Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Old Dogs

Who thinks Old Dogs should be on this list? Let me know, and I may be able to put it on there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRebo120 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

looking at its wiki page it meets the criteria to make it

Ears4life (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hudson Hawk for bad comedy

if there are no objections I'll add this in a few days Ears4life (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Hudson Hawk can qualify under the bad comedy catagory

Ears4life (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

James Brundage at filmcritic.com said Hudson Hawk is " the world's most convoluted comedy."

http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1991/hudson-hawk/

Ears4life (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

rottentomatoes has an average rating of 3.6 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hudson_hawk/

Hudson Hawk was nominated for the following catagories in the 1992 Razzie Awards but did not win: Worst Actor (Bruce Willis), Worst Supporting Actor (Richard E. Grant) and Worst Supporting Actress (Sandra Bernhard)

Hudson Hawk was nominated for and won the following catagories in the 1992 Razzie Awards: Worst Director (Michael Lehmann), Worst Picture (Joel Silver), Worst Screenplay: Daniel Waters, Steven E. de Souza, Robert Kraft (story) and Bruce Willis (story), and Worst Actor (Bruce Willis)

Hudson Hawk was also nominated in 2000 for Worst Picture of the Decade

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102070/awards

at metacritic all but two critics gave it anegative review

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hudson-hawk

Roger Ebert named Hudson Hawk on his list of worst movies of 1991

http://www.cmgww.com/stars/siskel/screening_room/thumbs_down.htm#2

both Siskel and Ebert did not like Hudson Hawk

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=Hudson+Hawk

(Ears4life (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)).

Hudson Hawk was a box office bomb.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hudsonhawk.htm

Part of the reason for the box office failure is that the film is clearly intended as an absurd comedy and yet was marketed as an action film one year after the success of Die Hard 2. When the film came to home video the tag line "Catch The Adventure, Catch The Excitement, Catch The Hawk" was changed to "Catch The Adventure, Catch The Laughter, Catch The Hawk"

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-29/entertainment/ca-2570_1_box-office

On the soundtrack of the movie Swinging on a Star is sung by Bruce Willis and Danny Aiello is 2:53. The plot device in the movie refers to the original track length as 5:32.

http://www.amazon.com/Hudson-Hawk-Original-Picture-Soundtrack/dp/B0000014SB

critics at msn movies gave Hudson Hawk 1 star

http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie/hudson-hawk/?silentchk=1&wa=wsignin1.0

critcs at metacritic gave Hudson Hawk 20 out of 100

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hudson-hawk

Ears4life (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Digital Draem Door named Hudson Hawk #11 on their list of worst films ever

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

It received a review of negative 50 stars in a recent review of it.

http://www.wisconsininternetnews.com/2010/07/02/retro-review-hudson-hawk/

Ears4life (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

the above sitations clearly address the issues given for it being removed from the list before

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

Ears4life (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ears4life (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't one I've seen, but I seem to be missing something in the logic here. How was this a standout among bad movies? There's not really anything cited that goes beyond the usual weak films released every year. And it's scores on rotten tomatoes and internet movie database really aren't that bad. (I can't find a written review from Roger Ebert, but his listing it among the weakest 1991 films isn't the same as calling it one of the worst ever. And even if it counts, it's only one of the necessary three sources.) It looks to me like someone just managed to slip it on the list without many other people taking notice.74.111.124.39 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

looks like I didn't cite it here but did on the main page that Hudson Hawk has the dubious distinction of being the final film produced by TriStar Pictures prior to their being bought out and merged with Columbia Pictures (which was going through similar financial difficulties). Because Hawk (in conjunction with other unsuccessful movies from the same studio) had lost so much money, the Sony Corporation had to salvage TriStar by purchasing its remaining stock, and by reorganizing the company as part of the recently-formed Sony Studios. As with United Artists when they were bought out by MGM, Columbia and Tri-Star were allowed to keep their own logos, and to continue making movies under their own names

Ears4life (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't have much to do with how bad the movie itself is. This is a list of movies with the poorest quality, not the worst snowball effect.74.111.124.39 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

in the interest of keeping this easier to keep track of I'm going to copy everything that's above and some new things for Hudson Hawk here, with the exception of it being a key reason TriStar went under

Digital Dream Door named Hudson Hawk #11 on their list of worst films ever

critics at msn movies gave Hudson Hawk 1 star

at moviephone both fans and critics voted to skip it

at metacritic all but 4 critics have it a negative review

filmcritic.com said "Hawk's only saving grace is that it's so implausible and so over the top that it lets inconsistency roll off like water on a duck's back. A car blows up with a character in it and he yucks about the experience without a scratch, explaining, 'Airbags.' The CIA agent misses communism because it got him laid more often"

Chris Hicks of the Deseret News said "Suffice it to say the plot is convoluted, the characters are silly and the ancient jokes, puns and sight gags are so low they make the Three Stooges seem sophisticated." He went on to say "that the script is contrived and self-indulgent rather than clever" and "But what is most amazing is the pervasive silliness that has the cast acting like fools without ever getting a laugh from the audience.

MacDowell repeatedly screeches like a dolphin, the Pope in the Vatican watches "Mr. Ed" in Italian, Willis is batted around by karate-kicking Coburn like an inflatable punching bag, the model posing for the "Mona Lisa" has bad teeth, all the dialogue is built around pop-cultural references — but none of this is in the least bit amusing. It's hard to imagine a major, big-budget movie that could come along this year and be worse than "Hudson Hawk," a solid contender for the longest 95 minutes in movie history."

Hudson Hawk was a box office bomb

Part of the reason for the box office failure is that the film is clearly intended as an absurd comedy and yet was marketed as an action film one year after the success of Die Hard 2. When the film came to home video the tag line "Catch The Adventure, Catch The Excitement, Catch The Hawk" was changed to "Catch The Adventure, Catch The Laughter, Catch The Hawk"

Both Siskel and Ebert did not like Hudson Hawk giving it thumbs down. Siskel said “Hudson Hawk, an over stuffed caper comedy, in which unfortunately every character, and I mean every character including the villains, tries too hard to be funny. The end result…just wears us out.”

Hudson Hawk was nominated for the following catagories in the 1992 Razzie Awards but did not win: Worst Actor (Bruce Willis), Worst Supporting Actor (Richard E. Grant) and Worst Supporting Actress (Sandra Bernhard)

Hudson Hawk was nominated for and won the following catagories in the 1992 Razzie Awards: Worst Director (Michael Lehmann), Worst Picture (Joel Silver), Worst Screenplay: Daniel Waters, Steven E. de Souza, Robert Kraft (story) and Bruce Willis (story), and Worst Actor (Bruce Willis)

Hudson Hawk was also nominated in 2000 for Worst Picture of the Decade

3.6 rating on the Tomateometer at rottentomateos

Ears4life (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't really a need for that. The question was what makes it a standout as the worst. Most of that stuff is just different examples of the same thing, that critics don't like it very much. And none of those examples of critical reception are as bad as the ones the movies on this list have. The razzie awards and the box office failure/company disaster could help secure a spot if there was just one area where it stood out as one of the very worst films, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Look at it this way; when All About Steve first turned up (nominated for several examples of critics not liking the film and its razzie awards), it was debated to death whether it should be here. The guy in favor said the 6% score on rotten tomatoes, the low score on Metacritic, and a few critics naming it the worst film of the year were on par, though not quite equal, with the films listed here and concluded that together (plus the razzies), these were enough examples to prove the film a total failure. The opposition was that these were not different examples at all, just several different ways of displaying the same thing; critical reception that was a little bit better than the films on the list. The arguement over whether this was "enough" negative criticism went on until the guy in favor won out by essentially dragging out and obscuring the arguement, until the other side just went away. So if negative critical reception is the basis for putting a film on the list, it has be to at least as bad as the reception for All About Steve. And just about all of the examples listed for Hudson Hawk are in fact more positive than that.130.49.131.170 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Video Brinquedo section under sequels, remakes, etc.

I'm removing this whole section. It refers to a company, not a single movie, is not well-written, and has no references. Perhaps some movies released by the company might be able to be added, but there's not a lot salvageable from the section currently. It's interesting, but I've never even heard of these rip-offs.Obeliab (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Santa With Muscles

Santa With Muscles for bad comedy

The film also features Hulk Hogan, Mila Kunis, Adam Wylie, and Clint Howard.

Variety gave it a negative review and within the review it says "Santa With Muscles" is a 98-pound weakling of a comedy, with other movies certain to kick sand in its face during its limited theatrical run in regional release. The Hulk Hogan starrer may generate some business as a sell-through homevideo item, but even very small children won't find much here to ho-ho-ho about."

it's on the bottom 100 at the Internet Movie Database and has a 2.1 rating from the same place

Santa With Muscles has been named one of the worst Christmas movies ever by moviephone

Zero critics at rottentomatoes liked it

The Deseret Times says "Hulk Hogan, who makes Arnold Schwarzenegger seem like Laurence Olivier, stars in this kiddie picture as an eccentric (what else?) billionaire who gets hit on the head and thinks he's the real Santa Claus." Variety gave it a negative review and within the review it says "Santa With Muscles" is a 98-pound weakling of a comedy, with other movies certain to kick sand in its face during its limited theatrical run in regional release. The Hulk Hogan starrer may generate some business as a sell-through homevideo item, but even very small children won't find much here to ho-ho-ho about."

unless any objections I'll this sometime in the next few days

earlier today this was removed for no reason listed so I readded it

once again this was removed with no reason given so I readded itEars4life (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

yet once again this was removed with no reason given so I readded it

I'm not the one removing it, but if you need a reason, it doesn't look like you're giving many reasons to include it. All that's here is that it's in the "bottom" 50 on the imdb bottom 100 list, and some listed critics, the grand total of which you could count on one hand, didn't like it. (There's a total of 3 critics with scored reviews on rotten tomatoes.) It looks like it was just casually scorned and then dismissed, not noticed much one way or the other.74.111.124.39 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

bad films from "good" artists

Anybody can be incompetent. Laughing at what they produce is not unlike watching cripples trying to waltz -- one doesn't expect much. It takes really talented people to make really bad films. Billy Wilder's Kiss Me, Stupid is an outstanding example, and I remain amazed at how many people adore Field of Dreams, which has an illogical story and incoherent/inconsistent plot. It would be nice if this list included more such films. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Godzilla(1998)

What about Godzilla 1998? A lot of critics and Godzilla fans hated it, so I thought it'd be appropriate to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.186.187 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• No. It did get bad reviews, but it is not considered one of the worst films of all time.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

After Last Season

Nearly every critic that saw this movie panned it for being both incomprehensible and terribly, terribly made... So why isn't it up here? Yes, it had a pretty small distribution, but it still has gained more critical bile than could ever be imagined. Or, rather, not even bile, but complete confusion, as in "How the hell am I watching this in a theatre?!"

