What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Horrible/Film

FromtheWordsofBR
topic
01:45:05 PM Jul 26th 2014
Does Rock: It's Your Decision count?
Aldo930
03:55:09 PM Jul 26th 2014
Maybe. Both The Agony Booth and The Cinema Snob reviewed it, so you'd have enough evidence there.
SeptimusHeap
02:46:11 AM Jul 27th 2014
Worth noting though that two negative reviews (it doesn't matter how popular the reviewers are) is not enough evidence to add a work here.
warner14
07:58:56 AM Aug 2nd 2014
It has a 1.4 on IMDB in case you're wondering: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387545/
MrMediaGuy
topic
01:25:21 PM Jul 4th 2014
I removed the Transformers example because I'm pretty sure that if people USED to like it, then it doesn't count.
Buscemi
topic
12:28:52 AM Jun 15th 2014
edited by 99.122.86.187
Endless Love shouldn't be here. It holds a 6.3 IMDb rating, got an A- on Cinemascore and has a 61% user rating on Rotten Tomatoes (also, it made $34 million worldwide on a $20 million budget so it wasn't a box office flop). Plus, the entry lists no sources whatsoever.
Idisagree
topic
06:53:54 PM May 24th 2014
There are a few ambiguous and/or entries that lack adequate description. They include "The Castle of Fu Manchu", I Know Who Killed Me, "American Ninja V"/American Dragons, "The Smokers", "Die Sturzflieger", and "Jaws: The Revenge. I'm not saying any of these don't qualify as much as I'm saying the entries are bad (especially Jaws: The Revenge). Someone should please make a few rewrites (I really don't feel like watching these movies).

I found it interesting to note that The Nostalgia Critic prefers the Baby Geniuses 2 (which is by all means a really bad movie) to the first one. Does the first one count or just the second one (which seems to have been removed for some reason)?
SuperKing93
11:36:33 PM May 25th 2014
The first Baby Geniuses was a success, so it doesn't count.
FromtheWordsofBR
06:22:50 AM May 26th 2014
There's also Attack Force.
Idisagree
08:11:29 PM May 27th 2014
I agree on Attack Force as well. I didn't think the first Baby Geniuses counted but was curious anyway. Someone please do rewrites soon.
FromtheWordsofBR
topic
05:38:49 PM May 22nd 2014
edited by 75.161.177.110
The entry for Attack Force is too vague. It doesn't have any critical evidence from movie critics nor consumers and also fails to mention that all of Steven Seagal's lines in the movie are overdubbed by a different voiceover for some reason.
Buscemi
topic
09:48:17 PM Apr 17th 2014
A possible new entry: Turn it Up, a 2000 attempt to make rappers Pras and Ja Rule movie stars that has a 4.3 IMDb, 8% on Rotten Tomatoes and an 18 on Metacritic. The film is an obvious attempt to ape the cult success of Belly but while that film covered up its shortcomings with an unmistakeable style that wowed its fans, this film is simply boring and has awful acting and production values to boot. Not even Jason Statham can make it watchable and the distributor essentially gave it the Invisible Advertising treatment, as it grossed only $1.2 million on a $9 million budget.
Antwan
06:19:38 AM Apr 22nd 2014
I'm guessing you got this from Todd in the Shadows, right? Well, I took a look and considering it's terrible profits, negative reviews, and that Pras's career never took off afterward, this could very well fit.
Buscemi
09:45:40 AM Apr 22nd 2014
Actually, I rented it from Netflix and experienced the boredom firsthand. Also, Nathan Rabin covered it in The AV Club once and trashed it.
Idisagree
09:42:51 AM May 18th 2014
Why not add it ...
supernintendo128
topic
11:40:03 AM Apr 5th 2014
Why aren't Seltzer and Friedberg listed under "Repeat Offenders"? All of their movies (with the exception Scary Movie) have scored below 10% on Rotten Tomatoes and usually below 5 out of 10 stars on IMDb. Before you argue how their films were successful in the box office and thus don't count, what if you take into account that those films might have done so well because of Bile Fascination?
SeptimusHeap
11:46:27 AM Apr 5th 2014
"might" is not a good argument; you'll have to demonstrate that the box office results were because of Bile Fascination.
supernintendo128
12:00:33 PM Apr 5th 2014
I checked IMDb and a little under half of the user reviews for Seltzer and Friedburg's movies were positive meaning these movies have their fans so I guess that disqualifies them.
Antwan
06:20:47 AM Apr 22nd 2014
Sadly yes, they were well-liked despite their terrible films. It's why they were cranking out so many; they were making mad profits.
supernintendo128
topic
11:59:23 PM Mar 27th 2014
I nominate This Means War. It's racist, sexist, the characters are unlikeable and annoying, the two "protagonists" spy on and stalk the main love interest which is creepy, and the awkward transitions between rom-com and action. The film as a 26% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Buscemi
01:32:51 PM Apr 5th 2014
The film did okay at the box office (grossing $156 million worldwide on a $65 million budget) and holds a 6.4 IMDb rating. It doesn't qualify.
supernintendo128
06:39:05 PM Apr 24th 2014
Yeah, I was about to come on to say that I changed my mind.
Buscemi
topic
10:13:49 PM Mar 18th 2014
edited by 99.122.86.201
I'd like to nominate Dungeons & Dragons and place Courtney Solomon in the Repeat Offenders section (he's already here for Getaway). The Rotten Tomatoes rating stands at 10%, the user rating is a 19% and the IMDb rating stands at a 3.6. As for why it's bad, I think the site can think of some good reasons (I've almost totally forgotten it).
ErichoTTA
topic
12:40:35 PM Mar 15th 2014
Interesting bit of trivia. Did anyone else notice that on The Other Wiki's list of unusual articles, "List of films considered the worst" is the longest one they have out of ANYTHING? I think it's the longest unusual article they have at least. They even have bad movies listed there which are so bad their mere existence is unusual.
HamburgerTime
topic
05:35:40 PM Mar 12th 2014
edited by 50.179.90.90
Say, I'd like to submit a film, Zoom: Academy for Superheroes. Before I go into why it qualifies, I thought I'd relate my own experiences with it. See, I checked out this movie for "bad movie might" with my friends, and we all found it so utterly awful we couldn't even make any jokes. The only other film we've ever had this reaction to was Christmas With the Kranks, which is on the page.

But, my opinion doesn't matter here, so let's get into the charges against the film. The film is a mockbuster of Disney's well-liked Sky High, and stars bad-movie magnet Tim Allen as an over-the-hill superhero, Captain Zoom, who is brought in to train the next generation of heroes for a government program, who are all kids and teenagers including frequent Disney minion Spencer Breslin and Rooney Mara's sister. Characters and concepts are largely lifted from Sky High (there's one scene that's almost identical), most of the movie is spent on exposition that doesn't make any sense, and the characters are extremely unlikeable - the kids use their powers mostly to torture the adults and make bodily function jokes, and Zoom himself is such a cynic it's near-impossible to root for him. The characters are explicitly mentioned to be on a strict deadline to head off the bad guy, but spend most of their time goofing off and/or angsting. Speaking of the bad guy, he's only in the last seven minutes or so. The CGI is subpar, and the film's major theme is violated - in a "passing the torch to the next generation" story, you'd expect the next generation to save the day. But at the end, the Big Bad destroys the kids, and Zoom himself has to take him out, rendering the entire plot of training them pointless.

The film, naturally, took a critical thrashing. It has a 2% on Rotten Tomatoes, who ranked it as the eleventh-worst film of the 2000s. The Agony Booth also roasted it. My only quibble with its inclusion is a 4.1 on IMDB, but we've let in films with higher than that before, including The Last Airbender.

What do you think?
IDIsaGree
03:21:00 PM Mar 21st 2014
Sounds really bad, so might be worth putting on.
guardianemessiah
topic
01:04:51 PM Feb 28th 2014
I think I found another contender for this list: "Switch." It is a 2013 film regarded as one of the worst Chinese movies of all time. It has a 2.0 rating on IMDB. It has numerous Plot Holes, awful casting, and terrible special effects.
sanfranman91
08:01:58 PM Feb 28th 2014
Given that it was a box office success in China, make absolutely sure it does not have a big fanbase nor that there is Critical Dissonance (I knew it was a critical failure). If you can work around those two, then go ahead.
plcthecd
topic
10:01:10 PM Feb 26th 2014
Does Ghost Dad qualify? It has a 7% in Rotten Tomatoes and 4.3/10 in IMDB or is it still to high?
Idisagree
topic
05:49:23 PM Feb 26th 2014
Since Jack and Jill is on the list. Can we put Film/Cat In The Hat (the live action movie) back on the list. I've listed reasons it counts earlier and it was only removed because for the same reasons (box office success, minimal fanbase mostly consisting of children). It has all the other criteria.
FromtheWordsofBR
topic
02:15:39 PM Feb 22nd 2014
edited by 75.168.204.236
Could Bio-Dome count? Not only is there toilet humor done wrong, obnoxiously annoying characters who are Designated Heroes, and scenes where the main characters rape the female scientists for laughs, the film was an initial box office failure, only grossing $13,427,615 in North America (against its $15,000,000 budget) and most of all, was thrashed by critics, earning a 5% Rotten Tomatoes rating and a review by The Nostalgia Critic. Oh, and it also killed off Pauly Shore's career, and since then, he's mostly done cameos, work in independent films and brief voice acting roles.

There's also My Big Fat Independent Movie, an obscure 2005 Seltzerberg-esque movie featuring lowbrow parodies of independent movies. (beat) It went over as well as you expected. Many critics and people on the internet criticized the treatment of well-liked films, as well as the fact that most mainstream audences wouldn't get the knocks at indie movies. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 23% rating, it has an IMDb rating of 3.3, and it was made at a budget of $3,000,000, yet only got $4,655.
Idisagree
05:46:00 PM Feb 26th 2014
Hell Yeah! I've seen that review and it looks like a mess (Bio-Dome, not the review itself). They both more than deserve an entry on the list. I fully support adding them.
sanfranman91
08:02:49 PM Feb 28th 2014
I concur with Idisagree. Add both of them up.
FromtheWordsofBR
02:09:15 PM Mar 2nd 2014
I'll add My Big Fat Independent Movie.
guardianemessiah
topic
02:21:22 PM Feb 21st 2014
Would you consider the latest "Hercules" movie? I'm aware it may be too soon since it's still in theatres, but from what I've heard, it has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 44%.
supernintendo128
03:27:45 PM Feb 21st 2014
I haven't seen it, but the score sounds too high to belong on this page.
sanfranman91
topic
11:38:02 AM Feb 16th 2014
edited by 71.234.179.36
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we have Bollywood films listed yet. Well, I found a Bollywood film that will change that: Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag (2007). It is the official remake of the 1975 classic Sholay that ruins the original with an excessively slow storyline, horrid acting, poor attempts of trying to attract youth audiences with Totally Radical dialogue, and terrible music. It was a disastrous Box Office Bomb in India and was torn to shreds by critics, with FHM India declaring it first in a list of the 57 worst movies ever made. Amitabh Bachchan admitted that starring in the remake was a mistake and it is listed on The Other Wiki's "List of films considered the worst" page. Moreover, it has currently has a paltry 2.1 on IMDb. Thoughts?
guardianemessiah
01:07:04 PM Feb 18th 2014
Hmm. What do you think, guys?
Idisagree
05:48:01 PM Feb 18th 2014
Well if there's no fans and a 2.1 IMDb score, then it probably counts. Add it
harryhenry
topic
07:02:07 AM Feb 2nd 2014
edited by 121.98.54.63
Used this post to test an example.
supernintendo128
topic
12:58:46 AM Jan 30th 2014
edited by 99.56.73.89
I nominate I, Frankenstein. It received 4% on rotten tomatoes and as of the time I'm typing this only grossed about 1/3 of its budget. I wouldn't consider the film a bomb yet because it's too soon to tell. I haven't seen the film myself but I knew not to because the trailers alone were enough to convince me that this movie was a stupid idea.
Buscemi
01:14:50 PM Jan 31st 2014
edited by 99.122.86.201
The IMDb rating is at a 5.4 so it probably goes under So Okay, It's Average. The Cinemascore was also an okay B.
Tehrannotaur
topic
05:08:32 PM Jan 28th 2014
edited by 75.23.234.106
Since Jack and Jill and Movie 43, both of which were successes at the box office, made it on the list, I like to request that Scary Movie V and The Devil Inside be added. Evidence in Favor of those being added:

  • Scary Movie V has a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 11/100 on Metacritic, and an overall score of 28.1428571/100 (27.1666667/100 sans the IMDb rating), both under the SBIH threshold. The film also has 3 Razzies nominations for Worst Screen Couple, Worst Supporting Actress and Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel.
  • The Devil Inside has a 6% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 18/100 on Metacritic, and an overall score of 26/100 (23.5/100 sans the IMDb rating), both under the SBIH threshold. Also to mention is that it was never screened for Critics, which could explain why it did ridiculously well at the box office, as if it was screened for critics, it would bomb horribly in spite of its $1 million dollar budget. The film also had a trailer that was attached to Paranormal Activity 3 and used as a viral marketing campaign, which resulted in millions of viewers going to the theaters to see the film, resulting in one of the highest January openings ever, but on the third weekend, attendance dropped by 76.2% because the audience realized how bad the film is. The film also got a HUGE negative public reaction, such as on AV Club and that on a Yahoo! Movies poll, fans gave the film an F.
sanfranman91
12:01:38 PM Jan 29th 2014
edited by 71.234.179.36
Both movies received negative critical and public reaction despite making money (which is moot since both movies had really low budgets). If you can explain the movies' shortcomings in descriptive, yet concise entries, then I'm game.

EDIT: When writing the entries, note that Scary Movie 5 was the lowest earning entry of the bunch (earning only $78 million in comparison to earlier entries).
Tehrannotaur
09:45:23 PM Jan 31st 2014
edited by 75.23.234.106
Here's my entry for The Devil Inside. I'm currently working on Scary Movie 5.

  • There's a reason why The Devil Inside is among the one of the most notorious films of 2012. Its box-office success couldn't save this film from exceedingly slow pacing, characters that nobody can relate to discussing eye-rolling semantics repeatedly, piss-poor editing and handling of both the found-footage gimmick and the exorcism-themed plot, lack of creativity or originality, rampant Critical Research Failure that contradict virtually every claim made related to Catholicism, numerous directions (such as a Vatican conspiracy, Ben's Dark and Troubled Past, and whether Maria’s second exorcism was successfully or not) that never get explored fully at all, and a frenzied last ten minutes that occurs out of the blue and suddenly ends the film dead in its tracks. It was panned by almost every reviewer, with a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with the site's consensus stating: "The Devil Inside is a cheap, choppy unscary mess, featuring one of the worst endings in recent memory.", a Metacritic score of 18, and Peter Howell of the Toronto Star writing that the film is a candidate for the worst film of 2012. It was also slammed by the public, such as on an A.V. Club article where the audiences booed the ending and on a Slate article where the audience even suggested that the film has the worst ending in movie history, and receiving an F on a Yahoo! Movies poll. The film, despite of its strong January opening, disappeared from the Box Office top ten by the third week. Part of why the film was successful initially and just dropped in attendance dramatically was that it was not screened for critics, meaning that if the film was screened for critics, it would bomb horribly. You can watch Film Brain tear it down here.
sanfranman91
12:02:42 AM Feb 2nd 2014
Sounds good, add it in.
Tehrannotaur
04:21:09 PM Feb 2nd 2014
I already did beforehand.
harryhenry
03:52:00 PM Feb 9th 2014
The Devil Inside's entry has been removed by Swim To The Moon for having "a fanbase of its own" and "was a box office success".
Tehrannotaur
08:32:01 PM Feb 11th 2014
edited by 75.23.234.106
Yet Jack and Jill and Movie 43, which are also a box office successes, is still on the list, so I suggest that it be re-added. Also that whatever fanbase it has mostly sees it for Bile Fascination, and that it has a FAR larger hatedom than a fandom.
FromtheWordsofBR
02:37:18 PM Mar 2nd 2014
I agree. It needs to be re-added, but perhaps tweaked a bit to mention the film ends with a link to a defunct website.
RobbieRotten
07:08:38 PM Mar 5th 2014
I saw no to SM 5. Having seen it myself.=, it is bad not SBIH bad. With the likes of Disaster Movie on here, we should save it for a really bad "spoof" film.
Tehrannotaur
04:22:37 AM Aug 1st 2014
edited by 75.23.234.106
@ Fromthe Wordsof BR: I have The Devil Inside re-edited with the defunct website link, so can I add it.

sanfranman91
topic
01:12:42 PM Jan 14th 2014
edited by 148.85.235.219
Getaway is finally on the list.

Now to the task at hand: I want to hear from the rest of the tropers on the discussion page first before we can finally put an end to the Edit War surrounding Jack and Jill and Movie 43 once and for all. I have created drafts for their respective potential entries:

Personally, I think Jack and Jill barely has enough to avoid being listed due to its box office success and praise for Al Pacino's acting, whereas Movie 43 would qualify as SBIH. warner17 has also shared his thoughts on the eligibility of these two movies. But I want to hear from the rest of you. Yea or Nay?
warner14
09:41:03 PM Jan 15th 2014
edited by 101.174.136.219
From what I've seen of Jack and Jill, it looked like Al Pacino was phoning it in. Also, terrible films have been known to be hated but made some money, like Last Airbender which deserves it's spot here. So it comes off as a lazy excuse and I say Yea. Also, Jack and Jill is just one feature-length commercial, which feels cheap and the film comes off as obnoxious.

