Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Bolero (1984)

I tried adding it on this list earlier, because not only were there enough Razzies, but I had plenty of resources citing it as one of the worst. Yet someone keeps taking it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.165.170 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you reproduce the text here so that it can be judged? I can't find it among your contributions (guess you have a non-static IP).--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Giant Claw/House of the Dead/Batman & Robin

{{The Giant Claw}}

Why Isn't The Giant Claw on this list, it was laughable.

And also, don't forget about House of the Dead.

{{Batman & Robin}}

Batman & Robin should really be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.153.35 (talk • contribs)

It's all about having sources calling them the worst. I know Batman & Robin was ranked as the worst film by an audience poll by Empire Magazine [1] --Sus scrofa (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In Public Opinion Polls, Batman & Robin is one of the worst films ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.153.149 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of such polls? (Beside the Empire poll I already mentioned.)--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "globalize" tag

The "globalize" tag was recently removed with the motivation: "This is a fairly ridiculous request considering where films get made." I don't see how this is correct as there are several non-US film producing markets with great output (China/Hong Kong, India, Nigeria ("Nollywood"), Japan). Indian films outnumber US production.[2] According to Cinema of Nigeria, Nollywood produces 1000-2000 films a year. There are also significant film industries in Germany, France, the UK and Spain among other places.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The "globalize" tag was clearly removed by an ignoramus.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an ignoramus. Now name a single source outside the United States that compiles film reviews. I'm waiting, non-ignoramuses. Shii (tock) 13:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That was not your original argument ("This is a fairly ridiculous request considering where films get made."). I've tried before to bring up the dearth of non-US sources but didn't get much of a response (response: "cinema is a more serious buisness in the United States"). I also suggested that maybe the article should be renamed "List of US films considered the worst" or some-such (maybe "English language films considered the worst") in order to comply with wikipedia guidelines ("if there are no reliable sources about a subject there should be no article about it", paraphrased) as there is no global corps of critics that judge films from the whole world and then select the worst. The current title implies a global view, yet there is not a single non-English language film on it. Looking at list of films considered the best, they have divided the list into country by country sections, a possible solution for this article too, if relevant sources can be found.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about we just add another section for outside the U.S., and when we learn of a hitherto unknown Nigerian version of RottenTomatoes, we can add their lowest ranked movies there. Shii (tock) 01:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

RT isn't the sole factor deciding whether a film is listed here or not. Ballistic: X vs. Sever has 0 out of 108 RT score but was removed anyway. I find it hard to believe that there are no non-US critics who ever deemed a film the worst, but there is no need to create sections until such sources are found. I can only reiterate that perhaps the article should be moved to a more fitting name.--Sus scrofa (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See if you can find more than what I listed here; I did a thorough search of Japanese and French sources. Shii (tock) 03:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See those italian movies: "Troppo belli" and "Cattive ragazze".--79.18.83.24 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding The Last Airbender

Can I add the movie The Last Airbender to the article? It recieved tremendously negative reviews, with numerous rassberry awards nominated and won, and was declared by many critics as the Worst Movie Ever Made.

Hope to see a reply soon. --TheSandwhichWriter (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you give some example of critics calling it the worst?--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a links. http://www.eonline.com/news/last_airbender_worst_movie_ever/188788, and it has 6% on rottentomatoes.com. It's on it its bottom list, but I take fault for not giving full information. I just read the articles in detail, and the critics cited the film as the worst film of year, not ever.

But there's some really defective points about the film which makes it laughably bad. The screenplay was horrible, and the "airbenders" were nicknamed by their friends in the film "benders", which is also a term for homosexual. Also, the visual effects were horrible, as deemed by many critics.

Here's another link to show my instance. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_airbender/

TheSandwhichWriter (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We need multiple reliable sources saying this is either one of the "worst films" or on a worst film list. Saying it has a 6% rotten rating on RT and using your own personal opinion is not the valid way to add it to this list. Thanks for understanding how Wikipedia works. —Mike Allen 03:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My proposition

I personally think 2012: Doomsday, is worst movie. 16% of RT. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/2012-doomsday/ --91.213.255.7 (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally think you should read WP:OR. Thanks. —Mike Allen 03:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever

How about this one. Out of 108 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, 0 were positive. It was voted the worst reviewed movie of all time on Rotten Tomatoes. http://web.archive.org/web/20090303154232/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/wotw/?r=1&mid=1116131. Wikitoddia (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jack and Jill (2011)

One editor included Jack and Jill on this list. This is what he/she wrote:

"The 2011 comedy received universally negative reviews by critics upon its release. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 4% of 84 critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 2.7 out of 10. The consensus is, "Although it features an inexplicably committed performance from Al Pacino, Jack and Jill is impossible to recommend on any level whatsoever." Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, gives the film a score of 23 based on 26 reviews. RedLetterMedia released a two-part, hour long review of the film in which they criticised and mocked the film's blatant product placement. Mary Pols of Time Magazine ranked the film #1 on the Top 10 Worst Movies of 2011."

Based on this consensus, is it worth inclusion on this list? Freshh (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You said that Jack and Jill is in the process of being nominated for consideration on the list. Superghost987 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A talk-page discussion is what I meant. Freshh (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Universally negative reviews" would be 0% at RT, not 4%, and there are already plenty of those that aren't on this list, so just a low RT score isn't enough. You've got one reference calling it the worst *of 2011*, but being the worst for one year isn't enough either. I have no doubt it's really bad, but it sounds just "Adam Sandler bad", not epically bad. See how it does at the Razzies, and maybe there'll be a case.Prebys (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Glitter had 7% on Rotten Tomatoes, and that was met with "universally negative", let alone being called the worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.150.32 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Little Man

I wanted to discuss this here before I removed it, but it doesn't appear that Little Man meets the criteria here. It doesn't include any sources that explicitly describe it as the "worst", and it was added to the list without talk page discussion. Any thoughts before I remove it? — Hunter Kahn 04:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a source calling it the "worst of 2006", but that's not the same as worst (ever). I don't think Little Man fully meets the criteria for inclusion.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was the editor who put the paragraph in the article. You can see from the history that it involved an edit war of some distinction! I took the low RT rating, the wholly negative reviews, and the phrase "worst of 2006" to assume there was enough negativity to warrant a place within the list. doktorb _words^deeds
  • Respectfully, I don't believe it does. This list is supposed to be the worst movies ever. Every year their are movies that get low RT ratings, wholly negative reviews and are declared worst of the year. If we included all of them, this list would be enormous and not at all selective. Do you have any sources declaring it one of the worst movies ever made? — Hunter Kahn 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I fully understand the need for absolute proof that it's considered the worst. I would point you to the fact that every review uses words which show it was (and is likely still is) considered beyond bad - the insults and brickbats are immense. Reviews might not use the term "worst ever", they just use every possible word which means "worst ever". Can I ask one question on this nomination - if there is another attempt to bring this movie back to the article in the months or years ahead, will the lack of positive reviews be a point in its favour? doktorb _words^deeds 21:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Critics don't have to use the exact words "worst film ever" to make a film qualify, but they must use similar phrases like "received some of the nastiest reviews ever". Little Man might have shored up many negative adjectives, but if we look at Rotten Tomatoes list of worst reviewed films of the 2000 decade [3] we'll find that it starts at the hundredth worst with Whiteout that has a 7% rating (compared to the 12% of Little Man, that doesn't rank on the list at all). If one had the inclination, one could cull many, many negative adjectives from the 100 movies on this list. Therefore, it is necessary to insist on sources calling films to be included on this list the worst (or similar, "rivals Ed Woods worst" etc.)--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I have to agree with Hunter Kahn and Sus scrofa here. While amble proof of it being a terrible movie and one of the worst of that year has been presented, there isn't sufficient evidence to calling it one of the worst ever. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hunter Kahn, Sus scrofa, and PerryPlanet. I do not want to get into an edit war again, but I removed Little Man from the list again. Terms critics use don't necessarily mean 'worst ever' (unless they say 'worst ever'). Don't even think about putting it back on the list. Superghost987 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is that final threat all about. "Don't even think about putting it back". How dare you talk to me in that way! doktorb _words^deeds 10:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I urge editors to be polite, please don't continue fighting!--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see the edit war I made before, here's the link. Scroll down after you click. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_considered_the_worst&action=history The edit war made me so angry that I wanted doktorb to get off of Wikipedia. I apologize for the threat. Superghost987 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sex lives of the Potato Men