But I digress. Is there a reason?--24.127.188.224 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. Movies need to gain some notoriety to be mentioned here. Obviously, there are hundreds if not thousands of movies so bad that almost no one has ever seen them, so they're not on the list. The Razzies, which are given a lot of weight here, focus on high concept movies: big stars and/or big budgets gone horribly wrong, or in any event movies that lots of people are at least aware of. The rest of the list is rounded out with movies that for one reason or another have achieved cult status. As for "After last season", there is only one review at RottenTomatoes, and none at Metacritic. The user reviews at IMDB are strongly polarized, so there's really no hope - at least for the moment. I haven't seen it, but from reading some of the comments, it sounds like it's got what it takes to be the next "The Room". Suggest it as a midnight show for your local college theater and who knows where it will lead.

Personally, I always wondered why "Convoy" wasn't here, but I discovered that a disturbing number of critics actually liked that movie (50% at RT!!). Go figure.Prebys (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros.?

This movie is considered the worst movie based on a video game. Majority of actors who participated in the project claimed that that is the worst thing they done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.173.148 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it, but be warned it will likely get deleted.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

a little above this there is a discussion about adding Super Mario Bros. and the concensus thus far is that it doesn't meet the criteria

Ears4life (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Worst film based on a videogame" is a title for which there is a lot of competition, and this isn't one of the films that's typically mentioned in that connection. Some people actually like it, and most who I've seen make the comparison at least concede that it's less bad than, just for starters, most Uwe Boll films. 65.71.127.54 (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many films based on personal opinion

This list has become filled with so many films that don't meet the criteria of the article. Please remember that this list is not based on personal opinion. You can refer to the criteria that was set up on the talk page if you'd like: Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 4#Criteria for the worst movies, but please try to come to a consensus on the talk page before adding new films, especially ones that have already been on the removed films list. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

Shouldn't Heaven's Gate be on this list too? From what I read about it so far, it had a lot of bad reviews, being considered one of the biggest box-office flops of all time. Dark Rain —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Just because a movie flopped at the box office doesn't always mean that the film is awful. Not all good movies are box office successes (i.e. Bringing Up Baby, arguably one of the greatest movies ever made) and not all bad movies are box office flops (i.e. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a film that a majority of critics disliked). Not defending Heaven's Gate, though, as I haven't seen the entire film, but it only has a reputation of being a huge flop at the box office, and not on what the critics thought of it. In fact, none of the reviews I have read of the film called it one of the worst movies of all time. I suggest doing some research before placing it on the list. Freshh (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen Heaven's Gate. It sucks. Confusing, badly shot, interminably long, just plain bad. Jhobson1 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool as Ice

How is "Cool as Ice" not on this list, it's in the bottom 100 on IMDB, has an 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and was nominated for 7 Razzies with Vaniila Ice winning "Worst New Star." It should definitely be listed under the "Bad Crossover" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.44 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But has anyone called it the 'worst'? Please refer to guidelines near the top of the page. --Half Price (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's ever been called the worst, but being in the bottom 250 on IMDB, under 10% on Rotten Tomatoes, and being nominated for 7 Razzies should be enough. --166.183.30.103 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Please read the guidelines. --Half Price (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool As Ice fits those guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeDude898 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Find a source/sources to show that then, please. --Half Price (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines say,

"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"

Cool as Ice fits those three requirements.--166.183.66.72 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The above guidelines are suggestions that were made as criteria for this article (and almost all of the movies listed in the article currently follow them). While I agree that Cool As Ice probably meets that criteria, I think what is being asked for, are references that specifically show: which aggregate lists it has appeared on, a link to its reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, AND which Razzies it was specifically nominated for. Those, plus any source referring to it as the "worst", would be needed before adding it to this list. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool As Ice curently #80 on the worst movies ever at IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom

it's imdb rating is 2.2

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101615/

it has a 2.2 rating at rotten tomatoes

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

the film was nominated for several Razzie awards, and won Worst New Star (Vanilla Ice)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Golden_Raspberry_Awards

Ears4life (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

8% of critics at flixster liked it

http://www.flixster.com/movie/cool-as-ice

at everyonesacritic nearly every review gives it an F

http://www.everyonesacritic.net/movie.asp?movieid=4033

Ears4life (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

it's named the 19th worst fiml ever at Digital Dream Door

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

Ears4life (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this meets all the criteria to make the page

Ears4life (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Who's Your Caddy?

Who's Your Caddy? is a very horrible rip off of Caddy Shack according to 4 reviews I've found thus far

it was nominated for Worst Remake or Rip-Off at the 2008 Razzie Awards

it's in the bottom 100 at IMDB

Who's Your Caddy? has a 6% approval rating and only two positive reviews from critics at rottentomatoes

critics at moviefone said to skip it Ears4life (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

unless there's any objections I'll add this in a few days Ears4life (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess it makes sense (or at least, it's a better suggestion than most of the recent ones). I didn't find any evidence that the Razzie nomination actually happened, but it seems like it was a flop, so that could be used instead.

But to the people who keep trying to get something new on here every week, the point of this list is to display the most noteworthy examples in the category, not to bombard people with every possible example of hatred towards a movie. The list is already, at the very least, adequate. A helpful addition would be as unique and noteworthy as any of them, displaying some quality not previously seen on the list. (Would this be a movie anyone would name if they were asked for the first example that came to mind of one of the worst movies?) The list doesn't need every candidate that could possibly be considered, found by sifting through movies from the past few years.74.111.124.39 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

since my first post discussing this I've found more

Movie Review Quiery Engine has Who's Your Caddy ranked 5th overall on their list of worst movies

additionally I found a review that cites heavy negative stereotyping within the film

critics at rottentomatoes give it a 6% approval rating with a 2.3 average rating

it has a Metascore of 18 at Metacritic based on 11 reviews from critics

6% of critics at Flixster liked it

and here's the Razzie nomination

http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000558/2008

Ears4life (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's all well and good (though at most it just helps to confirm the consensus reached by the sources already listed). But if this was meant as a response to what I wrote just above it, there's a grand total of one line in all that that answers what I wrote.74.111.124.39 (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted those just things to strengthen the case for Who's Your Caddy being added to the list Ears4life (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what helps seperate this from everything else on the list if it were to make the list it would be the sole horrible off of a sports comedy film the list, from it's title to the plot it's a very very bad riff off of Caddy Shack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

so is this ready to make the page? Ears4life (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought more people would have something to say about this one after the debates that just happened. Personally, my vote's neutral. If it goes on, it'll probably seem like one of the lesser examples, but it's reception seems at least a little worse than All About Steve. (Actually, if I got to choose what to do here, I'd replace All About Steve with this and call it even.)74.111.124.39 (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

anyone else want to share their thoughts on this? Ears4life (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bratz and The Last Airbender

I don't know who keeps trying to sneak these on here without justification, but someone is insisting on them now that they're there, so I guess I'll start the debate myself. Bratz should be forgotten right now. It's not scored among the very worst films anywhere, missing the bottom 100 lists on internet movie database and rotten tomatoes, and it wasn't even close to a standout with the razzie awards. Plus, it made money, and you can't exactly say that it didn't live up to its product. The Last Airbender is a possibility, but it needs more evidence. Right now, only it's score on rotten tomatoes is cited, with a few critics listed on the site being quoted to add padding.130.49.131.171 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I think these films can be added, just as long as sources are there, witch they are, so I say go for it.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

until this years Razzie Award winners and nominations are announced I think we should hold off and adding The Last Airbender Ears4life (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Movies that aren't so bad

Firts of all sorry for my bad english, but we need to discuss about some movies added recenlty that aren't the worst ever made. Those movies are "Bratz: The Movie (2007)", "The Last Airbender (2010)", "No Holds Barred (1989)", "Santa With Muscles (1996)", "Old Dogs (2009)", "Jaws: The Revenge (1987)" and "Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)". MikeWazowski and MaxRebo120 have added those movies and the creator of the page write in the history page that "These movies are based more on personal opinion than notability. None of them meet the criteria that was established on the talk page.". After six hours, both users restored all the articles and I delete again all "Stop to add this crap, WE HAVE THE TALK PAGE TO DISCUSS THE MOVIES", and MikeWazowski answer to me this: "we have discussed it - AND PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU". I've check the talk page but we haven't a real discussion and a very consensus about all of those movies, so I've created this for discuss about those movies.