Movie 43: I'd say yea.
sanfranman91
10:45:32 AM Jan 28th 2014
Sorry for the belated response. I've been giving the eligibility of Jack and Jill some thought and I am now in favor of adding it in. The presence of The Last Airbender, which had similar qualities that would normally disqualify films as SBIH, convinced me that an exception could also be made for Jack and Jill. I will finalize and add the draft above to the main page.

By the way, I really hope this is the last time we ever have to discuss the film's eligibility. It's on the list of films considered to be the worst on The Other Wiki (click here) and I don't think there is any more point in arguing for or against the film being on the SBIH page. I will put an anti-Edit War warning on the comment for the edit like I did when I placed Movie 43 in the SBIH page.
sanfranman91
topic
12:40:01 PM Jan 12th 2014
edited by 148.85.235.219
While writing a draft of the Getaway entry, I heard that The Legend of Hercules got released to scathing reviews. It has a 2% on RT, a 3.9 on IMDb, and a 24 on Metacritic. The RT consensus says: "Cheap-looking, poorly acted, and dull, The Legend of Hercules is neither fun enough to qualify as an action movie nor absorbing enough to work on a dramatic level." It is also on track to becoming a Box Office Bomb. Out of a $70 million budget, it made $8.6 million. Thoughts?

EDIT: I found another film that could qualify while I was listening to Mark Kermode's reviews. The film in question is Pimp, a 2009 mockumentary of Soho pimp who gets caught up in involvement with Chinese triads and snuff webcasters. It got a 0% on RT and a 2.8 on IMDb due to poor acting, incompetent direction, and a story that goes absolutely nowhere. Not to mention that Pimp was a notorious Box Office Bomb in the UK; it got pulled after only one screening on its opening day which grossed ₤205. Listen to the Kermode review here if you're interested.
sanfranman91
06:50:05 PM Jan 12th 2014
edited by 148.85.235.219
One more potential UK stinker (coincidentally starring Danny Dyer and torn a new one by Mark Kermode): 2013's Run For Your Wife. Although it's based on Ray Cooney's hit play in West End, the screen adaptation ends up as yet another British sex comedy that fails miserably. This is thanks to horrible acting, a confused plot, retrograde and misogynistic attitudes toward women, excessive and pointless cameos from celebrities such as Judi Dench and Ray Winstone, and a lack of timing for lazy, uninspired jokes. Critics have compared the film unfavorably to Sex Lives of the Potato Men and earned a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 2.5 on IMDb. Run For Your Wife was also a Box Office Bomb in the UK, as it earned only ₤747 at the box office. Here's Mark Kermode's review.
Idisagree
09:35:14 PM Jan 12th 2014
While we'll have to wait on "The Legend of Hercules" (it practically just came out). The other two seem perfect for this page.
sanfranman91
02:11:27 AM Jan 13th 2014
edited by 148.85.235.219
Added the latter two to the film page. I found yet another film starring Danny Dyer that might qualify as this: 2010's The Last Seven. The film tells the story of a cataclysmic event that leaves only 7 remaining people on earth and their desperate struggle to understand the events as they are hunted one by one by a demonic power. Many have criticized Last Seven for horrible acting, piss-poor writing, audio and visual editing issues, weak special effects and a terrible Shocking Swerve in the ending. The film received a 0% on RT (Dyer's been in three movies with that score; impressive in a way...), a 9% Audience Score, and a 3.9 on IMDb. No Kermode review this time, though The Guardian is not particularly kind to this disaster...
Idisagree
05:47:03 PM Feb 18th 2014
Danny Dyer seems like quite the repeat offender. Might as well put him and his free flops there.
sanfranman91
topic
11:12:58 AM Jan 7th 2014
edited by 71.234.176.233
Thanks for revising Strange Wilderness. While I knew it qualified, I had a hard time coming up with a concise way of illustrating the film's flaws. I'm sorry that I didn't get around to editing the movies I promised last month. With work and all, I didn't have much free time to write the entries. I'll see what I can do with Son of the Mask, Ricky 1 and Lawnmower Man 2. I am also going to add up Getaway if no one objects.
RobbieRotten
11:32:35 AM Jan 7th 2014
Having watched Getaway myself, I'd say it earns a spot here.
sanfranman91
12:44:27 AM Jan 11th 2014
edited by 148.85.235.8
Lawnmower Man 2, Ricky 1, and Basic Instinct 2 are (finally) cleaned up. Son of the Mask looks fine now, but I'll give it one more look. I am also coming up with drafts for the long-awaited Getaway entry, so I'll have it up sooner rather than later.

Edit: By the way, do you think 47 Ronin should go in? It's a Box Office Bomb and it "earned" a 10% on RT. Reasons for poor reviews include: piss-poor directing, bizarre and haphazard editing, trite dialogue, weak integration of special effects, outright betrayal of source material, and egregious Executive Meddling (to the point that Universal pulled the director and had their co-chairwoman finish the movie).
Buscemi
03:25:10 AM Jan 11th 2014
edited by 99.122.86.201
47 Ronin has a 6.7 on IMDb and got a B+ on Cinemascore (the latter is probably not a great indicator but a B+ typically means average to good) so no, it should not go in.
sanfranman91
08:52:19 AM Jan 11th 2014
Okay. I'm not going to risk an Edit War, so that sounds fine to me. Any final consensus regarding Jack and Jill or Movie 43 so we can end all of the nonsense surrounding these two films on this page?
warner14
06:41:15 AM Jan 14th 2014
edited by 101.174.136.219
IMDB has a 3.5/10, Rotten Tomatoes has a 3% rating and Meta Critic has 23/100 for Jack and Jill. Movie 43 has a 4.4/10 on IMDB and a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes. It sounds like they should qualify given the evidence.
Tehrannotaur
06:11:08 PM Jan 21st 2014
your welcome.
Buscemi
topic
08:44:22 AM Dec 17th 2013
I'm not sure if Mutant Chronicles should be on here. Though Rotten Tomatoes ratings in both departments are very low, the IMDb rating is an okay 5.2. Also, there aren't many sources outside of Rotten Tomatoes so it's more So Okay, It's Average than anything.
xtro
12:40:10 PM Dec 28th 2013
Another suggestion is Agent Red with Dolph Lundgren. With a 2.9 rating on IMDB, it was reedited and reshot after Andrew Stevens (producer of classics like Shadow man and Half Past dead 2) called it unreleasable. Mixing in footage of Fred Olen Ray's Counter Measures and other stock footage, it is dubed on IMDB'S trivia page as 'probably the most unwatchable film ever to be pumped out of Phoenician Entertainment / Franchise Pictures' some statement when they made Battlefield earth and Balisitc Ecks Vs Sever!
xtro
12:40:50 PM Dec 28th 2013
The quote in full:It was an example of probably the most unwatchable film ever to be pumped out of Phoenician Entertainment / Franchise Pictures. The company went through three editors and two directors trying to fix the film without any re-shoots. Until finally the powers that be were convinced that re-shoots had to be done. About 40 minutes of the original 100 minutes from writer director Damian Lee's assembly was dumped and then replaced with 40 new minutes of new connective exposition and action sequences written by Steve Latshaw and directed by Jim Wynorski to make the film seem cohesive, as well as stock footage from Phoenician titles and some bigger theatrical movies.-IMDB.
sanfranman91
topic
02:41:15 PM Dec 8th 2013
edited by 64.134.41.136
I don't want to get engaged in a potential beef over Jack and Jill being on the film page, so I will abstain from any further conversation or argument regarding its qualifications.

As for the edits, I cleaned up the entries for The Smokers and One Missed Call. I also made minor edits in Roger Christian's entries and in Son of the Mask. I apologize that I still haven't gotten into Lawnmower Man 2 yet, I've been busy with work this month. Nonetheless, a clean-up is coming soon. A new entry for Strange Wilderness as well as clean-ups for Ricky 1 and Basic Instinct 2 are all on deck as well.

Finally, Getaway. While the film page does have a CMOA page, the evidence against the film is overwhelming. If someone can write up an entry for the film, then by all means fire away.
ScarletNebula
11:24:23 PM Dec 10th 2013
Yeah i saw Getaway. That film is the worst in the editing department honestly. Even with the oner near the end it still gave me a headache.
RobbieRotten
05:50:39 AM Dec 12th 2013
I say we wait til it comes out on DVD/Blu ray, to give it time to "sit" say to speak.
ScarletNebula
08:59:01 PM Dec 25th 2013
Getaway is out on DVD. Been so since November.
Buscemi
topic
09:41:12 PM Dec 6th 2013
Can we please ignore I Disagree and his one-man crusade on trying leave Jack and Jill off this list? We get it, you liked the film but doesn't mean you should force others to meet your opinion.
Idisagree
11:48:43 AM Dec 7th 2013
I wouldn't be supporting a movie if I didn't feel it was decent/watchable (in the eyes of me and people I know). Also it's been revealed that Jack and Jill didn't bomb the box office, had a redeeming feature, and has a a small following (which I'm part of). That's enough to put it off the list.

Also Hatedom doesn't equal So Bad, It's Horrible. By the way, I visit this section frequently and agree with many of the movie on this list.
Idisagree
11:55:31 AM Dec 7th 2013
edited by 76.22.171.186
Sorry about double posting.
Buscemi
01:29:02 AM Dec 8th 2013
I'm sorry, but $70 million at the box office does not equal a cult classic. Also if you are using box office as a reason why something shouldn't be here, then how do you explain the inclusion of The Last Airbender (a much more successful film)?

I suggest it stays on the list (as many things, such as awful reviews and the Razzie sweep would suggest otherwise).
warner14
05:44:58 PM Dec 13th 2013
edited by 120.146.68.212
There have been films that at the time bombed at the box office but were also critically acclaimed like The Secret of NIMH (which no one SANE would put it here). Just because it bombed, doesn't automatically make it horrible. It needs to have critical evidence as to why it's so awful. Also, Jack and Jill won a record of Razzies when it came out and the people that did go see it hated it.

In a review by Mark Kermode (I can't remember which but I remember him saying this), he said that just because people went to see it, doesn't mean they liked it and there is evidence proving how critically loathed the movie is. The Last Airbender may have made more money than it's budget, but you can EASILY find evidence of critical savagery with a quick Google search. No one likes the movie and the reviews on Youtube of it get the evidence down perfectly. I say leave it in but in the repeat offenders part with Happy Madison Productions.
Antwan
10:42:30 PM Dec 15th 2013
At this point, I think we'll leave Jack and Jill off for now since there seems to be evidence for and against the film, but let's not have any edit wars on this film again until then. And Idisagree, although you make good points, please don't get too aggressive about keeping this film off when a consensus is reached.
warner14
topic
03:27:07 AM Dec 6th 2013
edited by 120.146.68.212
I nominate Fred: The Movie.

The film has an obnoxious and unlikeable protagonist who brings his "comedy" to the spotlight by screaming and generally acting like a pain. The acting is atrocious, the effects are lazy, the story feels padded just so Fred can do his usual unfunny schtick, and worst of all, it's not funny. The film has been trashed by critics, "earning" a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and it currently has a 2.1/10 on IMDB as of 2013. Even when it was given an exclusive UK theatrical release, none of the critics or even fans liked it either as it also bombed at the UK box office, earning only $1.3 million on a $4 million budget. For critical examples, Mark Kermode made a review of the film calling it "one of his least favorite viewing experiences of 2010" and it also made his list of the worst films of 2010. Another British person agrees.
Idisagree
11:58:28 AM Dec 7th 2013
Sounds like a good qualifier but should it go in The live action section or here. Other than that, it's a perfect candidate.
warner14
03:52:25 AM Dec 8th 2013
Thanks. I'll add it in.
supernintendo128
09:37:30 PM Jan 1st 2014
I went ahead and added the sequel, Fred 2, to the list.
warner14
06:36:51 PM Jan 8th 2014
Someone seems to have removed the entry when there's evidence proving the film's horrible.
plcthecd
topic
08:09:17 PM Dec 1st 2013
I like to nominate Son of the Mask, with a 6% rating in Rotten Tomatoes and 2.1 rating in IMDB. Does that qualify as SBIH?
Larkmarn
06:09:24 AM Dec 2nd 2013
Yeah, probably. It also flopped and failed to make back its budget.
Idisagree
04:37:35 PM Dec 3rd 2013
I've actually seen this one and like Jack and Jill, enjoyed it. It's more So Bad, It's Good than anything.
Tehrannotaur
06:21:38 PM Dec 3rd 2013
edited by 75.23.234.106
Sorry, but unlike Jack and Jill, it never was successful, is widely hated by fans of The Mask, and has a 20/100 on Metacritic. It also has an overall score (combining the Rotten Tomatoes all critics and audience scores (both definite and average), Metacritic critic and audience scores, and IMDB scores) of 28.7142857/100 (30/100 sans the IMDb rating), lying in the SBIH threshold (has to have an overall score of less than or equal to 33%). It also has the most nominations of the 2006 Razzies (Worst Picture, Worst Actor, 2 Worst Supporting Actor nominations, Worst Screen Couple, Worst Director and Worst Screenplay) and even an award from them for Worst Remake of Sequel.
Idisagree
09:43:50 PM Dec 11th 2013
While you make good points, the entry is pure Natter (more biased, "I hate it because", than general opinion). It should mention stuff I'd agree with like the terrible effects, Uncanny Valley title character, or failed attempts at slapstick. Instead it mentions Childish writing (it's more unsure about itself) and Stock Footage (I don't remember any of that in either the Nostalgia Critic review or the movie itself). Most its "fans" see it as Snark Bait and enjoy it (if at all)in an ironic sense (I'm that way). It's a stinker but deserves a better entry.
Tehrannotaur
topic
04:38:34 PM Nov 28th 2013
edited by 75.23.234.106
I am requesting 5 movies to be added to the list: Red Dawn (2012), Delta Farce, Strange Wilderness and A Thousand Words

Evidence:
  • Red Dawn 2012: Has a 12% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it flopped in the box office ($48,169,726 was grossed in the box office out of the $65 million budget).
  • Delta Farce: Has a 5% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a 17/100 rating on Metacritic, and it flopped in the box office
  • Strange Wilderness: Has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, came #2 on the worst movie of 2008 based on Rotten Tomatoes ratings and came #7 on their Worst of the Worst 2009 (which covers the 100 worst movies reviewed from 2000-2009), has a 12/100 rating on Metacritic, and it flopped big time in the box office($6,964,734 was grossed in the box office out of the $20 million budget).
  • A Thousand Words: Has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, even being called as the Worst film of 2012, and it flopped in the box office ($20,558,836 was grossed in the box office out of the $40 million budget)

I am also requesting that Battlefield Earth be re-added

Evidence in favor of the argument
  • A HUGE box office bomb, grossing only $23,725,663 out of the $73 million dollar budget.
  • A sequel was intended to cover the later half of the novel, only for it to be canned due to the horrid reception and box office performance.
  • It served as a Creator Killer for Franchise Pictures, which closed in 2005 after a string of bad films following Battlefield Earth.
    • In addition to that, it ALMOST served as one for John Travolta.
  • Has a 2% Rotten Tomatoes rating from citics and an 11% from the audience.
  • Has a 9/100 rating on Metacritic.
  • Won almost every Golden Raspberry Award during its 21st convention in 2001 (the only award it didn't win was Worst Actress, which went over to Madonna for her performance as Abbi Reynolds in The Next Best Thing).
  • It won the title of Worst Picture of the Decade on the Razzies' 30th convention in 2010.
  • It held the record for the most amount of Razzie awards won for more than a decade (11 years to be exact), being surpassed by the Adam Sandler film Jack and Jill (which won all of the Razzie awards)
  • Has been ranked #27 on Rotten Tomatoes's Worst of the Worst 2009 (which covers the 100 worst movies reviewed from 2000-2009).
  • Has a 2.4/10 on IMDb

11 pieces of evidence that could more than easily send the film back on the list. I'm sorry but the number of people who watch the film for Bile Fascination outweighs the (apparent) fanbase that treats it as So Bad, It's Good
sanfranman91
12:24:25 PM Nov 30th 2013
edited by 71.234.176.233
I fully agree with the addition of Strange Wilderness and the reinstatement of Delta Farce. Both films have nothing to redeem themselves, critically or commercially, so feel free to add it in if you like.

I also wish A Thousand Words was on this page, but it has a fairly high IMDb rating (5.7 to be exact). I know there are some IMDb dictators on this forum, so it's best to avoid an Edit War and a possible permanent page lockup of the SBIH pages by not adding A Thousand Words. Red Dawn (2012) was also a highly insulting film to me, but it has a CMOA page and a 5.3 IMDb rating. Thus, against my personal rage against the film, I say the reboot is a No as well.

