the other films listed. -01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, compared to films like "The Creeping Terror", its sets were masterpeices. But it still stands out. (How many other films have something as off as a guy stressing out about how to prevent people from finding out that Santa Clause was kidnapped by martians?)71.162.2.126 (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Eegah!

This movie is on the list of removed films, but I think that there's enough references for it to be included in this list. Like many movies in this article, it is still in the IMDb Bottom 100, it was featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and it has been referenced by 2 different published lists of the 50 worst movies. That should be enough of a consensus, for it to be added to the B-movies section. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Title change

The article's title doesn't appear to be very specific. It should be like the title of the article, List of video games notable for negative reception. In this case, the real title of this page should be "List of films notable for negative reception", but we could use the previous title as a redirect. StevenMario (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I still say this title is better. BTW, the last time it use that name cause some trouble. In fact, previous AFD on List of video games notable for negative reception suggest to change the name into List of video games considered the worst but nobody take action. L-Zwei (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse name change suggested by Steven Mario. JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

Yet another list on Wikipedia with little to no encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Amen! I'm glad you said that. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Tim

Selah ! This list shows poor bad movies knowledge (where are Whitefire, Dunyayi Kurtaran Adan, Bloodfreaks, etc. ?) 86.217.4.42 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Planet 51

should be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Freeway 2

Definitely one of the most difficult movies to watch. Necrophilia, crack, guns, lesbians, a crazy cult, bondage, bulimia, prostitution; you name it, this movie's got it. Oddly compelling, sometimes unintentionally funny, and altogether disturbing. 206.55.180.51 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a 'disgusting' movie, but this list judges movies based on critical reviews.-15/4/2010-MCAspire (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Globalize template

Since all of the movies named here are primarily from the US, I really feel this template has to be on the top of the article and I can't understand why it keeps being removed.--Vitriden (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Evolution

I was wondering why this isn't on the list. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote Fortdj33, "The reviews are mixed, none of them cite it as being the 'worst', and the scores from aggregate websites are too high. Sorry, it's just not notable." DonQuixote (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering why the movie Garbage Pail Kids isn't on the list. But then I realized that I don't know any of the facts. Sure, it is a terrible movie and I would just add it in the list anyway, but I don't know how relevant authorities feel about the movie. All I know is that the Nostalgia Critic considers it the worst movie ever. And whilst I agree with him and believe that he has a lot of knowledge about film abnd media, I don't know if he's an authority I can source.

I think this also implies that the page name should be changed to the "negative reception" one instead of "considered the worst". Because the current title [considered the worst] implies that ANY movie that ANYONE considers the worst could be included on the list.

I know someone that considers Citizen Kane to be a bad movie, so should it be on this list of 'Films considered the worst'?

I can also mention that it is poor grammar.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.190.205 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Old Dogs

well, it received EXTREMELY negative reviews, so would that warrant the inclusion of Old Dogs in this article?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.83.54 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Category

If this list gets much longer, perhaps it could be considered a category of its own "Category: Films Notable for Negative Reception". A lot of the sections in this list cover information that either already exists on the pages of the relevant films, or should be. I feel it would be better to redistribute the information and change this list to a category, eliminating this page altogether. What do others think?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.190.205 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan 9 from Outer Space and Avatar comparision

On the popular film review site Rotten Tomatoes it receives a 63% 'fresh' rating, on the same page, Phil Hall calls it "Far too entertaining to be considered as the very worst film ever made." Likewise John Wirt goes as far as to call it "The ultimate cult flick." Jefferey Anderson likens Wood to "... the greatest cinema poets..." who through their unique approach to film-making are able to incorporate "...pet pleasures or concerns" calling the dialouge a "...bizarre kind of open-verse poetry." Thus regarding Plan 9 from Outer Space the worst movie ever made misses the great entertainment and child-like artistry that is found in its enticing 122 minutes. A review on IMDb concludes with "A masterpiece? Maybe. The worst film of all time? Absolutely not."

With these reviews it appears that Wood can be regarded an avant-garde genius, decades before his time. The fact that these sources conflict with this page's so called "neutral" stance shows that this list is highly subjective and merely a venting tool for 'would be' critics. It is illogical to place a film on this list that has so much approval in both the public and professional spheres.

On the inconsistent editing of this page

Furthermore the movie Avatar was recently deleted on the grounds that the "majority of sources" did not regard it as the "worst" movie ever made. Yet, the discussion shows that even Plan 9 receives a majority approval rating. It appears that certain editors are monopolizing the editing of this list to reflect their own personal opinions, this sort of behavior is inappropriate on a community maintained encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.20.45 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

B-Grade Movies

Generalizing an entire genre and artistic philosophy to the despair of being included in a 'worst ever' films list, is foolish. It misses the point of DIY style, 'f*** the system' approaches to art. In the world of music Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stone, Nirvana (particularly the album Bleach, as well as the entire Lo-Fi, Punk, Delta Blues, Indie and Black Metal genres often take pride in quick, 'in the moment' recordings, and very little post-production. Yet from these artist and genres comes some of the most acclaimed and influential music ever recorded. The mere fact that there is a section devoted purely to 'B-Grade' films shows that the editors of this page are more concerned with technical prowess and big budgets than with an appreciation of a the simple spirit or creativity and making the most of ones time, finances, sets, props, and actors.

This goes to show the subjective nature by which this list is constructed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.20.45 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deuce Bigalo European Gigolo

Should this not be on the sequel list? Only got a 10% rating on the Rotten Tomatoes website. Personally, I think this movie should be used as punishment for delinquent juveniles- it's that bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.252.222 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Room

I'm suprised Tommy Wiseau's The Room isn't on here, it's recieved wide critical reception as "the worst movie", and has regular screenings in California, and increasingly elsewhere, advertised with this label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.57.206 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Room WAS here until recently, but updated info for The Room has it at 3.4 in the IMDb list, which is NOT in the Bottom 100, and Rotten Tomatoes rates it at 40%, which is just not notable enough for this list. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic principle in decided content for Wikipedia is the content must be based on reliable sources. IMDB has been consistently demonstrated to not be a reliable source for notability of content. The Times, Entertainment Weekly, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Post and NPR are all very reliable sources and all report this film as being one of the worst films ever made. [1][2][3][4][5][6] And remember, these "ratings" at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are user generated. Most of those users rate it high because they love it for being bad. 30% of IMDB raters rate it a "10" while 47% rate it a "1." [7] A single user's high value of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes ratings is not valid reason to negate the actual reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

So this is list is purely quantitative? Because the high numbers have been clearly rated for "irony". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.57.206 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The only reason it gets such "high" ratings is because it is so awful. It absolutely belongs on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.122.123 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the film is a must on this list. The qualification system is flawed. Half Price (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC) The Room has to be on here.