Old Dogs: This is the first discussion for "Old Dogs" (see here), only a section open by an IP that no one have discuss; the second "discussion" is this (see here), only two users have discuss about this movie. I don't think so that this movie can be one of the worst ever made. The creator of this page have created a Criteria for the worst movies ever made (see here) to see if the movie is one of the worst ever made:

• have been listed on the IMDb bottom 100: Old Dogs is not on the "Bottom 100" and have a mixed rating of 5.1/10 based on 9.000 votes
• have been featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000: No
• were listed in the book The Fifty Worst Films of All Time: No
• appeared in the 2004 documentary The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, or: No
• have been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Rotten Tomatoes included).: No
• was a box office bomb: No, the movie was a succes at the box office, with a budget of 36 millions the film gross 98 millions
• 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.: The movie is included only in the MRQE, at number 42, not top 10; also at Metacritic have a more good rating than RT, with 19/100
• has less than a 10% rating at Rotten Tomatoes: Yes
• has been nominated and/or won at the Golden Raspberry Awards: The movie was nominated for five Razzies but did not win
• has been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Roger Ebert included). No, no one critic said that this is one of the worst ever, also Roger Ebert not gave a very bad review with 1 star out of possible 4

So, "Old Dogs" is a bad movie but is not one of the worst ever made. If someone want to discuss again he can write here.

Hulk Hogan movies: In his acting carrer Hulk have made many bad movies, bad they aren't so bad: "No Holds Barred" was a success at the box office, his rating at the IMDb.com is too high for a bad movie (3.6). In the page I have see that "Zero percent of critics at Flixter liked it" and "At rottentomatoes it has a rare 0% on the tomatometer and no positive reviews from critics." maybe some users didn't know that RT and Flixter are the same site. This movie did not win any "Razzies" or others prize for bad movies. Also the movie is only in the bottom of DigitalDreamDoor.com at 144, too high for a worst movie. For me this movie is bad, but not one of the worst ever made. For this movie I don't understand why is in this list, the movie has a discussion in the talk page (see here), but the user that nominated this have talk with himself to add the article, so no one discuss about this movie. The second Hulk Hogan movie is the bad comedy "Santa With Muscles". The movie was a box office bomb, the movie have no score at RT (with only 3 critics!, and not 0% as written in the article) and is in the Bottom 100 of the IMDb.com. This is bad like "No Holds Barrel" but they aren't the worst ever made. Also "Santa With Muscles" have only one discussion in the talk page (see here), with an aswer by an IP. Both movies needs more discussions by real wikipedians and not IP.

Bratz: The Movie:

• have been listed on the IMDb bottom 100: Bratz is not on the "Bottom 100" and have a bad rating of 2.7/10 based on 11.000 votes
• have been featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000: No
• were listed in the book The Fifty Worst Films of All Time: No
• appeared in the 2004 documentary The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, or: No
• have been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Rotten Tomatoes included).: No
• was a box office bomb: No, the movie was a modest succes at the box office, with a budget of 20 millions the film gross 26 millions
• 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.: The movie is included only in the MRQE, at number 50, not top 10; also at Metacritic have a more good rating than RT, with 21/100
• has less than a 10% rating at Rotten Tomatoes: Yes
• has been nominated and/or won at the Golden Raspberry Awards: The movie was nominated for five Razzies but did not win
• has been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Roger Ebert included). No, no one critic said that this is one of the worst ever

So, "Bratz: The Movie" is a bad movie but is not one of the worst ever made. The movie in the list is also poorly sourced. If someone want to discuss again he can write here.

The Last Airbender:

• have been listed on the IMDb bottom 100: The Last Airbender is not on the "Bottom 100" and have a mixed rating of 4.5/10 based on 26.000 votes
• have been featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000: No
• were listed in the book The Fifty Worst Films of All Time: No
• appeared in the 2004 documentary The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, or: No
• have been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Rotten Tomatoes included).: No
• was a box office bomb: No, the movie was a very big success at the box office, with a budget of 150 millions the film gross 318 millions
• 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.: The movie is not included in those lists; also at Metacritic have a more good rating than RT, with 20/100
• has less than a 10% rating at Rotten Tomatoes: Yes
• has been nominated and/or won at the Golden Raspberry Awards: Not yet
• has been referred to by at least one critic as the "worst" (Roger Ebert included). No, no one critic said that this is one of the worst ever

So, "The Last Airbender" is not yet a bad movie (also people like it, see the IMDb and the success at the box office), so we need to wait the Razzies.

I think that those movies aren't so bad and they aren't the worst movies ever made. Now all users can talk about those in the talk page; I will delete again all movies until they receive a real consensus. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you will edit-war until you get your way. Nice. This has been reported. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Until all editors will find a real worst movie, not false bad movies. Ok, report to administrators. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad more people are finally stopping the recent unjustified additions. But I don't think Jaws 4 is going anywhere or that it should. The 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, the 0 star score from Roger Ebert, and the razzie awards make it right at home on a list of the worst films. Plus there are all the lesser citations on top of that.74.111.124.39 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if the movie respect the criteria above, if all editors agree I also will deleted "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot (1992)" and "Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)". I also found another bad movie, "Cool as Ice" that stars in his firts role the rapper Vanilla Ice. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

at the very top of this page is a discussion for Cool as Ice and no concensus was reached

Ears4life (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Laserblast

Someone added Laserblast to the cult section without discussing it here. While it may qualify, the fact that it wasn't discussed means that it automatically gets removed from the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I added it. Sorry, I have never edited this page before, and I was under the impression that it met the criteria so it could be added. My apologies. But, in any event, we can discuss it now. I believe it clearly qualifies, as it has been discussed in WP:RS and is consistently in the IMDb bottom 100 (which, in this case, it also verified by a reliable source). It also has atrocious reviews and has received the MST3K treatment. I believe the MST3K and IMDb items alone qualify it according to Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 4#Criteria for the worst movies. Any thoughts or comments? — Hunter Kahn 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, as you said it's on the bottom 100 at IMDB and was on MST3K, but I think it needs more Ears4life (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Ears4life I think that need more source for worst; Do you have a link with a critic that said that this is one of the worst movie ever made? --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no question Laser Blast is a terrible movie, but it lacks the notoriety to make this list. It's never had a cult following on the scale of the ones on the list and it's too low profile for the Razzies (not to mention coming before they existed). Strictly in terms of movie quality, I can think of a dozen equally worth contenders without breaking a sweat - for example, how can a bad movie list not have the Tim Kincaid classics "Mutant Hunt" or "Robot Holocaust"?!? - but then the list would get huge.Prebys (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it from the main page, for now but that doesn't mean it can't return there in the future Ears4life (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm totally fine with that for now. I'm going to look at some of the other sources to see if I can find some "worst movie" reviews or other things that qualify it for this list, and will bring it back to the talk page when and if I find anything. — Hunter Kahn 05:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My movies and "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot"

Two months ago I've added two movies, "The Garbage Pail Kids Movie" and "It's Pat". But the community didn't discuss about these, and maybe they aren't the worst ever made. Both need to reach consensus. Please discuss here about those. The community also need to discuss about "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot" for the same reason. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

they seem like they fit on the list Ears4life (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say It's Pat passes with room to spare. 0% on Rotten Tomatoes is always a big standout unless it's the only example, which it isn't for It's Pat, because the film also cracked the imdb bottom 100 list. It's a worthwhile addition as the best example of a poor SNL film, a category that tends to produce failed attempts for a specific reason. Not to mention that it stands out in several more ways, including its box office failure, its razzie award nominations, and its rankings on several other lists of poor films.

The Garbage Pail Kids is a little more debatable, since, while it also has a score of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, there are few examples of critical reception placing it among the very worst movies. The commercial failure, between it's very low money intake and the three razzie nominations, is notable enough, and it's a perfect example of deplorable children's entertainment (as it was pulled out of theaters due to protests from parents), but it just didn't get a ton of critical attention. I'd leave it on, because 0% on RT still stands out more than several films on the list (provided it's not one of those films that were never really given a chance or didn't get much attention and weren't ever hated the way parents hated TGPK) and definitely says something.

Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, however, seems to come up a little short. The 4% on Rotten Tomatoes is a solid example, though not quite enough on it's own. The same goes for the half star from Roger Ebert, as a LOT of films have recieved a score as low or lower from him. With one more example in that league, it would meet the required three, but, in my opinion, the three razzie wins aren't that special on their own. That just sort of adds to the consensus already reached. While the worst Stallone movie sounds like a worthy addition, the film sort of seems like a sub-par example.74.111.124.39 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We need more consensus to remove "The Garbage Pail Kids Movie" and "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot". --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Low quality article.

Everything from people working for the industry trying having films they are paid to promote removed, to people spamming their crappy little websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.78.13 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hard Case Fist

Please wont you consider "Hard Case Fist"? I am a coniseure or poor movies and this one obviously tops ALL on your list. I know that this seems a rather large claim, but if you are sceptical won't you please watch it. Even only a moment of it should suffice. It is also my humble opinion that you should also include a (worst kung-fu) category as no worst list is truly whole without this important sub-group. Lsf7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.60.20 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloodrayne

Does anybody else think Uwe Boll's Bloodrayne should be added here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRebo120 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Yes--24.49.61.162 (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a question...

Are you sure i'm allowed to add The Last Airbender on the list? TVB 18:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Go ahead and add it, as long as the sources are there.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

See this section "Movies that aren't so bad", here editors choose to wait for add the movie. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

honestly I think we shold revisit The Last Air Bender after this years Razzie awards Ears4life (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we need also a source that said "The Last Airbender is one of the worst movie ever made", because isn't in the Bottom 100 and was a success at the box office. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Globalize tag since April 2010

This article has been tagged as not representing a worldwide view since April 2010. Looking at the criteria for inclusion on this list, there certainly seems to be a tendency towards the US POV. Maltin and Ebert are both US critics (and so mostly review films released in the US). I checked what critics were cited by Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes for Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. Metacritic cited 26 reviewers, were two were non-US, but both were English language critics. Out of 110 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I could find only two who were non-English. According to the Golden Raspberry Award website: "To appear on this list, a film must have played at least a one-week / regular admission engagement in one or more theatres in either Los Angeles or New York (Manhattan) commencing during Calendar year 2010, thus qualifying it for both Golden Raspberry® and Academy Award® consideration." So films released in the US only. (The Razzies also tend to focus on high profile films and not low budget stuff, IMO.) The IMDb bottom 100 is more international but still seems to be oddly skewed to me (after scanning the titles I could find no Chinese titles for instance). Troll 2 is the only non-US film to appear in both this article and the IMDb bottom 100 (and Troll 2 is an English language film, filmed and released in the US). Being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000 has also been cited as a criteria for inclusion in this article. While the films featured on that show were sometimes foreign, it is a US TV show coming from the US point of view, featuring films that were in the English language (sometimes dubbed but still) and released in the US (thus occluding films not seen in the US).