Finally, Battlefield Earth. I fully concur with your opinion. I waited for more than a week now and no one has come to the film's support, so I'm now convinced that the few people who seek this film out see it more as Snark Bait rather than a film that's So Bad, It's Good. I will reinstate it and also make the long-awaited cleanups of Lawnmower Man 2 and One Missed Call.
Tehrannotaur
04:47:32 PM Nov 30th 2013
edited by 75.23.234.106
Those ratings on IMDb are based on fan reaction. It's better to use Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes ratings (as well awards for the worst in film, such as the Razzies) since IMDb's ratings are based off fan reaction instead of critic ratings (which are far more reliable compared to former) and on average are higher compared to those two. Maybe Red Dawn 2012 could go under So Bad, It's Good instead (if not under the Film section). Generally, ratings to make the film qualify on the Film page are based off an overall rating of <=33% (or one-third). For Red Dawn (2012), I added all of the ratings of (Rotten Tomatoes's ratings all critics and audience and their averages, Metacritic critic and user reviews, and IMDb ratings) and it totaled to 42.7142857/100 (41/100 sans the IMDb rating). For A Thousand Words, I did the same thing and it totaled to 39/100 (36/100 sans the IMDb rating). For Battlefield Earth, the score is 17.7142857/100 (14.2857143/100 sans the IMDb rating), so it definitely needs to be re-added. I am also requesting that Movie 43 be added since it got a score of 27.2857143/100 (24.5/100 sans the IMDb rating), within the SBIH score threshold. I also would like to request that 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag be added, since it has a 15/100 on Metacritic and an 11% on Rotten Tomatoes, it flopped in the box office and a total score of 36.1428571/100 (32.6666667/100 sans the IMDb rating). Also in need of mention is Scary Movie V since it has a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 11/100 on Metacritic, and an overall score of 28.1428571/100 ( 27.1666667/100 sans the IMDb rating), both under the SBIH threshold.
IDisagree
topic
09:42:02 PM Nov 13th 2013
I've got a few more pet peeves about this list. Two films probably count but have awful entries that don't describe the quality of the movie. First is Daddy Day Camp which just says something about it's use of Vulgar Humor and being disliked by Mike Nelson but ends there. Worse yet Leornard Part 6 only talks about Creaor Backlash and nothing else.

Also it says on the Taking The Bad Film Seriously page that Al Capino was considered to be good in Jack and Jill, which is considered an otherwise bad movie. That mixed with me and my friends liking it, might be enough to put it off this page. Sorry to bring this up again. I noticed it's mentioned above that some Adam Sandler fans like his movie, Going Overboard. Considering the amount of fans he has (including myself) that could be a big number.

About Highlander 2, should we the Renegade Cut being So Bad, It's Good or just remove it.
sanfranman91
03:04:23 PM Nov 14th 2013
IMO, Leonard Part 6 should be removed for not being specific enough about the movie itself. If there is proof of any shortcomings within the film and notes from other critics about the film, then it could stay (albeit with some edits). Also, as horrible as Daddy Day Camp is, the film's entry should be revised to incorporate further notes about its B.O. performance, other short-comings in production, and reviews.

IMO, Jack and Jill sucks but you're right in the reasons why it should not be on this page. It did very well in theaters and there's a small, but notable group of fans that enjoy the movie. A SBIH movie is one that should have zero redeeming factors whatsoever. Al Pacino's performance and the B.O. should be enough to push this stinker off this list. Not sure about Going Overboard though, its far more obscure and the Adam Sandler fans I know who have seen it said it was rough at best. So I don't think Going Overboard should be removed.

Finally, Highlander 2. It should be edited similar to the Titanic: The Legend Goes On entry in the Western Animation section to make it clear that the original theatrical cut, NOT the Renegade cut, is the one that's terrible. If you ask me, keep Highlander 2 but make it crystal clear that its the original theatrical release that is terrible. Also, feel free to note the Renegade Cut as a So Bad, It's Good redo.
Idisagree
07:00:14 PM Nov 15th 2013
Thanks for answering and I agree with you. That Rock Climbing movie looks boring but not terrible. Not sure about that one either.
sanfranman91
11:23:41 PM Nov 18th 2013
edited by 148.85.235.147
Oh boy, that entry for Lost Continent is a poorly-written doozy. From what I've found out, people complain about poor pacing, clueless direction, and Special Effects Failure. With a 2.8 on IMDb, it qualifies but I'll see what I can do to tidy it up. Cheers for the heads up!
Idisagree
05:07:02 PM Nov 19th 2013
Last but not least, Film/The Lawnmower Man 2 doesn't really describe the quality of the movie and is too vague. It could be So Bad, It's Good for all we know. The entry for One Missed Call (the American version) is also a little shoddy at best.

Also anyone notice that Battlefield Earth is missing but Roger Christian still has his own section. Why was it removed again?
sanfranman91
11:14:22 PM Nov 19th 2013
edited by 148.85.235.147
Good eye; Lawnmower Man 2 should qualify, but I will need to read its reviews in order to properly clean it up. Also, One Missed Call US should be cleaned up in terms of sentence structure and formatting, but is otherwise fully qualified as this.

Regarding Battlefield Earth, ading said that the film has a fairly large fanbase who see it as a So Bad Its Good film. I'm not sure if that is true; I haven't heard of any cult screenings a la The Room or Birdemic, so jury's out. I say restore the film if you don't find any proof regarding the fans for Battlefield Earth that don't just view it as Snark Bait in a week or two.
xtro
05:24:29 AM Nov 27th 2013
An unrelated post but a suggestion is the Jack Palance film 'Portrait of a hitman'. Shot in 1978, but not released untill 1984 and co staring richard rowntree it is dull, full of recycled clips and is in the public domain. Leonard Maltin gave it 'Bomb' stating it was of an unfished quality. Imdb gives it 4.3 (only 124 votes mind),with comments stating awful and dull. Shitcase cinema on Youtube reviewed it stating about the poor pacing and padded duration and the review recieved comments stating how dull the clips were and how poor the film looked. Worth condiering?
Idisagree
07:27:48 PM Nov 30th 2013
A few more badly written entries that aren't descriptive enough include; "The Castle of Fu Manchu", I Know Who Killed Me, "American Ninja V"/American Dragons, Basic Instinct 2, "The Smokers", "Die Sturzflieger", and "Ricky 1". I'm not saying any of these don't qualify a much as I'm saying the entries are bad. Someone make a few rewrites.

Also Jaws: The Revenge definitely counts but could someone go into more details and condense the entry a little? Just trying to get this page less objective, more descriptive, and less Natter.
Antwan
10:37:50 PM Dec 15th 2013
I know this is late, but if you feel that these entries aren't described well enough, then maybe you could contribute to them for us as well? I mean, you are free to edit the wiki too, right?
Buscemi
topic
12:51:14 PM Nov 3rd 2013
edited by 99.122.86.201
Would anyone question the inclusion of Getaway on this list? The Rotten Tomatoes rating was 3%, the user rating on the same site was 41% and the IMDb rating is a 4.1 after over 2,000 votes. Also, the film was a complete disaster at the box office (grossing just $10.5 million on an $18 million budget).
sanfranman91
11:43:25 PM Nov 18th 2013
I'm not, although I did see a CMOA on its TV Tropes page. As much as I want to add it as well, I'm gonna wait a week to see what others have to say about the film's eligibility.
Warner14
topic
01:55:07 AM Nov 3rd 2013
edited by 121.218.13.144
Can we please add Project X to the list?

It got 28% on Rotten Tomatoes (I would disregard IMDb if I were you since it shouldn't determine how a film should be on the list or not). It's a found footage/party movie that's mean-spirited, poorly shot (also looking very ugly), poorly written and uses elements from better movies like Superbad (scratch that, it flat out rips off it!), except even worse. It also promotes drug abuse, animal abuse is Played for Laughs and has unlikable characters that make very stupid decisions. The film was panned by critics and pretty much killed the career of it's director not long after the film was released. The Film Brain ripped the film apart on Bad Movie Beatdown here
Buscemi
12:49:15 PM Nov 3rd 2013
edited by 99.122.86.201
Project X has its share of fans (and made a decent profit at the box office). Also, the IMDb user is at 6.5 after 109,000 votes so it does not qualify.
Warner14
09:21:05 PM Nov 3rd 2013
Well could we put it in So Bad It's Good instead then?
supernintendo128
topic
11:23:10 PM Oct 12th 2013
Who wants to add Scary Movie 5 to the page?

I haven't seen it but I heard bad things about it, it scored a whopping 4% on Rotten Tomatoes

I'm not going to see it anytime soon so I'll let someone else write it.
Tehrannotaur
08:20:51 PM Oct 16th 2013
It also got an 11% on metacritic. I also would like to see the other Twilight spoof, Taintlight added.
thebobmaster1
11:53:43 PM Oct 16th 2013
No word on Taintlight, but Scary Movie 5 has a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes on the user reviews. Not very good, but seems a bit high for SBIH.
Tehrannotaur
09:03:29 PM Oct 17th 2013
Sorry, but the real score on Rotten Tomatoes applies to the Tomatometer, which are aggregated from legitimate film critics, so it may as well be put on the list.
SuperKing93
topic
02:45:16 AM Sep 19th 2013
The Horrible page for Web Original is locked, so can I put The Helen Keller POV Movie here? It's about as entertaining as Nigel Tomm's "films". Actually, it might be even worse than them, as the credits are filled with really awful Punny Names. And yes, I know it is an April Fools joke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imTZOSWyJmk
sanfranman91
11:58:36 AM Sep 19th 2013
Thing is, most of the comments seem to indicate that they enjoyed the April Fools joke. I know sarcasm is abound in the internet (especially in youtube), but for it to qualify this movie needs to be universally hated even as an April Fools joke for this to qualify. Sorry, but it's a No.
sanfranman91
topic
01:18:21 PM Aug 30th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
I have finished cleaning up Surf School. Rather than a shoddy comparison to College, it's now a legitimate entry that explains why the movie deserved to be on this page (reading every review on the web helped as well). And judging from the reviews I have read, practically everyone agrees that Surf School would qualify to be SBIH.

Speaking of reading reviews, I am now convinced that The Dork of the Rings is a case of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like rather than something that is SBIH. I've been reading reviews throughout IMDb and the internet regarding their opinions on the movie. Turns out many reviewers like it (if not love it), given the impressive CGI and costume designs, Growing the Beard with its jokes, and overall creative use of their $28,500 budget.

sanfranman91
01:41:30 PM Aug 30th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.44
That said and done, Stranded could qualify. It has a 0% on RT, a 3.4 on IMDb, and a 27 on Metacritic. Starring Christian Slater and directed by Roger Christian (yes, THAT Roger Christian), this movie is filled with lifeless, undeveloped characters, poor dialogue, and cheap No Budget sets and visuals (case in point: Slater uses a book-light for a device). It also has terrible pacing and, above all, shamelessly rips off Alien from its basic plot to every last twist found in Ridley Scott's classic.
Idisagree
06:29:23 PM Oct 5th 2013
Stranded sounds like crap, try adding it.
Idisagree
09:10:09 PM Nov 16th 2013
Who removed Battlefield Earth? That movie's got negative reviews up the wazoo, a lack of fans, probably a Box Office Bomb, and is boring to boot. Why'd someone remove it?
sanfranman91
topic
08:26:21 PM Aug 24th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
A few days ago, In The Gallbladder deleted Surf School from the page. While I agree that the entry was poorly written, I'm not sure if I agree with his reasoning to remove the film from this page, that is "SBIH films are too bad to be forgotten." For one, I'm not sure if most people remember movies such as The Dork of the Rings or Christmas In Wonderland, let alone heard about the existence of those movies in the first place if it weren't for Caustic Critics. Moreover, the user ratings on IMDb and RT (there were no professional reviews on RT) for Surf School are abysmal. Surf School's 2.0 on IMDb is much, MUCH lower than many of the entries in this page.

Long story short, Surf School should not be removed. Its entry should, however, undergo an overhaul. If anyone is up to completely rewrite the entry, go right ahead. If nothing happens, I'll give a crack at showing the faults of the movie and giving reasons other than unfavorable comparisons to College why the movie qualifies.

P.S. I'm considering about rewriting the entry for The Dork of the Rings. As it stands right now, it sounds more like a case of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like rather than a legitimate entry for this page.
sanfranman91
12:12:29 PM Aug 30th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
Okay, since no one is responding, I'm going to clean up the entries for Surf School and The Dork of the Rings sometime this week. In addition to those two tasks, I'm going to finally add Plutonium Baby and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore.

I've given the former some thought since my previous nomination needed more elaboration. The movie, for one, is a prime example of how not to direct a film (as seen through the film's sharp jumps in settings and nonsensical grip of the plot). Speaking of plot, the story is excessively slow and filled with painful dialogue, weak special effects and pathetic acting. The kicker? The title character doesn't appear until the last few seconds of the movie! As if that doesn't condemn this movie to be this, fans of over-the-top horror/nasty movies like films from Troma Productions view this film unfavorably due to the lack of gore and the wasted potential of the title monster. The Cinema Snob has given a scathing review aside, the few professional reviews I did find gave it 2/10 stars at most. And, for In The Gall Bladder's curiosity, it "boasts" a 2.4 IMDb rating.

See the previous posts from a few months back, but Cats and Dogs 2 is, in short, a painful example of Sequelitis that holds a 14% Rotten Tomatoes rating and a 3.9 IMDb rating.

P.S. Keep a lookout for Ethan Hawke's and Selena Gomez's Getaway. As of August 30, 2013, it has a 2% on RT, a 21 on Metacritic, and a 4.1 on IMDb. Its recent release is the only reason I am not adding it, as the Box Office numbers have yet to come out. It is, however, projected to bomb hard against competing movies like the One Direction movie, We're the Millers, The Butler, and Elysium, so it's a likely possibility.
Idisagree
06:36:47 PM Oct 5th 2013
Plutonium Baby sounds as bad as that Stranded movie above. Put that bad boy in.
Savaget1337
topic
01:23:10 AM Aug 2nd 2013
edited by 69.172.221.6
Can we add Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines and its director, Declan O'Brien?

For a series that was good from the beginning and had sequel that is considered even better than the first, but then had a nonstop downward spiral when Declan O'Brien took over and produced three terrible sequels, but Bloodlines single-handedly killed the franchise with its bad acting, bad plot, bad special effects (the "mutants" look like they are wearing masks and even wear fake teeth, which they can be seen falling out occasionally and Three Fingers suddenly now has five fingers). The so called "college kids" look like they're over 30 and turn retarded in the last 45 minutes, as they leave a police station knowing their friends' killers are out waiting for them entirely unarmed just to go see if they're alive somewhere. The Big Bad is caught in the beginning and put in jail where he says that his boys coming to save him for over an hour and is just as stupid as the main characters. When freed from his cell by a girl (promising to not hurt her), instead of instantly running away, he stays cuts out her eyes and laughs madly at her screams of pain which alerts the sheriff and gets beat within an inch of his life and thrown back in his cell. The mutants are also annoying as hell as hop around like little kids and laugh like hyenas, especially when they kill someone, making it look like the audience is supposed to laugh at their horrible agony and demise. The deaths were supposed to be "funny", but they take it just cruel levels, even by Wrong Turn standards. Instead of getting an axe to the head like usual, one is run over by a combine harvester, one has his legs run over then his head squashed, and another is burned alive, and the sheriff gets her head blown off with a shotgun.
Savaget1337
02:10:01 AM Aug 2nd 2013
edited by 69.172.221.8
My apologies for no trope links. I'd do it if I knew how.
xtro
06:19:42 AM Aug 24th 2013
Can someone add links to Shitcase Cinema for some of the films. He's on Youtube and did ROTOR and Pocket Ninja's. I think you can add Cyborg Cop 2. Wooden acting and misogyny about.
mortimermcmire
topic
06:19:28 AM Aug 1st 2013
And WHY were Larry the Cable Guy's movies removed from the Repeat Offenders section of the page?!
InTheGallbladder
09:43:19 PM Sep 7th 2013
edited by 70.143.75.58
The first one made back its budget multiple times over (the exact opposite of what a film has to do to qualify), and the second film is even less oft-maligned than the first one was, making it less horrible than a film that wasn't even horrible in the first place. However, A very good argument was made in defense of the third one's indefensibility, so I put it on the list alphabetically.
ndrly
topic
09:01:37 PM Jul 1st 2013
Should we include the film Bio-Dome? Very little of the comedy is actually funny, its morality is messed-up (Pauly Shore and Stephen Baldwin are the designated heroes, yet commit rape, adultery, and destroy any attempts at scientific insight, and the villain's motivations are actually legitimate), and large chunks of the film are mostly filler. I know it has 4.0 on IMDB, however, it bombed in the U.S. ($13,427,615 against a 15 million budget), 5% on Rotten Tomatoes (only one positive review out of 22 reviews), is one of the lowest scored movies on Metacritic (tied with Chaos, The Singing Forest and Inappropriate Comedy for last place), and to cap it all off, was the subject of an especially angry Nostalgia Critic episode.
sanfranman91
01:58:24 AM Jul 2nd 2013
To parrot Antwan, the IMDb rating alone should not be a deciding factor to keep or remove. It can be skewed by a ton of factors. If there is proof of a Bio-Dome fanbase, then it shouldn't be there. But there isn't, so yeah, put that bad boy in!
OVER
topic
09:46:48 PM Jun 30th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.2
I noticed that Movie 43 had been added to the list although according to some comments on here, that it shouldn't be on here.