I suggest that everyone re-reads the intro to this article. For this list to be objective, it HAS to be quantitative. That's why every movie on the list has MULTIPLE references as to why it is one of the worst. Yes, there are hundreds of movies that have been included on worst lists at Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Metacritic, etc. This list, is for the WORST of those movies, shown by a combination of references that it was included on one or more of those worst lists, that it ALSO has bombed at the box office, and/or a critic specifically referred to it as "one of the worst", and/or it was included in the Razzie awards. Such references are not irrelevant, they are the backbone of a list like this being included as a valid encyclopedia article. The Room might be a bad movie, but its references just don't meet up to that criteria. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortdj33, see WP:OWN. The Room is not listed here just because "it's a bad film," but because MULTIPLE reliable sources refer to The Room as "One of the worst films ever made. If you don't feel The Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Independent, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Post and NPR are reliable sources, please explain why you don't. And under your own criteria, Plan 9 From Outer Space would have to be removed because IMDB rates it 3.6 stars and Rotten Tomatoes rates it 63%. IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are not a reliable sources. The sources listed above are. Wikpedia goes by reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, your opinion (and it appears only your opinion) that content should be decided by a quantitative ratings number from an unreliable user-generated website like IMDB and not reliable sources is purely your subjective opinion and completely outside of Wikipedia's policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOTABILITY. They stipulate very strongly that content is decided by reliable sources. If you'd like to change Wikipedia's content policy, you need to make your case on those talk pages of those policy pages. Currently your out-of-policy opinions as to what is included is based on original research. --Oakshade (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies, and I am not claiming ownership of this article. I am just trying to hold this list to the criteria that was established for it, by a CONSENSUS of other editors, who were here long before me. Just because I am vocal about it on the talk page, does not give you the right to attack me, or dismiss it as my personal opinion. I agree that the B-movies seem to have a slightly different criteria, since IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes lean towards more recent movies. But it could easily be argued that YOU are dismissing certain sources, just because YOU don't think that they are reliable. Since I do not wish to get into an edit war, The Room has been updated with the information that was presented here, before it was deleted back in January. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not me to doesn't consider IMDB a reliable source, it's our policies, particularly WP:RELIABLE. The last time the discussion of IMDB possibly being a reliable source was discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, it was unanimously rejected. There might be value to IMDB information, but the idea that IMDB is more reliable than sources like The Times as you've been steadfastly arguing here is completely contrary to our sources policies. --Oakshade (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist on being so condescending. This talk page is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the List of films considered the worst article, but you continue to insult me by referring to Wikipedia's policies as "your" policies, and then implying that I'm not following them. You are also putting words in my mouth, because I never argued against The Times as a reliable source. I am sorry if you feel differently, but I have no desire to continue this debate, when you cannot be objective and avoid personal attacks. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is 100% about the improvement of this article. This "system" of using user-generated unreliable sources like IMDB whilst discounting actual reliable sources like The Times is a flawed basis to decide content and out of policy. And when you removed material sourced by The Times while stating "Sources just don't meet the criteria" [8], it actually does appear you "argued against The Times as a reliable source." Maybe you didn't mean that and just miss-typed. --Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All About Steve

Isn't this one stretching it a bit? Not only is 6% on rotten tomatoes at the high end of the modern films that qualify here, but the only other reason given is its score on metacritic (which also doesn't exactly suggest "worst ever").71.162.2.126 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, every movie in this article that uses Rotten Tomatoes as a reference, has a rating of 10% or less. Some of them, such as Catwoman, From Justin to Kelly and Glitter have higher ratings than All About Steve, but all of those movies have additional references to show why they belong in this article. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But a score of 6% on RT alone isn't enough to get a film on this list regardless. All of those films have their share of other sources (winning razzie awards, internet movie database bottom 100, ect) while this doesn't. It only has its other score on metacritic, which also doesn't suggest "worst ever". 71.162.2.126 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article currently lists quotes from reputable critics, who list this movie as the "worst of Sandra Bullock's career" or "worst of 2009". There are more bad reviews that could be added, but even if those are counted as one, the reviews PLUS the rating from Rotten Tomatoes AND the rating from Metacritic, is enough for it to be on this list. Especially when those review websites have included the movie on their OWN lists of the worst movies ever made. I have not seen All About Steve, and I did not add it to this article, but based on the references provided, it deserves to remain on this list. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

'Worst Sandra Bullock movie ever made' is certainly not enough justification to be on this list; if we included the worst movie by every actor in the world then it would have about fifteen thousand entries. Nor is even 'worst movie of 2009', since that would require including at least a hundred movies to have the worst movie of every year since movies began. I'm afraid I don't see any justification cited here for the movie being considered one of the worst ever made... it really has to be kept to the very worst of the worst. Mark Grant (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Being listed as the worst film of 2009 may not be meaningless (because you think it'd be comparable to the worst of other years), but it would have to come from more than just a couple of your average critics, because there are several who would call other movies the worst of 2009. And critics not liking the movie is the reason for its score on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the first place, so I really don't think that it's enough to tip the scales. (Plus, its places on the lists from those websites is hardly one of the lowest.)71.162.2.126 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is, All About Steve has been cited by MULTIPLE critics as one of the worst. That alone would not be enough for it to appear on this list, but it ALSO has ratings on more than one review aggregator, AND those ratings place it within the worst movies that they've ever reviewed! If that's not enough, that PLUS the fact that it was just nominated for 5 Razzies, cements its position in this article. I know that entries on this list can be subject to matter of opinion, but I am not the only editor re-adding it to the list. Until a valid reason is given, that outweighs the number of references supporting All About Steve as one of the worst movies ever made, it will continue to be re-added. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

SEVERAL DIFFERENT MOVIES are cited by more than one critic as the worst film of the year EVERY YEAR. The scores that All About Steve recieved on the two websites are notable but don't stand out as one of the very worst. And with only two websites on which its score is even notable, it can't be argued for its widespread scoring results either. Plenty of films have been nominated for more than one Razzie and won one or two, but the ones that end up here are in the minority. (If it wins all five, that could be argued as a standout.) The Adventures of Pluto Nash, with its very similar rating results, at least stands out for the truckload of money that it lost. All About Steve actually MADE MONEY. You could erase this list and fill it up two times over with films received no better than All About Steve.71.162.2.126 (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I still say it doesn't belong here. It only won two razzies, failing to stand out as one of the worst results in that category as well now, in addition to the categories mentioned in my last post. Among this year's films alone, both Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li and Miss March had reception at least as poor, if not worse. (Both have lower scores on Rotten Tomatoes, placing them much lower on their "worst films of the decade" list, and neither scored any higher at Metacritic or Internet Movie Database either. Plus, they both lost a LOT of money, whereas All About Steve didn't.)71.162.2.126 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That guy's right. I'm taking it off.130.49.131.175 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I keep trying to point out, this article is NOT about someone's personal opinion. There might be movies that have lower scores than All About Steve, but it currently has references, from 2 critics that call it the worst of Sandra Bullock's career, 4 critics that call it the worst film of 2009, a Rotten Tomatoes rating that is less than 10%, a Metacritic rating that puts it in the 100 worst movies that they've ever reviewed, AND the facts that it was nominated for 5 Razzies and won two of them! I'm sorry if you don't agree, but ANY movie that has that many references against it, would belong on this list. Until someone can provide a valid reason, as to why that many references is not enough, I'm not the only editor that will continue to add it back... Fortdj33 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but being the worst movie of Bullock's career is just not a justification for appearing here. Being the worst film of one particular (recent) year is not justification. It's widely considered a bad movie, but I have never seen a source claiming that it's one of the worst movies ever made, which is what this article is. So there isn't a justification for having it on this article specifically. All the sources have other conclusions - the conclusion that it's one of the worst movies ever made is a new conclusion not drawn from the sources, so how is it not OR? If the only real justification for being on this article is the bottom 100 on a site, then this should also include all the movies in the bottom 100. Being the worst movie made in a particular year absolutely doesn't make it one of the films considered the worst ever made. Those references don't support the conclusion that you're drawing. Also, I think it's pretty clear that there's a consensus that disagrees with you. Look at the references given for other ones on this article or the original articles for, say, Battlefield Earth. They include numerous critics or lists who label the movie as one of the worst films of all time, period. That's what this list is and that's not what All About Steve is.