I would add the film Sex lives of the potato men, starring Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook, to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy triple m (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sources? — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Exorcist 2: The Heretic

I would like to add Exorcist 2: The Heretic (1977) to this list. In my opinion, it's not scary and a big mess. (talk) February 3 2012

For starters, you're going to need some film critics calling it the worst.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This movie has been suggested at least a few times over the years. No question it's a terrible movie, but the consensus has been that it's not up (down?) to the standards to get included on this page. For starters, it's got a 24% at RT, which is astronomically high around these parts.Prebys (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But the 24% rating is only based on 17 reviews. Superghost987 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star

I would like to add Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star on the list. It currently has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, which I think makes it one of the worst movies ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.60.1 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to evaluate if this film is to be included in this list, first off, you need to find some reliable sources calling Bucky one of the worst (ever).--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Barney's Great Adventure

This isn't a personal opinion, and I don't know it's true, but I've read in the article that Barney's Great Adventure is considered one of the worst films ever because of its transfer to film from a show aimed at children from 1-8. Should it be included on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.194.175 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

First, find some reliable sources calling it the worst ever. Superghost987 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article shows a very U.S.- centric point of view. All, or nearly all, of the films in the list were U.S. productions. Why should all the worst movies be from the U.S.? There are bad movies from every country and it seems highly unlikely that the worst would all be from the same country. The fact that many critics are quoted does not substantiate the list; the critics themselves are often writing to a limited audience and have created limited lists themselves.

The fact that there is a section entitled "Outside the United States" only highlights the fact that the article actually refers to within the United States. Possibly the article needs a new title (e.g. "List of Worst Movies from the United States" if the content is to remain similar?

For a comparison see List of films considered the best. This acknowledges the difficulties and biases inherent in making such a list, and further gives a run-down of the films considered to be the best from different non-American countries. Alpalfour (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed at least twice before, but it didn't lead anywhere those times. (There was previously a globalize tag since April 2010, but it was removed.) I also brought up list of films considered the best as a comparison but nothing came of it. (Not saying this discussion is fruitless, only restating what I've said before on this subject.)--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out....as you can probably guess I don't have much experience in Wikipedia and just reacted prematurely to what I saw as a cultural bias......Should I leave the tags as they are, remove them or ......?? Alpalfour (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my personal opinion, leave them for now and see if they spark any more discussion.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that this is the English speaking Wikipedia perhaps "list of English language films considered the worst" would be appropriate. As there are far more horrible movies than truly great ones making a worst list that crosses cultural and linguistic barriers would be a daunting task. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.45.31 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Underground Comedy Movie

I've re-added this title. Clearly the Dreher and Null reviews note this as the "least amusing comedy ever", and other such language, and as the entire point of a comedy is to be amusing, the "least amusing comedy ever" and one with only "one conceivably funny scene that is more pathetic than amusing" can conceivably be the worst comedy ever. In addition Film Journal International said "The Underground Comedy Movie may well be the worst film I have ever seen." - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004)

Technically, this one IS cited, it just uses inline prose instead of the correct citation style. It's really a matter of sitation format moreso than referencing. I think it should be re-added and I can fix the citation style but would rather hear from others first so I'm not reverted after formatting the references properly. Night Ranger (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A Thousand Words

Some time ago, my nomination for this article - Little Man, which received monumentally negative reviews and almost universal disdain from critics - was removed by an editor whose reasoning was the lack of the exact phrase 'worst film' meant it could not be added. Now, I disagree with that premise - there are no firm and hard rules on Wikipedia, after all - but chose not to wander down that cul-de-sac again.

Today my attention was drawn to this article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/12/eddie-murphy-thousand-words?CMP=twt_gu - about the Eddie Murphy film A Thousand Words. Not only does that article use the necessary phrase 'worst film', it also links to Rotten Tomato's low(est) score.

Can I please nominate A Thousand Words for inclusion in the article?

doktorb _words^deeds 08:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just want to tell you, negative words that are aimed at the film Little Man do not necessarily mean "worst ever". Maybe that's just your opinion. Also, about A Thousand Words, I googled that film for pages that say it's the "worst film ever made", but I just found some articles that are insulting Eddie Murphy's career. Plus, the movie has a Metascore of 26 based on 17 reviews. I guess there's a 50% chance of the movie going on the list. Superghost987 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have WP:OWNership issues with this article? doktorb _words^deeds 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie

Is it too early to add this one yet? --JohnnyLurg (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the "Reception" section of the article, it does not qualify for this list. Mixed reviews is a long way from near-universal rejection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

39% at RT? No way that belongs here.Prebys (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Move HTML comment to editnotice

Hi. There's currently an HTML comment at the beginning of this article. This should be moved to an editnotice. Thank you! --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

2010 movies

I think this list needs to be updated with crappy movies from this decade. There have been a few box office bombs lately, like The Devil Inside.

--67.171.66.108 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Devil Inside is not a box office bomb. It had a budget of $1 million and grossed $83 million worldwide as of this month. Superghost987 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree that The Devil Inside doesn't need to be on the list, I do think that some movies from this decade should be added. For example Jack and Jill, because it has already been critically panned and cited as the worst movie of 2011. In addition Adam Sandler has broken records at the Golden Raspberry Awards for nominations. Please consider adding this film to the list of horrible cinema. 65.8.118.9 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please cite references for Jack and Jill. "Worst movies of the year" and "Worst movies ever made" are completely different categories. Freshh (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How about A Thousand Words? 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It has also made less than half of its budget back, according to the wikipedia information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.250.61 (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Expansion to all countries.