I believe it is impossible to change this article to reflect a truly global POV. For this to occur, there needs to be a broad cadre of critics who has seen virtually every film released in major film markets (India, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Britain, South America, Africa, etc.). There also needs to be a global film audience who sees these worst films and compare them to each other for things like the IMDb bottom 100 to reflect a global POV. To fix the globalize issue, a move of this article to a different title might be in order, something like "List of films released in the US considered the worst" or "List of US films considered the worst" and then booting non-US releases of the list. Editors could then create sibling articles called "List of French films considered the worst" etc. for other film markets. As things stand there is not a single non-English language film on the list. Bad foreign films like Turkish Star Wars have reached an audience outside their home country, but are not much reviewed by professional critics and therefore fail to meet the criteria for inclusion. An alternative tack would be to take the view that the US dominates the global film market and that bad US films are the only ones with a truly global audience thus eliminating the need for the globalize tag.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth considering, but the facts are that cinema is a more serious buisness in the United States than it is possibly anywhere else. It stands to reason that few non-US films of poor quality have recieved enough attention to be noted. The fact that this is where many of the qualified sources of judgement come from is not necessarily a cultural bias, if the US is simply the place where the buisness is in demand. Intelligent, qaulified opinions from other countries are simply going to be fewer and far between due to a lack of demand, though, even so, I wouldn't say that none have been taken into account. For example, if only opinions from the United States were taken into account, Reberto Benigni's Pinocchio would probably be listed due to the reaction the English-dubbed version recieved. What's more, Rotten Tomatoes lists the reviews/scores of anyone they can find who qualifies as a film critic, including those from foreign countries (however many or few of them there are), not to mention that almost none of those foreign critics contradict the consensuses more than usual.74.111.124.39 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I found something that could help represent a worldwide view in Daniel the Wizard

it's #3 at the bottom 100 at IMDB

The website filmstarts.de referred to the film as Küblböck's insane ego trip that would show from what a maniac hubris he would suffer

however, I know it needs more to it and I can't find anything else

Ears4life (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Nigerian film industry puts out 50 feature length films a week [1], surely there are some real stinkers in that vast output? Looking at List of films considered the best there seems to be no shortage of critics around the world who consider cinema to be serious business. To fix the globalize issue it might be better to divide this article into country by country sections similar to List of films considered the best and use a nation by nation criteria for films considered the worst instead of internationally. --Sus scrofa (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Eliminate Star Vehicles?

I find the "Star Vehicle" category a bit arbitrary, particularly when compared to the "Bad Comedies" category. Many of the "star vehicles" are nominally comedies (if they were actually funny, they wouldn't be here), while many of the "comedies" have stars. Indeed, except for "cult classics", most of the films here have stars (or at least "celebrities"), which is what makes them notable enough for the Razzies and this list in the first place.

This introduces another level of subjectivity to an already pretty subjective article. For example, someone seems to have decided that Sylvester Stallone and Paris Hilton (??) are "stars", but that Sandra Bullock and Bill Cosby are not.

Also, if there's a category for "Bad Comedies", why not "Bad Dramas", "Bad Horror Films", etc...

I would propose eliminating "Star Vehicles" and absorbing those movies into other (possibly new) categories.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Should I add...

Turkish Star Wars to cult films? It would help the globalize tag a bit too, considering it's from Turkey.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone translate the article of the italian movie Troppo belli from italian to english we can add that in the list. Here, in Italy, is considered one of the worst movie ever made (together with Alex l'Ariete , another bad movie.) --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we can add Turkish Star Wars, Troppo Belli, Alex l'Ariete, and Gamera: Super Monster?--MaxRebo120 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Let's also re-add Bio-Dome, if possible.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I found this

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A197912

should help the case for Turkish Star Wars making the list

Ears4life (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's not add Gamera. It is bad, but I have seen worse. What about Titanic: The Legend Goes On?--MaxRebo120 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

the imdb.com score for Titanic: The Legend Goes On

is extremely low http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330994/

Ears4life (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If it had more votes, it would be #1 on IMDB's bottom 100! What do you think about Santa Claus (Film)? Does this look good for the list? I saw it on MST3K! Damn it was bad! And creepy!--MaxRebo120 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Santa Claus is #50 on the bottom 100 at IMDB

but it needs more, like everything else being discussed that would be considered international Ears4life (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I found two more reviews for Tukish Star Wars

http://www.impossiblefunky.com/archives/issue_9/9_turk.asp?IshNum=9&Headline=The%20Ottoman%20Empire%20Strikes%20Back

http://badtasteabroad.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/turkey-the-man-who-saved-the-world-dunyayi-kurtaran-adam-1982-dir-cetin-inanc/

Ears4life (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I found s review of Titanic: The Legend Goes On

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/432811131.html?dids=432811131:432811131&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+26%2C+2001&author=John+Mckay&pub=The+Record&desc=Charlize+Theron+even+irresistible+when+dying%3B+Keanu+Reeves'+career+may+be+on+same+route&pqatl=google

it says Canada's Waterloo Region Record newspaper said of the film: "Talk about boneheaded revisionism: A feature length cartoon version of the Titanic story is a bad enough idea"

these user comments from its IMDB page might help too

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330994/usercomments Ears4life (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Nutcracker in 3D

Should we add it? It BOMBED at the Box-Office, and got horrible reviews.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should revisit this after this years Razzie awards Ears4life (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Speed 2

Who keeps on adding Speed 2? Considering Siskel and Ebert gave it a good review, that really kills most of it, and there are no sources at all.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDB's "Bottom 100" list

IMDB's "Bottom 100" list is a user poll. It is not a reliable, objective, vetted, or even consistent source of information. Any film placed in this list based on its presence on the IMDB Bottom 100 is questionable unless it can be supported by a more reliable source. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! However, if it is there, and it got horrible reviews, then it can still be mentioned.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bio-Dome

Just to let you all know, I added Bio-Dome to the list.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) It is not there! Add it! It is BAD!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.61.162 (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) So should I re-add it?--MaxRebo120 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the movie, wasn't discussed on the talk page by users. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So why is it still on here with somebody putting it back on every time it's deleted? Especially since the adequacy of the citations is debatable?130.49.145.117 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Santa Claus 1959

I do not really know, but should it be on here? It was on MST3K, and is on IMDB's bottom 100. I will find some more sources.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/185733/santa-claus might be a step in the right direction, but it needs more

Ears4life (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Space Mutiny

I think it should be one here. Do you?--MaxRebo120 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

North

I have a feeling "North" has been debated many times but I think it's time to discuss it once again

North is on Roger Ebert's most hated films and was named the worst film of 1994 by both Robert Ebert and Gene Siskel

in his review of North Ebert said "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." He also said "North is a bad film - one of the worst movies ever made" and gave the North a 0 star rating

On Siskel and Ebert Gene Siskel said North is "deplorable", "cataclysmically unfunny" and "first-class junk"

it bombed at the box office

North was nominated for Worst Actor (Bruce Willis), Worst Director (Rob Reiner), Worst Picture (Rob Reiner and Alan Zweibel), Worst Screenplay (Andrew Scheinman and Alan Zweibel), Worst Supporting Actor (Dan Aykroyd) and Worst Supporting Actress (Kathy Bates)

at rottentomatoes critcs give it an average rating of 3 out of 10

the movie has a 0 star rating by critics at msn movies

fans at moviefone said to skip it and one review from there said "this movie did absolutely everything wrong"

Richard Roeper named North as one of the 40 worst movies he's ever seen, saying that, "Of all the films on this list, North may be the most difficult to watch from start to finish."

Ears4life (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Add it!--MaxRebo120 (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

North is also listed on the 100 Worst Movies Ever on the Digital Dream Door list

Ears4life (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As of July 2010, it has scored 11% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and 4.2/10 on the Internet Movie Database. Elijah Wood was also nominated for Best Performance by a Younger Actor during the Saturn Awards and during the Young Artist Awards the movie was nominated for two awards, including Best Family Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical and won for Matthew McCurley in Best Performance by a Young Actor Co-Starring in a Motion Picture. That's why North can't be added in the list. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Wood winning the awards really cancells out the rest of the Razzie nominations, consideering he wasn't nominated for any

as for the Rotten Tomatoes rating of 11, I saw somewhere that the person who set up this page ideally at least a 10 for that and 11 is a smidge above that Ears4life (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Siskel and Ebert reviews definitely count as the first example and, in addition to the somewhat racist content, give a reason to consider the film a standout since they both picked it for worst movie of the year. (I'm not sure, but it might be the only time that happened.) It's commercial performance, between bombing at the box office and the razzie nominations, could count as the second example. (They weren't the worst results ever, but neither can be taken lightly.) The best shot at a third example is a solid consensus among enough critics in general that it is one of the worst movies. Richard Roeper as an example is a good start. If anyone can find a couple more specific critics calling it one of the worst movies, I'm behind putting it on the list.130.49.131.170 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle said in his review that `North is director Rob Reiner's first flat-out failure, a sincerely wrought, energetically made picture that all the same crashes on takeoff. It's strange and oddly distasteful, at its best managing to be bad in some original and unexpected ways"

viewpoints.com on the fimls said" Rob Reiner misfired on every level here" and named North in the catagory of Worst Kids Films

Ears4life (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob Gonsalves at efilmcritic.com in his review of North said "Roger Ebert famously hated, hated, hated this movie. And so do I."