After reading the rest of the article more carefully, other movies need removed from this, also. Being one of the 100 worst movies of the past 10 years should not be enough to be considered one of the worst movies ever, and that's basically the only qualification for Son of the Mask and Basic Instinct 2, and I see no justification for Transformers 2 at all. 66.57.254.204 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that some people are still missing the point of this article. I'm not perfect, but at least I am NOT basing this list on my personal opinion. No matter how many times I have pointed out the criteria for this page, or presented facts as to why certain movies belong, there are always going to be movies where some people don't personally agree with the negative reception the movie received. I have already defended the inclusion of All About Steve on this list, and I am not the only editor who will make sure it remains here. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually pretty simple. What is the criteria/criterion for determining what makes a movie one of the worst ever? If the criterion is that a reputable source defines it as one of the worst 100 movies of the last 10 years, ok. Then this list should include all of those. If it's not, then that's not a good criterion. I'm asking this seriously: what are the criteria for inclusion on this page? They seem to be that there are sources labeling a movie very bad, or worst of a small subset. Your rationale seems to me to be this:

• The movie has 2 references defining it as the worst movie of Bullock's career - that is, by definition, not related to being one of the worst movies ever made
• The movie has 4 references defining it as the worst movie of 2009 - again, by definition, not related to being one of the worst movies ever made
• Less than 10% positive or worst 100 of all time - again, this list should then include the worst 100 or 10%, or any overlap between them (it doesn't)
• 2 Razzie wins are really irrelevant. Like most of the rest of your references, they relate to it being a very bad movie. The references simply DO NOT support it being one of the worst movies ever - the ONLY things that could conceivably be argued to do so are listed above. If the only reasons you would list it as one of the worst movies ever are that it's one of the 100 worst of the last ten years and that it's one of the 100 worst at one site, then you'd better include everything that fits that definition. Otherwise, pardon my ignorance, how is this not OR? You're drawing a conclusion from the sources which is NOT PRESENT IN THEM. This has nothing to do with personal opinion besides yours. Hell, I haven't seen this movie. Read through the comments in this thread from everyone else. Everyone else speaking up seems to agree that, at the least, several of the references you list as justification simply do not justify what you are saying.
• Even if you still disagree with this, look at the others I listed, like Basic Instinct 2. I will be deleting it shortly for good reason. RFenginerd (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't single me out, as if the inclusion of All About Steve is my personal crusade. I suggest that everyone re-reads the intro to this article. Just because more than one person is vocal with their opinion about a certain movie on the list, does NOT mean that it fails to meet the criteria. For this list to be objective, it has to be quantitative. That's why every movie on the list has MULTIPLE references as to why it is one of the worst. Yes, there are hundreds of movies that have been included on worst lists at Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Metacritic, etc. This list, is for the WORST of those movies, shown by a combination of references that it was included on one or more of those worst lists, that it ALSO has bombed at the box office, and/or a critic specifically referred to it as "one of the worst", and/or it was included in the Razzie awards. Such references are not irrelevant, they are the backbone of a list like this being included as a valid encyclopedia article. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if this is not a crusade, it's still OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. None of those sources state that this is one of the very worst movies ever made, and you're synthesizing several of them to support this position. Remove. 65.60.201.32 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not the person that added All About Steve to this list, but I continue to defend its position here, because everyone else just wants to disregard the references that they personally disagree with. The comibation of sources that have been established as the criteria for this list, are what keeps this list objective. Otherwise, this list would be filled with everyone's personal opinion of the worst movies ever made, which would definitely be considered original research. Believe what you want, but there has to be some standard set for this article, so that everyone isn't twisting the references to suit their personal POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Striptease in wrong category?

Since Striptease was adapted from a Carl Hiassen novel, shouldn't it be in adaptions?SLEPhoto (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why Striptease is in the "Exploitation" section, is because its reputation is better explained by the definition listed there. Most people don't know that the movie is adapted from a novel, so it's probably not considered to be a bad adaptation, but it's one of the worst movies ever made for other reasons. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Endless repetitons / Hugh Laurie

I don't think we need to be told that each and every film "is on the IMDB bottom 100 list" or "was listed in the 50 worst films ever etc etc" it makes for incredibly tedious reading. Also, in the section on Spice World why is Hugh Laurie described as "a young Hugh Laurie" in a manner usually reserved for an appearance early in someone's career, when he was 38 and had been a comedy TV regular for over 10 years?89.242.180.107 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Room is a B-movie?

The film is in the B-movie section. $6 million was spent on it. I know that's nothing compared to some of the mega-blockbusters but I'm unsure if that puts it in B-movie territory. I'm willing to be corrected. Half Price (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. All reliable sources report the $6 million figure. As I didn't know what of the existing sections it should be listed in, I created the "Other" section and placed it there. But another user moved it to the "B-movie" category for unknown reasons.--Oakshade (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think The Room ended up in the B-Movie section, because it best fits the definition in that section. Even if its budget was higher than most B-movies, it was still an independent film that developed a cult following. The definition of B-movies in this article currently states: have become cult classics, partly as a result of their peculiarities. Fans of low-budget cult films often use the phrase "so bad it's good" to describe movies that are so poorly made that they become an entertaining "comedy of errors". Unlike more mundane bad films, these films develop an ardent fan following who love them because of their poor quality, because normally, the bevy of errors (technical or artistic) or wildly contrived plots are unlikely to be seen elsewhere. That seems to describe why The Room is on this list, and if not, maybe the definition and/or title of the B-movies section needs to be modified. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Change the definition of "B-movie" to not include "low budget," source it by reliable sources and I won't argue with the inclusion in the B-movie section. Until then, placing it there is inaccurate per reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

North and Bio-Dome

I was curious, why aren't these movies listed on this page? North features one of Roger Ebert's most infamous negative reviews for a film, "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie,", etc, and scores 12% on Rotten Tomatoes. Bio-Dome is an even more infamous film, because it has the lowest aggregate score of all the movies on Metacritic, has a rating of 5% at Rotten Tomatoes, and has an average score of 3.6 out of 10 on imdb.com. - Ndrly (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Though this movie is still new it has received a lot of bad reviews, despite being based on a popular television program. Though it may not be appropriate to add it at the present time I believe it is a potential candidate. This movie was released on the 1st of July and all figures listed below were checked on the 11th July 2010.

Box Office takings: ongoing, at least $70.5 million (budget was $150 million, marketing was $130 million). Too early to know whether it was a bomb or not.

Film Lists: IMDb score of 4.4 from 8,060 votes (565 reviews, most are very negative), Metacritic score of 20 (151st in the list of worst movies), number one in the 'Bottom 10 of 2010' list on Everyone's a Critic, and a critic review of 40 on Movie Review Query Engine.

Rotten Tomatoes: 8% from 122 reviews.

Golden Raspberry Awards: the 2010 list has not yet been announced.

Critics: Roger Ebert gave it half a star and The A.V. Club gave it an F. Also criticised by Charlie Jane Anders (io9), Owen Gleiberman, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety also criticised it. Though USA Today, MovieLine, and Relevant Magazine were supportive.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Revenge of the Fallen?

This article cannot simply become a place to list recent movies that received bad reviews. The article is solely for films that are widely regarded as the worst of the worst, and although Revenge of the Fallen was disappointing, it does not fall into this category. Otherwise, the article would resemble something that should be entitled "List of poorly-reviewed movies" and would have to include hundreds of more films. In other words, if you list Revenge of the Fallen, the criteria for addition to this article become drastically weaker.--LepVektor (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. For a movie to make it onto this list, if should have a COMBINATION of bad reviews, bad box office, and/or winning in polls/awards as one of the worst movies. The Transformers sequel might have been disappointing compared to the first movie, but it has been removed from this list before, because it's just not notable enough. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple additions

Given the revamped criteria above, there are a couple movies on the Removed Films list that I think need to be re-added. Daddy Day Camp and Dirty Love have both appeared on multiple aggregate lists (Daddy Day Camp is still on the IMDb Bottom 100), were both included in the Rotten Tomatoes list of the worst movies ever rated on that website, have both won Razzies (Dirty Love for Worst Picture), and have both been referenced as the worst picture in the careers of Cuba Gooding Jr. and Jenny McCarthy. That is more than enough for them to be included on this list, in the Sequels and Bad Comedy sections respectively. Any objections? Fortdj33 (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Neverending Story, parts II and III

Rarely has a sequel departed so violently and sadly from it's originator. These two films are so horrid, and lack all the charm, pathos, and quality of the original production. They should be included in this article, if space allows. 24.121.199.3 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cloverfield

Cloverfield is missing in this list. But due to the high stupidity caused by Arnold Jewjägers and Sylvester Stallones movies people seem to like it. But still it´s one of the worst movies ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.240.242 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.207.77 (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Birdemic: Shock and Terror

look in to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.120.249 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mac and Me?