I may not be the only one who has noticed, but all the films included on the list are those made in the United States. I understand that it may be because of Hollywood influence and there is a section on the article titled "Outside the United States", but I for one feel that this article should group films from all over the world and not just primarily the United States. What I mean would be along the lines of the wikipedia article "List of films considered the best". This would make this article much more universal. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikarus14 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm in total agreement with you there. The foreign section should be merged in with the rest, this article has no regional qualifications.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you for replying. Is it possible to modify the entier page yourself to meet such expansion or would that need to be approved by a moderator or an admin?--Ikarus14 (let's chat) 01:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A Thousand Words

0% rating on rotten tomatoes, and less than half of its budget made back. I think that warrents inclusion. 71.239.250.61 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to modify criteria

It seems like there's a lot of people who want to put any movies they think are the worst on this list. Is it already the policy to not put a movie on the list until at least 5 years after its' release date? If not, that should be it. Many movies which are critically panned and bomb at the box office find cult followings a few years later, and might not necessarily be considered one of the worst. 12.39.245.62 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever

This has been featured as one of Rotten Tomatoes worst movies (coming in at #1 even, if I recall correctly). Is there a reason it's not listed? DanielDPeterson + talk 05:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't get listed in Removed films list either, make me wonder that this one just got removed accidently and nobody notice? L-Zwei (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion, I can only repeat that the case for inclusion of Ballistic is strong.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack and Jill

Jack and Jill won every Razzie at the 32nd Golden Raspberry Awards (10 Razzies), beating Battlefield Earth. Can we get this on the list? Superghost987 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I was about to type something of an auto-reply about how films which are clearly suitable, such as Jack and Jill, should be entered into the article. Of course it should be on the list. I think something of a loosening up of the criteria for this list - which is somewhat arbitrary anyway - would make editing this article a lot more engaging. Yes, Jack and Jill should be added doktorb _words^deeds 19:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we have sources that call it the worst movie of all time?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, which is why I suggest that we loosen the ties a little bit. Look, as much as you'd like, film reviewers are not necessarily going to use the exact wording you/we require. If we stick to the requirement that those words must be used, we may never add another film again. Mark Kermode called "Little Man" 'evil', which in my book is pretty much enough to consider entry. "Jack and Jill" is clearly hated by reviewers, who may have come up with a hundred different ways to describe how bad it is. Using the phrase "worst film ever" should NOT be a consideration of ours. Using enough negative phrases should be. doktorb _words^deeds 04:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean, our goal isn't to grow this article as much as we can. The scope is pretty self-explanatory from the title. It's not "Movies that a lot people thought were bad" or "movies that have been heavily criticized". --Yaksar (let's chat) 06:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As for something like a movie being called "evil" by one reviewer as enough of a reason for inclusion, I strongly disagree. Think of the opposite situation. If one reviewer called a movie "incredible", no one would try to argue that it is considered the best of all time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think of this as "loosening the ties". Clearly breaking the Razzie record is a higher bar that one or two reviewers invoking some magic words.Prebys (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that as soon as we start basing it off our interpretation, rather than what the title actually says, it becomes original research. The fact is, all of those Razzies can only really show that it was considered the worst of the year in many regards, nothing about it's quality among cinema outside of the year.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, absolutely. This is where we find a sticking point. I think we can balance the demands of the article and the reality of the situation regarding recent releases. It should be possible for a compromise position to be found, surely? If there's clear evidence that reviews from trusted sources are roundly negative, whilst not necessarily using the magic phrase "worst ever", we could make a case for entry? Or maybe some kind of clear disclaimer? I don't want to appear pushy (it's not the most important article in the project, let's be honest!), but neither do I want to walk away from something I feel could be sorted if we tried. doktorb _words^deeds 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The films included on this list do not have to be described as exactly "the worst ever", but it has to be that or something equivalent (e.g. Ebert's "most hated" list, Mommie Dearest getting "some of the nastiest reviews ever" or a film being compared to other generally accepted worst films like Manos or Plan 9). To take your example of Kermode calling Little Man "evil", the film might be considered for inclusion if he had called it "the most evil" or similar. No special standard is required for this article; if someone went to list of apples and started adding sausages, the edits would be booted without comment. The problem of using the standard you suggest is that there is no way to draw the line between the worst and the merely panned (of which there are many). An uncharitable editor might for instance go over this or this list and pick negative words from critics, packing the article with entries and making it so broad as to be meaningless. That being said Jack and Jill might be included by the strength of it winning more Razzies than any other film to date (making it the worst of the worst of sorts). A counter-argument to that might be that the Razzie categories have increased over time, and Jack and Jill isn't worse in that regard than Mommie Dearest that was the first film to sweep the Razzies with five awards.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Before this article was revamped, there were probably at least as many movies from the past 5-10 years as every other decade combined, and I remember one editor who wouldn't budge on keeping All About Steve in the list solely based on it being called the "worst movie of the year" somewhere, not even a Razzie. There has to be some other standard for being the worst movie ever than being worst movie of the year, or we should have over a hundred movies on the list, and using Razzies/ratings databases as the sole sources skew it towards modern movies. Also, seriously, some of the old movies are unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that anyone would call some of the modern panned movies worse than Monster A Go-Go after watching it. 66.57.83.130 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The criteria at the top reads, and I quote: 'Examples of such sources include Metacritic, Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and the Golden Raspberry Award ("Razzies").' It has a 3% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes (one of the sources) and, lest we forget WON ALL 10 RAZZIES and was NOMINATED FOR 2 OF THEM TWICE! I think that's enough negative reception to hit this list. It's not even relaxing the standards, just realizing that Jack and Jill meets them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.166.30 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It won awards proclaiming it as the worst in these categories for the specific year. This list is not a list of worst movies of 2011 or of every year.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't belong with these other movies. No ones calling it "worst movie ever". It's a slapstick comedy, no one went into it thinking it would be art or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

New Candidates

I nominate Batman and Robin, Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2, and Son of the Mask for this list.

All of them were widely-panned sequels. Batman and Robin may have been financially successful but it is still one of the worst-received films of its genre. Superbabies was put on this list a few times recently, and there's plenty of sources to highlight its poor performance, being #2 on the IMDb's Bottom 100 List, being nominated for four Raspberry Awards, bringing back less than half of its budget, and being a sequel to Baby Geniuses, which does reside on Roger Ebert's Most Hated List.

Son of the Mask received a similar critical reaction with only 6% approval on Rotten Tomatoes and winning one of the eight Raspberries it was nominated for. It was not financially successful either, bringing back barely half of its $84 million budget.198.7.235.118 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources referring to them as the worst movies ever?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In the 1980s, I remember people panning "Ishtar" as the worst film ever.... but it is not on the list.

Ratatoing?

It has a 1.7 rating from IMDB, and it has been scathed by Film Brain (From That Guy With The Glasses) plus people generally hate it. ExtremeSpyro (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDb Film Brain/TGWTG and aren't considered reliable sources. In any case, the focus of Film Brain's "Bad Movie Beatdown" is making fun of bad movies, not film critique per se.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Son of the Mask

1. 59 on the IMDb's Bottom 100 list, 6% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, hated heavily by critics including Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, with admission by some of the actors of the film's low quality, and winner of 2005's Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Remake or Sequel, with 7 other nominations. This probably deserves a spot.76.119.75.203 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Worst film ever... hated by fans of the series and non-fans. Swept the razzies and ended M. Night Shalyman's career.