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle said " `North is director Rob Reiner's first flat-out failure, a sincerely wrought, energetically made picture that all the same crashes on takeoff. It's strange and oddly distasteful, at its best managing to be bad in some original and unexpected ways."

Ears4life (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so with that, I say this is one of those examples like Freddy Got Fingered, which got a little bit of support, but has enough specific critics calling it one of the very worst to be included. Both Siskel and Ebert called it one the worst movies of all time, and that opinion has been echoed enough times to call it a consensus (one that its commercial failure, between the box office performance and the razzies, strengthens more than enough). My vote is to add it.130.49.192.155 (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Scarlett Letter 1995 for bad adaptation

Scarlett Letter (1995) is on Roger Ebert's list of most hated films. In his review he cites numberous differences between Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel and the movie such as "Indians, deadly fights, burning buildings, even the old trick where the condemned on the scaffold are saved by a violent interruption. And it converts the Rev. Dimmesdale from a scoundrel into a romantic and a weakling, perhaps because the times are not right for a movie about a fundamentalist hypocrite. It also gives us a red bird, which seems to represent the devil, and a shapely slave girl, who seems to represent the filmmakers' desire to introduce voyeurism into the big sex scenes."

Peter Stack of the San Francisco Chronicle echos Ebert's remarks and took exception to the end of the film. " Perhaps most curious is the film's happy ending, which is pure Hollywood invention destined to make Hawthorne Roger Chillingworth (Robert Duvall) points to Hester Prynne's scarlet letter in the new Demi Moore movie readers twitch, since the book's Hester spent her whole life in misery (except for daughter Pearl), facing a scornful community in which she was forever shamed by the scarlet ``A she was forced to wear, identifying her as an adulterer. ``The Scarlet Letter was never about happy endings."

The Scarlett letter is listed on the 100 Worst movies list at Digital Dream Door

the film is also on the bottom 200 list at everyones a critic

The Scarlet Letter (1995) was a massive flop

in Roger Ebert on Siskel and Ebert: and the movies he named The Scarlett Letter as one of his choices for overhyped thoughts

the film won the 1996 Razzie for Worst Remake or Sequel. It was also nominated for Worst Actress (Demi Moore), Worst Director (Roland Joffé), Worst Picture (Andrew G. Vajna and Roland Joffé), Worst Screenplay (Douglas Day Stewart) Worst Supporting Actor (Robert Duvall) and Worst Screen Couple (For Demi Moore and either Robert Duvall or Gary Oldman)

Ears4life (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Let's give it a shot.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, none of the big sources scored it low enough. Its scores on imdb and rotten tomatoes are higher than the films that make it, and Roger Ebert gave it 1.5 stars (hundreds of films have received lower scores from him). I'd sooner put Who's You're Caddy on the list.130.49.146.53 (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I never cited the IMDB score Ears4life (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

-I didn't say you did, but it's a source with more weight than most of the ones you did cite. That, and the fact that none of the critics are calling it the worst anything, make putting this on the list a really big stretch.130.49.145.117 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

thefreelibrary.com named the film "the worst American movie of the year"

additionally I have found many critic reviews of the the film who complained that the film is almost nothing like the book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing like the book" still isn't calling it the "worst" anything. I'm not trying to be anal, but I can honestly say that the citations all look like scattered examples of how the film was just a fairly weak and forgettable attempt. There's plenty of films lined up to be considered for this list, and several of them (even some of the ones that have already been rejected) seem like better examples than this, including some of the ones that you brought up before.130.49.131.170 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

hollywood.com gave the film half a star.

the vast majority of critics at rottentomaotoes declare it to be rotten for being vastly different from the novel

the same reason why is tv guide gave the film 1 and half stars

Ears4life (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's rotten tomatoes score is one of the reasons that it shouldn't be on here. It's 15%, which is higher than enough films to fill up this list ten times over. It's going to take a lot more than a couple of 1 star/half star reviews stating above all else that it's "vastly different from the novel".74.111.124.39 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

commonsensemedia.org gave the film a review of 1 star citing among the reason for it "throat slashings, scalpings, shootings -- plus attempted rape."

Caryn James of the New York Times called it "unintentionally funnier than most comedies on screen"

Lodger at celebritywonder.com said "The film is a piece of caca. There is no romance, little passion, no moodiness, no gloom, no guilt, nothing. It is emotionless tripe." Ears4life (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wild Wild West for bad adaptation?

Wild Wild West is a 1999 steampunk action-comedy film directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, and starring Will Smith, Kevin Kline (who appears in dual roles as both the protagonist Artemus Gordon and as President Ulysses S. Grant), Kenneth Branagh and Salma Hayek.

Similar to the original TV series it was based on, The Wild Wild West, the film features a large amount of gadgetry. The film serves as a parody, however, as the gadgetry is more highly advanced, implausible steampunk technology and bizarre mechanical inventions, including innumerable inventions of the mechanological geniuses Artemus Gordon and Dr. Loveless, such as nitroglycerine-powered penny-farthing bicycles, spring-loaded notebooks, bulletproof chainmail, flying machines, steam tanks, and Loveless's giant mechanical spider.

it is ranked in the bottom 200 at everyonesacritic

Wild Wild West won Razzie Awards for Worst Screenplay, Worst Screen Couple (Kevin Kline and Will Smith), Worst Picture, Worst Original Song, and Worst Director (Barry Sonnenfeld) . It was also nominated for Worst Actor (Kevin Kline), Worst Supporting Actor (Kenneth Branagh) , Worst Supporting Actress (Salma Hayek and Kevin Kline dressed a prostitute)

Will Smith, who did not have producing power on Wild Wild West, apologized publicly to actor Robert Conrad, who starred in the original 1960s series, for the poor fan and critical response to the movie while doing promotion for his then current film Seven Pounds in an interview published in February 2009, in the British magazine Total Film. The apology was initiated by Smith when the interviewer, Lesley O'Toole, asked him to comment on film critics' reaction to his last film Hancock:

Hancock may not be your favorite but hopefully, other than Wild Wild West, it's not the worst movie you've ever seen. I made a mistake on Wild Wild West. That could have been better. ... [Interviewer: "...how would you feel about seeing The Fresh Prince hit the big screen?'] When there's a Fresh Prince movie, I hope I'm so far buried under something [laughs]. No, it's funny because I could never understand why Robert Conrad was so upset with Wild Wild West. And now I get it. It's like, 'That's my baby! I put my blood, sweat and tears into that!' So I'm going to apologize to Mr. Conrad for that because I didn't realize. I was young and immature. So much pain and joy went into The Fresh Prince that my greatest desire would be that it's left alone. But I'm sure some kid someday is going to be fantastic and it's going to be bigger than it was with me. And I'm going to be angry [laughs]. —Will Smith

it has a score out of 31 out of 100 at metacritic

James Berardinelli gave it 1 1/2 stars and said that "fans of the series will likely leave the theater deflated; newcomers will wonder why they bothered."

Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post said ""The Wild, Wild West" is a rambling wreck from computer tech and a helluva souvenir – that is, for those interested in artifacts representing the American movie at its worst."

Ears4life (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm......I don't know. I just do not think it eally fits here. If we find more sources however, maybe.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The movie is on the 100 Worst Movies page at Digital Dream Door

Roger Ebert gave the film one star. In his review he said "``Wild Wild West is a comedy dead zone. You stare in disbelief as scenes flop and die. The movie is all concept and no content; the elaborate special effects are like watching money burn on the screen. You know something has gone wrong when a story is about two heroes in the Old West, and the last shot is of a mechanical spider riding off into the sunset."

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly said in his review "Wild Wild West is a movie that figures out how to go thud more often, and in more decadently extravagant ways...In this noisy, joyless, bizarrely static fiasco, every element on screen -- the cliché Old West settings, the computerized effects, Will Smith's so-slick-they're-Teflon smarty-pants quips -- seems to let the air out of the one before it."

Ears4life (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne Aufmuth of the Palo Alto Weekly placed Wild Wild West on her list of worst films of the year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Amy Taubin of the Village Voice "Wild Wild West is so extremely stupid incompetent, I doubt that even the most impartial critic could find much to praise." She also complains about the amont of nudity in the film.

Filmthreat in their review of the film said heavily cricized racial slurs and cripple jokes used in the film

Michael O'Sullivan of the Washington Post said "What worked about the campy old television show was that, despite its unbelievable gadgetry, it still had one foot (all right, maybe only a toe) firmly planted in historical reality. "WWW" is so far-fetched (a black secret agent in the racist deep South of the 1860s?) and implausibly futuristic (flying saw blades that act like heat-seeking missiles?) that it has to work twice as hard to make the fanciful premise work."

Ears4life (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

All About Steve?