Does the movie Mac and Me still meet the criteria for this list? Yes, it has a 0% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and was nominated for 4 Razzies, winning two of them. But other than Leonard Maltin, all of the critics quoted are from its Rotten Tomatoes listing, which means that it relies heavily on only two sources. I don't doubt that it's a bad movie, but I think that there should be more of a consensus, for it to be included in this article. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's fine right where it is. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Bryan Loves You" for Cult Classic?

This movie is about a huge cult in 1993, a low budget documentary. It was rated one star on IMDb. Has anyone made a page for it yet?MarioStrikerz (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How the hell can Jaws: The Revenge (Jaws 4) not be included in this list? It is the worst film of all time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.190.59 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Underground Comedy Movie

Someone removed it because it was "not notable enough". I looked at the version that was blanked, and compared it against an earlier version and noted that someone went through and removed a bunch of references from it for unexplained reasons. I have reinserted it including the content which was blanked for no apparent reason. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaws: The Revenge needs a mention

I feel that the fourth Jaws really deserves a mention on here. It seems to have met the critical criteria of being "considered one of the worst films", and I don't see why not. At least Freddy Got Fingered has a slight cult following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.113.248 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes Protection

If they do end up expanding PC, I reckon this page should be among the list of new candidates for it. 40% of the edits on this page must be reverts of film additions! --Half Price (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I feel that most of the additions are made in good faith, the main issue is either not understanding the criteria (probably because the page was renamed from 'worst ever' to just 'worst' or not reading the film's entry in the deletions list. Mark Grant (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Twilight?

Don't critics hate the movies as much as many people do? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a quick look at a few pages of Google results and didn't see any reliable source claiming it to be the worst movie ever; one even listed ten vampire movies they believed to be worst than 'Twilight'. So while we personally barely managed to get through the DVD, I don't think it belongs here. Mark Grant (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mame

It seems to be a consensus among most critics and fans that the film version of Mame was hampered severely by Lucille Ball's performance, and that casting her was largely a mistake. Given that, might it qualify for the "Star Vehicles" section of this article? I'd do it myself, but I'd worry it'd just get deleted and I'll have fouled it up. I know it has a following, but then again, so does Showgirls (which also has one of the highest Amazon review ratings of any film on this list... food for thought). Thanks. The Mach Turtle (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Trouble i'm having putting Jaws 4 and Highlander 2

It's the second time i've tried putting Jaws 4 and Highlander 2 to the list, but the moment I put them down someone keeps deleting what I put. Even before I can post that I added them on the discussion page. Both of those films have a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Highlander II re-added

I see that Highlander 2 has previously been removed, but the current version seems to have good sourcing for "worst" opinions. Can we discuss before removing, if someone is so inclined?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in none of the previous discussions did anyone advance a reason better than "nobody compares a movie to Highlander II for badness" (in /Archive 3, if you're curious). Since I haven't seen any real objections on talk raised previously, I'm restoring it. If you object, please raise objections here based on the current wording and references. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The current wording definitely shows that it was not liked by critics, but none of those critics referred to it as "one of the worst". Negative criticism is not enough for a movie to be included in this article. I think that in addition to critics, it should also have references to the Razzies, or one of the aggregate lists, before it is re-added. Otherwise, it is just another bad movie and doesn't belong here. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Note Ebert's quote, "this film will be remembered in hushed tones as one of the immortal low points of the genre" and Rotten Tomatoes' 0 score -- I don't think I've seen a 0 from them before. Even Manos pulled in an 8... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are other movies on the list with a 0% Rotten Tomatoes rating (see Ballistic or Super Babies 2). I updated the Roger Ebert quote, but I still don't think that the movie is notable enough for this article. If we included every movie that had negative criticism, or even just the ones that Ebert hated, the list would be huge! There has to be more of a consensus between critics AND fans, before it can be considered one of the worst. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for the worst movies

I propose introducing the following criteria that have to be met for a movie to be considered one of the worst movies.

1) The movie does not recover its production costs from cinema releases or tapes / DVD sales (B-movie are excluded).

2) A large body of critics agree that the movie is exceptionally bad.

The first part is a general test of how bad a movie is because no matter how much critics hate a movie if enough people are willing to pay to see it that it can recover most or all of its production costs then it cannot be considered a bad movie. For a movie to be bad people must not be willing to pay to see it. B-movies are excluded because no matter how bad a B-movie is as long as it is attached to a good A-movie it will not be a commercial failure.

The second part is to distinguish between box office bombs that were terrible and those that failed for other reasons (such as Titan A.E. or Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which failed to recover their production costs but were not condemned by the critics). To satisfy this requirement the movie would need a low Rotten Tomato score, to win one or more Golden Raspberries, or generally receive negative reviews from movie critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All the movies on this list should have more than one source, showing their reputation as one of the worst movies ever made. While I agree that the B-movies have a slightly different criteria, they can be narrowed down by those that have more than one of the following:

• have been listed on the IMDb bottom 100
• have been featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000
• were listed in the book The Fifty Worst Films of All Time
• appeared in the 2004 documentary The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, or
• have been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Rotten Tomatoes included).

As for the others, being a box office bomb is a good place to start, but there are movies that have a reputation for being one of the worst that actually did make money. The intro of this article states that these films "have either been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of the worst movies of all time. Examples of such sources include Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, Rotten Tomatoes, the Internet Movie Database's Bottom 100 list, and the Golden Raspberry Award ("Razzies")."

With that in mind, I propose that for a movie to be included on this list (with the exception of the Cult Classics section), it should have a combination of at least three of the following references:

• was a box office bomb
• has been included in one of the many aggregate lists of the worst movies (preferably more than one, and preferably in the Top 10). Examples include IMDb, Metacritic, DigitalDreamDoor.com, Everyone's a Critic, and the Movie Review Query Engine.
• has less than a 10% rating at Rotten Tomatoes
• has been nominated and/or won at the Golden Raspberry Awards
• has been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Roger Ebert included).

Inclusion on more than one aggregate list, or quotes by more than one critic, would count towards the minimum needed for there to be a consensus. Keeping the list quantitative in this way, prevents everyone from adding movies based on their personal opinion, and preserves this list as a valid encyclopedic reference. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-examining the movies on this list

Based on the above proposal, almost all of the movies currently on the list fit the criteria. The ones that should probably be removed due to insufficient references, are The Giant Claw in the Cult Classics section, and Underground Comedy Movie in the Bad Comedy section. The Garbage Pail Kids Movie in the Poorly Executed Adaptations section is also questionable. Does anyone object to these movies being moved to the Removed Films list? Fortdj33 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Good work. --Half Price (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree on The Giant Claw. The special effects are some of film history's worst, let alone the poor production quality and extensive use of stock footage. The bird tops multiple lists of the worst movie monsters in history, and imdb reports a story of an audience bursting out in laughter at the site of the monster and the star leaving the theater in embarrassment. Even The Giant Claw's wikipedia page references it as one of the worst movies ever made, so that page's link to the "List of movies considered the worst" page should probably be removed if The Giant Claw isn't even on the list.--LepVektor (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The previous methodology followed here was just fine. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain the "previous methodology" you are referring to, because this list is not about someone's personal opinion. Some definitive criteria has to be established for this list, and that means some movies just won't meet that criteria. The above proposal was left here on the talk page, more than long enough for a consensus to be reached, before any action was taken. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The films listed here have achieved notably negative reception as being called one of the worst films ever made. The films have either been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of the worst movies of all time. Examples of such sources include Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, Rotten Tomatoes, the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list, and the Golden Raspberry Award ("Razzies"). There's also various discussions in the talk archives. Please do not characterize my addition as "personal opinion", as the entry is substantiated by a number of reliable sources. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That just it, you re-added The Underground Comedy Movie, and it doesn't meet the criteria that you listed! Sure, it has references from several critics, which is certainly notable. But negative criticism is not enough for there to be a consensus, and none of those critics referred to it as the "worst". Plus, none of the references for that movie include Roger Ebert, Rotten Tomatoes, the IMDb or the Razzies, as pointed out in your example. The current criteria is quantitative, in order to keep things objective, but it's just an expansion of that previous methodology, which The Underground Comedy Movie simply does not meet. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jaws 4 readded. What happined to Highlander 2?