I would also like to suggest adding Craig Moss (the director of The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It) to the repeat offenders list. Most of his movies (expect for Bad Ass) have a rating of under 3 stars on imdb.com and Film Brain's review of Breaking Wind pretty much sums up Craig Moss' attempt at making a comedy film.
Idisagree
07:29:47 PM Jul 13th 2013
The Craig Moss idea actually doesn't sound half bad.
OVER
12:14:17 PM Jul 19th 2013
Thanks for the response, I've been visiting this site for long time and decided to register, to suggest movies that might qualify As SBIH or SBIG. I do have a question though, do I have to had watch the film in order to suggest it be added to the list.
Idisagree
03:40:31 PM Jul 19th 2013
You just have to know enough to write a decent description with evidence that it's hated enough.
OVER
05:06:15 PM Aug 4th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.8
Yes! its was approved. For The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall And Felt Superbad About It, do we have to link to Emer Prevost's review of the movie. I mean he shows no footage of the movie itself, it's just him describing what's going on compared to other reviewers who put effort into their work by actually giving us footage from the film they are reviewing, comparing it to the films they are attempting to parody with insight into how those films worked and were successful. For Emer it's just him describing a film without footage or comparison to the films that this one is desperately trying to parody. Also I remember when this film was just by itself and a link to Hellsing920's review was there, but was later removed.
TheDogSage
topic
02:07:08 PM Jun 29th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.44
does the movie Smiley, which has a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 3.5 on IMDb count for S Bi H?
sanfranman91
02:05:01 AM Jul 2nd 2013
Go ahead. I can't find any Smiley fanbase on the internet and it has low RT and IMDb scores. I can't find any financial information, but given the three factors, I think there's more than enough reasons for this movie to be on this page (but be prepared to explain why this movie qualifies rather than just list it for its RT and IMDb scores).
Antwan
12:08:50 AM Jul 5th 2013
I think the reason why we can't find the box office numbers is because it got a limited theatrical release. So at this point, finding said numbers is rather impossible. If its any indication, it already seems to be selling the DVD at around $10 at Wal-Mart and Staples and the DVD was released this February. Not a good sign to say the least.
Buscemi
topic
12:32:33 AM Jun 16th 2013
I'm not sure if Skidoo truly qualifies. The IMDb rating is a 4.7 (way above many films here) and the film seems to have some genuine fans due to the abundance of camp. If anything, it qualifies as So Bad, It's Good.
Antwan
01:44:46 AM Jun 24th 2013
Remember, the IMDb rating alone should not be a deciding factor to keep or remove. It can be skewed by a ton of factors. If you can show proof that there are fans of Skidoo though, then I think it can be removed.
plcthecd
topic
08:29:28 PM Jun 11th 2013
Does the "Master of Disguise" qualify as SBIH?

It's got a 1% in Rotten Tomatoes
HeavyMetalSnail
09:35:03 PM Jun 12th 2013
I think it would. It also has a 3.1 on Imdb which I believe is low enough to make it qualify. Plus, I think many people will agree that it's an awful comedy that's a sheer waste of Dana Carvey.
Idisagree
06:29:34 PM Jun 14th 2013
It was on the Nostalgia Critic just this week but as expected he hates it. That being said, it probably qualifies even on its own. See the review here.
Idisagree
topic
07:12:49 PM Apr 26th 2013
Who removed the Cat In The Hat movie? That was a painful unfunny mess that makes Jack and Jill look good.
Idisagree
02:13:14 PM May 2nd 2013
To Elaborate it suffers from; a mixture of Vulgar Humor and Incredibly Lame Pun for humor, Adaption Decay to the point of They Just Didn'tCare, took out the rhyming (one of the book/short's original appeal), Character Derailment (The charming and naive Adult Child of a title character is now an unfunny Jerk Ass), Product Placement, What The Hell Casting, and killed off all live action adaption from the good doctor courtesy his widow. Is that enough to justify putting it back? The Nostalgia Critic also disliked it.
InTheGallbladder
12:13:29 PM May 3rd 2013
It got too high a score on IMDB and was kicked.
I'm sorry this page isn't a picture-perfect representation of your exact ideals.
Idisagree
07:45:32 PM May 3rd 2013
I didn't know it had fans, I thought it was another film no one supported. Sorry.
RobbieRotten
05:48:31 AM May 8th 2013
I'm sick of us taking perfectly deserving films off here simply cuz it's only got a 4 on idmb. If all other signs point to being SBIH, one 4 on a user voted site shouldn't stop it. 4 is still pretty low anywayx
Buscemi
02:55:34 AM May 17th 2013
A 4 rating means that the film may be bad but it has its moments. It also means someone at least liked it (unlike say, a film with 2.5 IMDb rating).
shoboni
01:12:13 PM May 25th 2013
That movie is more So Bad, It's Good. This is for films with zero redeeming factors.
Antwan
01:42:47 AM Jun 24th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.8
Guys, seriously, IMDB should not be the redeeming factor in taking a movie out or putting it in. The rating can easily be abused by a number of factors. So in the future, the IMDB rating alone will not be a good reason to take stuff out as well as put stuff in.

And Gallbladder, I saw your edit reason. Telling people that "we have standards" is not polite. Please refrain from saying stuff like that in the future.

Edit: Oh and to Idisagree, sorry, but it does not belong here. Despite how the film got critically ripped, it well made more than enough on its own (most likely because of kids) and still became a big hit. It made back what it owed in America and got a huge profit overseas.
Idisagree
03:27:45 PM Jun 28th 2013
I had no idea, it had an audience and already apologized for the misunderstanding. I'm deeply sorry but I still prefer Jack and Jill (My Guilty Pleasure along with some people I know) to this. Let's just leave it alone.
InTheGallbladder
topic
12:09:10 PM Apr 12th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.2
Sanfranman91 asked a question in the history. I'm putting it in discussion, since I have no edits to make yet:

Jeez, I was just trying to prove that Movie 43 was this trope (even if I should've focused more on the movie problems than counter-proving the frankly unreliable I Md B scores). What's the big deal, Gallbladder?

There have been several instances indexwide of tropers finding something they personally didn't like, or were disappointed by, or one of pop-culture's many favorite whipping boys, and slapping it on here, regardless as to whether or not their personal opinion is backed by general consensus.
We have high standards regarding what constitutes the lowest of the low, and Movie 43 fails to live up to them by being too good. IMDB's score (a composite of roughly 12,400 users' individual opinions) and even a few critics are much too favorable towards it. It made back its budget, a rarity in these parts, and even its theater return is high by the standards of anything here.
Besides, it's all but explicitly stated on the page itself that Movie 43 is nowheres near as unpleasant as anything else on the list.
sanfranman91
01:01:56 PM Apr 12th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.6
Fair enough. Still, you could've been a little less abrasive when you made that comment. I'm not trying to start a fight, just saying you should be a little kinder to fellow tropers next time around.
sanfranman91
topic
01:00:25 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by sanfranman91
Three films for your consideration: Plutonium Baby, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, and Movie 43

Cinema Snob review aside, the first one has a nonsensical and slow-as-hell story, weak special effects and terrible acting. Even fans of movies of its genre don't back it up, as seen through its 2.2 I Md B rating. The kicker? The title character doesn't appear until the last few seconds of the movie!

The second one is guilty of the following crimes: poor script, blatant pandering to children, and heavy reliance on crude humor that doesn't work at all. It currently holds a 14% Rotten Tomatoes rating and has a 3.9 I Md B rating.

Despite its 4.5 I Md B rating, it's crystal clear that no one, critic or viewer, enjoyed this movie at all, as seen by the 4% RT rating and the 2.8 User score on Metacritic (which is more reliable than I Md B ratings IMO). You know all the reasons why this film has become notorious (disgusting jokes, lack of creativity in the script, and jumbled organization). It did earn $24 million, but it performed far below the studio's expectations (and even then, the BO didn't matter in the first place since a deal with Netflix covered costs anyway). The kicker? With the exception of Peter Farrelly, many people involved in production of the movie hated it when they realized what they got into, only to be forced to do it by Farrelly.
Idisagree
04:52:11 PM Apr 10th 2013
The second two seem to be good candidates but the first needs more elaboration.
InTheGallbladder
06:38:28 PM Apr 11th 2013
The last one has several reasons right there in the post as to why it doesn't qualify:
  1. 4.5 score on IMDB
  2. Made back its budget (and was relatively high-grossing)
  3. The worst aspect of the film was entirely behind-the-scenes.

SuperKing93
02:41:44 PM Apr 18th 2013
Hey In The Gallbladder,

The Last Airbender also has a 4.5 score on IMDB and made back its budget, yet it completely deserves to be on here. So why shouldn't Movie 43?
RobbieRotten
05:50:31 AM May 8th 2013
We have In AP Ppropiate comedy on here, which is movie 43 the sequel...so having the orginal, which has all the same crimes is kind of...pointless.
Spinosegnosaurus77
01:55:51 PM May 28th 2013
About 43: As with any rating on that site, it almost certainly includes AstroTurfing.
Spinosegnosaurus77
04:28:46 AM Jun 6th 2013
Also about 43: it only cost $6 million to make, so it's not that surprising that it made back its budget.
Spinosegnosaurus77
01:43:32 PM Nov 27th 2013
"The worst aspect of the film was entirely behind-the-scenes."

What's so behind-the-scenes about the fact that it sucks?
Idisagree
topic
02:10:39 PM Apr 4th 2013
I've noticed that a few of these movies shouldn't be here for one reason or another. Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li lists two redeeming features (an entertaining villain and Chun Li being more attractive than in the games, at least for me) and looks like a "I hate it so everyone does" case. Similarly Attack Force sounds like it good pass as So Bad, It's Good judging by the description.

I was only supporting Jack and Jill because I liked it for Al Pacino's Ham and Cheese performance and thought some of the humor actually worked. I enjoyed it in an unironic way along with my friend. I think people hated that film because they wanted to.

Finally Highland II The Quickening is said to be somewhat enjoyable in a certain cut and had a few people on the fourm defending it. I however haven't seen it so I can't judge for myself.

Is this enough to remove any of them. I mean I've only seen Jack and Jill and thus am judging mostly by second hand knowledge. I'm not trying to cause Flame Wars but am just listing my opinion (and no site should ban you for that).
LitleWiggle
06:10:56 PM Apr 5th 2013
I'd say to keep Legend of Chun-li. Critics savaged it, and Capcom pretty much wants to forvet it exists.

For one thing, Micheal Clark Duncan absolutely hated it, only doing it for the chance to play his favorite Street Fighter character.
Idisagree
07:43:00 PM Apr 5th 2013
Okay I'll add to the entry, that's a great agrument. More input on the others in a civilized manner.
LitleWiggle
04:08:39 PM Apr 14th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.42
I cant say if Highlander could count, as I never watched it. If it was hated by critics and didnt make its money back (Im not quite sure, as again, I know nothing of Highlander.)

Also, Im sorry to say, but just because you like the movie doesnt mean it doesnt belong here. I actually didnt find Jack and Jill terrible, but Im pretty sure it still met the neccesary qualifications.
Idisagree
04:05:16 PM Apr 19th 2013
I know plenty of people in real life that like Jack and Jill and two people said they thought/heard it was So Bad, It's Good on this site. Also someone said it got on award chosen by children, that means some kids like it too.

As for Highlander The Quickening, it's said to have a So Bad, It's Good cut.
LitleWiggle
03:19:41 PM Apr 24th 2013
Ah, I suppose it probably cant count if it won an award.

I would say that most cuts of Highlander 2 count, but distinguish the cut that doesn't
Idisagree
07:08:36 PM Apr 26th 2013
The Renegade Cut (the one that takes out all the Zeist crap) is said to be So Bad, It's Good if taken on its own. Of course it's also better than Highlander: The Source.
LitleWiggle
05:32:17 PM May 5th 2013
Then I would say the Renegade cut doesnt deserve a place here, but all the others do.
shoboni
01:13:55 PM May 25th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
The Renegade Cut is the same movie edited better, and even the first version is fine as a stand-alone cheesy Sci-Fi movie, it's only bad as a Highlander movie.
Idisagree
06:27:32 PM Oct 5th 2013
I found some evidence of redeeming factors in Jack and Jill in this wiki on the Took the Bad Film Seriously page,"The consensus about the 2011 Adam Sandler vehicle Jack and Jill is that Al Pacino actually had a good performance in what was otherwise a trainwreck of a movie." A movie can't have redeeming factors to count.

I'd also like to know if Highlander 2 counts or is just the Renegade Cut disqualified? ???

marston
topic
11:55:42 PM Feb 9th 2013
Would Movie 43 qualify? It's gotten nothing but negative reviews from what I've seen, and it has a 5% on Rotten Tomatoes as well.
Buscemi
12:54:47 AM Mar 27th 2013
The IMDb rating is a 4.5. Though a mediocre user rating, it's not one of the worst (one of the other hand, its rival project Inappropriate Comedy has a 2.6 rating) and it means that a few people actually liked the film. So it probably does not qualify.
Cakeman
topic
02:10:11 PM Feb 5th 2013
Can we add Howard the Duck?
Idisagree
02:21:07 PM Apr 6th 2013
Why would we add that. I thought it was on So Bad, It's Good.
Cakeman
topic
02:07:50 PM Feb 5th 2013
edited by Cakeman
Sorry I double posted...
Spinosegnosaurus77
topic
05:40:55 AM Nov 30th 2012
edited by Spinosegnosaurus77
Anyone know if the film adaptation of A Sound of Thunder qualifies? 4.1 on IMDb, 6% on Rotten Tomatoes (24% fan rating), 24 on Metacritic (27 fan rating).
InTheGallbladder
01:50:09 PM Dec 8th 2012
4.1 on IMDB? Too high.
Spinosegnosaurus77
03:28:59 PM Dec 8th 2012
^ A valid point, but we can't rely on IMDb alone.
shoboni
03:55:16 PM Jan 14th 2013
I've not seen it, but I agree having a good rating on one website isn't enough to necessarily disqualify it.
Spinosegnosaurus77
05:22:11 AM Jan 22nd 2013
edited by Spinosegnosaurus77
^ Yes. Plus Delgo has a 4.3 on IMDb, but it's still listed under Western Animation.
LadyStardust
topic
07:52:23 AM Nov 3rd 2012
Is it ok to add The Cavern? it has pretty low ratings and i doubt anyone likes it.
flashsucks
topic
11:56:41 AM Nov 2nd 2012
Will "Silent Hill: Revelation 3D" be getting on here soon? It has a 5% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (48% fan rating) after 41 reviews. I think it qualifies.
InTheGallbladder
01:08:43 AM Nov 4th 2012
Fan rating alone is nearly split even, implying a near-equal like to dislike ratio. Even astroturfing can't yield results that good, especially with numbers that big. I'd say no.
tonagamu
topic
02:22:58 PM Oct 17th 2012
Can we add Atlas Shrugged parts 1 and 2 on here? They both have 0% on RT.
InTheGallbladder
02:17:17 AM Oct 18th 2012
5.6 and 5.5 on IMDB. I say no.
shoboni
03:56:17 PM Jan 14th 2013
You seem to really like IMDB.
ABLb0y
topic
11:21:17 AM Aug 31st 2012
Just thought you'd be interested: 'Oogieloves In The Big Balloon Adventure' made just $102,564 (£65,000) across 2160 cinemas when it was released in the US.

It's also been mauled by critics, receiving a 33% 'fresh rating' on reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

Not sure if it qualifies, but just in case...
StopMentioningYourself
09:24:26 AM Sep 2nd 2012
I'd say with a fresh rating, it probably doesn't.

Man... I almost wandered into the wrong theater looking for The Dark Knight Rises yesterday. Imagine seeing that instead.
StopMentioningYourself
12:10:14 PM Sep 2nd 2012
Oh wait, 33%! I misread you. XD Heck, stick that sucker on here!
funkymonkey1318
07:00:07 AM Sep 4th 2012
I was just going to talk to you about that! Would you believe that stars such as Christopher Lloyd and Cary Elwes were in this slop??
DarthMegatron
02:13:26 PM Sep 7th 2012
I'd say it qualifies - most reviews seem to agree.
tonagamu
02:21:58 PM Oct 17th 2012
Doooon't get so hyper to add it there, 33% is a disapproval rating, sure, but keep in mind that most of the movies on here are like 0 to 10% on RT. Can we maybe get a little more insight before we just slap it on here?
InTheGallbladder
02:22:06 AM Oct 18th 2012
1.7 on IMDB (even with the blatant astroturfing) and a new record for lowest opening weekend for a film played in 2000+ theaters. I say keep it.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
10:17:21 PM Aug 10th 2012
Cut this and put it here. The YMMV page for the film says fans of Adam Sandler like it. I believe that is a large enough demographic to disqualify this.

ZetaArak
01:51:59 PM Aug 11th 2012
Readded it. I'm pretty sure its in a very ironic sense, not to mention their the only ones who think that. Mass opinuon is that its terrible. Oh, and people ofen put So Bad, It's Good on works listed here because its not in one of the sites parts of Limbo, like the trope.
plcthecd
topic
10:50:09 PM Aug 7th 2012
I like to nominate 1982's Inchon what was supposed to be a dramatic Korean War movie became a Narmy B-movie. It was the biggest Box Office Bombs of the 80s with only $5,200,986 out of the $46 million according to Box Office Mojo. the film was funded by the Unification Church, so there was blatant references to the Holy Bible nearly every scene.