This list is not based on personal opinion... just saying. Superghost987 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the exact same thing. It appears on Roger Ebert's most hated list, and it won the razzie for worst picture and worst director for shymalon. I think it most definately deserves to be put on this list. Can anyone back me up? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add it in. If it is unconstructive, delete it. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried adding it but it was deleted. Come on, this film has so much bad reception, and a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, and on Ebert's hated list. Would whoever is deleting it please explain why it can't be there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoMe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because you've failed to provide WP:RS that call it the worst film ever (or something to that effect). Simply being "hated" or having a low rotten tomato ranking isn't enough. Ravendrop 16:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article currently says that one of the criteria for inclusion is Roger Ebert's list of most hated films (in the lead). Might not be strong enough on its own to motivate adding a film to this article though. --Sus scrofa (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, on its own (and even combined with the rotten tomatoes rating) its not enough for inclusion if it is missing sources calling it the worst ever. Ravendrop 16:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well... what kind of reference should I use? You know, I didn't mind the movie so much, I'm just putting it here because lots of people have called it bad. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look through the critics reviews via Rotten Tomatos you can do a text search within the reviews themselves for "worst" or something similar. Pretty simple. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Caligula and Jack and Jill

For Caligula, it is one of Roger Ebert's most hated films, as you can very plainly tell from his review. He gave it zero stars, and he even walked out of it. I quote him: "Caligula is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash." Plus Newsweek said it was "a two-and-one-half-hour cavalcade of depravity that seems to have been photographed through a tub of Vaseline." As for Jack and Jill, it sweeped the Razzies, plus holds a 3% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I love bad movies. I just love them. (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Caligula isn't considered one of the worst movies of all time, but certainly one of the most trashy. As for Jack and Jill, see the previous posts. Freshh (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. As for Caligula, I honestly like the music. I love bad movies. I just love them. (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For Jack and Jill, see posts about it here. Superghost987 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Who came up with this list?

Ok, Leonard Part 6 is probably the worst movie of the 1980s, even has a wikipedia page on it saying how bad it was, and it got a Golden Raspberry and rated 2.1 of 5,000+ users on IMDB, but it didn't make the list, until I added it a moment ago. If someone tries to delete it, I'm going to delete you back. Yet, a movie like Mommie Dearest makes the list, which has a 6.3 rating from 6,100+ users on IMDB, and I remember watching when I was a kid and didn't think was close to as bad as other movies like Piranha 2 (3.4 rating), also not on this list. So, something is wrong with whoever came up with this list. Thousands of people saying a movie is good or bad is a pretty accurate and credible sample size for research and citation purposes. But a few critics or few individuals on Wikipedia saying they didn't like Mommie Dearest or this and that doesn't cut it. --Cheap-stock-photos (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but you have not provided an authoritative, verifiable source, and that is the requirement for a film to make this list. IMDb is not considered definitive, while many films receive a poor rating, it has to be the one that stands out as truly the worst. FWiW, do not rely on websites that are review aggregator based as there are easy ways to skew results, instead, rely on top critics and bona fide reference sources to make your case. BTW, the citations are also written out incorrectly as a "bare urls". Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC).

Per the large not you saw when you clicked "edit": "PLEASE NOTE, THIS LIST IS NOT SUBJECT TO PERSONAL OPINION! BEFORE INSERTING A MOVIE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DEFINED "THE WORST" BY REPUTABLE SOURCES. YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO CHECK WHETHER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN INSERTED AND REMOVED BEFORE. SEE THE TALK PAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION. ". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Any list like this is necessarily subjective. The List of films considered the best manages to be a bit more objective, in that it is a clearing house for the "best" film, as determined by lists and ranking methods, without a lot of judgment by the editors. There's a fundamental problem with a "worst" list; namely, while one can assume any really good film will be seen by a reasonable number of people, there are surely countless horrible films sitting in cans that have only been seen by a handful of people. In the end it comes down to a few people with very strong opinions. For example, IMDB ratings and other poll-based rankings, which are somewhat objective, are used heavily in the "best" list, but have been deemed "not a reliable source" here (by whom? Nobody really knows). Some films are here because they are called "one of the worst" by several people, while some are here because they are called "The worst" by one. Myra Breckinridge doesn't meet either of these criteria, but no one is willing to remove it because it really is a terrible movie (something editors are not supposed to decide). As you mention, "Mommie Dearest" is here based pretty much entirely on its performance at the Razzies, whereas "Jack and Jill", which broke all Razzie records, isn't. Beyond a few no-brainers like Plan 9, pretty much each film here represents a fight by one or two people who are "enthused" enough about a particular movie to do the leg work to satisfy a handful of strong willed gatekeepers. Go to the archives to see how much of a battle it took to get an abomination like "Highlander II" on the list! In the end, it's just for fun, and I suspect will someday be declared "not notable". Prebys (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason for IMDb not being considered a totally reliable source is that it is a fan or user-generated site and not moderator or site controlled which can lead to inaccurate information or even "boosterism" claims. FWiW, after WP:Film dealt with the IMDb issue a number of times, it was recognized that if other more authoritative reference sources are available, then these should be referenced. Turner Classic Movies is a moderated site, for example, and lists external sources for references. Bzuk (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC).

My comment was more about the lack of a consistent standard here. The List of films considered the best is basically just a catalog of a large number of lists and polls, with very little commentary by the editors, while this is a small number of films that individuals felt passionately enough about to google the name of the film and the word "worst". For example, both "Eegah" and "Myra Breckinridge" are included based entirely on being in Medved's "50 Worst Movies..." book, but most films on his list are not here, so the choice to include those and not the others was made by the article's editors. Sometimes "the worst" is necessary, while other times "may be the worst" or "one of the worst" is sufficient. I'm not really complaining, as the style makes this article a lot more fun to read than the "best" list, but I get annoyed when people get on their high horse when trying to keep films off the list.Prebys (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Subjectivity with reference to date

It's well that all the films included on this list must be on some other list(s) of very bad movies. However, did Hollywood make no bad movies prior to the '50's? All the critics and lists seem to confine themselves to post-1950 movies. This may be the greatest legacy of Ed Wood, but seriously... did he invent the bad movie? I doubt it. I think someone interested in this subject needs do some digging and find some older turkeys. 72.179.53.2 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Eric

Sofixit. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to take this on, googling "Worst films of the 1910s", "20s", "30s", and "40s" will yield lots of lists. Then you'll have to do the legwork to dig up proper citations on some of them. Like most people, I'm only interested in putting movies I personally hate on this list, and I recognized few if any from those early lists.Prebys (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fatal Deviation

Didn't this make many "worst ever" lists? Turkeyphan^t 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Fifth Element

I'd like to hereby nominate The Fifth Element for this list. Qualifications: a.) Slate magazine wrote about it, "It may or may not be the worst movie ever made, but it is one of the most unhinged."[4] b.) All the things that people actually liked about it in plot and design were stolen root and branch from Enki Bilal's The Nikopol Trilogy (1980-1992). --79.193.40.9 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Slate doesn't call it the worst ("may or may not"). "Most unhinged" is sort of equivalent, but it's neutralized by the previous statement. As for the second point - stolen gold is still gold.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Subjective. It received mixed ratings and plenty of people liked it just fine. In any case, you'd need at least two sources calling it "worst", not just one that is wishy washy. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This can't be on the list because it has received generally positive reviews from critics. Superghost987 (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The film's rating is higher than 70% on Rotten Tomatoes. What are you even basing your nomination on? In a universal sense I mean. Ikarus14 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifth Element is a freaking awesome movie and I recently read is one of the most underrated movies for what it deserved. It's 7.5 rating in IMDB, innovative, I think similar to Blade Runner. No wonder this movie list is so off balance. Let's just say Star Wars is one of the worst movies of all time, come on.--Cheap-stock-photos (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that The Fifth Element is going nowhere near this list, especially since Slate didn't say it was the worst film ever. RT rates the critical reaction as largely positive, Siskel and Ebert both gave it thumbs up, it has 7.5 on IMDb, it was Oscar-nominated and BAFTA-winning, and it was a big commercial success. Sure, there were a number of people who hated the film, but far more people seem to like it than loathe it. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack & Jill

How is this not on the list? It holds a score of 3% on Rotten Tomatoes and won in every category at 32nd Golden Raspberry Awards, a first for the Razzies.--69.253.234.217 (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion, for reference.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Last Airbender is considered the worst movie.