I readded Jaws 4 since it's Wikipedia page, it's score on Rotten Tomatoes, and IMDB sounds like it fits the. There's also been requests for it to been added. I'd like to know why Highlander 2 is no longer listed. The main reason I put it here to honest isn't because of the fact that it has a zero on Rotten Tomatoes. It's the various types of plotholes and bloopers it had with regard to the storyline. Along with the innaccurate conncection it had with the original film. If you don't believe me checkout Noah Antwiliers review which points out almost every plothole the film has.[9][10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic Movies

Could anyone please find reliable sources about the relevance of four movies someone added to the list? The films I am referring to are Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw, Titanic: The Legend Goes On, A Kid in King Arthur's Court, and Ratatoing. A majority of the films added were featured on the Nostalgia Critic show, but that doesn't mean that those films are considered some of the worst movies ever made, despite all of them being poorly received. The Nostalgia Critic does have a following, but it isn't as relevant as Mystery Science Theater 3000, which also mocks bad movies. The Nostalgia Critic himself, is a fictional character played by an Internet humorist, not a certified critic, and his "reviews" are only for comedic purposes and are not supposed to be taken as actual critical opinion.

Those four movies would be on the list if they were notoriously bad, legitimately considered among the worst, and not just because it was mocked by an Internet comedian that not many people have heard of. Find one reliable source from an actual critic that calls Pound Puppies and KIKAC one of the worst movies of all time. Find an actual critic that has even seen the Titanic cartoon and Ratatoing, because both barely received distribution. Then they can remain on the list.

That is all. Freshh (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible objective approach to bad sequels

This site at least did a quantitative comparison of the IMDB scores for sequels versus originals and identified the ones with the largest drop. That seems perhaps a more objective approach than everyone just championing their least favorite movie. I think it at least deserves a mention.Prebys (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That site would make a good addition to the External Links section. But for this list to remain objective, any movies added should have a combination of bad reviews, bad box office, and/or winning in polls/awards as one of the worst movies, for there to be a consensus. Otherwise, it's just not notable enough. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

the link now leads to a porn site Ears4life (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

cult classic Bride of the Monster?

I checked back and was a little surprised that there was no discussion nominating Bride of the Monster as a cult classic

it's imdb rating is current at 3.6, just a little above The Room which is a cult classic http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047898/

Ears4life (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because, by Ed Wood standards, it's fairly coherent? Still funny, but overall a better quality picture. Actually, quality-wise it's not too far removed from Lugosi's film The Devil Bat, which I don't think is considered a bad movie, even with its cheap special effects and stock footage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

it's currently at 3.8 at Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bride_of_the_monster/

it was on MST3K on episode 423 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes

that's 3 of the usual criteria required to add something

Ears4life (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs. It's at a much higher level of technical proficiency than Plan 9 (which I think makes Wood's repuation as a bad filmmaker--Glen or Glenda is much too personal and experimental for me to consider a bad film), and even the moment in Ed Wood when Tor Johnson is shown hitting his arm on the door frame is not to be found in the actual film. I think what saves The Devil Bat from worst movie lists is the fact that it presents itself as a comedy, even though it wasn't marketed as one (neither was Evil Dead II, but few would dispute that it's intentionally a comedy), with its protagonists an obvious comedy team that should have continued to have a signficant career.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

even if Bride of the Monster isn't as bad as Glen of Glenda or Plan 9 it's still pretty bad

the squid in the stock footage doesn't look anything like the squid that is attacking people

the squid doesn't even move when people are being attacked, people move around to give the impression the squid is moving

(Ears4life (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

It's an octopus, and you're right, it's a well-known fact that they supplemented stock aquarium footage with a mechanical octopus that didn't work, and Lugosi had to try to make it look like it was moving, a la the Monty Python parrot. On the other hand, you have a film like The Attack of the Killer Shrews, with dogs wearing skins that were supposed to make them look like ROUSes. There are countless bad movies from the 1950s. Ed Wood had no monopoly on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Leonard Maltin's book rates it BOMB just as he does with Plan 9. However, his commentary on Plan 9 seems a bit more pointed. There are countless BOMB qualifiers. The question is how many of them to include in this article? Is there agreement among reliable critics or what the worst 25 pictures are, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't tihnk so, although several movie critics have most hated lists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

out of any Ed Wood film Bride of the Monster clearly has the most sotck footage in it and that has to be taken into consideration for our purposes

additionally Bride of the Monster could be considered something of a propsganda film as an atomic bomb/war film

(Ears4life (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

the lmagaazine names Bride of the Monster as a cult film

http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2010/01/22/bride-of-the-monster-ed-wood-knew-exactly-what-he-was-doing

this review "recommend it to anybody who likes Ed Wood films" which means it's a cult film

http://www.monstershack.net/sp/index.php/bride-of-the-monster-1955/

this reivew site named Bride of the Monster as a cult movie

http://recycledcinema.com/reviews/b-movies/bride-of-the-monster-the-3-best-things-about-ed-woods-masterpiece/

Bride of the Monster was featured on The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made dvd

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=The_50_Worst_Movies_Ever_Made_(deleted_02_May_2008_at_00:16) Ears4life (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and Synthesis Problems

This entire article, along with Films considered the greatest ever, represents a serious WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH problem.

For one thing, the article cites IMDB ratings, which are user-generated. Even material published in IMDB's credit and bio sections proper are a topic of controversy, with the general consensus appearing to be that using that material is not acceptable (if looking through all the various discussions on the RSN is any indication). Using IMDB's ratings is even more egregious, because user-generated ratings can be manipulated even more easily.

This leads one to the question of what standard or criteria is being used to report the content of this article. These are films considered the worst by.......who? Critics? The general public? By way of box office draw? By way of box office profit with respect to budgets? By way of cultural influence and franchising? It's impossible to have a neutral article on such a topic without stressing the metric being used for its content, and the ones mentioned in this article are subjective and inconsistent. Even where objectively measurable criteria are used, like box office performance, what level of consistency would be maintained with respect to account for inflation's effects on box office numbers, cultural and technological shifts in how movies are viewed, etc.? With review aggregator sites, there is the problem of how the different size of each "pool" of critics from which reviews are derived (which is different for each film) presents an inconsistent gauge. Mixing different criteria that may be mentioned for one movie and not another creates an uneven list that make it impossible to achieve neutrality.

Even using individual critics is problematic: Even though the opinions are attributed, this is only adequate for material in the articles on the individual films. Ebert is mentioned, but not many others with "Worst Of" lists. By aggregating negative reviews from a limited number of critics, especially they are all presumably mostly American, or in other English-speaking countries where a given film may do worse than in Europe or Asia (many films, after all, that are hated in the U.S. do very well overseas), and presenting them en masse in order to conclude that one film in particular is "considered the worst", in an article that contains only about 50 such films, is not only a violation of WP:SYNTH, but is inherently Americentric and Anglocentric. This is the equivalent creating an article on the most lowly-regarded singer/actors, and including Alyssa Milano, Jennifer Love Hewitt and David Hasselhoff, when the first two's music performs well in Japan, and Hasselhoff's is huge in Germany.

Even some section headings are problematic: I may agree that some movies are "clones", but this is my opinion, and not something a Wikipedia article can convey. If a source like Rotten Tomatoes makes this assertion in its summary of many critics, that may arguably be a good standard, but quoting just one or two critics saying that could introduce charges of selective quoting. I was curious as to whether the list of criteria given under the Clones section was itself derived from the sources, but when I clicked on it, my browser was directed to what it informed me was an "Reported Attack Page". And what about "Exploitation" films? None of the online sources given for the inclusion of Showgirls in that section, for example, mention the word "exploitation", nor could I even find the word used in regards to that film using the search engines provided by any of those sites. Metacritic's yields zero results for that word, and Digital Dream Door yielded one, not apparently related to Showgirls, that turned out to be a dead link.