If that wasn't enough to convince anyone that the film deserves a spot here, then how about it was never released on video to this day?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
10:05:48 PM Aug 10th 2012
I think this sounds like a good candidate for this page.

Of course, no video release cuts both ways, esp. on a film older than half the readers. Has it aired on TV, at least? Maybe on some obscure cable channel?
plcthecd
06:46:10 PM Aug 15th 2012
Sorry for the slow reply but according to the Other Wiki, it did appeared in some obscure cable channel and aired on late night TV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchon_%28film%29#Release

Too contribute the film's SBIH-ness, there were technical errors such as the film using cardboard cutouts to depict military aircraft.

That's why there's few, if any Korean War movies made in the west.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
09:21:16 PM Jul 9th 2012
Note on Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever:

This film is listed almost entirely on critical hatred and the reasons for it. I had taken it complacently for a long time.

Then, while looking for action films (I watch occasionally), I find it has a positive star rating on Netflix.

It's well-known that critics look for things in action films that the average viewer of action films does not. I'm not gonna touch the entry now — I may be mistaken, or someone may be goosing the system — but it's something to consider. I may end up watching it to see who I agree with.
Idisagree
01:28:15 PM Jul 20th 2012
It has better reasons than a certain other film I've seen that I've met fans of.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
09:11:34 PM Jul 9th 2012
Cut this and put it here for now. A brilliant scene is, in fact, enough to remove a film from here. And the sequel has little content in its entry.

  • Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus: From the title, one would expect a hilarious sci-fi B-movie where two giant polystyrene monsters fight, taking half the world's population with them. In reality...it's just dull. The acting's predictably terrible, the script's weak, the titular "fight" only lasts for two minutes at the end, and the one hilariously brilliant scene (the one where the shark manages to jump up to airline-cruising altitude and takes a bite out of a jet) isn't brilliant enough to redeem it.
    • It has a sequel, Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus. At least that film featured a little more giant-monsters-smashing-stuff-and-wailing-on-each-other this time.
ZetaArak
10:02:32 PM Jul 9th 2012
Dose one good scene really justifie its removel. Especially when its So Bad, It's Good?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
10:27:54 PM Jul 15th 2012
Yes. It's an official Awesome Moment.
RhymeBeat
topic
09:02:10 PM Jul 9th 2012
I don't really believe that Birdemic belongs here. No one sincerely hates the film. It's like a cheesy 60s B-Movie with it's terrible special effects and it's laughable stupid plot. I think it has a cult following for it's So Bad, It's Good nature, which I'm sure Obscurus Lupa is a part of.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:08:21 PM Jul 9th 2012
Seconded. This film gets Audience Participation. That's an indication of a possible Cult Classic.
MattFisherNL
topic
01:04:15 PM Jun 9th 2012
Why exactly was Lower Learning removed earlier? This movie is Worse Than It Sounds. I just put it back in. Here's the description in case anyone is interested should it be taken down:

  • Lower Learning, starring Jason Biggs, Eva Longoria, and Rob Corddry. It takes badness to uncharted levels, takes Refuge in Vulgarity with offensive "jokes", and includes tasteless scenes involving elementary school teachers explaining and demonstrating sex acts in front of children. The filmmakers managed to make 88 minutes seem like three hours. The only redeeming aspect is the behind-the-scenes featurette, in which Rob Corddry talks about how the best part was getting paid. Unfortunately, that's Paratext.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
07:49:14 PM Jun 1st 2012
Cut this and put it here for now. Uwe Boll is not consistently bad enough overall, and even his video-game film output is shaky by this page's standards. The film that is considered to fit the page guidelines, Alone in the Dark, was relisted individually.

  • Boll, Uwe: While otherwise a competent, if polarizing filmmaker, he has one hell of a track record when it comes to Video Game Movies Suck, to the point where petitions were called to put him out of business. He's on at least one company's blacklist, and another guy's list of things to never discuss within earshot. His adaptations include:

    • House of the Dead. Rotten Tomatoes ranked the film #41 in the 100 worst reviewed films of the 2000s, with a rating of 4% based on 54 reviews. This alleged adaptation (the original was a set of light gun arcade games) follows the story of some random youngsters that want to party in a tropic island casually covered with unexplained Sega banners. Things get serious when guys covered in toilet paper wearing bicycle LEDs in their eyes start attacking people. Captain Ahab then gives them a crateful of weapons the kids use in combination with their totally uncalled-for martial arts skills to kill the zombies in fights that are equal parts Bullet Time, shaky camera recording, and screenshots ganked from the game proper. But don't worry, in the end it's all about Spanish conquerors.
RhymeBeat
topic
07:16:56 PM May 20th 2012
OK. So to the ones who have been removing examples without reasons. Cut it out. If you think a work isn't terrible you may debate it on Discussion. But don't cut without reason.
mortimermcmire
07:07:14 AM May 21st 2012
Seconded. I just noticed LOL got cut—-there were REASONS for it being listed on this page!
Telcontar
moderator
10:21:15 AM May 21st 2012
I've put them back with a note to go to the discussion page for further removals.
mortimermcmire
topic
02:16:18 PM May 12th 2012
To whoever cleaned up my entry for "LOL", thank you. Seriously.
ABLb0y
topic
11:11:25 AM Apr 13th 2012
How about 'The Devil inside', with its high and glorious metascore of 19?
tonagamu
07:46:59 AM Apr 16th 2012
Debuted at no. 1 in the box office.
Tehrannotaur
05:14:36 PM Nov 16th 2013
edited by 75.23.234.106
it also has a 6% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 22% user rating, as well as a 19/100 on Metacritic (Overwhelming dislike). In its second weekend, the film dropped 76.2%, which was the largest second weekend drop for a film since Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience (77.4%) in early 2009. The only reason why this film was so successful was that it was made to copy paranormal activity's success. Also so mention is that it has an overwhelming negative word-of-mouth and an ending that pissed off the audiences hardcore.
Idisagree
topic
04:18:44 PM Apr 8th 2012
Is Jack and Jill really this bad? Me and my friend saw it and thought it was very funny. Besides does it really deserve to be on the same list as The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, The Last Airbender, or Uwe Boll? I'd say no. It was more So Bad, It's Good than the opposite.
RobbieRotten
07:31:57 AM Apr 10th 2012
yes. yes it is
Idisagree
04:29:05 PM Apr 10th 2012
The Film has to have a fanbase considering it's not a bad movie. I thought Sighns was twice as bad as this film and that's well recieved. I mean maybe you don't like Adam Sandler films but a lot of people do.
RhymeBeat
07:50:21 AM Apr 11th 2012
edited by RhymeBeat
Got a 3% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's a very "rotten" rating so it sounds like there shouldn't be a that dedicated fanbase to it. Even people who like Adam Sandler don't like this movie.
tonagamu
08:05:01 AM Apr 11th 2012
I keep hearing it's more of a So Bad, It's Good type of movie rather than SBIH.
RhymeBeat
09:58:05 AM Apr 11th 2012
A bad comedy is seldom So Bad, It's Good, because usually the charm of something So Bad, It's Good is the cheasy earnestness of the work.
Idisagree
09:13:53 PM Jun 13th 2012
Stop adding it, I can think of five movies that are way worse in every way and aren't eligible. Signs, Women In Black, Good Boy (That unfunny movie about talking dogs), Epic Movie, and Eight Crazy Nights. All of them I found way worse than Jack and Jill but the last one is even an Adam Sandler film.
InTheGallbladder
08:13:36 PM Jun 20th 2012
It holds the record for most Razzies won, and it won every Razzie in its year. (To compare, the second-highest is Battlefield Earth, with nine, only seven of which were won in its year.) Rotten Tomatoes gave it 3%, Metacritic gave it 23 out of 100, and Time ranked it as the worst film of 2011. The only major award it got was selected by children.
That is more than enough evidence for this being enough of a flop to be here.
Idisagree
01:30:28 PM Jul 20th 2012
You guys win, this arguement isn't worth getting suspended again. Besides I know fans but that isn't getting it removed. Let's just keep it.
tonagamu
topic
10:52:54 AM Mar 22nd 2012
NOOOOOOOOO!!!

The Garbage Pail Kids Movie may very WELL have a fanbase. My local theater is showing the film as part of the late night cult classics they do every week. That's right, there was enough demand for this movie that they're SHOWING IT! And the tickets are ALREADY selling... Time to remove the movie off the list mayhaps?
RobbieRotten
07:31:44 AM Apr 10th 2012
a good chunk of these films have an odd fanbase, even the last airbender.
tonagamu
08:04:33 AM Apr 11th 2012
Do these odd fanbases have enought to disqualify a work for this page though? That's why I wasn't quite sure if I should have deleted it or not. It doesn't seem like it's fanbase disagrees with its placement on this list, but then again the rules of the trope clearly state that any fanbase is still a fanbase and therefore disqualifies a work.
RobbieRotten
09:06:40 AM Apr 11th 2012
so thus most of the stuff on this list would disqualfy. so i say it doesn't disqualify them/
tonagamu
12:46:16 PM Apr 11th 2012
I wouldn't say most I'd say about 10 percent of them (i.e. Battlefield Earth, Jack and Jill, etc. The ones that are usually looked at as So Bad, It's Good despite it's placement on this list).
SamMax
10:01:20 AM Apr 13th 2012
edited by SamMax
Didn't I hear that this trope was still a tiny bit subjective somewhere?
tonagamu
07:49:13 AM Apr 16th 2012
Subjective, yes. But if enough people seem to think a movie is So Bad, It's Good that there's an entire community of people that watch it for that reason (not just a handful of individuals, mind you) then maybe it isn't SBIH. That being said, however, how big does this community need to be in order to override the group of people that particularly hate these films? Also, how is it easy to even tell how big these communities really are?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
07:37:59 PM Jun 1st 2012
Any film that a commercial movie theatre is airing two decades after the original release date in the original format is probably not Horrible. It's not easy for a movie theater to make a profit these days, and that film is not public domain.

The Garbage Pail Kids always had a touch of squick listing, anyway. I'm sure it's probably bad, but we're near Cult Classic territory here.
Idisagree
09:19:01 PM Jun 13th 2012
Let's see, besides Squick, it mentions a bunch of plot holes, Anti-Climax, being hated by Doug Walker, and being removed from theaters'. Oh and it was a Box Office Bomb. That should be enough reasons.
Antwan
topic
01:45:56 AM Mar 14th 2012
Cut and pasted here for now. I still think it's too soon to call it:

  • A Thousand Words, another Eddie Murphy film. On its first day it has a 0% on the Tomatoreader with a note of "Dated jokes (A Thousand Words was shot in 2008) and removing Eddie Murphy's voice — his greatest comedic asset — dooms this painful mess from the start."
SamMax
05:17:43 AM Mar 21st 2012
edited by SamMax
I agree. I think we should wait at least a few more months before making our desicion (I think the best time would be around the date of the DVD/Blu-Ray release, if you ask me).
CrystalMech
02:33:43 PM Apr 7th 2012
Agreed, although it could also use a larger description if it is eligible.
RobbieRotten
05:09:49 PM Jan 11th 2013
it's been out for quite a while now. can we put it up?
sanfranman91
01:56:26 AM Jul 2nd 2013
Fire away. It still has a 0% RT rating, it bombed at the box office, and many call it the worst Eddie Murphy movie yet.
RhymeBeat
topic
10:12:40 AM Feb 23rd 2012
To Thity H And I quote.

Second Important Note: It isn't a Horrible film just because anyone from That Guy With The Glasses and/or any other Caustic Critic reviewed it. There needs to be independent evidence, such as actual critics (emphasis on plural) for example, to list it. (Though once it is listed, they can provide the detailed review.)

So yes we can link TGWTG reviews provided the movie is bad independent of that.
Idisagree
topic
02:24:34 PM Jan 21st 2012
About Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, what's so bad about it. M.Bison sounds entertainining from discription. Besides I find their version of Chun Li way hotter than the video game one but that's just me. Those are both redeeming factors. Better explaination or I'll remove it myself.
PropaneNightmare
06:38:42 PM Jan 25th 2012
Added this:

Third Important Note: Please don't shoehorn in films you don't like. This isn't a page for complaining about things that fail to appeal to you.
Antwan
06:55:09 AM Feb 1st 2012
edited by Antwan
Merged it with the first important note. Two is fine, but three notes seem excessive.
PropaneNightmare
03:08:29 PM Feb 4th 2012
Added to it a bit, seeing as it didn't seem reinforced enough
Idisagree
05:29:10 PM Feb 11th 2012
Now said entry is needless fan bashing rather than making a valid point and still contains at least 2 redeeming qualities.
PropaneNightmare
topic
07:22:15 PM Jan 2nd 2012
Hey guys, about the IMDB scores.

There needs to be a limit set here. This is one of the most two faced pages I've seen for that reason. IMO, the limit should be 5.0. Perfectly deserving films have gotten removed on the sole fact that they have a 4.7.

sanfranman91
01:14:54 PM Apr 12th 2013
Maybe more like 4.5 and under, but I agree that there needs to be a set limit to the scores on this page. Adding an additional important note specifying the threshold won't hurt either.
nanoman923
topic
09:21:36 AM Nov 29th 2011
I think the Garbage Pail Kids Movie needs to be removed... Even the film's page says that the movie has a fanbase. Also, nobody hated it before The Nostalgia Critic reviewed it (at least not on a large scale).
Idisagree
08:17:21 PM Feb 3rd 2012
Well, maybe it was relatively unknown at the time. It's still below So Bad, It's Good so it fits.
Antwan
01:39:10 AM Mar 14th 2012
Oh it was known at the time. A group got the movie pulled from theaters from how disgusting it was and it only made a million dollars out of it's 30-million budget. It's bad. Very bad.
Idisagree
04:19:59 PM Apr 8th 2012
It's been removed and a few bad examples have been added in its place.
Antwan
topic
11:43:34 PM Oct 13th 2011
Hey guys, a bit of a future reference here... Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB alone do not qualify as SBIH. Remember, there are people that purposefully skew scores or are so obscure that they have no ratings from these sites. Try to convince us that this movie belongs here.

And on another note, IMDB scores are also not a reason to delete scores unless it's really high, like... around 5.0 or higher. Again, there are people out there that skew scores.
marston
topic
05:31:19 PM Sep 25th 2011
Does house of the dead really belong here? Yeah, I know it's made by uwe boll, but it seems to be more of a so bad its good movie rather then so bad it's horrible. In fact, this movie seems to be a like it or hate it subject, and their are other people who think it's good for some cheesy laughs.
plcthecd
topic
05:49:19 PM Sep 9th 2011
Does "Who's Your Caddy?" qualify? That terrible rip-off of Caddyshack and giving in the negative stereotypes. It got a 6% in Rotten Tomatoes and 1.8 rating in IMDB.
Webby
05:36:36 PM Sep 10th 2011
6%, really? With scores that bad, I'd say it does.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
08:37:44 PM Jul 18th 2011
Cut the entry for Sean McNamara, since he isn't consistently bad enough to be Horrible even in his genre. Moved his 3 Ninjas film to the appropriate spot. Cut this and put it here for now — I think this is Western Animation.

  • Bratz: Based on the toyline, this movie became notorious for being filled with idiotic dialogue, plot holes, and countless Unfortunate Implications. It bombed in the box office and earned Razzie nominations. One reviewer, Nathan Rabin of The AV Club, declared that "[ McNamara's movie] is why terrorists hate [America]."
Webby
05:40:23 PM Sep 10th 2011
edited by Webby
No, I think that entry was referring to the live action movie (that I wouldn't know about). At least, the link takes me to the page for it.

EDIT: Whoops, already been restored. This is an old post. Silly me.
Idisagree
02:19:34 PM Jan 21st 2012
Someone explain what's horrible about it besides Unfortunate Implications which are probably subtle. Besides the girls in that movie are 20 times cuter than the dolls (in my opinion).
Antwan
01:37:33 AM Mar 14th 2012
It's the biggest cookie-cutter film you'd ever lay your eyes on. Every character besides the Bratz are one-dimensional to highlight how unique the girls are. Moreover, the Mexican family has a lot of horrible stereotypes (a mariachi band, really?) and the music numbers are appalling remixes. Of course, it also bombed at the box office and has a 2.6 on IMDB.
Idisagree
06:19:40 PM Mar 16th 2012
Good points. I guess it counts, if you could add that to the description.
BallsyWallsy
topic
11:47:39 PM Jul 15th 2011
Video Brinquendo, anyone? Known for such classics as Little Bee, Little Cars, and The Little Panda Fighter?
nuclearneo577
11:15:23 AM Jul 16th 2011
edited by nuclearneo577
Already on Western Animation.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
05:10:14 PM Jul 7th 2011
We need to edit the Nick Phillips entry...

Criminally Insane is a Guilty Pleasure — there really are fans of exploitation films of The Seventies. But Crazy Fat Ethel and the Death Nurse films are horrible and are based off that one. We need to adjust the description accordingly, since we want to make clear which films are Horrible and which aren't...