I believe this has been discussed before, but there doesn't seem to be any real reason for this film's inclusion on the list. It has many sources that seem to call it an awful film, and maybe even the worst of the year, but no real evidence of being the worst of all time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

it's on MRQE's 50 worst ranked movie of all time page

Ears4life (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On a list where almost every movie is from the last few years. And one source suffering from recentism having it on a list does not mean there's any wide belief of it belonging there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I say kick it off, as I think the points against it from before still stand. Last time the point against it was that most of the "citations" were in fact the same thing. A low score on rotten tomatoes, metacritic, and a few specific reviews calling it bad altogether say one thing; critics didn't like the movie very much. A couple undestinguished critics named it the worst of the year, but overall, movies like Miss March and Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li had worse reception that year. There are no quality reasons for All About Steve's inclusion, and there aren't a large quantity of reasons either, since the only thing to add to the critical reception is that it had an undistinguished run at the razzies.74.111.124.39 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%. How does everyone feel about the inclusion of Old Dogs? It also had a terrible reception, but was not really described as the worst of all time, and didn't even win it's razzies.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Old Dogs should stay. Bio-Dome too. --MaxRebo120 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think Old Dogs should go. I'm really not sure how it made its way onto the list in the first place. Don't get me wrong, the movie is horrendous, but this list should really only be for those where there is an overwhelming, time-tested consensus that they are among the worst. Old Dogs got bad reviews, yeah, but I could probably find you hundreds of movies that got similarly bad reviews. Old Dogs hasn't (as far as I can tell) been identified by anyone as one of the worst movies ever, doesn't measure up to standards we often use here, and in fact lost its Razzie nominations to a different movie that isn't even ON the list. — Hunter Kahn 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

All About Steve may be an atrocious film, but it has no need on this list. And Old Dogs too. Swimmerwinner72 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

White Fire needs to be on this list, but its celebration as a bad film still needs a citation on its own page.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

when I supported putting Old Dogs on the page a whle ago I misread it's wiki page regarding the Razzie awards as I thought it said Old Dogs won

Ears4life (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Razzie

Couldn't this article be primarily based on Worst Picture noms and winners? Swimmerwinner72 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

!That would be more appropriate for a page on the Razzie Awards; however, the Razzies were begun only in 1983, with a nomination for Chariots of Fire. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

S. Darko

"S. Darko" is supposed to be incredibly terrible compared to "Donnie Darko", having a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, comnpared to Donnie's 87%. --222.155.29.128 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Find some more sources, abd we can give it a shot.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• It was released direct-to-video; I bet it was never supposed to be released theatrically. Movies intended to go straight-to-video don't really belong on this list.Freshh (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Dogs

I found more sources for Old Dogs. Here is the nwe article:

Old Dogs (2009)

A 2009 comedy film from Walt Disney Pictures directed by Walt Becker and starring John Travolta and Robin Williams, along with a few other actors such as Seth Green and Bernie Mac (in his final film role) playing supporting roles, Old Dogs was hated by critics, currently holding a 5% on Rotten Tomatoes. Roger Ebert started his review for the film by saying "Old Dogs is stupefying dimwitted. What were John Travolta and Robin Williams thinking of? Apparently their agents weren't perceptive enough to smell the screenplay in its advanced state of decomposition". He gave the film one star out of four. The Orlando Sentinel's Roger Moore gave Old Dogs a rating of one and a half stars out of a possible four. He wrote "The new comedy from some of the folks who brought us Wild Hogs is badly written and broadly acted, shamelessly manipulative and not above stopping by the toilet for a laugh or two." Elizabeth Weitzman of NyDailyNews gave Old Dogs one star, and called it "the worst picture of the year".http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/11/25/2009-11-25_old_dogs_starring_john_travolta_and_robin_williams_lacks_bite.html Tim Robey of The Telegraph savaged the film, saying, "Old Dogs is so singularly dreadful it halts time, folds space and plays havoc with the very notion of the self." He added to the review, "Being a film critic is a wonderful job, but there are weeks when the bad film delirium strikes and we’d all be better off in straitjackets. A colleague opined to me the other day that this might be the deadliest run of releases in his 20-year history on the job, and I can completely see that." He also said, "You'd have to hate your family to take them to this!" He gave the film zero stars. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and AV Club said the movie was not recommended for adults or children. The Birmingham Post gave it one star, saying " This is easily the worst film of the year so far, and frankly last year too. It is embarrassingly, painfully unfunny." They later added to the review, " The ‘jokes’ are lavatorial and juvenile, the plot predictable and the acting lacklustre. Avoid at all costs." Old Dogs was nominated for four categories during the 30th Golden Raspberry Awards ceremony, including Worst Picture, Worst Actor for John Travolta, Worst Supporting Actress for Kelly Preston and Worst Director for Walt Becker, but lost to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

• It's nothing personal, Max, but this movie just doesn't rise to the level of among the worst films of all-time. Even among all the bad reviews you cite, nobody is calling it the worst movie ever, or even the worst movie they've ever seen, but simply one of the worst movies of the year. The only differences between your new additions here and the old version (which can be seen here) are that you added reviews from Elizabeth Weitzman and the Birmingham Post, and like the others, these are bad reviews but give no indication of any kind of long-lasting infamy or rising up to the level of a Manos or a Plan 9. This list should be for movies that will be remembered for decaes to come as among the worst out there, whereas Old Dogs is just a bad, ultimately inconsequential film that nobody's going to remember a few years from now. — Hunter Kahn 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I can find some more scources. Really, I can. --MaxRebo120 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think we should add it.--65.2.98.41 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Um...not to assume bad faith, but you can see why this post seems suspicious, right? An IP editor with very few other contributions randomly posts on this talk page agreeing with someone two minutes after they make their statement? — Hunter Kahn 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• I will help you find some sources, because I also think it should be here.--GuineaChicken (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ...and that this user page was just started a few minutes ago and has only made this one post? — Hunter Kahn 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• We really don't need to think or worry about how many people want the movie on the list, regardless of how real or fake they are. The requirement for being on the list is above in the "for this list" section of the talk page. I don't want anyone to think that I (or other editors) have any personal motivation against having movies like Old Dogs on the list, but they can not be added without valid reasoning.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I still really think it should be here. John Travolta was nominated worst actor of the decade for this and Battlefield Earth. Maybe we could wait? Shoud we nominate this article to be deleted? --MaxRebo120 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

maybe down the road we can add it, but for now there isn't enough

to suggest we nominate the page for deletion because Old Dogs doesn't make the list is a bit of an overeaction

Ears4life (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing sections

As discussed by Hunter Kahn above, how would everyone feel about removing the sections that this list is divided into. As of now the divisions are a bit too arbitrary and up to individual interpretation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I said above, I agree with this course of action completely. The subsections as they stand now are rather arbitrary and has led in the past to the inclusion of movies that really don't belong here. I'd rather just see decade subsections (1950s, 1960s, 1970s, etc.) or just keep the list straight chronological. — Hunter Kahn 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather than totally junking the groupings, how about checking with their sources for an explanation of why they are considered "bad". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd also be more comfortable with a grouping by genre, sort of like what List of films considered the best has, than what we currently have. — Hunter Kahn 02:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wait, Baseball Bugs, I'm kind of confused about your statement. Are you saying check the sources for the groupings? Or for the movies themselves?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have changed my mind. Dump the groupings and go with chronological. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

removing the sections as they are currently would almost be as absurd the new "requirement" you deem for every film on the list--Ears4life (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some of the reasoning behind your points? I don't want to sound rude, but you keep making statements without explaining them. Also, I don't necessarily mean remove the movies that are in the sections, just change how the article is split up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Batman & Robin... Again

I know "Batman and Robin" is trash compared to "Batman Forever", which isn't actually bad, but is there a reason for it not to be here. -- 92.2.67.169 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Yes. Again, it is a pretty bad movie, but not considered one of the absolute worst.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it might work as a poor sequel or adaptation from the comics Ears4life (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what. Let's add it.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

- lol I was JUST about to suggest that one too! Yeah it should be here. It was a critical failure hated by all. I also think we should add Superman 4. That is just as bad and illogical as Batman and Robin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.128.48 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dates

I was unable to find a month of release for both Glen or Glenda and The Creeping Terror, and therefore cannot be sure that they are in the exactly right position. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• If they were distributed via the State's rights method, not even the filmmakers would know the exact date of release.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefully this is not the case, although if it is someone can still hopefully find them through a news archive search (my attempts did not bring up anything helpful.) On an unrelated note, I had no idea about state and territorial rights with films until just now, and reading up on it was quite interesting. I removed the wikilink from your comment, since it directed to a page unrelated to what you meant; I hope that's ok with you, but if not I apologize and will fix it right away.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Apparently Wikipedia has no article on States' Rights as it pertains to film distribution, but it basically went from the late oughts through the 1970s. Both Glen or Glenda and The Creeping Terror were done on the drive-in circuit and released only in certain territories. Curtis Harrington said that The Killing Kind was released via states' rights and it made a national release impossible because they had no idea where it played. The filmmakers of The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow have no idea when the film actually released because the director handled distribution himself and made an estimate of six prints. While we could find an opening date for these films, we wouldn't know if that was the earliest opening.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

For this list

Alright, I've noticed some major problems that need to be corrected. In order to be on this list, and article must be cited somewhere as one of the worst movies ever. And that does mean ever. Winning every major Razzie in a year or getting terrible reviews is not enough. Without this qualification, this list can never be anything more than original research. Movies like Planet 9, for example, are frequently referred to and are known primarily for being the "worst," and are easy to cite. I hope you'll join me in seeking sources that support the criteria for each film, and removing the films that do not reach it. Thank you!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, and I think Old Dogs is a prime example: bad movie to be sure, but no real support for including it on a list of the worst. Are there any other specific titles you are referring to on the current list? (Disaster Movie, The Hottie & The Nottie, I Know Who Killed Me, Alone in the Dark all strike me as movies that might need reconsideration.) — Hunter Kahn 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all your choices, but I wasn't even thinking of specifics at the time, but more planning to try to run through (with others, of course) all of the movies on this list. Is anyone good at making tables? Then we could have an organized way to go through it on this talk page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a chart. Please include the sources and reasons why a film should remain on the list once you review it. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

well, everything for Scarlet Letter and North is on this very page

however, it's just as easy to look at the main page and see the citations

Ears4life (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep Old Dogs, and add Redzone Cuba and Space Mutiny? I will find sources for all 3. I don't even care if we don't add those 2, but can we just keep Old Dogs? --MaxRebo120 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• My thoughts on Old Dogs (in short, do not include) are below. I've done some searching around for sources and some thinking, and my thoughts are below:
  1. Definite keeps: Glen or Glenda, Robot Monster, Plan 9 from Outer Space are givens. Battlefield Earth is a solid entry, and the fact that it won the "Worst Picture of the Decade" Razzie solidifies it even further. Other solid keeps are The Beast of Yucca Flats (which has several critics, from Leonard Maltin to the cast of MST3K, citing it as one of the worst), Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (multiple worst-of books and lists, plus some sources that aren't even listed like this and this), Manos: The Hands of Fate (a few more sources not currently included are here, here, here, here), Troll 2 (here, here, let alone the fact that a movie was made about the cult of it's awfulness) and Showgirls (this article says of it "Widely considered one of the worst movies ever made", although you can't see that on the link. Other sources are here, here, here).
  2. Borderline, leaning toward keep: Eegah is a bit more borderline, but the fact that it makes Medved's book and the 2004 documentary makes me think it's worthy of inclusion. Same for Monster A-Go Go, but there are sources out there that warrant consideration (like this). Between the Razzies, the 2004 documentary and Cosby himself arguing against the film, I think Leonard Part 6 should be included. The Howard the Duck entry needs to be strengthened, but this source calls it "one of the worst movies ever made" (although you can't see it on that link), as does this one, so maybe.
  3. Unsure, could go either way: It's Pat may very well belong here, but I'm not entirely convinced its a shoo-in, and had trouble finding decent sources. North definitely has the Roger Ebert hatred going for it (and that alone may be enough), but I'd like to see if others who share the same opinion. An Alan Smithee Film may deserve inclusion, but I think needs more (this guy says it's "going down as one of the worst movies in Hollywood history", so that's a start anyway, but I'm finding many sources that say "worst movie of the year" and not many that say "worst movie ever"). I thought I would be against including From Justin to Kelly, but I've found some sources (here, here) that at least means it should be considered, and the fact that Kelly Clarkson actively spoke out against it (here, here) speaks to its badness. I also didn't think I'd be a supporter of including SuperBabies, but I've actually found some promising sources (here, here and here) plus it is one of the few with a 0% Rotten Tomatoes score. I'm leaning against including Catwoman, although I could be persuaded to favor it if someone made a strong enough case and found strong enough sources. I'm not finding lots of "worst ever" sources for Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, although it does have that 0% on Rotten Tomatoes thing going for it; there's also this. I wasn't entirely convinced by Gigli, but I guess Richard Roeper called it one of the worst movies he's ever seen so maybe it warrants inclusion. And as much as I love (to hate) Hobgoblins, I had trouble finding many "worst of" sources, short of the Paul Chaplin one already on the article.
  4. Remove from the list: As much as I personally hate House of the Dead, I don't think it rises to the level. Same for Alone in the Dark, Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!, The Underground Comedy Movie, I Know Who Killed Me, The Hottie and the Nottie, Swept Away, Son of the Mask, Kazaam, Glitter, Disaster Movie, Daddy Day Camp and Jaws: The Revenge. These are all bad movies, to be sure, but I've found no real sources that indicate they warrant inclusion here. I think Freddy Got Fingered, Striptease and The Adventures of Pluto Nash are more deserving that the ones I previously named, but unless anybody can point out sources that call it "worst ever" rather than "worst of the year", I'd have to vote them out.
  5. I'm not familiar enough with Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam, The Room, The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, The Scarlet Letter, The Conqueror, Inchon and Myra Breckinridge, Mac and Me and Highlander II: The Quickening to weigh in at this point, but once we get further along in this process I can try to search for sources and give my two cents on those too. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think everything currently on the list except Stop or My Mom Will Shoot should stay

additionally, I was wondering why did Hobgoblins get moved from cult classics to the sequels, prequels, remakes, spin offs and clones section

Ears4life (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ears, we really need more reasoning behind your comments, otherwise they don't really help. Hunter Kahn, you are awesome, I'll try to run through and help out more as soon as I have the time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

the person who set up the page had the following requirements for the cult section 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).

for the non cult sections of the movie list the person who set up the page said movie 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"

additionally, I really think Hobgoblins fits much better in the cult section

From the poorly executed adaptations all included in this section Many directors adapt a story from another medium such as a book, play, television series or game into a film, with varying results. Factors resulting in poor performance include:

retaining little to no elements of the source material, which makes it an adaptation in name and characters only lack of original material bad acting and poor writing and/or direction different tone from the source material the source material was poorly received in the first place

for the star vehicles section it says "Some films listed here starred A-list actors or high-profile celebrities whom critics felt were either poorly cast, paired or grouped with other stars with whom they did not share viable chemistry, or cast in an otherwise poorly made film that relied entirely on their star power."

every film there meets the criteria except Stop or My Mom Will Shoot

in the bad crossovers section it says "Sometimes, stars in other fields, such as music or sports, will attempt to parlay their existing fame into a movie career. If this works well enough, the star can have a dual career in both fields, or move on exclusively to a film career. Other times, this turns out to have been a mistake and they often stop after the first try."

all the films listed there meet the criteria

under bad comedies there is no descrption given as the title implies what is to go there and everything meets the rquirements

under the exploitation section the descrption says "Filmmakers sometimes try to overuse content considered taboo or shocking by the general populace as a means to draw in curious film-goers (see shock value). When executed poorly, this method can backfire. These films are commonly cult classics, however, as the overdone scenes of nudity, death, violence, and gore are often so poorly executed that they become more humorous than shocking." all the fimls listed meet the criteria

in the Sequels, prequels, remakes, spin offs and clones section it says "Often, an attempt is made to capitalize on the popularity of a successful film by making a sequel, (or prequel), writing a new script loosely based on the ideas of the old one, or if the film is old enough, remaking the movie altogether, Usually these films do not live up to their predecessor. Some factors resulting in poor performance are: different continuity which makes a film a sequel in name only budgetary constraints

the film may not feature the stars associated with the original the film may not be made by the same producers, directors, writers and editors the target audience's lack of interest in furthering the story of the predecessor declining actors attempting to reprise roles from the height of their career for which they are no longer suited a perceived attempt to capitalize on a popular concept with little or no original material the original was poorly received in the first place While they are usually considered inferior to the original, others end up being poorly done movies in and of themselves and sometimes taint the film they were meant to emulate or continue."

All the films listed meet the requirements

Ears4life (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• A few comments on Ears' remarks. First of all, I don't think you should depend so much on "the person who set up the page". Consensus can change, and we are holding a discussion now about the fact that many of the films on this list are not reflective of "the worst movies of all-time". In fact, I think it's a bad idea to have differing, overly loose and dangerously broad criteria for each of the different "subsections" of this wikipedia page ("cult classics, "bad adaptations", etc. etc.). Frankly, I think it's a bad and overly subjective idea to categories these movies like this, and that it leads to the inclusion of films that fit that criteria rather than the more specific "worst movies of all time" criteria. In fact, I'd rather see this whole article restricted to list films under categories "1950s", "1960s", "1970s", etc., which I think would be less subjective and cut down on those problems. But, alas, one problem at a time.

I also think part of the problem is you are citing criteria for those specific subsections, while ignoring the overarching criteria that these movies must be recognized as among the worst ever made. I know the language for these subsection criteria are in the article now, and I think they should be removed. Saying that movies can go under the "poorly executed adaptations" category because it meets factors like bad original material, no elements of source material, bad acting, etc. etc. frees me to put in tons of bad adaptations while ignoring the fact that it should be considered one of the "worst movies". The criteria is even worse for "Star vehicles". To say these films can include A-list films that critics think were poorly cast frees me to put tons of movies (how about Suburban Commando? The Return of Doctor X? Remember Me? Mission: Impossible III?) while ignoring the fact that none of these movies have been specifically cited as "the worst of all time".

• I guess what I'm saying is I think we should frame this conversation not in terms of whether they fit into those various subsections, but rather to whether they fit the overarching criteria (which is right at the top of this very talk page) of "worst movies of all time": multiple critical reviews, or credible lists, or programs like MST3K, books, documentaries, etc. identified it as one of the worst ever made. — Hunter Kahn 21:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

While I've been pushing to be tougher on some of the films, I think this is a little bit of an over-reaction. If the requirement is that every film must have a noteworthy source explicitly calling it the worst movie of all time, the list will probably be small enough to count on your fingers. Just like movies like Casablanca have been called one of the greatest films of all time, but never really the greatest, movies can legitimately be cited as one of the worst movies of all time. If you want to knuckle down some more, maybe movies like Old Dogs should go, but movies like Disaster Movie, which has ranked first on some "worst" lists here and there", should definitely stay.130.49.146.54 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• It should be a select list. It's the worst movies of all time. — Hunter Kahn 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While a source saying "one of the worst" could be fine, that's only if there's wide consensus that it would be one of the worst, or potentially the worst of all time. If this makes the list too short, so be it. We can't have anything that doesn't have correct sources backing it up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with .130.49.146.54

Ears4life (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Hunter Kahn's reasoning above, I'll be removing House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!, The Underground Comedy Movie, I Know Who Killed Me, The Hottie and the Nottie, Swept Away, Son of the Mask, Kazaam, Glitter, Disaster Movie, Daddy Day Camp and Jaws: The Revenge. I will also remove Freddy Got Fingered, Striptease and The Adventures of Pluto Nash. If you feel these should stay, please add proper citations for them describing the films as the worst ever. If not, they simply cannot remain on the list. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found a source for "House of the dead", Jamie Russell of BBC say that It's so bad it could well go down in history as one of the worst zombie movies ever made. You can find the review on Rotten Tomatoes. I think that this is a good source for the movie. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn you did a fantastic job, as you can see I have also tried to delete some movies (see the section Movies that aren't so bad). Also, when will update the status of the list? --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about. There are several areas in which the movies removed qualify as just as bad as the ones that are still here. If your requirement is that a "qualified" someone must have explicitly called it the worst movie of all time, you ignore films that are easily considered in the same league as those and leave the list much more subjective and open to personal biases. Removing Freddy got Fingered, for example, is a joke. Ebert's zero star review for that movie was every bit as negative as his review of North, calling it the lowest of the low in gross out humor. Enough critics called it the worst movie they'd ever seen for rotten tomatoes to actually mention it in the consensus. The movies of Friedberg and Seltzer and, more so, Uwe Boll, have obtained, for themselves and their directors, a reputation comparable to Ed Wood's work. Every one of them are far more notorious than Leonard Part 6 or Catwoman. In fact, if not both films, the latter was recieved more positively in just about every way than the films of those directors. Both audiences, as seen on internet movie database, and critics, as seen on rotten tomatoes, were twice as positive toward Catwoman than almost any Seltzberg or Boll movie.

The list was criticized before, partly due to the criticizers' personal biases for or against certain films, but it had qualifications. Making them more strict to include only the films that can truely be considered in a class of their own is one thing. Throwing them out in favor of a subjective, questionable qualification used purely for wording's sake is another.130.49.192.156 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you about any of the above. But without reputable sources calling a film the worst, it really just can't be included on the list. It doesn't matter how many reviews we can find calling a film awful; unless there's enough actual cited work saying it belongs on a list it this, it can't be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with is written above this, however I did find 2 reviews calling Freddy Got Fingered "the worst movie of all time"Ears4life (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss these sources on the talk page? No one has any problem with including the movie on the list, so long as it's properly cited.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

added as citations on the talk page of the film, however frankly I think this new order/regime of yours requring this is way out of line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ears4life (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any evidence that the new qualifications are the only way to go. First of all, quantity of positive or negative reviews is often used to help determine a film's quality these days (and for good reason, as some reviewers will use hyperbole). Second, you can only have one film that you consider the worst of all time, and this differs from person to person. Will we include the otherwise low priority Garbage Pail Kids because the Nostalgia Critic, who has a cult following, ranks it as his all time least favorite movie and remove The Creeping Terror, on par with any MST3K movie, because nobody explicitly called it the worst? Does the fact that Catwoman is almost unanimously considered better than some of the films removed mean nothing because a couple people called it one of the worst films? How do the lists on rotten tomatoes, on which the currently borderline Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever twice ranked as the worst film they could find, fit into this? The new qualification brings absolutely no consistency, and so far, nobody has even begun to prove otherwise.130.49.146.53 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• These qualifications aren't new. Rather, we're trying to follow existing qualifications that have been around for some time (see "before adding a movie to the list" at the top of this page, and or previous talk archives) but that weren't previously being followed before. The list was far too subjective before and movies that clearly didn't meet the criteria were slipping in. This list should only include films which, as it says above, are "widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics". In my opinion, if a movie really belongs here, finding a source that calls it one of the worst movies ever should be easy, because it should have such a reputation as one of the worst that it would almost be a given. And right now we're still in the process of looking at these movies on a case-by-case basis and sorting out what should be here and what doesn't. It's a process and it's still ongoing, so I don't think it's fair to call that a lack of consistency. — Hunter Kahn 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The qualifications before were that it meet at least 3 standards, which included a score of below 10% on Rotten tomatoes, the bottom 100 list on internet movie database, being called one worst films by a noteworthy source, severly bombing at the box office and/or performing exceptionally "well" at the razzie award ceremony, and appearing on Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Several of the films kicked out met those standards. Granted, some films like Old Dogs and Scarlet Letter did not (though I might add that the latter is somehow still on this "modified" list despite meeting absolutely none of them), but it just would have taken pointing this out to get them removed. Bumping someone calling it the worst up to the main, and only necessary, requirement does make this list inconsistent, because some reviewers will say that as hyperbole, while others might not think about identifying which films are the worst they've seen.130.49.145.131 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm surprised at editors having problems with requiring sources that identify a film as the worst, since Wikipedia's general guidelines require sources for all of the information added to the encyclopedia. WP:V, WP:RS, etc. etc. I don't see why we should apply those guidelines any differently here than anywhere else; in fact, given how easy it would be for this article to descend into subjectivity, I'd think it would make it only more important. However, perhaps it would be helpful if you could identify two or three films that you feel were wrongly removed, so we can discuss them individually? — Hunter Kahn 02:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying to obscure the issue. How were sources not required before? Only requiring somebody to have called a film the worst is what makes the list subjective, because this is a matter of opinion that can, and does, vary from critic to critic. You don't seem to be considering that a movie can be ranked among the worst, as seen when Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, which has more unanswered negative votes than any other recorded (and therefor the least amount of praise overall), was called into question. What's wrong with putting a film on the list for a reason like that? It's not at all subjective. I could understand wanting to be more strict on films appearing for that reason, but to disregard it is senseless. Nobody was being more strict with the guidelines than I was before this debate started, but the changes now have done anything but hold the list to the very worst films. Sure, Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!, The Underground Comedy Movie, I Know Who Killed Me, Son of the Mask, Kazaam, Glitter, Old Dogs, and All About Steve were weak examples, but to kick off Freddy Got Fingered, Jaws: The Revenge, Disaster Movie, and Alone In the Dark while Catwoman, The Scarlet Letter, Basic Instinct 2, and Inchon remain on the list is a joke.130.49.145.137 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "How were sources not required before?" The previous list ignored the criteria listed on this very talk page; namely both that "it is widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics" and that it "cite at least one of those sources that explicitly calls it 'one of the worst films ever'". I didn't pull that wording out of thin air; it's the criteria this list follows, and it was ever before I ever stumbled on it. "Only requiring somebody to have called a film the worst is what makes the list subjective, because this is a matter of opinion that can, and does, vary from critic to critic." If we had a film that had one single random critic calling it the worst ever, but few others agreed, there's nothing preventing us from discussing it here, finding that that one critic is an outlier, and removing it from the list. However, as I said before, if a film is really considered one of the worst by "a board spectrum of both casual and professional film critics", then finding sources that call it one of the worst would be easy, because it's basically already an accepted notion that everybody considers it the worst. If a film was really considered one of the worst, it should be a simple task to find three or four or five reviews that call it such. "You don't seem to be considering that a movie can be ranked among the worst ... What's wrong with putting a film on the list for a reason like that?" Following that logic has led to the inclusion of several films that were unworthy of inclusion. If an editor is ignoring the fact that sources don't cite a movie as one of the worst, but instead to their own conclusion that a film has earned a ranking of one of the worst, that is subjective. Plus, it seems to me that you are putting a lot of stock in Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer for one of the worst movies. But I would argue that even if a film got overwhelmingly horrendous reviews, and a 2%-5% RT rating, that doesn't necessarily make it the worst. It would be a horrible film, yeah, but if everybody basically forgot the movie existed within a few months of it coming out (like Alone in the Dark) then has it really reached the echelons of the worst films ever? Has it really reached the levels of infamy like Plan 9 from Outer Space or Manos: The Hands of Fate? I'd argue no. "Sure, (X) were weak examples, but to kick off (Y) while (Z) remain on the list is a joke." As I've said, numerous times now, we are in the process of reviewing these movies on a case-by-case basis (or were, but we're getting sidetracked) to determine whether they belong on here. The fact that some got kicked off doesn't mean they are gone for good. Personally, I think Freddy Got Fingered possibly should be re-added, but I'd like to see what sources I can dig up. It also doesn't mean films on there now are necessarily going to stay. I personally believe The Scarlet Letter, Basic Instinct 2 and Inchon should probably go, but I didn't feel I knew enough about those movies to make those calls right away and wanted to see what others thought. Unfortunately, few have weighed in on specific titles. — Hunter Kahn 23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've gotta apologize for that one, I keep telling myself to individually look through the movies. But I suck and I'm lazy. But it's on my to-do list, I swear. And in regards to the 130.49.145.137's comment, I just wanted to say that any movie that truly is potentially the worst of all time will meet the requirements for the list, it just might take a little bit of searching. But no one's stopping you from looking; if you feel something should be included that isn't, find the citations that meet the requirements and add it in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

my biggest problems with this massive overhaul under your regime as that you removed several films when there was no concennsus and pretty much said the standards and practices which have been implinmented since day one are useless

additonally, I find it funny that some people who have been supportive of this change that when a movie tat want removed was discussed on this page prior to being added said nothing, I repeat NOTHING, then cry bloddy murder for that movie making the list

Ears4life (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, but I looked for sources for almost every single movie on this list (except for the few where I noted I didn't know enough to weigh in). I posted what I found, I expressed why I thought some should stay and some should go, and I identified the ones that I didn't feel made the grade and why. They were removed not by myself but by others, and nobody contested specific titles. If there are individuals movies that you feel make the grade, why don't you give us some examples and we'll discuss them? As we've said, we're not saying any movie that was removed can't be readded. (And, once again, as far as I'm concerned, we're only following the existing criteria (which is right at the top of this very talk page). It's not a new "regime". — Hunter Kahn 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We might as well just remove every single film on this list on that case and start from scratch. Ears4life (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I made my case above not only for the films I thought should go, but for the ones I felt should stay. You, however, have declined to do any such thing, despite several invitations to do so. — Hunter Kahn 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, changes have already been made with out a concensus formed and as such any opposition will be completely ignored as has been the case for the last week or so

nevertheless:

2 of many reviews I found which cite Freddy GOt Fingered as the worst film of all time

http://www.imdb.com/reviews/287/28767.html

http://www.ericdsnider.com/movies/freddy-got-fingered/

and I'm not posting everything else which was posted before it was removed from the list

Ears4life (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've already advocated below for readding Freddy Got Fingered based on the Razzies and reviews by CNN and Roger Ebert, among others. The two above, however, are not reliable sources. One seems to be some random guy with his own website, and the other appears to be IMDb, where anybody can post a review. No offense intended to you personally, but when I see people bring sources like these forward as proof that a movie should be included (especially when other WP:RS are actually out there to be found with a bit of digging), I can't help but think that's part of th reason the list got into the fix it was in before... — Hunter Kahn 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

that tears it

and I'm done with this page for a while...a long long while

have fun with you and your mutual admiration society this page has become

Ears4life (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)