In general, categorization in the other subsections is problematic too. While a sequel is easy to define objectively, how do we know that a film is an "exploitation" film? Of the three sources provided for Myra Breckinridge, for example, it is not indicated which of them refer to the film as an exploitation film. Since two of them are print sources, I can't verify them, and the one online source of the three makes no use of this label. And why are star vehicles presented as distinct from crossovers? Weren't Kazaam and From Justin to Kelly, which are listed under "Bad crossovers", star vehicles? Wasn't Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, which is listed under "Star vehicles," a comedy? If the article asserted that Showgirls has garnered a "cult following", then why isn't it under Cult films? And why are "Bad comedies" singled out by genre, but other genres like drama, science fiction, thriller, horror, documentary, etc. are not? The sci-fi film Battlefield Earth, for example, is under "Poorly executed adaptations", and the drama Showgirls is under "Exploitation", while the action thriller Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever is under "Star vehicles". These films seem to be categorized in a manner that is completely arbitrary.

The idea behind this article is inherently subjective, and its content is clearly synthesized. If it can't be modified to address these problems, it should be deleted. Any such lists should only be made in reference to specific sources' lists, possibly restricted to those sources' Wikipedia articles. If a consensus should disagree, then I would propose that first, objective criteria be devised, and all others removed. I think this article should focus more on the sources themselves, beginning with aggregator sources like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritics, etc., and summarize each of those sources, while providing links to their own articles, where individual tables and lists would be more appropriate. The Rotten Tomatoes article, for example, already includes such a list. Any movies that recur across these sources, perhaps, could be in this article in a table devoted to them. Awards like the Golden Raspberries could either being included with the aggregators, or, if other such notable awards can be found, incorporated into their own section. That leaves individual notable critics, particularly those that have published lists of the worst films ever. Since these critics may use different types of scores (letter grades, a scale of 1 to 10, four or five stars, etc.), perhaps a table on these critics' list can include those films that recur across all of these critics' books or lists, or the ones that recur most commonly among them? Nightscream (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The TL;DR of the above: Lists should have a clear, verifiable, and consistent inclusion criteria. Taemyr (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the current list has issues, I don't think it's a problem that inherently lies in the title of the list. Plan 9 from outer space is a simple example where it's easy to verify that several sources does consider it as the worst film ever made. Indeed I belive that today more people have seen this move because of precisly that status than for any other reason. Taemyr (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's the title, I think it's the concept of it. The article's content is inherently selective with respect to its topic, is Americentric and Anglocentric, inconsistent, and lacks standard, consistent metric that would preclude the appearance of POV. Nightscream (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a problematic article, and the fact that virtually all the films outside the heavily Ed Wood-leaning "Cult classics" section come from the 1990s and 2000s indicate to me a recentism bias that misweighs the contents. The article as a whole gives the impression that Ed Wood and the last 20 years have created more bad movies than all of other Hollywood history combined.

If the article can be salvaged at all from its distinct POV and OR problems, I believe it's necessary, first of all, to make it a briefly annotated list only and thus remove the essaying from the article. Since each of these films links to its own article, detailed discussion of its merits or lack thereof should appear there.

Secondly, it needs a quantifiable criterion. Something like "lowest scoring films on critics-aggregate sites", perhaps. That would need to be supplemented with a criterion for older films from before such sites. If such a quantifiable, non-subjective criterion does not exist, that tells you something right there. "Common knowledge" is something Wikipedia strives to avoid, and we appear to be saying that certain cult films are the worst because "everybody knows that." That cannot be the standard for inclusion. Aside from infamous films like Plan 9 or Manos, there must be thousands of lesser-known films that are just as bad.

Where do you draw the line? That's the important question. Because without a well-defined line, there is, by definition, only a subjective standard for inclusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

these are all good ideas in theory, however the fact still remains that you could have a good 10 citations or so for something add it to the current list and somsone will delete is because he or she likes the movie

Ears4life (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Striptease

While the film did get many bad reviews, I do not see how this film can be considered "exploitive" especially since the theatrical (and some home video) R-rated cut really doesn't feature much stripping. Even the unrated version only adds a few seconds. The article also says there's lots of sex in this film. No one has sex, there's some sex-talk and innuendo but no sex acts. In all this film has less adult content than most R films.76.120.66.57 (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it further, it seems every thing about this film is taken solely from Leonard Maltin's review and doesn't mention any aggregate score or even another review. I'm going to take it out, mainly for lack of aggregate and false statements about it.76.120.66.57 (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

on rottentomateos critics gave it mainly negative reviews

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/striptease/

it's currently rated 3.9 on imdb.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117765/

Striptease won 1997 Razzie Awards for the following catagories: worst picture, worst actress (Demi Moore), worst director (Andrew Bergman), worst screen play (Andrew Bergman), Worst Original Song, Worst On-Screen Couple (Demi Moore and Bury Reynolds)

Striptease was nominated for the following catagories in 1997 Razzie Awards: worst supporting actor (Burt Reynolds),

http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000558/1997

Variety gave the film a negative review

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117795282.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

Ebert did not like Striptease

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960628/REVIEWS/606280304/1023

Ebert named Demi Moore as a good actress in a bad film in Striptease. He said the film "lacked eroticism." Siskel agreed with Ebert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFJz081ZPiM&p=295F2CCA4428537D&index=5&playnext=2

(Ears4life (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)).

Impressive, so why can't you put that in the article? But, you haven't shown how it's "exploitive" or "relies heavily on sex and nudity" or why it's any more noteworthy than any other bad film. Not every multi-category Razzie winner is featured here, should they all be? Is any film that tries to be erotic (and it's dubious that Striptease even tried) and fails automatically "exploitation"? Is a film that succeeds at being erotic not "exploitation"? How many minutes of sex (of which Striptease has none) and nudity (of which Striptease has little, technically none if you get semantic) qualifies for "relies heavily"? Yet, this film remains on this article despite a lack of reasons why. It's bad, critics agree. The article doesn't show this agreement. It doesn't show how it's "exploitation" or even why it qualifies for this article.76.120.66.57 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of films considered the worst

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of films considered the worst's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jabootu":

• From Jaws: The Revenge: Begg, Ken. "Jaws: The Revenge - Jabootu's Bad Movie Dimension". Retrieved 2006-09-20.
• From Jaws 3-D: Ken Begg. "Jaws 3-D - Jabootu's Bad Movie Dimension". Retrieved 2006-11-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? No Blair Witch project?

Honestly why isn't that movie on here? IS it too bad a movie that it makes all the ones on this list good in comparison? I still remember the TV ad's calling it the Scariest horror movie of the year. Testament

Find WP:RS and cite them, if you can find them. Personally, I would put Rocky on this list, but reviews that call the film "preposterous" aren't exactly reviews calling it "the worst." --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you love when trolls try to use their own dislike as the main source?74.111.124.39 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Billy Idol song interpretation

Saying "dancing With Myself" is thought to be about masturbation really does not help this article...and where's the citation for that generally held opinion? I have removed that and corrected the improper use of the word "where". When a thing occurs in a movie scene, that is not a "where", it is a "when" or "at which". The Grammar Cop never sleeps.75.21.155.253 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Meet the Spartans

This film boasts a 2% score on Rotten Tomatoes.

It is 98th in Imdb's bottom 100.

Critic Josh Levin from Slate magazine states "This was the worst movie I've ever seen, so bad that I hesitate to label it a 'movie' and thus reflect shame upon the entire medium of film."

Critic Justin Putman states ""Meet the Spartans" is a downtrodden cinematic vacuum — a sickening, derivative, shallow, condescending, utterly worthless piece of shit."

Critic Willie Waffle states "You only have to wait 5 seconds into the movie to get the first vomit joke, and if that doesn't drive you out of the theater and on your way to see Cloverfield again, nothing will. "

I could provide more examples like these, but I don't think they are needed.