I oughta do it myself, but it's delicate work.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
07:05:55 PM Jul 15th 2011
I did it, I think.
nuclearneo577
topic
04:53:16 PM Jun 25th 2011
I'm pretty sure the main page was cut by mistake.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
05:18:15 PM Jun 2nd 2011
Are we sure Obsessed (Beyoncé) edition is Horrible? We're rooting for someone, even if it's not the person intended...
PropaneNightmare
06:30:14 PM Jan 25th 2012
I removed it. It has a cult status and critics were mixed on it.
Sillstaw
topic
05:22:54 PM Apr 12th 2011
edited by Sillstaw
Removed this from the Gigli entry:
  • 20th Century Fox refuses to issue it on DVD. Make that of what you will.

First, Gigli is on DVD (although I assume it's no longer in print and it has little chance of a Blu-Ray release). Second, 20th Century Fox had nothing to do with the movie; it was released by Columbia Pictures. I'm guessing it was attached to something else then got moved, but I couldn't see anything it could be attached to.
LargoQuagmire
09:27:59 PM Apr 16th 2011
1) Gigli is definitely on DVD - I rented it to see if it was really as bad as everyone said. (It is.)

2) I think that tag was attached to The Adventures of Pluto Nash, but as far as I can tell, that also got a DVD release (...why?)
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
05:51:41 PM May 26th 2011
About point 2: Not everyone is aware of how uneven the career of Eddie Murphy, actor, is. He had a stellar period around the first Beverly Hills Cop, and his recent "family" films (The Nutty Professor remake, whatever the Doctor Doolittle films are supposed to be) are tolerated, so other films of his might get rented by fans of either end.

"Pluto Nash" comes between those stages; it's probably what drove him into the family film niche. If it's rated below R, that would be another point.
shoboni
04:01:44 PM Jan 14th 2013
Yes, Pluto Nash has a DVD release, I have it.

MiseryWind
topic
02:07:05 PM Apr 7th 2011
edited by MiseryWind
Should this really be on here? I mean, it's one of those movies.

Red Riding Hood (2011) a Darker and Edgier retelling so unbelievably detatched from the original tale as to be In Name Only. The plot reads like a fanfiction written by Michael Haneke. The film is loaded with inconsistencies, obnoxious moments, and padding to the point where almost half the film is dedicated to the lead actor staring into space.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
01:36:43 PM Apr 13th 2011
If it really is a Love It or Hate It movie, then it does not go here. The "Love It" faction cancels it out.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
01:46:02 PM Apr 13th 2011
Cut it and put it here for now. Someone gave it an Awesome Moments page.

  • Red Riding Hood (2011) a Darker and Edgier retelling so unbelievably detatched from the original tale as to be In Name Only. The plot reads like a fanfiction written by Michael Haneke. The film is loaded with inconsistencies, obnoxious moments, and padding to the point where almost half the film is dedicated to the lead actor staring into space.
sanfranman91
01:13:24 PM Apr 12th 2013
Just visited the page. The only entry in the CMOA page should be moved out to the YMMV page since it belongs to the Awesome Music trope. Here's what it says:

And that's it. However, it is a Love It Or Hate It Movie for regular viewers (as the 5.2 I Md B rating and the 4.1 User score on Metacritic indicate), so I don't think that film qualifies.
FireYoshi
topic
12:06:19 PM Apr 3rd 2011
... What... What happened to Manos: The Hands of Fate? I mean, the Mads APOLOGIZED for this on MST3K! It has the world's most pointless "subplot", it has ten minutes of minimal-dialogue driving DESPITE a camera that could only record for thirty seconds, fans acknowledge it's nearly unwatchable in some parts without the MS Ting... Why isn't it on here?
nuclearneo577
12:59:07 PM Apr 3rd 2011
Why are there so many people that dont know that we have a page called So Bad, It's Good?
FireYoshi
01:27:56 PM Apr 4th 2011
Why are there so many people that don't know that the meaning of "subjective" is "more than one opinion is valid"? Personally, I believe it qualifies for both categories, and therefore deserves to be listed on Horrible as well. As I said, this is the one movie, in the history of MST3K, that the Mads felt the need to apologize for. The 'bots broke down in tears over this. Hobgoblins could arguably be considered watchable on its own, and it's listed on this page. To quote Wikipedia on Manos, "It is widely recognized to be one of the worst films ever made." To quote Joel, "DO SOMETHING! My God..." To quote a reviewer on IMDB, "But few films can claim to be so dreadful, you actually feel physical pain while viewing them. So bad are these damned few that you don't experience them or watch them: you "endure" them. This is the mother of all such films!" To quote Wikipedia again, "Warren claimed that he felt Manos was the worst film ever made, even though he was proud of it,[16] and he suggested that it might make a passable comedy if it were to be redubbed.[17]" "the show's team of writers stated that they still feel Manos is the worst movie they ever covered, and that the film subsequently "became the standard by which all others are measured."" If it weren't for MST3K, if it weren't for Torgo, this film would be unwatchable.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
01:34:49 PM Apr 13th 2011
Okay, so the fandom for "Manos" is a Misaimed Fandom. That said, there appears to be one...

The people running this site are already uneasy about this sort of black page — they don't want this to be just another vs. of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. To keep this index from being cut, we must be more selective than usual. We aim to list the worst of the worst here, the works that are indefensible.

Thus, anything that can accurately be listed on the So Bad, It's Good pages cannot be listed on this index. So Bad, It's Good works have a sincere fanbase (many are also Guilty Pleasures); these have only Bile Fascination.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
01:35:34 PM Apr 13th 2011
Besides, Torgo is a redeeming factor...
SoWeAteThem
topic
11:22:46 AM Apr 1st 2011
I'd like to nominate Fat Slags, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'll go here first:
What I know is against it:
  • Only vaguely related to the comic
  • Relies mostly on Refuge in Vulgarity, jokes tend to fall flat
  • Some incredibly ham-fisted Character Development for the heroines.
  • Stuff Blowing Up for no explainable reason (seriously, a laptop and a dead pomeranian go off with the force of a dynamite stick)
  • At 1.8, rates at the bottom third of IMDB's bottom 100
  • Allegedly ended the comic series
  • Scores 27 percent at Rotten Tomatoes.
But I'd like to know:
  • Is that enough against it?
  • What is there in its favor?
nuclearneo
12:17:16 PM Apr 1st 2011
That looks like enough. Go add it.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
03:18:03 PM Mar 11th 2011
Did Halloween Horror Hostel ever make it to theaters?

If not, then it should be moved, since it was produced by a TV channel.
DivineRose125
topic
09:24:45 AM Mar 10th 2011
Cut and pasted there. It seems to fit on the page, but with little elaboration.

nuclearneo577
10:42:08 AM Mar 22nd 2011
Well it is on the IMDb bottom 100. Someone should reinstate this...
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
07:49:34 PM Mar 23rd 2011
Someone (not me) has.
nuclearneo577
topic
04:09:23 PM Feb 21st 2011
Can someone give a reason other than it being offensive to people with aspergers syndrome?

shoboni
04:05:04 PM Jan 14th 2013
I've never heard of that movie, but it looks like it might have a good case if someone that's seen can come in with a level head and explain further.

sanfranman91
12:38:33 AM Oct 15th 2013
Nyet. Nein. Nope. Not only does it have a 56 on Metacritic, it scored a 7.1 on IMDb. With a thorough revision, it could be placed on the Unfortunate Implications page. But So Bad, It's Horrible, Adam is not.
nuclearneo577
topic
01:01:08 PM Feb 5th 2011
More removals.

  • Sanctum, an incredibly dull movie about cave divers that this troper expected to be good because James Cameron was involved, but ended up being awful.

This Troper that dose not sound very bad at all due to zero elaboration.

  • Season of the Witch, despite having an all star cast, fails on every conceivable level. Bad acting, bad story, bad special effects, it received a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes, noting "Slow, cheap-looking, and dull, Season of the Witch fails even as unintentional comedy."

This was added by Super Saiya Man, so that can't be good.

  • Tank Girl : While the comic might have fans, the effect of this film raping your eyeballs renders that an impossibility. It had the Nostalgia Critic weeping in the shower. There was no special effects budget, no writing staff, and it is likely that Alan Smithee was ashamed to put his name on this. And they ran out of film, aparently, resulting in horrible audience whiplash when stills from the comic were added to fill transitions that the director did not have the attention span to have the cameramen capture. And it has a musical scene which is not only a Big Lipped Alligator Moment, but also has enough Fan Disservice to make us glad to watch a small child being slowly murdered instead. Thank abstract deities that there was no character development to be had. Let Us Speak Of It No More.

That looks very So Bad, It's Good.
SoWeAteThem
06:20:05 PM Feb 13th 2011
On another note. I'm calling bullshit on this:
  • Bio-Dome Imagine a movie that throws a joke at your every ten seconds, only two of which are funny and singlehandedly ruined Pauley Shore's career.
Until somebody expands upon why it deserves to share a position with Gigli, Anatomy of Hell and The Hottie & the Nottie.
OldManHoOh
topic
08:39:21 AM Jan 16th 2011
Hold on, "Blue". One of the worst Red Dwarf episodes? True, the show kind of went to crap after Stoke Me A Clipper and Ouroboros and I suppose it wasn't THAT good, but can someone elaborate why it's considered among the worst?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
11:21:51 PM Jan 22nd 2011
Single episodes of live-action television shows go in the live-action TV page of Wall Banger. This doesn't belong on this index at all, let alone the film page of it.
OldManHoOh
05:23:06 AM Mar 27th 2011
edited by OldManHoOh
That didn't answer my question. At all. I was talking about a reference to the writer's other works in the "From Justin to Kelly" section.
Midna
topic
11:27:10 AM Dec 27th 2010
edited by Midna
More cuts:

  • The Howling II was excruciatingly bad. Never before has this troper watched a movie that felt like it hated me as much as I hated it. Hell, Christopher Lee is even ashamed of it, and the movies has a whooping total of 17% approval on Rotten Tomatoes.

This one has no elaboration other than citing a Rotten Tomatoes score. If it's so bad, elaborate on why it's as terrible as it is.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
08:56:01 PM Dec 26th 2010
Do we have any reasons to list A Serbian Film other than its being both squicky and probably illegal?
AdeptusAlpharius
02:30:04 AM Dec 27th 2010
edited by AdeptusAlpharius
I personally think not. While the fellow troper made some valid points why (s)he personally didn't like the movie, I have, after actually seeing it, a different opinion. It was solidly written and well acted. I can't agree with the "niche market" argument as the movie (to me at least) didn't seem to be a sexual exploitation but more a brutal deconstruction of it. Also, the movie in general recieved a mixed reception being an excellent example of Love It or Hate It which you can't really say of a movie that is supposed to be listed in here.
AdeptusAlpharius
07:36:44 AM Dec 31st 2010
I took the liberty of removing the entry for A Serbian Film.

  • A Serbian Film. A nauseating, irredeemable film filled with misogyny, violence, and acts so utterly horrifying that one is incapable of repeating them that it makes one feel horribly violated after watching it. You can't even say it was made for a 'niche' market, because those who make up the niche for a film like A Serbian Film are all in prison. The Cinema Snob says that "[he] feels [he] should be arrested for watching A Serbian Film, because watching it made him feel like he was doing something illegal". Truer words have never been spoken.

Feel free to put the entry back as long as you provide valid reasons why the movie should belong in here instead of a personal opinion.
Midna
topic
11:12:41 AM Dec 16th 2010
edited by Midna
Cutting this and putting it here for now:

From what I can see, the justification for putting this on the list is "it's Darker and Edgier and stands a very good chance of scaring children". Darker and Edgier is nothing new, and if having terrifying moments were enough reason for a movie to be Horrible, we'd have movies like The Lion King and the original Jaws on here. Besides, there's a positive review, proving that someone likes it.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
05:47:39 PM Dec 17th 2010
Understood. We'll keep an eye on it.

This film oughta be listed in Adaptation Decay, at least, or even In Name Only, if that description is accurate and it isn't there already. The Nutcracker with neither ballet nor magic, even if it gets Vindicated by Cable, is not gonna have much resemblance to the original ballet. (The storyline is something like this: a girl sees a fight between a nutcracker soldier and the Rat King. The nutcracker soldier wins, and then turns into a handsome prince. What follows is her visiting the court to beautiful music until the end of the work... No, you can't do this in a visual medium with neither ballet nor magic.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
11:02:50 PM Nov 27th 2010
I notice someone just added Secret Agent Club, a film made as part of a Ponzi scheme. Now, that doesn't affect its status at all — some Ponzi schemes produce fine products anyway — but it did make me wonder if someone was trying a Springtime for Hitler ploy...
nuclearneo577
07:32:42 PM Dec 28th 2010
I removed it due to low elaboration. If it is comparable to the 4th 3 Ninjas film, it might be worth re adding.

  • Secret Agent Club, another Hulk Hogan film in which he fails to act. The film is rare because it was made as part of a Ponzi scheme. The film itself is very like 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain (see above), only more than a decade later.
75.48.229.41
topic
10:49:39 AM Oct 26th 2010
I don't believe that The Adventures of Pluto Nash belongs on this page. Perhaps some of you dislike the movie and that's fine, your opinion, but I loved every minute of it. It was fun, it had action and suspense, I loved the actors in it - it was quite enjoyable. :)

I'm contesting its position on this list and request it get moved to so bad it's good instead at the very least.
167.128.32.217
10:39:38 AM Oct 27th 2010
edited by 167.128.32.217
You seem to be the only person that liked it. If you read the Wikipedia article, you will see that it is constrained one of the worst films ever made. Just because one person liked does not mean that it is not horrible.
Glowsquid
12:45:40 PM Oct 27th 2010
edited by Glowsquid
^"Also, do not start edit wars. If somebody challenges a claim, do not try to pull the "it's only you" crap. Civility is not something Darth Wiki allows a pass on."

While I thank you for politely bringing your case on the talk page and not starting an edit like so many others, I have to raise an eyebrow at the "Perhaps some of you dislike the movie"-part, Pluto Nash is the biggest loss in cinema history and has atrocious ratings on review aggregators like Metacritic or IMDB - it's not just some obscure target of nerd-hatred.

I won't Edit War if you remove the entry, but take a look at the overral reputation of the movie before doing so.
nuclearneo577
03:53:03 PM Oct 27th 2010
edited by nuclearneo577
Also, the entry says this about a Robot Chicken skit:

  • In a Robot Chicken sketch, 40-plus studio employees killed themselves the Monday after its weekend box office numbers came in.

[adult swim] has uploaded it on to YouTube. Here it is.

Here is the part about the box office.

  • Over $100M had been invested in Pluto Nash; they had to try and get some money out of it sooner or later. Then again, considering that the film made the grand total of $5M (which film prints and advertising materials alone would have gobbled up) at the box office, maybe they would have been better off leaving it on the shelf.
24.3.213.100
topic
02:26:05 PM Oct 10th 2010
I added The Wild Life, and someone removed it. Why? Maybe it was someone perverted that removed it...
Glowsquid
02:55:57 PM Oct 10th 2010
I removed it because the entry didn't say anything about the quality of the movie, just what the plot is about. Being "perverted" is no reason to add something anyway, there's a warning saying "Merely being offensive in its subject matter is not enough to justify a work as So Bad It's Horrible. Hard as it is to imagine at times, there is a market for all types of deviancy (no matter how small a niche it is). It has to fail to appeal even to that niche to qualify as this".
nuclearneo577
topic
09:27:43 AM Oct 8th 2010
O.K., I finally added one of those note that only editors can read to not add the The Star Wars Holiday Special. Here it is.

  • Do not add the Star Wars Holiday Special. Most everyone that saw it liked the cartoon with Bobba Fett and another scene or two. Also, some people think that the whole thing is So Bad Its Good. It is also considered a collectors item, so people odiously want it. Also, it would go on the Live Action TV page.
Videogamer_07
topic
08:31:06 PM Oct 7th 2010
Deleted this comment and placing it here:

  • To those who defend the film, let the late great comedian Richard Jeni put you in your place:
    "If you have any doubt that you are wasting your life, spend a night with one sweat sock and a bag of shitty popcorn watching Jaws 4: The Revenge. You know what the title should have been? Here's a Fish, You're a Moron."

I personally find this pointless Fan Hating, but in case anyone objects to it...
nuclearneo577
09:01:20 AM Oct 8th 2010
What fans? If this was something other than So Bad, It's Horrible, I would delete it.
Glowsquid
01:14:51 PM Oct 8th 2010
He's just saying it'sn eedlessly insulting and not needed.
Videogamer_07
01:59:00 PM Oct 8th 2010
Exactly. Why it's bad has been written already, so I see no point in having this on the page.
nuclearneo577
topic
04:24:22 PM Sep 15th 2010
About this.

  • A Kid in King Arthur's Court make Batman and Robin look GOOD. See Nostalgia Critic's review for proof.

Really? From what I saw, it looks So Bad, It's Good.
Glowsquid
topic
05:49:26 PM Sep 13th 2010
Re Vampire Sucks: Anonymous Mc Cartney Fan removed it o nthe ground that "Twilight haterss likes it" but I went on IMDB and not only is the user rating pathetic, but there's actually a forum thread asking why even Twilight haters don't like it. So... uh?
nuclearneo577
04:12:12 PM Sep 14th 2010
I think he just said that so that Super Saiya Man would stop adding it. He thinks that a horrible movie can do good at the box office.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
08:53:49 PM Sep 11th 2010
Okay, what's our current stance on direct-to-DVD movies? Do we list them here, in Live-Action Television, or what?