Hello there by the way how come "The Last Airbender" 2010 movie is not on the worst movie list? I mean the movie was ok as in no swearing and no inappropriate content. The reason why people called "The Last Airbender" the worst movie is because the movie director turned a fun loving cartoon into a serious dull live action movie. The music by James Newton Howard was the best and well played. But sadly the acting was dull. Please allow "The Last Airbender" movie to be put up because it was considered the worst movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.217.162 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What sources do you claiming it to be one of the worst movies ever? One of the worst of the year yes, but one of the worst period needs proper citation. Freshh (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Mommie Dearest be removed?

PROCEDURAL NOTE: As there were was a second section created with the same exact discussion subject, the two sections have been merged. --Oakshade (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all of it's reception has been bad, and it really has improved. Plus, it has been featured on AFI lists. Now if you think I'm just trying to defend the movie because I like it, think again (I've never actually seen it) I just don't feel it's appropriate for this list.--MaxOfTheDead (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see previous extensive discussions on this before moving forward.--Sus scrofa (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What are these "AFI lists" and how does that make all the sources calling this one of the worst films ever made non-existent?--Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe they are talking about the American Film Institute's 100 Years... series. David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

While it's in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes for the notorious over-the-top "No wire hangers, ever!" quote, I don't see how that suddenly means all the sources calling this one of the worst films ever don't exist. If anything, this is yet another affirmation of the films awfulness by sources. It's also in AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains list, but again, that's not evidence the film is not seen as one of the worst ever. --Oakshade (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to request Mommie Dearest be taken off the list. There is nothing on it's list with critics calling it the worst movie ever, and it received MIXED reviews. It has a score of 53% on RT. That is not nearly low enough. I mean, for Plan 9 from Outer Space, it was "fresh", but it's consensus says it's very very bad, and thus entertaining. Mommie Dearest does not have that. A few negative reviews and a worst picture razzie do not justify that. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Will have to oppose this request. It was way more than "a few negative reviews" and a worst picture Razzie. Not only did it win the "Worst Picutre" Razzie, not only did is sweep the Razzies, but they considered it "Worst Picture of the Decade." Additionally it was included in Michael Sauter's book The Worst Movies of All Time as well as "100 most awful" The Official Razzie Movie Guide: Enjoying the Best of Hollywood's Worst. These and many more are more than enough to pass inclusion standards set on this board. Many bad films score high because of their "it's so bad it's good" camp value and this is one of them. To this day it's a popular midnight movie due to its awfulness.--Oakshade (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Outside US

Worst German movie ever (imdb): "Daniel - Der Zauberer" (= "Daniel - The Wizard") ( http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom ) --194.95.117.68 (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No Ishtar?

I nominate Ishtar, the movie with Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman from the 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.110.139 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A big box-office flop does not always equal to be one of the worst films. Freshh (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Batman And Robin

How come Batman And Robin are NOT on the list?--67.177.178.15 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's true The Last Airbender is the worst movie of 2010

Hello there as you should know by now "The Last Airbender" is considered the worst movie ever. If you don't believe me then you should check the wikipedia.org page The Last Airbender. Also you can check it out at imdb.com or rottentomatoes.com I have done extensive research on google.com and the movie won 5 razzle awards you can check it out at ew.com or razzles.com and I even talked to people about it and they were very disappointed in The Last Airbender movie remake. I felt a little disappointed in the changes in "The Last Airbender" movie and I felt like it needed improvement which is too late for that now. The reason why movie Critics and The Last Airbender fans were mad was mostly because it was completely different from the cartoon Last Airbender TV series and for taking the fun out of the characters and turning them into very serious characters and rushing the movie. Also in the Leonard Maltin's 2012 movie review guide book they gave it 1 1/2 stars for clunky acting performances and worst 3D effects. I'm telling the truth. Please give Wikipedia users a chance to add "The Last Airbender" 2010 movie in your worst movie list and please don't delete it. But rather make improvements and we'll accept in the worst movie page. Thanks for reading and understanding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrosswalkX (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this is for the worst movies of all time, not for a given year. Your edits have been reverted, and I have added hidden text to prevent users from adding the movie on the list again until we come to an agreement. Freshh (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Batman & Robin

To be honest, I really think that this would qualify for this list. Just about everywhere I go says it has bad reviews, and it's Rotten Tomatoes rating is very low. If anyone here has any argument on why this movie shouln't be on the list, leave it.--Adam the silly (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Batman & Robin has been up for discussion a bunch of time without being added (a lot of movies get mostly bad reviews and here is list of 100 movies with low RT ratings). What is needed is sources identifying it as the worst. The only thing I've found is an Empire magazine reader poll where it was ranked the worst, but this hasn't been considered enough in the past.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's true The Last Airbender is the worst movie of 2010

Hello there as you should know by now "The Last Airbender" is considered the worst movie ever. If you don't believe me then you should check the wikipedia.org page The Last Airbender. Also you can check it out at imdb.com or rottentomatoes.com I have done extensive research on google.com and the movie won 5 razzle awards you can check it out at ew.com or razzles.com and I even talked to people about it and they were very disappointed in The Last Airbender movie remake. I felt a little disappointed in the changes in "The Last Airbender" movie and I felt like it needed improvement which is too late for that now. The reason why movie Critics and The Last Airbender fans were mad was mostly because it was completely different from the cartoon Last Airbender TV series and for taking the fun out of the characters and turning them into very serious characters and rushing the movie. Also in the Leonard Maltin's 2012 movie review guide book they gave it 1 1/2 stars for clunky acting performances and worst 3D effects. I'm telling the truth. Please give Wikipedia users a chance to add "The Last Airbender" 2010 movie in your worst movie list and please don't delete it. But rather make improvements and we'll accept in the worst movie page. Thanks for reading and understanding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrosswalkX (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this is for the worst movies of all time, not for a given year. Your edits have been reverted, and I have added hidden text to prevent users from adding the movie on the list again until we come to an agreement. Freshh (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Batman & Robin

To be honest, I really think that this would qualify for this list. Just about everywhere I go says it has bad reviews, and it's Rotten Tomatoes rating is very low. If anyone here has any argument on why this movie shouln't be on the list, leave it.--Adam the silly (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Batman & Robin has been up for discussion a bunch of time without being added (a lot of movies get mostly bad reviews and here is list of 100 movies with low RT ratings). What is needed is sources identifying it as the worst. The only thing I've found is an Empire magazine reader poll where it was ranked the worst, but this hasn't been considered enough in the past.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted discussion

I see the mitzabot or whatever auto deleted some of the discussions here. I've seen much longer talk pages elsewhere that was apparently ok for the system, but this seems to be more liberally cleaned up. So, I guess if anyone misses anything we can undo the bot's deletion. It will make it extra cumbersome to recommend new bad movies if we now have to weed through all the history. --Cheap-stock-photos (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you can change how often the bot archives threads by changing the numbers in the |algo = old(30d) parameter. There is also a box for searching through the archives at the top of the page (don't know how well it works).--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The threads are not deleted, they can be accessed in the archive linked in the header above. The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fatal Deviation

Didn't this make many "worst ever" lists? Turkeyphan^t 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you post examples?--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.cracked.com/article_18632_irelands-only-kung-fu-movie-is-worst-film-ever-made.html
• http://www.fernbyfilms.com/2012/09/17/worst-film-week-movie-review-fatal-deviation/
• http://www.moviecricket.com/the-5-worst-movies-you-have-to-see-21320/
• http://lukemckinney.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/cinemasochism-fatal-deviation.html
• http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/ol/olp/30788-fatal-deviation

Turkeyphan^t 00:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One's a satirical website, another is a comedienne's views, the rest are blogs. They all aren't legit. Find reviews from respected critics. Freshh (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give examples of "legit" sources used to justify the other included items? Thank you :) Turkeyphan^t 19:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Swarm (1978)

The Swarm is a horror monster movie taking place in Texas and adapted from the novel of the same name. Directed by Irwin Allen, it stars Michael Caine as a scientist and insect expert Dr. Bradford Crane, who helps stop an invasion from a swarm of killer bees. Many filmgoers and critics consider this film to be one of the worst "disaster films" ever made, along with Allen's subsequent films Beyond the Poseidon Adventure and When Time Ran Out (1980), giving Allen the title of "the master of disaster". The Swarm currently has a Rotten Tomatoes approval rating of 14%. Ken Hanke of Mountain Xpress called it a "big bore". Melvin White of Super Reviewer said "I'll admit, the only real reason I watched this movie is because Michael Caine and Katherine Ross were in it. They don't really help the movie go down any smoother though. Seeing as they still have to act in a movie as absurd as this, you know their performances aren't going to be good, and they're not." In an interview with Michael Parkinson, actor Michael Caine himself claims it is the worst film he ever made, along with The Magus and his later film Ashanti): "It wasn't just me, Hank Fonda was in it too, but I got the blame for it." The film is also famous for Olivia de Havilland's "Scream Moan", in which when she sees the dead children outside the window and moans a scream.

From 121.220.199.31, added by Freshh (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Although the film was evidently poorly received, the entry for this film contains no sources calling it the worst or something equivalent. If the reviewer had sad that the film was the "biggest bore" or somesuch we would have a case for inclusion. --Sus scrofa (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Conqueror

How does The Conqueror qualify as a Box-office-bomb? It cost 6M to be made and performed at least 9M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.156.44.21 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally, half of the box-office goes to the studios, the rest goes to the theaters, so technically the studio made $4.5 million, a box-office flop compared to the budget. Freshh (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Titanic: The Legend Goes On

Otherwise known as "Titanic: The Animated Musical," this film is the #1 spot on the IMDB bottom 100. http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom It has a reputation on some corners of the internet for being a blatant knockoff to several Disney and Don Bluth films, it's nonsensical plot and it's overall positive ending where it's hinted that barely anyone (if anyone) dies in the tragedy. In my personal opinion the movie it's actually ripping off, "The Legend of the Titanic," is way worse, but it's less recognized.

It'd fit best under "Outside of the US," since it's an Italian production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigakoops (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think this touches on the larger point on whether we should use the IMDb bottom 100 as a source for this list. AFAIK, citing IMDb as a reliable source is generally a no-go, although IMDb top lists are cited in list of films considered the best so I don't rightly know what the consensus is. I think the problem with using the IMDb bottom list is its ever shifting nature and the fact that it only takes 3000 votes or so to put a film at #1. I remember when Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 was discussed and the section said that it held the number one spot and when I checked the list it had been replaced by Álom.net, some obscure Hungarian film, with about 3000 votes total. So it only takes a relatively small segment of an audience in one country to put a film at #1.

As for the "some corners of the internet", if you're talking about Doug Walker et. al., the problem is that he runs a comedy website and he and his underlings are not film critics (even the ones that have film studies degrees like the Nostalgia Chick and her crew) so they are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of this article, AFAIK.Sus scrofa (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Son of the Mask (2005)

A sequel to the 1994 critical and commercial hit The Mask, Son of the Mask stars Jamie Kennedy as aspiring animator Tim Avery, whose dog discovers the mask from the previous film. Both Tim and his dog use the mask for mischief until Tim's baby is discovered to be half descended from the mask itself. Son of the Mask is currently ranked 58 on the IMDB bottom 100 with a score or 2.1. and is ranked 75 in Rotten Tomatoes' list of worst reviewed movies of the 2000’s. Son of the Mask currently holds a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes out of a grand total of 103 critics with the consensus of "Overly frantic, painfully unfunny, and sorely missing the presence of Jim Carrey." Son of the Mask was nominated for a total of 10 Razzies but won only the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel. Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times stated on At the Movies "In the five years I've been co-hosting this show, this is the closest I've ever come to walking out halfway through the film, and now that I look back on the experience, I wish I had." " While Roger Ebert, Roeper's co-host stated that "What we basically have here is a license for the filmmakers to do whatever they want to do with the special effects, while the plot, like Wile E. Coyote, keeps running into the wall." SotM is frequently mentioned on all time worst movie sequels and also is ranked 4th on Complex's list of 25 movies that killed careers. Empire Magazine listed Son of the Mask as the 38th worst film of all time.

From 173.74.228.249, added by Freshh (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

Heaven's Gate doesn't seem to belong on here. It seems to be a pretty well regarded film, though it was not at the time of its release. Citizen Kane wasn't well received initially, but that too was reevaluated. It might have once been considered only as a film that lost a lot of money, but it isn't anymore, and it has reached a level of respect so as that the Criterion Collection is releasing a restored version. There's significant evidence therefore that Heaven's Gate is not considered one of the worst films ever made. --24.250.150.187 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two different cuts of the film, and they seem to be very differently regarded. It seems to me that the original theatrical cut makes the grade as one of the worst, unless that too has been reevaluated. I'm honestly not sure how we are to judge a film with two different cuts that were received so differently (for the purposes of this list), but I think I'm going to have to go with the status quo, the film stays but also the information about how the director's cut was received better. One editor's opinion.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oogieloves?

This film, Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure, debuted as one of the biggest box office bombs ever...also, adding the ridiculous plot and TV education feel, should this count as one of the worst? 75.131.122.237 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The critics did not hate it enough. Simply being the biggest money pit ever does not make you one of THE WORST MOVIES...EVER!. Think grand scope of awful. Three idiots in fuzzy suits is not grand scope. The Battle of Inchon with a halfway-conscious MacArthur... now, that's scope. Dkendr (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Giant Claw

Here's a film that deserves to be on the list. The Giant Claw has been mocked for the quality of its special effects. The bird in particular is considered by many to be badly made, being a marionette puppet with a very odd face. The film is also riddled with stock footage, including clips of the explosion of the Los Angeles City Hall from War of the Worlds and collapse of the Washington Monument from Earth vs the Flying Saucers during the bird's attack on New York City, making continuity a serious issue. Morrow later confessed in an interview that no one in the film knew what the titular monster looked like until the film's premiere. Morrow himself first saw the film in his hometown, and hearing the audience laugh every time the monster appeared on screen, he left the theater early, embarrassed that anyone there might recognize him. A character in the film mistakes the bird for La Carcagne which is alleged in the film to be a monster from French Canadian folklore that resembles a giant woman with a wolf's head and bat-like black wings and which, like the Banshee, is a harbinger of death. TVB15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly bad, but the worst? Please provide a reliable source stating that it is the worst film. It might have horrid special effects, but that alone might not make it one of the worst.--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing "The Room" from the list

It has acquired a "so bad it's actually good" notoriety and a sort of pop culture mystique. The hard stats for its inclusion were never there either, and it lacked the pretention, pomp and disappointment of the other megaturds on this list. Dkendr (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Plan 9, Manos, Troll 2, and Showgirls have as well, and they are still on the list.--MaxOfTheDead (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Inclusion criteria for this article was never based on "stats" but on what reliable sources have called the worst films ever which includes this film. That a film later acquired a "so bad it's actually good" notoriety, a dubious unsupported claim actually, doesn't make the reporting from reliable sources magically disappear as if they don't exist or have never existed. --Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent round of removals from the article

Recently there have been some deletions from the list (e.g. The Room) that were motivated with the fact that the films in question have "so-bad-it's-good" status and therefore can not be called the worst. It seems to me that a consistent application of this criteria would mean the deletion of several more films (e.g. Manos, Plan 9, Troll 2) as they are also mainly enjoyed because of their flaws rather than loathed. --Sus scrofa (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a good half of these movies on this list fall into the "so-bad-it's-good" variety. The Ed Wood movies can stay because they are considered among the worst and are still enjoyed by audiences for their badness at the same time. In my opinion, out of all the movies listed, Mommie Dearest can go, because the film falls into being just flawed and not completely despised. Freshh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think these removals are necessary. Just because it's so bad it's good doesn't mean it's bad at all. Not everyone will agree with that term, and people who indeed despise those movies would like to see them on this list. --Adam the silly (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys (and gals etc.) could we maybe slow down with the editing back and forth and discuss what we should include? Editors are obviously disagreeing with each other about what type of film should be on this list, but are duking it out in the edit summaries rather than the talk page.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. There needs to be a broad consensus for such major edits. We've been basing inclusion criteria on what reliable sources have said, not our own personal opinions. These attempted removals have been based on the latter. --Oakshade (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Silent Hill: Revelation 3D?

I think this film is horrible and the plot is a mess. Anonymous from the 21st century (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

However, significant critical sources about it being the worst are still to be required before this film can be put onto the article. trainfan01 talk, 15:03, 30 December, 2012 (UTC)

The 2003 live action version of "The Cat in the Hat" movie was awful

Another movie I think deserves to be on the worst movie list of wikipedia is "Cat in the Hat" 2003. The movie was terrible, the actors in the movie was awful. The boss at the workplace was extremely rude and annoying putting employees down. The mom and 2 kids were alright in the movie. But Mike Myers who played as a "Cat in the Hat" was so annoying and gross and rude to people. I was offended by the bathroom jokes he made during the movie. This 2003 movie should've been called "The dirty rat in the hat" Anyways after that PG-13 offensive movie was made there was no more live action movies of Dr. Seuss because of how inappropriate and offensive the movie was. The movie didn't follow the 1957 book "The Cat in the Hat" or the 1971 cartoon version. I'm sorry that the child actors of Dakota Fanning and Spencer Breslin was caught up in this brainwashing movie and I'm sorry the people in Hollywood ruined "The Cat in the Hat" by Dr. Seuss but I'm glad the wife of Dr. Seuss is now in charge of the CGI animated movies of Dr. Seuss. I hope the 2013 CGI movie of "The Cat in the Hat." is better. But yes "The Cat in the Hat" 2003 movie definitely should be on the list as well as the 2010 live action movie of "The Last Airbender" — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrosswalkX (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Any sources from legit critics? Freshh (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say that you disliking a particular film doesn't mean it was widely "considered the worst". --67.173.44.37 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cat_in_the_hat/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312528/

Seems pretty bad to me... Kude90 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but is it considered "the worst"?--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no sources calling it the worst. I actually thought it was a very funny movie, the production designs were great-looking and Mike Meyers was excellent. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why no BIRDEMIC?

I am just wondering. I think it has recived enought negative reception to be on this list.--MaxOfTheDead (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried getting the editors in question to stop edit warring and start discussion here on the talk page, but the editor's reason for removing Birdemic et. al. is given in the edit summaries as that it is not actually the worst because people enjoy them because they are so bad that they are good. Which would wipe most of the films off the list in my view.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Does that mean MANOS should be removed? Should PLAN 9 go? What about THE ROOM? SHOWGIRLS? If all films some people consider "so bad it's good" are to be removed, we will have next to nothing.--MaxOfTheDead (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the above editors. The "It's so bad it's good" as a reason to delete from this article is a flawed logic. Just because a bad film becomes enjoyable to watch due to it being bad doesn't magically transform it to good nor does it erase all the reliable sources that have labeled it one of the worst films. If people are enjoying a bad film because it's bad, that actually confirms its badness.--Oakshade (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Steel

I think that ==Steel (film)== should be added to the list. Many people consider it the "death" of the superhero genre for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameiskil (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad as it may be, do you have any sources calling it one of the worst? Sinking an entire sub-genre is impressive, but not enough to qualify it for this list IMO.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why is Howard the Duck on this list? It looks cheesy, but it's gained a huge cult following over the years. Hell, it has a rating of 4.3 on IMDb. That seems fairly average. Calling Howard the Duck the worst movie ever is like calling Judge Dredd the worst movie ever. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the section on Howard the Duck, it seems that the case for inclusion of it isn't very strong and it should be removed from the list, IMO. There aren't really any sources calling it the worst, critical reception was merely very negative.--Sus scrofa (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. PS, what does IMO mean? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO is internet shorthand for "In My Opinion", I added that so that it's clear that I don't consider myself king of this article. I'm sorry, I guess I just assumed everyone knew the common internet acronyms, I'll do better in the future or people will be ROFROFL:ing at my posts. --Sus scrofa (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Twilight edit war

So there's an edit war going on over the inclusion of the Twilight series. Could we please stop editing back and forth and discuss this? The question, I guess, is whether we should consider Rifftrax a reliable source for this article. One objection might be that in their "worst movie ever poll" only included films that they produced commentary tracks for. Also they are a comedy outfit and not film critics. --Sus scrofa (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite RiffTrax's MST3K connections, which would make it legitimate, the list appears to be more along the lines of mixing the bandwagon-trashing of popular franchises by the public and the Internet community with actual bad movies. Considering those Twilight movies made money and its Rotten Tomatoes scores are too high (the lowest was 24%), it may not belong on the list, but as it's MST-related, it could be mentioned in passing. Then again, this is the public we're talking about. Freshh (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This entire list is about people trashing movies. The same Rifftrax list also has several of the movies on this list. So, it's legit enough. Kude90 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, Kude don't be assuming the people who were removing the Twilight section are Twilight fangirls. While the Twilight films are bad, they cannot be consider the worst. The list on Rifftrax, like I stated in my edit summaries a lot, is a fan opinionated list voted by people on the internet. The internet is full of Twilight haters like myself, so the list should not be taken as a reliable source. If treated as a reliable source, then I guess we should add Spiderman 3, High School Musical, the Phantom Menace, and Attack of the Clones to the list. Like Freshh stated previously and so have I, not all the Twilight films have received negative reviews, a majority have received mixed reviews from critics. Breaking Dawn Part I and New Moon only have received negative reviews. So they have been nominated countless times for the Razzie's, so has every entry in Micheal Bay's Transformers series and every movie Adam Sandler has starred in, but yet none of them are this list. It should be also noted that no critic has gone out and actually said that the Twilight films are some of the worst films in history, heck even the great Roger Ebert has never said a statement as such. I'll probably just end up deleting the Twilight section anyways, but hey all my reasons are now on this talk page. --75.141.100.53 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And yes, many of those are quite terrible. But, none of them got the outstanding amount of votes that Twilight got. Most of them got less than a fifth of the votes that Twilight got. At this point, keeping Twilight on this list has good reasons, a reference, and people supporting it. You simply have no right to edit it away. Kude90 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Twilight series is a poorly made franchise, yes, but I do not feel that it belongs on this list, or at the very least, with such little information.--MaxOfTheDead (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am with Kude on this one for the sole reason that their poll did not include only movies they do commentaries for. It had hundreds of options culled from many worst lists around the internet, and then it had 500,000 votes. That should make it very legit. And it just happens that 80% of the top they did commentaries for, but they never did for many of the top 10. Honestly it makes NO sense to not include the poll here. This is the internet, and I defy anyone to do a poll on the internet and NOT get Twilight as the worst. It's just that bad when held up to its overall profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.169.122 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed with MaxoftheDead's comment. If you want to add Twilight so badly, please provide more info like the other sections. Look at all the other sections on this article, they provide actual resources and critic reviews. Provide information such as critics remarking that they are the worst and other such claims. If you can't provide such resources besides RiffTrax or the Razzies, then don't put it on the page, simple as that. A one-four sentence section looks extremely tacky, especially on a encyclopedia site such as this. --75.141.100.53 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, if you want to add Twilight, at least put a bit more than what is currently there, and actually include some critic's reviews of the films, proving that a majority of the world considers them terrible, and not just users on a site.--MaxOfTheDead (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Max's comment is the first helpful one here. All the others just say "Well, I don't think it belongs here, so I'll remove it." Now, anonymous IP 75.141.100.53, listen closely. I am going to add it back on a temporary basis, and add more later tonight when I'm not so busy. DO NOT REMOVE IT. Just wait.Kude90 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: All editors in this discussion should, if they have not already, be sure to familiarize themselves with WP:3RR, under which any editor may be blocked for three reversions of the same edit within any 24 hour period. Thank you. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No. In an odd way, I thought batman and Robin was quite entertaining. The reason this is here is because almost EVERY critic said that it was positively unenjoyable to anyone but "harcore fans." That's not what movies are supposed to be. Now, I fixed what the others complained about. So... Do you have an actual reason to not add this? Becuase "I enjoyed the movie" is NOT a reason to remove one of these movies.Kude90 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So again I urge all editors to stop editing the Twilight section in and out and talk it out instead - give your reasons for or against here, please.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My reasons for are above. Any time someone has had an actual complaint, such as not enough refs, I fixed them. For that matter, the same people who were against later helped out my post by adding even more to it. Now, all I have are anonymous IP's removing the section with no given reason, other than their opinion.Kude90 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't seem like it should be on the list. So far there is only one source that calls it the worst movie ever. The rest of them have nothing but sources that call them the worst ever. As far as the rotten tomatoes thing goes, do you know how many movies have less than 30%? If we added every one that did , then this article would be ten times as long. Plus if three out of the five were higher than 30%, wouldn't that mean that a majority of them are decent? Critics calling them boring is good enough either, because critics call films boring at least once a week. The Vampire's Suck parody isn't even relevant, because a lot of parody films spoof good movies too, such as High Anxiety, which was a parody of Hitchcock films, or Epic Movie, which spoofed The Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter, and the latter was made by the same guys who made Vampire's Suck. So that's it. If you put more refs that call it the worst movie ever I'll shut up. Until then I think the section should be taken off the article.Wikipediman23 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack and Jill

Shouldn't the movie Jack and Jill, starring Adam Sandler, be on here? It is the first, and so far only, movie to ever win a Golden Raspberry Award in ever category it was nominated, which happened to be all of them? --70.148.218.10 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been numerous additions of this film appearing on the article, but they have always been removed (as seen in numerous past history and discussion archives). While the film did indeed win every Razzie, there have not been any critical sources that have called it the "worst ever". The Razzies mainly refer to this being the worst of a given year. Therefore, this film will not be added to the list until there is indeed critical sources for "worst ever". trainfan01 talk, 02:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Movie

i think is worst movie ever, and it has a 13% on Rotten Tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.104.69 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

How the hell could you possibly say this is the worst movie ever? Are you high? It had fun action, great sets, decent performances, and it deserves to be a cult classic. You wanta watch a bad video game movie, watch Alone in the Dark. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been considered as being one of the worst movies based on a video game (listed here at 6th place). Bob Hoskins also states that it was the worst thing that he had ever done, but there have been no reliable sources that have considered it the worst movie ever so it does not qualify for this list.trainfan01 talk 03:42, 1 February, 2013 (UTC)

Movie 43 (2013)

An ensemble cast comedy film from 2013, with segments directed by Steve Carr, Peter Farrelly, and many others, and has celebrities such as Hugh Jackman, Emma Stone, Kristen Bell, and many others, that was shot over a period of several years was overly panned by critics and audiences with Rotten Tomatoes giving it a 5%. Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times completely panned the film, giving it zero out of four stars, calling it "aggressively tasteless," and going so far as to say "Movie 43 is the Citizen Kane of awful." Peter Howell of the Toronto Star also gave Movie 43 zero out of four stars, calling it the worst film he has ever seen. It also was considered the lowest grossing opening for a parody film during its weekend with CinemaScore giving it a "D" grade. - TheValentineBros (talk)

I personally think we should add it

You should wait, it's still in theaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameiskil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen it personally. But, this seems like the kind of movie that belongs here. I think you should add it.Kude90 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the case for inclusion is on par with the other movies on the list. Another critic called it one of the worst (in so many words): "[I]f you mashed-up the worst parts of the infamous 'Howard the Duck,' 'Gigli,' 'Ishtar' and every other awful movie I’ve seen since I started reviewing professionally in 1981, it wouldn’t begin to approach the sheer soul-sucking badness of the cringe-inducing 'Movie 43,'" quote from Lumenick of the New York Post. --Sus scrofa (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if Freddy Got Fingered is on the list, I think this should be, too. NY post called it one of the worst movies ever and Roger Ebert gave it zero stars, so it can be called one of the worst. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How many reliable sources are needed for it to be proclaimed one of the worst ever? Jack and Jill has been added and taken down a few times because of this problem. Roeper's review did call it the "Citizen Kane of awful" and a few other reviews gave it 0 stars, but is that enough? LordMaldad2000 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)