Roger Ebert hasn't reviewed this movie.

Sadly though it appears to have paid it's own production costs and thus wouldn't enter the list by some people's criteria. But the money probably came from the dozens of product placements (wich are rather full-fledged advertisements, the actors actually stop what they are doing to promote the product). This movie deserves to enter the worst films list. Badly. 187.66.197.42 (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

At Metacritic both fans and critics gave it negative reviews

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/meet-the-spartans

Radio times said the film is "Moronic, offensive and likely to provoke concerns about the end of western civilisation, it's junk-food cinema at its worst."

http://www.radiotimes.com/servlet_film/com.icl.beeb.rtfilms.client.simpleSearchServlet?frn=47713&searchTypeSelect=5

The film received five nominations for the 29th Golden Raspberry Awards:[Worst Picture (jointly with Disaster Movie), Worst Supporting Actress (Electra), Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off, or Sequel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Golden_Raspberry_Awards

Ears4life (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that I don't agree that it's one of the worst films ever made (the reasons you cited make it more deserving of a spot than several films already on here, especially the superflous addition of All About Steve), but the, um, "sequel" Disaster Movie, which is the same film but worse in pretty much every way, is already on here. And personally, I'd rather add a spot for Epic Movie. (I hated the Willy Wonka scene alone more than all of Meet The Spartans combined.)130.49.131.171 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

2% of critics at Flixster liked it

http://www.flixster.com/movie/meet-the-spartans?lsrc=TypeAhead-MovieClick

it's #14 on everyone's a critic worst movie rankings

http://www.everyonesacritic.net/movie_rank.asp?list=bottom

it's #9 lowest ranked at metacritic

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/all?sort=asc&page=0

there are some continuation errors in the film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073498/goofs

it was panned by both fans and critics at rottentomatoes

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/meet_the_spartans/

Ears4life (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't say I was standing up for it. If you really think you can add it in the bad comedy section and not make it seem excessive, with Disaster Movie already on there, I won't object. (Though I'd still sooner try to get its prequel, Epic Movie, on here. Epic Movie was actually ranked even worse than Disaster Movie on rotten tomatoes's worst of the decade list, so it could rightfully be called just as bad.)130.49.131.171 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Batman & Robin

if there are no objections I'll add this in a few days Ears4life (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this addresses the issues brought up here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst/Removed_films#B

Jeremiah Kipp and filmcritic.com said "Batman & Robin deserves no justification for existing. It was made assuming people would be dumb enough to ladle into their mouths whatever the Hollywood sequel machine would throw at them."

http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1997/batman-robin/

Batman and Robin currently has a 3.5 rating at IMDB.COM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118688/

it has 3.4 on rotten tomateos

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1077027-batman_and_robin/

(Ears4life (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Joel Schumacher apologized for Batman and Robin

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/batmanarkhamasylum/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-45038483&pid=952338

Batman and Robin is ranked on the worst movies ever at Everyone's a Critic.

http://www.everyonesacritic.net/movie_rank.asp?list=bottom

(Ears4life (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

movephone as Batman and Robin rated the number 1 Worst Movie Sequel of All Time http://blog.moviefone.com/2007/06/21/worst-movie-sequels

Robert Ebert said "Listening to Schwarzenegger's one-liners (``The iceman cometh!), I realized that a funny thing is happening to the series: It's creeping irresistibly toward the tone of the 1960s TV show. The earlier Batman movies, especially the dark ``Batman Returns (1992), made a break with the camp TV classic and went for moodier tones. But now the puns and punchlines come so fast the action has to stop and wait for them. Although we don't get the POW! and WHAM! cartoon graphics, this fourth movie seems inspired more by the TV series than the Bob Kane comic character."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970620/REVIEWS/706200301/1023

msnmovies has Batman and Robin listed as the worst super hero films of all time http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-guide-summer/superhero-movies/?ptid=3847fea8-e75d-46ba-80db-4ac3f5198935&mpc=2

George Clooney, star of the film, has repeatedly ripped the movie

he called it "shit" http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/humble-beginnings-for-former-batmen.php

he said "I think we called the franchise (being Batman movie franchise)"

http://www.georgeclooney.celebrityisites.com/Batman_Robin.html

it was voted the worst movie in an Empire Magazine poll

http://www.zimbio.com/George+Clooney/articles/vyEgufhiVN_/George+Clooney+Batman+Robin+Named+Worst+Film

(Ears4life (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

Leonard Maltin found that "the 'story' often makes no sense" and that the "action and effects are loud, gargantuan, and ultimately numbing."

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Batman_and_Robin_1997_film_-_Response/id/4834460

Batman and Robin was nominated for the following catgories in the 1998 Razzie awards: Worst Picture, Worst Supporting Actor (Chris O'Donnell and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Worst Director, Worst Screen Play, Worst On Screen Couple (George Clooney and Chris O'Donnell), Worst Remake or Sequel,and Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property, Worst Original Song ("The End is The Beginning is The End" by Billy Cogan)

Batman and Robin won the following catagories in the 1998 Razzie awards: Worst Actress (Alicia Silverstone)

http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000558/1998

(Ears4life (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

Unlike in the comic book Bat Girl is Alfred's niece. In the comic book version Bat Girl is the daughter of Commissioner Gordon.

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/batman-4-batman-and-robin-1997-movie-review/

The New York Times said "Joel Schumacher, director and ringmaster, piles on the flashy showmanship and keeps the film as big, bold, noisy and mindlessly overwhelming as possible"

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=950DE3DB153EF933A15755C0A961958260

Rottentomatoes rates it as one of the worst superhero movies of all time

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/comic/?r=88&mid=1077027

Ears4life (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Batman and Robin voted worst movie ever

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/feb/03/batman-robin-worst-film-ever

while a financial success Batman and Robin didn't make as much as the prevous Batman film Batman Forever

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanrobin.htm

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanforever.htm

The A.V. Club said "The fourth installment of the lucrative Batman series is the weakest yet"

http://www.avclub.com/articles/batman-and-robin,18690/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Author Mark S. Reinhart added by saying "The combination of Batman & Robin's terrible script, ridiculous costuming, garish sets, uninspired direction, etc. made the film into the appalling dump heap that it is. Michael J. Nelson, in Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese, says "Batman & Robin is not the worst movie ever. No, indeed. It's the worst thing ever. Yes, it's the single worst thing that we as human beings have ever produced in recorded history.

http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_%26_Robin

Didtal Dream Door named Batman and Robin the 28th worst film of all time

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/movie-pages/movie_worst.html

Marc Savlov of the Austin Chronicle gave Batman and Robin a D

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800283691

professional critics on msnmovies gave Batman and Robin one and a half stars

http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie/batman-and-robin/?silentchk=1&wa=wsignin1.0

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle said "It's the lightest of the Batman movies, the most cartoony, the dumbest and the least ambitious...The movie combines pomp and absurdity -- grand special effects play off against self-mocking dialogue.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1997/06/20/DD61937.DTL

Batman and Robin is currently on the bottom 35 at Everyone's a Critic's list of worst 200 films ever

http://www.everyonesacritic.net/movie_rank.asp?list=bottom

Ears4life (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ears4life (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Batman and Robin was added and removed before. It's definitely bad, but the scores on the more notable sources (Rotten Tomatoes, Internet Movie Database) are definitely not as bad as the films that qualify on here. It's not ussually one of the first examples cited of one of the worst movies of all time. If movies like this start making the list, the arguements that it has too many superflous additions will probably start up again.130.49.131.170 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

at flixster only 11% of critics liked it

http://www.flixster.com/movie/batman-robin#!lsrc:GSR-MOV-Title

it has only 1 positive review at metacritic from critics, and only 4 positive reviews from users http://www.metacritic.com/movie/batman-robin

I really think with the totality of everything this is ready to make the page

Ears4life (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Other movies with worse results than that don't have a spot here. If it's ready to make the list, the standard has been lowered and many other films that didn't before can now.74.111.124.39 (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Street Fighter?

Street Fighter for poor adaptation?

The film altered the plot of the original game and motives of the Street Fighter characters.

One of its worst reviews came from Leonard Maltin's annual Movie and Video Guide: "Even Jean-Claude Van Damme fans couldn't rationalize this bomb, a more appropriate title for which would have been Four Hundred Funerals and No Sex (derived from Four Weddings and a Funeral)...It does, however, seem like Citizen Kane when compared to The Legend of Chun-Li."

Richard Harrington of The Washington Post noted that the film was "notable only for being the last film made by Raúl Juliá, an actor far too skilled for the demands of the evil warlord, Gen. M. Bison, but far too professional to give anything less than his best

it has a 2.9 critic average rating at rottentomatoes

Time magazine named Street Fighter as one of the top 10 worst video game movies

IMDB rating of 3.3

Ears4life (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could see it happening, but you might be better off pushing for the second one, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. (Or keep trying to get Meet The Spartans on here. I mean, heck, there's more than one Uwe Boll film listed, and Spartans's directors Friedberg and Seltzer are just about his only rivals, besides maybe Tommy Wiseau.)74.111.124.39 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

fans at gave it an average rating of 2.2 rottentomatoes

it was a flop financially

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=streetfighter.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to stand up for it, but it wasn't a flop financially. If you check your own link, you'll see it made back almost three times its budget. I still think you'd be better off trying to get the sequel on here.74.111.124.39 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was half asleep when I posted the link d'oh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros?

The Movie Super Mario Bros is seen as a terrible adaption to the francise. why not include it to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.13.64 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be on the list Ears4life (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The film received mixed to negative reviews from critics and fans alike and was denounced by critics as "cheesy" and lacking any sort of coherent plot. On the television show Siskel & Ebert, the film received two thumbs down.

Some of the cast members are still displeased about the film. Bob Hoskins, despite being well-known for his role, disapproved of his experience working on the film, or the film itself. (During the filming of a chase scene, for instance, Hoskins had suffered a minor hand injury in an accident with a vehicle, and therefore had to wear a pink cast afterwards.)

In an August 2007 interview with The Guardian, he complained, "The worst thing I ever did? Super Mario Brothers”

In a December 2008 interview, Dennis Hopper admitted he was also displeased with the project.

Shigeru Miyamoto, Mario's creator stated, "[In] the end, it was a very fun project that they put a lot of effort into," but also said, "The one thing that I still have some regrets about is that the movie may have tried to get a little too close to what the Mario Bros. video games were. And in that sense, it became a movie that was about a video game, rather than being an entertaining movie in and of itself."

In 2009, Time listed the film on their respective lists of top ten worst video game movies.

Gametrailers.com named Super Mario Brothers Top Ten Worst Video Game Movies of all time, taking the number one spot.

It was a box office bomb.

Fans denounced the film for deviating from the video game series and distorting established concepts and themes of the fictional game world. For instance, in the film, President Koopa (Bowser) is a humanoid descendant of a Tyrannosaurus rex, whereas he is a monstrous, fire-breathing turtle king in the games. Another complaint about the film was the slightly dark atmosphere, which deviated from the family-friendly works of the hugely successful video games. Additionally, the lesser known princess from the video game series, Princess Daisy, was portrayed in the film instead of Princess Peach; in particular, Daisy has appeared in the 1989 Game Boy game Super Mario Land and later in some other minor roles, whereas Peach has been present in nearly every game in the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No way. Outside of fan backlash, nobody considers it one of the worst movies ever made. It isn't even entirely considered one of the worst video game films ever made. In fact, while it's not considered a good film, it seems to have something of a cult following and some novelty value as the first and only Mario Brothers film. There's a list on Rotten Tomatoes of all the video game films, ranked best to worst, with plenty of better options to use (Double Dragon for example).130.49.131.170 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Too above, did you just check the info that was just above? it IS considered as the worst video-game movie, the cast of the movie is displeased, and the movie isn't even too accurate with the games! a TERRIBLE ADAPTION, deserving at least an honorary mention in the list as a terrible adaption to the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.141.229 (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, check its scores on any website and you'll find a good handful of other video game films that have lower scores. Double Dragon, just about any Uwe Boll film, and anything With "Street Fighter" in the title are only some of the examples. The cast might not have had fun working on the project, but that isn't a scale of measurement for how bad a movie is (and its hardly unique). Not only are just about all of the film's results better than the movies in this article, but considering that NO video game film has had overall favorable reception, its results aren't that far below the standard. The only time you'll see it singled out is when the fanboys decide to whine about how they wanted a movie exactly like the games, not a loose adaptation.74.111.124.39 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

3.1 at Rotten Tomateos

it was a financial flop

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=supermariobros.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ears4life (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Video game movies alone ranked lower on Rotten Tomatoes:

Double Dragon (1994)

Alone in the Dark (2005)

House of the Dead (2003)

Bloodrayne (2006)

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (2009)

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2008)

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)

Postal (2007)

Pokemon Heroes (2003)

Wing Commander (1999)

Street Fighter (1994)

And the fact is, it's score on Rotten Tomatoes isn't low enough to help get it on the list in the first place. (By the way, people pay more attention to the percent score on Rotten Tomatoes, so you might want to start listing that instead.)

I'll give you that it was a flop, but that also goes for a lot of other films, including several good ones, so you won't get far with that alone as your arguement.74.111.124.39 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

and the street-fighter-movies is more similar it's game (i've only seen one movie) than the mario-bros-movie is to the game. now those movies is maybye got less rewiev-points by critics, but think about everything: The Mario movie has a Dark, Disgusting and un-familyfriendly enviroment compared to the games. you'd maybye wouldn't expect a movie that looks EXCACTLY like the games, you'd maybye expected some diffrences, new things... but this is just ridicolous. besides, think about how it would be watching this in a hollywood premiere! you don't know what's coming to show on the screen, and what you'd get is what you'd least exppect. also, quoting James Rolfe "the Angry Video game Nerd" he said:

"And that fucking dumb ass Super Mario Bros. movie? Man, I remember reading about that and being so excited, I couldn't wait to see that movie. But it was just like waiting for a buffalo to take a shit all over your face." (he said it in his nintendo power Rewiev)

And also, Chris Bores "Irate Gamer" had a list of the top 5 worst videogame movies, and listed Mario bros at the top of the list, so you can see the movie was panned by the fans for being WAAY innaccurate, and that's a true reason IT SHOULD GO TO THE FREAKIN LIST!!!

What you've just done is whine about how the movie isn't the way you wanted it to be and cite internet reviewers, people not employed by anyone to judge movies, doing pretty much the same thing for entertainment's sake. You do demonstrate what is the main reason this debate is taking place at all (that some fans of the video games with extra time on their hands like to spend it trolling on the movie), but as far as reaching a rational consensus goes, that is worth nothing. And even it's overall reception among fans doesn't make it a standout, considering that it does have a cult following.130.49.131.171 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was rewatching the Siskel and Ebert review of the film. I think it's worth noting Siskel said "it does't work at all" He went on to say that "this movie is niether high or low tech enough, it's not as dazzling or as evolving as the cutting edge videogame ...and lacks tradition movie elements like compelling characters or a fresh story." Ebert said "it's a complete waste of time and money." Ears4life (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Siskel also said that there were a couple amusing bits about the movie, such as lines from Dennis Hopper and the appearance of the Goombas. And Ebert didn't say anything worse than he said about other 90s fad films, like The Power Rangers Movie or Ninja Turtles. Nobody's questioning whether the film is considered good (that it isn't has long since been established), but no given information, besides that some angry game fans like to rant about the film, has shown that it is a standout among other bad films, let alone one of the worst.74.111.124.39 (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

it was mentioned that this movie has a cult following, so what about Super Mario Brothers as a cult classic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have a cult following because of poor quality, unlike the movies listed.74.111.124.39 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)