I ask because someone is trying to list Steven Seagal's direct-to-DVD filmography there, and my recollection was that we were only supposed to list films that did see theatrical release here.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:06:48 PM Sep 11th 2010
Cut the general entry for his filmography, and alphabetized the two named films. I still am unsure that they should be here, since they are direct-to-DVD and since they apparently contain narm. If it can be sincerely enjoyed without a MST, even for the wrong reason, then it doesn't belong here.
Idisagree
08:26:00 PM Feb 3rd 2012
Attack Force seems far too So Bad, It's Good to be here. Besides if the entry makes it sound remotely entertaining, then it should be cut.
OldManHoOh
topic
07:25:08 PM Sep 11th 2010
Quick question, as I'm not too familiar with the franchise: Is Power Rangers seriously known for terrible fighting choreography?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
08:50:37 PM Sep 11th 2010
It has that reputation among other people who know about the franchise. I don't know how justified it is, but it's a common charge.
69.118.200.57
topic
10:25:52 PM Sep 6th 2010
Should there be a section for "Giftedly Bad Directors", instead of just saying "Everything by ______"?
DivineRose125
11:43:07 PM Sep 6th 2010
To think of it, maybe it is a good idea.
SoWeAteThem
10:23:31 AM Oct 20th 2010
  • hack, wheeze, gasp* ...Its over...
OldManHoOh
topic
03:38:03 PM Sep 1st 2010
Brad Jones thought highly of Caligula, so I'm not sure if it fits. Do other exploitation buffs think the same?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
03:52:04 PM Sep 3rd 2010
There are two sequels to that film. That in itself isn't definitive, either, and perhaps Penthouse is Doing It for the Art, But, when you consider that any genuine fans of that kind of work are gonna be underground anyway because of the subject matter, it's possible.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
04:32:35 PM Aug 31st 2010
My theory about the relation between box office and film quality:

  1. Good films can have disastrous box office. (See Citizen Kane.)
  2. Bad films can be box office hits or even blockbusters. This covers Guilty Pleasures, So Bad, It's Good films, and well-marketed So Okay, It's Average films.
  3. But Horrible films cannot be box office hits.

Failing in the theaters doesn't make a film Horrible, but succeeding wildly means that the film must have redeeming features.

We may want to use a sliding scale for profits here like the one we instituted in the Music section. Films with known box-office draws in them (famed actors, directors, or producers) may be judged in comparison to their previous work...
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
02:44:56 PM Aug 22nd 2010
Cut this and put it here for now, as we (or at least I) have no idea what most of these films are and because "recent" is not a fixed period. If it is reinstated, then please file under the filmmaker's last name; that is, alphabetize as "Lowell," not "Ulli"... Or maybe write an entry for Son of Sam alone.

  • Director Ulli Lomell's recent films, specifically those purporting to be based on real-life serial killers or other infamous criminals are universally derided. The films suffer from poor production values and performances, the same dull, heavy atmosphere, lots of Critical Research Failure, scenes and dialogue that drag on needlessly, tons of gratuitous stock footage and, as a review of Killer Nurse (based on Angel of Death-type killer Charles Cullen) essentially stated "are of the rinse, lather, repeat type, where scenarios are repeated for the length of the film". Son of Sam, for example, can be summed up with "David Berkowitz talks to his lawyer. Flashback to a shooting, followed by Satanic cult scenes and shots of Berkowitz wandering around in a dazed state"; repeat ad nauseam. Currently on imdb, only about three of the films have achieved a rating slightly higher than a two.
142.68.166.123
03:56:06 PM Aug 22nd 2010
edited by 142.68.166.123
Looking into it, the first was Mockbuster Zodiac Killer (currently in imdb's bottom one-hundred at number thirty with 2,024 votes) in 2005. In the same year there was BTK Killer, Green River Killer and Killer Pickton (banned in North America, apparently for being Too Soon). Next was Black Dahlia (another Mockbuster) in 2006, and Diary of a Cannibal, Borderline Cult and Curse of the Zodiac (another apparent Mockbuster) in 2007. 2008 had Dungeon Girl (based on the Joseph Fritzl case) Son of Sam, Baseline Killer (infamously given a "FUCK THIS MOVIE out of 5" by Dread Central) and Killer Nurse. In 2009 there was Nightstalker and the last one before he apparently quit horror was D.C. Sniper (which a Joblo review said "is his best work. But that doesn't say a lot.")
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:06:34 PM Mar 14th 2011
Okay. That is five years worth of films from a guy who directed for almost three decades. I'm reopening this topic now that he has a listing because I'm not sure he should have a listing — it looks like most of his work pre-2005 is just So Okay It's Average. But if he's delisted, we need to make sure the specific films now listed are filed properly first.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
12:28:21 PM Mar 17th 2011
Cut this and put it here for now. The films that were listed under it have been listed individually. If the guy had been making films for two decades, we shouldn't list him just because of his last four years.

Hey, he might have lots of non-horror films out there.

  • Lommel, Ulli. A German filmmaker whose only real claim to fame was a fairly obscure 1980's film called The Boogeyman (which they mention on the cover of all his DVDs, apparently hoping somebody confuses it with the Sam Raimi produced one). Near the end of his career he went on to make a number of films purporting to be based on true crimes; as a review of Killer Nurse (based on Charles Cullen) put it, they all "are of the rinse, lather, repeat type, where scenarios are repeated for the length of the film" ad nauseam. On IMDb, only three of those films have achieved a rating slightly higher than a two. This Dread Central review of one can summarize all of the true crime films (which the reviewer dubs "mumblegore" in another review) up nicely. Said reviewer has also repeatedly stated in regards to Lommel: "You think Uwe Boll is the worst director in the world? He's not even the worst German director whose name begins with the letter 'U'!" Some of his more noteworthy So Bad It's Horrible works include:
SuperSaiyaMan
topic
08:37:42 PM Aug 19th 2010
Box Office returns and gross shouldn't factor. If a movie has been panned by critics and viewers alike, it should be an automatic entry. Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie, Date Movie, they all qualify. But due to the idiotic notion 'they made a lot of money', meaning that they aren't horrible films? That is just stupid.

Its like saying The Iron Giant, Treasure Planet, or Titan AE sucks since they bombed at the box office but performed well with the critics.
nuclearneo577
08:45:12 PM Aug 19th 2010
if they made a lot of money, than a lot of people must of wanted to see it.
Mouser
09:05:22 PM Aug 19th 2010
It's not saying that at all. If a movie was a major box office success, even if it sucked, it means it appealed to enough people to draw them in. People who "don't know any better" still count; to qualify as SBIH it has to alienate even most of them.
SuperSaiyaMan
11:33:56 AM Aug 20th 2010
That must mean The Iron Giant, Treasure Planet, and Titan AE suck since they weren't box office successes.

The entire point of the So Bad, It's Horrible film section is people actually paid money to see the crap. Not because of box office 'success', but because they are indeed horrible films. This rule should be changed.
nuclearneo577
02:03:21 PM Aug 20th 2010
So that means that the first Street Fighter movie goes here? It was universally critiqued and it made a lot of money. I guess that all of the bombs need to go also.
Glowsquid
02:34:20 PM Aug 20th 2010
edited by Glowsquid
Box office gross can be a factor to include or exclude something, but I don't think it should be the only reason to remove something.

Vampire Sucks is a Twilight parody. Twilight has an hatedom both among nerds on the internet and annoyed boyfriends who are forced to see all the movies in theater. Even if not a lot of people see it, it'll make at least some profit because it is so cheaply made.

We should see first if the negative word-of-mouth makes a dent to the sales after the first week. If not, we'll then the entry is a bit shakier. But that a lot of people saw it doesn't mean they liked it (The Atari 2600 E.T sold one million, yet it got many returns - something not quite possible with a movie ticket). Users rating on sites like Tv.com and IMDB should come first IMO.

I really don't see where you got the idea that SBIH is for things "people actually paid money to see the crap". Things that are bad and enjoyable because of it belong on SO Bad Its Good, SBIH is for the shittiest shit that ever shat out.
nuclearneo577
03:02:26 PM Aug 20th 2010
But if it makes a lot of money, it cant go here. It looks horrible, but if it makes as money as there other films, it cant go here.
SuperSaiyaMan
04:25:42 PM Aug 20th 2010
Again, money doesn't matter. Again, does it look like The Iron Giant sucks because it didn't make a lot of money?
SuperSaiyaMan
04:26:15 PM Aug 20th 2010
Again, money doesn't matter. Again, does it look like The Iron Giant sucks because it didn't make a lot of money?
FastEddie
moderator
05:33:48 AM Aug 21st 2010
I rather profoundly don't give a fuck about whether anyone thinks anything is horrible or not, but I'd say you could make a very good case that box-office success means it is the lowest possible denominator stuff, meaning that big box office equals garbage.

In most cases. There are examples of good stuff that does well at the box office. Rarely.

I mean, we all understand that big box office is only a measure of the quality of the advertising campaign, not the work itself.

SuperSaiyaMan
06:22:21 PM Aug 21st 2010
EXACTLY. The only reason why Meet The Spartans, Epic Movie, etc. even broke even was because of their effective ad-campaigns that bring in the lowest common denominator.

Box Office numbers shouldn't matter in So Bad, It's Horrible. Just because it attracted an audience through ad-campaigns doesn't say the movie is good in the slightest.
EtherealMutation
11:35:45 AM Aug 22nd 2010
If you take out sales as an indicator of popularity and allow people to declare an audience as "Lowest Common Denominator", the lists become utterly useless as people start declaring such and such group of people as "not counting". It also encourages the factionalistic "these people are fucktards" attitudes that make the endless flame wars over Twilight and such so tiring to read.
SuperSaiyaMan
02:21:11 PM Aug 22nd 2010
Twililght, despite all its flaws, doesn't fit in with So Bad, It's Horrible. Hell, people make it into Guilty Pleasures and everything, making it at worse So Bad, It's Good.
SuperSaiyaMan
12:42:21 PM Aug 25th 2010
So we agree-Box Office Gross doesn't affect quality, so Friedberg And Seltzer's other films can be added in again.
nuclearneo577
11:14:40 PM Aug 25th 2010
I was just takeing it off because their other films got removed earlier. If they can go back, good.
Antwan
03:47:50 AM Aug 28th 2010
Okay, I'm going to be very serious here since you don't really get it.

Only Disaster Movie belongs here. You say that Twilight doesn't belong here, but somebody else would feel differently about that and add it because they think it's really bad. If we disallow commercial success as a factor, the list would explode so horribly that we'd get countless edit wars and conflicting opinions because one guy feels that it's not that bad and will do whatever it takes to remove it.

Besides, if it's a commercial success, then that means that a lot of people liked it. A movie can only belong here if a lot of people hated it and it can't possibly be hated if a lot of people have seen it. It's not like those billions of dollars appeared out of thin air. Yes, the people were the "lowest common denominator", but they're still people that liked the movie. Now do you see the point?

And no, we're not instigating a box office flop means that it's so bad it's horrible. I have no idea where you got that, but that's flat out wrong. It has to have made a small amount of cash and be panned by critics and moviegoers. Not one or the other. Both.

Long story short, commercial success is a factor to keep this trope from becoming nerd rage central as it does somewhat measure how many people saw the film. Unless they become box office bombs as well as critically panned movies, the other Seltzer and Friedberg works stay off. And that includes Vampires Suck because it hit number one which means a lot of people saw it and enjoyed it.

Deal.
Antwan
04:17:04 AM Aug 28th 2010
Oh, by the way, I checked IDBM and it seems there are a lot of people (mostly Twilight-haters) that really dig this movie, so I don't think this really checks out. It's bad, but not that bad.
SuperSaiyaMan
01:18:20 AM Aug 29th 2010
Wait till the end of this week-it won't even break even and will drop below 10 on the most viewed movies.
SoWeAteThem
01:41:21 AM Aug 29th 2010
Moved Vampires Suck to a sublet of Disaster Movie (as it is don by the same troupe.) But now, my two cents: Judging by the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I'd say it ain't budging anytime soon...
Antwan
03:49:41 AM Aug 29th 2010
Very well. But if this does happen to open the floodgates for all Seltzer and Friedberg movies to end up here in an edit war, it's out for good.
Bass
01:13:11 AM Sep 24th 2010
Claiming that "Box Office Success" is a matter of advertising campaigns is total bullshit. Why did "Terminator Salvation" ultimately fail to make a profit in theaters (and no, the studio doesn't get the whole gross back - they usually only get slightly more than half of it)? Or the second "Fantastic Four" film? Or "Prince of Persia"?
nuclearneo577
topic
10:33:25 PM Jul 21st 2010
Glowsquid: how come you said that I want SBIH deleted? What does that mean?
Glowsquid
04:50:47 AM Jul 22nd 2010
edited by Glowsquid
Read this, as it's pretty much the same situation as what's happening now. At this point, it doesn't matter how much the damn thing sucks, what matter is that Ethereal Mutation is so hell-bent on removing the damn thing that adding it back is pointless.
nuclearneo577
11:05:03 AM Jul 22nd 2010
O.K. I will levee it alone until he quits removing it.
Glowsquid
11:46:52 AM Jul 22nd 2010
methink you don't get it.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
10:15:02 PM Jul 13th 2010
For future references when testing this page's capacity:

There really is a film called Z. It's an art film about Greek politics, made and released approx. 1970 (give or take a couple of years)... And no, it isn't Horrible.
Glowsquid
04:23:16 AM Jul 14th 2010
I, uh, didn't know that.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
07:55:39 PM Jul 15th 2010
That's okay. It's an art film, after all. Only the greatest art films are likely to be known by the average person. That film isn't horrible, but it's not So Cool It's Awesome either.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
10:12:43 PM Jul 13th 2010
Okay, so Jaws 5 is an exploitation film and not an official Jaws film. Is there any other reason it's an invalid entry? Did it fail to make theaters?
nuclearneo577
topic
10:06:09 AM Jul 7th 2010
Did anyone notice that Fast Eddie removed So Bad Its Horrible from the Garbage Pail Kids Movie page? Yeh, I fixed that.
FastEddie
moderator
05:25:28 AM Aug 21st 2010
edited by FastEddie
And I fixed it back. So Bad, It's Horrible doesn't go in the main pages. We're not about opinions in the main pages.
Antwan
04:11:04 AM Aug 28th 2010
I yanked out a lot of vile from that page and it still wasn't good enough? You know what? I'm starting to get pretty sick of this "locking because of negative opinion" thing. I don't care if you're the owner, this has to stop because you're just making yourself look tyrannical now. :/
206.29.188.239
topic
12:11:10 PM Jul 2nd 2010
I am HIGHLY tempted to slap The Last Airbender on here... Saw first showing today and my GOD it was horrible. Horribly integrated 3D, bad BAD acting, the Shyamalan plot twist that doesn't bear any respect to the source material. Everything about it was terrible.

Also the reviews of the movie are universally negative. 8 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with the only positive reviews given by people who were probably bribed into doing so... I know it's only been out for a day but oh my GOD it's terrible.
Glowsquid
03:01:26 PM Jul 2nd 2010
It's already on here.
tonagamu
11:42:31 PM Jul 2nd 2010
GAH RAGE!!! My GOD! The horror! Sorry I know I sound like an amateur but just my god this was so amazingly dull...
VideoGameCrack
04:56:33 AM Jul 4th 2010
So they don't have time and money for a fourth season or, I don't know, an ANIMATED movie, but we sure as hell can pay for this.

Funnily enough, the RT community gives it 60%.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:15:15 PM Jul 5th 2010
Oh, great. That means that we probably have to take it off!

Unless you think someone is spamming the Rotten Tomatoes community...

But the complaints I've read about this film look like ones that only people who already know the series would find a problem. There are almost certainly people watching the movie who haven't seen the series, who wouldn't understand why "racebending" is a problem, who wouldn't even know there is an extra twist in the ending. Adaptation Decay isn't Horrible in itself.

In short, this could be another Batman & Robin.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:19:54 PM Jul 5th 2010
Oh, and this film exists being Shyamalan was Doing It for the Art. He's the fella who got this into production.

Why would we need a fourth season or an animated movie, BTW? The series finale was a Grand Finale — a fourth season would've been a Postscript Season. While such a season probably wouldn't make the Horrible index, it wouldn't necessarily be appreciated if it existed.
75.51.77.89
09:24:05 PM Jul 5th 2010
Even in the absence of knowledge about the series, the 3-D was terrible. Especially wherever there was fur or hair. I've seen better 3-D in viewmasters
endangeredmonkey
01:16:27 PM Jul 6th 2010
Not defending the movie, really, but I'm not so sure it belongs. I mean, it certainly wasn't that good, but compared to most of the stuff on the page....
Glowsquid
08:56:28 AM Jul 13th 2010
Though, I don't doubt it sucks, I think it'sm ostly on this page because of fan reactionism. I heard it has a good user rating on Rotten T Omatoes, and there are some positive reviews on this very site. Still, not in a hurry to remove it.
VideoGameCrack
01:03:37 PM Jul 16th 2010
edited by VideoGameCrack
>Why would we need a fourth season or an animated movie, BTW? The series finale was a Grand Finale — a fourth season would've been a Postscript Season.

I think a better reason for any kind of continuing the series not being possible would be that the voice actor for Iroh already passed away.

Also, they could've made Zuko's missing mother a plot point.
205.168.59.254
08:45:00 AM Jul 21st 2010
Who likes this movie? I've yet to meet anyone who said anything remotely positive about it. Not to mention that it's lost over 100 million at the box office. This is a Pluto Nash level disaster.
EtherealMutation
08:56:58 AM Jul 21st 2010
Plenty of reviews and huge amounts of discussion over proper page tone on the film's discussion page shows a non-trivial number of people like the film.
VideoGameCrack
12:09:02 PM Jul 21st 2010
And we still have an Edit War again.
205.168.59.254
11:13:01 PM Jul 21st 2010
We shouldn't have an edit war for this, there are people out there who like Disaster Movie, but they don't matter, because so many more people recognize the film for the pile of shit that it is. The Last Airbender belongs here.
nuclearneo577
09:13:47 PM Jul 22nd 2010
The IMDB score is a decent 4.3, but I've noticed that most of the new reviews are very negative. In the first 10 pages, the highest score was 3 stats out of 10, and he said that it was crap. I think that most of the positive reviews are over and that the score will drop very low in the next few months. If it drops below a 3, it should go here without question.
DrMutton
09:19:27 PM Jul 22nd 2010
Well, it's gone now. So what do we do?
206.123.202.2
05:36:59 PM Jul 25th 2010
I'm putting it back on. Though it's been removed several times, with one exception, the only person who deleted it was Ethereal Mutation. I think that qualifies him as a troll, as he's clearly the only person in the universe who doesn't think the film belongs here. I swear to god, if he deletes it one more time, This... means... ''war''.
EtherealMutation
06:51:03 PM Jul 25th 2010
Again, look at the fucking pages I linked and keep in mind that an admin was willing to lock both Film.The Last Airbender and Avatar: The Last Airbender because of this retarded site-wide war over its inclusion.
205.168.59.254
09:50:28 PM Jul 25th 2010
NO. No one has been giving truly positive reviews. I checked those archives and comments, not one person said the films were actually good. The closest thing to a positive review I saw there was "So Much Awesome, Yet So Much Fail." The posts can be divided between 3 lukewarm reviews, and about 20 vitriolic reviews. That doesn't give it enough clout to avoid being on here.

You're not helping anything by deleting it, you're literally the only person on the site that thinks it doesn't belong. So stop deleting it.
EtherealMutation
10:06:15 PM Jul 25th 2010
The informal rules of this section are "if people regularly contest it, it's not an example". There are reams of people contesting it all over and the problems caused by it have been significant enough to require page locks. It is not an example and you're not making a very strong case by come in as an anonymous member less than half a day ago to throw around dire accusations and blatantly false hyperbole.
205.168.59.254
10:44:50 PM Jul 25th 2010
No, the only person contesting it is you. I looked at the posts you linked to. There aren't any real defenses, just a few people saying the film was lukewarm at best. If you do this again, I'm reporting abuse.
SabreJustice
08:45:11 AM Aug 14th 2010
Putting it in the middle of the page is a great gambit, people always look for recent movies at the bottom of the page.

Maybe I should do the same with Sonic the Hedgehog (2006). The only people defending that have Stockholm Syndrome.
Kuruni
10:50:11 AM Aug 14th 2010
edited by Kuruni
It isn't much of gambit as the entries being alphabetically sorted. And in case you forgot, L (for Last, we ignore The when sorting stuff) happen to be 12th alphabet from 26 letters. That's why it's in the middle of page, it can't be help that several of near bottom entries start with S (19th) and the last one start with T (20th).
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
10:25:56 PM Sep 27th 2010
Musing on The Last Airbender:

Okay, this film is known to be bad. But this film was the ninth biggest grosser of Summer 2010 — I got that part from Entertainment Weekly. Just how expensive was it that it was still unprofitable?!
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:21:44 PM Oct 8th 2010
Another musing on The Last Airbender:

This film is a Fandom Heresy. This makes it difficult to judge the worth of the film, since most people who would be interested are in the fandom. But there were a few who aren't — for some reason, the film industry still thinks M. Night Shyamalan sells. While virtually no one loves this film, there are reports that people who aren't in the fandom can tolerate it.

The 4.3 on the IMDb, if it hasn't significantly gone down, should be another hint.
DivineRose125
02:27:59 AM Dec 17th 2010
edited by DivineRose125
So reviewers are not familiar with the cartoon it was based on. And it holds a 6% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

BTW, I took it off the list for the time being. There have been endless debates and Edit Wars on weather The Last Airbender truly belongs on the "horrible film" list.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
05:39:58 PM Dec 17th 2010
Didn't work, someone put the exact entry back. <shrug>
DivineRose125
11:55:12 PM Dec 17th 2010
edited by DivineRose125
It's me, sorry...I'll take it off again.

Now about the film, Very few people genuinely liked the film. Most fans hated the film and people outside the fandom are apathetic about it. Is it true that this film is a Fandom Heresy?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
08:36:31 PM Dec 26th 2010
Judging from the reactions, yes. The people who hate this film the most and are most likely to call it Horrible are people who watched and liked the cartoon. (This does include Roger Ebert.) Unfortunately, that is a high percentage of the people who would go to watch the film. But people who watched because they are fans of Shyamalan or the general concept are more likely to just shake their heads sadly; people who aren't fans of ATLA are likely to have stronger reactions to Lady in the Water.

One other note: this film was one of the twenty top-grossing films of 2010 (pre-December). Exactly how expensive was it that that's still not too popular to qualify?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
10:10:27 PM Jun 22nd 2010
For the record, I am reposting a discussion of Batman & Robin from this page's discussion archive. The gist seems to be that this, while an Ink Stain Adaptation, isn't necessarily Horrible. Unfortunately, the people most motivated to watch the film are the ones who seem to like it least, so...

Ethereal Mutation: Does Batman and Robin really belong here? It might be Canon Defilement of the highest order, but outside of the cyclic hatedom (just like Jar-Jar Binks, people that have never seen it are more than happy to talk about how much they hate it), it's really just another really expensive (125 million dollars!) turkey without anything really noteworthy (positive or extremely negative) about it. Most of the reviews for it are around the 2 out of 4 star range (which is technically in the "rotten" threshold of Rotten Tomatoes, but not this bad). The huge amount of hatred piled on the movie is more directed at the politics behind it rather than what's really on screen.

triassicranger: Just checked the recent history where someone removed it, but for those who can't be bothered to look (that and it'll vanish off the recent changes page eventually) Batman and Robin is an example of Accentuate The Negative (whatever that means) and not on the level of "Horrible". I would also like to groan that seemingly no one cares to explain why the film is so bad.
SabreJustice
08:43:57 AM Aug 14th 2010
Besides, upon watching the thing it's firmly So Bad, It's Good. It's oddly like the Adam West Batman with a much higher budget and more violence.
VideoGameCrack
topic
08:41:07 AM Jun 14th 2010
Marmaduke seems to be a future candidate. 1.7 on IMDb, 10% on RT, and considering the advert I just saw was just one big fart joke, I'm not too confident with this one.
Antwan
02:14:19 AM Jun 15th 2010
Well, it's too soon to say, but we will keep an eye out if this continues. Thanks.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
08:29:06 PM Jun 11th 2010
Did Space-Thing ever get a theatrical release?
YonTroper
05:54:31 AM Jun 16th 2010
Cut this and put it here:

  • Space-Thing is a dreadfully dull movie where a bunch of not-very-pretty people (all credited under false names) have a lot of boring sex.

I haven't seen the movie, but this entry is non-explanatory. If someone can rewrite it to be more explanatory, put Space-Thing back in.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
08:26:38 PM Jun 11th 2010
Okay. I cut Ax 'Em because it had a scene listed as worth seeking out. (It was also listed as both So Bad, It's Good and So Bad, It's Horrible on its page.) It got restored without the note about the scene, on grounds that "elements worth seeking out" happened in Action 52...

Okay, I understand the confusion. But the element in "Cheetahman" in Action 52 is a piece of music that cannot properly be appreciated within the game itself because the SFX get in the way. (It's fifty-two games in the cart; there may be a few So Bad, It's Good games in there, but Cheetahman isn't one of them.)

The good element in Ax 'Em is part of the film proper — a DJ doing "yo mama" jokes — and apparently the SFX failure doesn't get in the way so much that the scene can't be watched.

Okay. Videogames do seem to have laxer standards — and if a game's unplayable, then that overrules everything else. But that's no reason to loosen the standards here.
Antwan
02:40:02 AM Jun 14th 2010
No offense, but are you kidding? Because it has one likable scene, it doesn't belong here? That...doesn't make any sense to me. And besides that, not everybody found the yo mama joke battle funny at all. Some see it as mere Padding and nothing more.

If we defended all movies by having "one good scene", then the list would be a lot shorter.
nuclearneo577
12:19:07 AM Jun 17th 2010
Re added it.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
08:20:22 PM Jun 20th 2010
I'm not gonna start an edit war, but — this list being a lot shorter wouldn't be a bad thing. Ideally, we just want the crap of the crap.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
06:26:25 PM Jun 7th 2010
Cutting this and putting it here for now. Maybe it belongs on the page, maybe it doesn't, but I am uncomfortable with having a Your Mileage May Vary block on an entry on this page. It does look like whether you find Club Paradise Horrible or not depends on your expectations... and face it, Eugene Levy and Rick Moranis are unambiguously comedians, so expecting them in a straight-up sex romp is kinda naive.

  • Club Paradise, starring your friend and ours, Robin Williams. With a title like that, you'd think it would be a typical mid-eighties R/NC-17 romp with hot half-naked jiggly girls and plenty of sexual hijinks. But if it had, then that would have given it a redeeming quality, so no. Instead, it's a PG-13 "comedy" (if this passes for comedy) with a plot that involves its protagonists opening a club that is advertised to be something much better and sexier than it is. (What a time for life to imitate art...) And if you think Robin is hairy, then you have not suffered through shirtless Rick Moranis and Eugene Levy.
    • Well, Your Mileage May Vary on this movie depending on who your favorite actor or actress is. With people like those two SCTV alumni, as well as voice actor Brian Doyle-Murray and famous model Twiggy, how can you argue? Plus, this seems like a fitting movie to kill time with when you're at a beach somewhere in the U.S. or the Carribean. However, despite being a big fan of Rick's, this troper found this movie kind of boring at times and agrees on the shirtless part. Eww, such fluffy bellies...
71.198.174.162
07:47:00 PM Jul 16th 2010
Funny thing is, I  * recently had second thoughts about posting it in this category, as I realized it did have a redeeming quality (for me, anyway): Robin Williams, shirtless and cute. Well, that and the fact that him and Peter O'Toole (!) were clearly doing the best they could with the film. It could have been so much better though...

Now, speaking as this Wiki's resident Robin Williams expert (But still one who is quite opinionated in her own right), I have to ask: Does anyone else think License To Wed belongs here? I'm not sure I can really say because I've never actually seen the whole thing and therefore couldn't actually complain without being jumped on. It says something though that I of all people don't want to see it despite Robin playing a main character (and I liked Flubber, Father's Day, and RV!).
triassicranger
topic
09:19:22 AM May 7th 2010
I'd like to semi-retract my removal of Furry Vengeance. "Semi-" because I've seen some unfavourable reviews, but I still think it's too early for it to be listed here (I think we should give it another week or two) and again because you need to say more than just "it fails".
VideoGameCrack
05:39:49 AM May 12th 2010
Rotten Tomatoes gives it 7 percent, and the reviews with a fresh rating have tons of comments telling those guys they're idiots.

Not to forget that we have films on this pages with a lot higher ratings on that site (I remember seeing Cutthroat Island with a close to 50 percent rating).
triassicranger
10:41:01 AM May 13th 2010
Cutthroat Island has now been cut.

I've checked the IMDB. At the time of writing Furry Vengeance has a 1.7 rating out of 1281 votes. However it's apparently no.2 at the box office as well. How they came to that conclusion I don't know.

Consider any protest from me withdrawn. Aside from the fact the entry wasn't well elaborated.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
06:50:49 PM May 13th 2010
edited by AnonymousMcCartneyfan
Being #2 at the box office is an objective measure — it means it's sold the second highest number of tickets of any film the week at the time it was numbered. (#1 is probably A Nightmare on Elm Street — yes, they rebooted that franchise.) If this holds for another week, Furry Vengeance will be disqualified because it will be too popular — it'll be a Guilty Pleasure, so to speak.
VideoGameCrack
03:05:24 AM May 14th 2010
Wasn't Disaster Movie #2 at the box office as well?

Correct me if I'm wrong.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
04:27:51 PM May 25th 2010
Okay, then Furry Vengeance is still eligible — probably.
VideoGameCrack
04:11:01 AM Jun 8th 2010
It's now on IMDb's Bottom 100, standing on #33 at the moment.
68.108.197.14
01:05:32 AM Mar 14th 2011
It's the lowest ranked for 2010 on Rotten Tomatoes. Also, I've seen at my local Best Buy they still have a buttload of copies of it, basically nobody wants to buy it.

As for Box Office earnings, it made WAY less it's second week than it did it's first week. Sometimes films should not be judged based off of opening weekend box office numbers.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
09:44:12 PM Apr 17th 2010
Cut this and put it here for now. This film appears to have fans in high places. (And I think thylacine were real.)

  • Howling III: The Marsupials is also worth mentioning here. Upon first glance at the title, you would think it would involve were-kangaroos. That would have beem a BETTER movie. The movie revolves around the lycanthropic relatives of a made-up extinct marsupial, and an ordinary man's love for one of the lady were-things. The special effects are better than New Moon Rising, but there's even less plot.
  • There are apparently people who like III—for instance, the critics Mick Martin and Marsha Porter wrote about "character development rather than gore" and gave it two and a half stars. Considering what I and II were like, though, one wonders why the hell III was marketed as III rather than its own thing with its own style.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
07:27:05 PM Apr 2nd 2010
edited by AnonymousMcCartneyfan
Do we have any reasons for listing Christmas with The Kranks other than the Family-Unfriendly Aesop?
Mouser
02:18:55 PM Apr 6th 2010
I haven't seen the movie (nor do I wish to) but the linked review brings up other problems: lack of humor and characters arbitrarily acting like assholes for reasons that make no sense. Plus, Jamie Lee Curtis's screaming.
715
09:06:09 PM Jul 5th 2010
Well the thing is that's all Christmas With The Kranks was above, it hammered you over the head with its Family Unfriendly Aesop over and over
Idisagree
04:32:02 PM Dec 17th 2011
So that's the reason I hate Hair Spray and isn't that well-recieved. Does that make Hair Spray So Bad, It's Horrible, NO! Figure this out yourselves.
SantosL.Halper
topic
07:39:44 PM Mar 13th 2010
edited by SantosL.Halper
Removed the following:

  • The Cat in the Hat. A 90-minute live-action adaptation of material that was previously filmed, with padding, as a half-hour cartoon. Imagine the padding here. In addition, Mike Myers and the script combine to derail the character of the Cat in the Hat. The Cat in the book is a jerk, but in the book he comes off as naive, someone who doesn't understand the consequences of his playfulness. In the film, the added off-color humor kills any hopes of naivete; in the film, he's a creepy, insensitive mancat-child who seems intent on ruining lives.
    • You forgot to mention some of the...less than satisfactory jokes that take the movie even further from the plot than usual, used in the padding. Admittedly, they aren't all bad, though few are better than average; but the ones that are bad... are bad.
    • Thanks to the film's dirty humor and mature themes (in contrast to the family-friendly work that it was based on), Audrey Geisel, the widow of Ted Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss) and the one in charge of all licensing of Seuss properties, stated that she would never approve another live-action adaptation of any of Dr. Seuss's works. Any future adaptations will be animated or CGI, hence the CG Horton Hears a Who movie, which was moderately successful.

Remember: So Bad, It's Horrible is here to describe works so bad that not even the base it was advertised to; not a place to rant about works you hate.

Come to think of it, I guess this movie does belong in "So Bad It's Horrible", from the reaction. Put back.
austindm
topic
01:57:44 PM Mar 12th 2010
edited by austindm
This is my opinion only, but "Catch and Release" with Jennifer Garner is the only movie I've seen where I could think of several different tortures I'd prefer over watching that movie again.

When the "meet cute" between the love interests involves the female crying over her lost love in a bathtub while the male half is screwing the caterer in said bathroom, one should know that's just what you have in store for you. Wishing you were getting their brain bleached.

I used to think Kevin Smith was funny before this movie.
zoyla76
09:23:15 PM Jun 1st 2011
I think Kevin Smith is the only funny thing in this whole movie.
Videogamer07
11:49:04 PM Oct 18th 2011
I know you made this message over 18 months ago, but I'm pretty sure it's just your opinion. It has 5.8 on IMDB, which is apparently way too high for a movie to be on this list.

I know, people can skew the scores (as the person at the bottom of this page says), but still, this page isn't about what one person thinks is horrible.
InTheGallbladder
06:56:59 PM Jun 15th 2012
edited by InTheGallbladder
DISREGARD THIS POST—IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ITS OWN THREAD
supernintendo128
12:57:49 AM Jan 30th 2014
edited by 99.56.73.89
sorry, accidentally posted here.
supernintendo128
11:31:33 AM Apr 5th 2014
edited by 99.56.73.89
sorry, accidently posted here.
back to Horrible/Film

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy