Discussion Horrible / Film

I agree

It has a low rating, so I don't see why not. Please add details on how bad the film is, why it is terrible.

I think sheer levels of So Bad, It's Good will disqualify it.

It's an utter trainwreck and people are ecstatic about that.

I think that is more a textbook case of Bile Fascination than it is any anticipation of the finished project. I've heard not one good word about it (and plenty words of outright damnation) in reviews, overall scores on aggregators are less than 1 out of 10, and apparently it's currently operating at a massive loss—so much so that they've announced plans to hastily redo it while it's still airing in cinemas. I am completely prepared to cast that particular stone.

It's been almost half a year. Any consensus?

I know this is a very late response, but the film probably doesn't qualify because too many people consider it So Bad, It's Good.

Contradicting/disrespecting the source material isn't enough to qualify as So Bad, It's Horrible. Also while I don't like that film now, I liked it as a kid so no.

It has a 4/10 rating on IMDB — not good, but probably not bad enough to make it Horrible. And it has a surprising number of positive reviews on Amazon, where the average score is somehow 4.1/5. I don't think it qualifies.

("I liked it as a kid" is not enough to disqualify a work from SBIH status. The criterion is "the work has a small audience", not "literally no one ever liked it or at least found it okay". However, if a bad kids' film did appeal to kids, or at least a sizable group of kids, it's not Horrible.)

There's also the producer's cut of London Fields. It has a goose egg on RT and a 16 on Metacritic. IM Db lists it as a merely below-average 4.3, but this is because both the producer's cut and the apparently So Ok Its Average directors cut have the same page.

I think Kevin Smith is the only funny thing in this whole movie.

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.

DISREGARD THIS POST—IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ITS OWN THREAD

sorry, accidentally posted here.

sorry, accidently posted here.

ignore—accidentally posted wrong

...

Ignore this.

There are a lot of really positive reviews on IMDb. So... figure out whether that disqualifies it or not.

Seems valid.

Also, Chris Stuckmann covers it here, and he notes that it makes Fantastic Four (2015) look good by comparison.

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).

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.

Sounds good, add it in.

I already did beforehand.

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".

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.

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.

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.

@ Fromthe Wordsof BR: I have The Devil Inside re-edited with the defunct website link, so can I add it.

• There's a reason why The Devil Inside is among the one of the most notorious films of 2012. It has 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, stops the film dead in its tracks, and ending with a link to a website that doesn't even exist anymore. It was panned by almost every reviewer, with a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 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 largely 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, all leading to the film (despite the box-office success) being seen as a failure. You can watch Film Brain tear it down here.

I completely agree with the inclusion of The Devil Inside but I see that it doesn't appear on the page. Was it removed or does it still need to be added?

Casper: A Spirited Beginning does indeed seem like a good candidate. It's bad through and through, even with James Earl Jones voicing Kibosh.

Low IMDB score? Check. Horrible RT score? Yup. Box Office Bomb? That too. I don't see any problem adding it up, so feel free to make an entry for it. You can also add Chris Stuckmann's review in your entry too if you want a Caustic Critic review.

It's now at a 4/10 on IMDB. It's also now being nominated for 3 Razzie Awards for Worst Suppporting Actor, Worst Supporting Actress and Worst Prequel, Remake, Ripoff Or Sequel.

Mentioning the source doesn't nullify the point of a lot of the parts of the entry, though. In particular, this The plot reads like a clip show of various Season 1 episodes, except less coherent and made of Swiss cheese (the Fire Nation's Earthbender camp is on land in this one, and yet Aang has to remind them years later that they can escape), and whole arcs are either summarized in narration (such as Sokka falling for Yue) or rendered through utterly-blatant exposition (such as Zuko asking a random Fire Nation citizen about his own backstory). is less saying "it's different" and more saying "they tried to make it the same, and failed horribly."

Could easily use a wholesale rewrite, I suppose, because it truly is a piece of shit.

Of course, but as a whole, it seems to focus to much on how it fails at being the same as the show, and not enough on how it simply fails. The comparison you pointed out is a relevant comparison, since it's pointing out an important issue (bad pacing) and explaining how the show did it better. But things like complaining about the calligraphy or the choreographies would be considered completely irrelevant if not for the show, and thus should probably not be mentioned.

So yeah, a rewrite would probably be a good idea, in order to focus more on the issues of the movie and less on how it is inferior to the show.

27 on Metacritic, by the way.

This movie somehow got worse reviews than Howard the Duck. I'd say that alone qualifies it for a spot here. At least Pixels had mixed-ish audience reviews - I think this is the first major release I've seen this year that was unanimously hated.

It's now at a 4/10 on IMDB. Also, a review of the film ripping it to shreds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtIY1vFAP8&index=28&list=LLVShosEpg8VFiNx6XD2xRzg

I think this is understandable an entry.

I've seen reviews mentioning some good points in this film, mostly the fact that while the film was butchered by producers, the elements brought by the director (treating powers as a source of anxiety, the theme of evolution and accomplishment, some interesting shots, etc...) were good points. As for the catchphrase thing, I've also seen people defend it as Ben turning something painful (suffering abuse) into a strength (being a hero and defending people) ; I gotta admit, when seen this way, it's actually kind of a beautiful evolution of character.

I'm just telling about opinions I've seen, you decide if they are valid enough to save this movie.

The Last Airbender was directed by a famous fan of the series, had a rough draft of the script written up that was much more faithful to the original show than the movie ended up being, was handed over to producers and a ghostwriter who didn't watch and/or care for the show at all, and got butchered into what you see today. It's still on this page.

Just because the director cares about the movie shouldn't save it.

I would also like to add that Fantastic 4 opened with a CinemaScore grade of C- (for comparison, Jack and Jill got a B). Also, it's been mentioned that its Rotten Tomatoes score is lower than Howard the Duck, but it's also lower than Batman & Robin. Add in the fact that it's drastically underperforming at the box office, and I say it qualifies.

There have also been stories surfacing over the past few days that cast doubt on how much Trank really cared. He was apparently a GIGANTIC brat to the actors.

How much shall we wait before putting it here?

^I'd say we should probably wait until the movie leaves theaters, just so we can accurately determine how big of a Box Office Bomb it is.

Agreed.

It's now at a 3.9/10 on IMDB.

It's now at a straight 4/10. That's still pretty low.

I've heard it has a fandom in Italy, but I can't recall WHERE I heard that.

This is already present in Americans Hate Tingle. While the Italian version can be enjoyable, it was a bomb elsewhere because they mismanaged the localization, with VERY clumsy dubbing and editing. I know it because I'm Italian

Thank you for letting me know about this. I won't add it, though.

The Pyramid has a 5.2 IM Db rating so it's probably doesn't qualify (in that it seemed to appeal to its target audience). Also, it did better internationally than domestically (and Fox produced it for an international audience with US numbers being an afterthought). But Ouija could be a viable contender as even though it spent two weeks in first at the US box office, negative reviews, the Cinemascore (a C) and its IM Db rating (4.4) favor its inclusion. The Cinemascore most notably suggest not even the film's target audience (teenage girls) seemed to like it.

I actually thought Oujia was one of the most well-written new horror films I've seen in quite a while (maybe you mean a different movie). However in the case of "Cat In the Hat", one amusing scene/funny joke (like 3 of the fart jokes from Master of Disguise or Al Capino in Jack And Jill) doesn't redeem an otherwise awful/qualifying movie. Also a movie can be decent in the box office and still count if that's the only thing going for it. Also can someone add "Zoom: Academy For Superheroes" and "Kite" already?

Left Behind 2014 is a good candidate for this page. It has 3,1 on IM Db and 2% on Rotten Tomatoes. If Roger Ebert was still alive, he'd give it -1 star out of four. The original one is bad but enjoyable, this one is just unspeakably bad. I mean, how did they get Lorraine from Back to the Future to act in this trainwreck?

Oh, and the SBIH score for Grace is 28, too. (However, the user score on RT is clearly marked "Want to See," and there is no user score for Metacritic, so I just used the RT score, Metascore and I Mdb rating.) And on this similar subject (biopics that are failed Oscar bait), I think Diana definitely qualifies for this status as well. It has an SBIH score of about 22.8 when factoring in the RT critic (8%) and user (26%) scores, Metascore (35) and user score (36), and even the rather high I Mdb score of 5.5/10. Naomi Watts' performance was near-universally reviled, and although we know the Razzies aren't a benchmark for this, she was jointly nominated for her work in this film and Movie 43. It's also worth mentioning that one of the only media outlets that praised it, the Daily Express, has a huge bias towards anything Princess Di. And the film itself has the same flaws as Grace: fake cinematography, wooden acting, one-note characterization of real people, ridiculous Artistic License – History (at least Grace had the gall to open with a disclaimer saying that there was a lot of that), and a general sense of tedium throughout. Unlike Grace, though, this one actually did make it to the theaters in the US, and while it did make its budget back (barely), it bombed hard in its limited release.

If you do put it here, it would go under "Happy Madison", which is under "Repeat Offenders", and they do have some worse movies under that section.

Yes. It's THAT terrible. Put it here if you wish.

I'm sure this flick goes to the Animated Film section of "Horrible". Post it there if you wish.

That film might have some potential. Any specific reviews or areas where shortcomings are present though?

Here is the link to the Imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1272013/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. If you are interested, check out the Italian remake, too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3040510/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.

If you're not convinced enough, a little google research will help.

I have an update: "Fuga de Cerebros" was dubbed in the US under the name "Brain Drain", by 20th Century Fox.

This one looks like it should be on.

I've seen this at a used goods store, if you guys want I could write a review for the film

I've just watched it, the tag line is "Kill. Justice." & the best way to describe is it unjustly killed cinema, I personally couldn't tell what it fails harder, as an adaption or as a film in general, the film now sits at 4.3/10 which is 0.1 lower score than getaway (yet another movie listed on horrible/film page), which is appropriate because this film shares all the same problems as that one plus more.

The "Plus more" part is this film feels neutered in sexual content (for the most part, & I'll get to that shortly), & it tries to make up for this in unnecessary gore (for example the bullets are also grenades that explod 10-30 seconds after making impact, & it serves no other perpess than to have the dead bodies to explode with blood twice after being shot) none of which is helped by the horrendous special effects, it's basically has the feel of a horrible Sin City knockoff/wannabe

The casting is just horrible, India Eisley is unconvincing & her character comes off as being extremely under age (which makes what was left of the sexual content very uncomfortable), callan mcauliffe has an unexplained British accent, which is extremely out of place scenes everyone else specks with an American or Russian, & Samuel L Jackson literally sleepwalks through this movie & is still the best actor in it

The music/sound will cause you pain, the cinematography is extremely zoomed in & can't focus on a shot for more then 5 seconds, & the costumes are worse than any 50's sci-fi B-movie

This seems like a perfect entry.

My god, they made an American live-action remake of Kite?!?

And people are balking at Battle Royale.

Maybe. What are the shortcomings of the work?

Well, I've consulted some reviews from a variety of sources (including Cinemonster) and these seem to be the main gripes:

• Clunky dialogue and Bad bad acting
• Poorly-conceived, badly-demonstrated screwball humour and slapstick jokes
• Zero character development
• No struggle; everything comes easily
• In a movie with their name on it, the Village People are Demoted to Extra en masse. "Jack Morrell" and his friends Samantha and Ron steal the spotlight but do very little - if anything - to make us like them.

There's more, but it's hard for me to express. Maybe the reviews on the opposite side of these reviews will help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz4lgMf0bAk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-4dztiKxE

http://www.jabootu.com/cantstopmusic.htm

http://www.monstershack.net/sp/index.php/cant-stop-the-music-1980/

It has a 5.6 IM Db rating and had a B- Cinemascore so it probably doesn't belong as audiences found it more average than bad. Also, the Razzies sometimes don't award the worst but rather people they don't really like or to get publicity (Kristen Stewart won a Razzie the same year because it's popular to hate her and the franchise she was a part of).

I agree that the Razzies should not be used as a measuring stick for this trope. They even went as far as to give the first two Star Wars Prequel movies "Worst Picture" nominations. That, right there, should tell you something about their credibility as film critics.

Seems a bit of a stretch.

I've never heard of it being popular, the only thing I can find about the Kids Choice Awards is being nominated for "best fart in a movie," which... doesn't seem like much. And an appearance doesn't mean it's liked, it just means that there's a sponsorship deal with Nick.

I don't really recall it being "bad" either, maybe So Bad, It's Good, but not outright horrible.

I'd be all for including it.

Sounds like an unenjoyable disaster (unlike the So Bad, It's Good predecessor with Kirk Cameron). I will also say it qualifies.

Here is a review of Left Behind by Christy Lemire. To quote it "It should have more smoldering panic bursting into full-blown freak-outs. It should have more passion, more intensity. It should have more bees"

I'll write up an entry for it...but since I'm posting this while in junior high I'm do it when I get home.

The film was released on DVD (and oh-so-recently too...I haven't seen a quicker release from theater to DVD since Walk of Shame and Pimp) and sure enough has a good amount of bad reviews on Amazon.

Not familiar with it, so it could well be terrible, but your point about the animation is the only usable one here, and that wouldn't be enough by itself. All of your other points just make me think, "So what?". Again, I'm not familiar with it, so there could actually be good reasons to justify its inclusion, but you haven't really provided them.

You'd have to watch the movie on Netflix because the trailer is misleading as heck.

The evil russian mafians is just REALLY cliche, but I can see why the last one might not matter.

Ignore this comment

Using a perceived cliche isn't going to be enough. Having a couple of cliches doesn't automatically make something bad. Even if the entire film is a big cliche, it wouldn't be enough unless done particularly poorly (which would need to be elaborated on) and it would still require other major problems with the story. Loads of good works use things that some people may find are cliched. Also, remember this is not just for things that are "bad", this is for the worst of the worst.

I'm not arguing for or against this film's inclusion (especially since I can't find any professional reviews and there don't seem to be many user reviews and ratings either), but it needs to be a lot more convincing. For what it's worth, the trailer definitely looks awful, but I'll leave the film for someone else to watch and write about.

While I agree it should probably be on the list, I sorta liked some of the jokes (DIRTY HOE!). But I agree, it was a pretty bad movie.

Sounds really bad, so might be worth putting on.

I would like to say that I found Christmas with the Kranks to be a guilty pleasure. Then again, I have only seen about the first 12 or so minutes of the film.

I haven't seen it, but the score sounds too high to belong on this page.

Late to this, but a lot of people don't realize that a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes means that at least 44% of the critics who reviewed it thought it was passable at worst. That's a lot of people who don't think it's terrible, and so it could never qualify.

However, if the movie you meant was "The Legend of Hercules" (which you probably did, judging by the date of your post), it actually only has a 3% approval rating (and its IMDB score ain't too impressive either), so it might be worth including.

The Love Guru sounds like a very good candidate. While we're at it, does "The Cat in the Hat" movie count? I mean it got expunged because it didn't bomb the Box Office (Jack And Jill also didn't flop at the box office and had a fanbase of mostly consisting of children yet will always count). It suffered from things like horrific Adaptation Decay, reliance on unfunny gags, Character Derailment (the title character went from whimsical and naïve to a charmless Jerkass), haphazard Product Placement, is a Franchise Killer, and lacks rhyming (part of the book's original appeal). It was also reviewed by the Nostalgia Critic. Note that I'm not supporting Jack And Jill anymore but just noting that the "It made it's money back" excuse holds little water here.

Well, I added up and averaged all of the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDB ratings, and they amount to 25% (21.75% without IMDB rating), both of which fall under the SBIH threshold, so it counts. I also suggest that Strange Wilderness be re-added since its 5.3/10 rating on IMDB excuse holds little water here, and has a laundry list of a lot more cons than pros (as I highlighted above for the reasons why it should be re-added).

With that being said here are my entries for Strange Wilderness and The Love Guru

• Strange Wilderness. Puerile, obnoxious, and inept in all aspects, the film is a woefully failed attempt at being a stoner comedy in the likes of Harold & Kumar and Cheech & Chong. The film is based off a series of independent short videos that parodied animal programs a la MST3K, which aired on Comedy Central in the 1990s. The plot revolves a group of lazy stoner people who work at a network and run an unsuccessful titular nature program that is threatened with cancellation, so they go on a search to find Bigfoot to restore ratings; it was essentially an excuse to make a film with completely lazy and idiotic people who still feel that they have a sense of entitlement. The film doesn't seem to know its audience (childish plots and humor combined with unsettling violence). Couple these with hopelessly wooden acting (especially it coming from a naturally good cast), overall unfunny gags, and you've got the kind of film that gets a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 7th ranking on Rotten Tomatoes's Worst of the Worst 2009 list (as well as 2nd worst film of 2008), and a 12/100 rating on Metacritic (and being the 30th worst-reviewed film ever). Naturally, all of this led to the film bombing, making barely one-third of its budget back in ticket sales. You can watch Film Brain tear it apart here.

• The Love Guru was intended to resurrect Mike Myers's acting career following the failure of The Cat in the Hat. Instead of accomplishing it, it sank his acting career even further, as the film suffers from overall unfunny gags (including its heavy reliance on penis jokes), wooden acting (made all the worse since it's coming from from a naturally good cast), and its over-focusing on an unlikable main character at the expense of virtually everyone else. In addition, the film flopped at the box office, making back only $40 million out of its $68 million dollar budget, won the worst picture award as well as receiving the most awards and nominations at the 29th Golden Raspberry Awards, and a 14% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 24% rating on Metacritic. Mike Myers has regretted starring in the film, as shown in this Saturday Night Live sketch. You can watch Film Brain tear it down here.

Where did this "SBIH threshold" come from anyway? It doesn't seem like the best way to go about things, since there may be other factors to consider sometimes.

That said, Strange Wilderness looks like it belongs here (unless there's enough evidence that it has a decent amount of supporters) and The Love Guru, even more so.

I came up with the "SBIH threshold" because of how the school grading system works: anything less than 60% is an F. Since 0%-59% is such a wide range, I decided to separate the typical "bad" from "So Bad, It's Horrible", so I used 33.3% as the number that would separate such works from each other (any work below it would be in the SBIH threshold whilst any work above it would not be in that threshold) since 33.3% is one-third of 100%.

Here are other factors that would make a film SBIH aside from lying in the SBIH threshold.

• The film was Not Screened for Critics. If it was screened for critics, then the critics would point out that it sucks and people wouldn't watch it. This is most evident with The Devil Inside, which wasn't screened for critics, with the end result being that it became a box-office success but was universally panned by both moviegoers and critics alike. Had the film be screened for critics, then it would flop. With that being said, even if the film did break even its budget (whether or not it was screened for critics), if it's still universally panned by both moviegoers and critics alike, then it still counts (as shown with Jack & Jill and Movie 43).
• The film has numerous awards/nominations from the Golden Raspberry Awards.
• The film's negative reception either:
  • 1) caused the would-be series to become a Stillborn Franchise (if sequels were planned)
  • 2) served as a Franchise Killer for the film's respective series and/or even even served a Genre-Killer as well
  • 3) caused no only what was described in #2, but caused the film's franchise to become Deader Than Disco as well
• The film ranks among the worst films of the film's respective year, and even moreso if the film ranks among the worst films of the decade.

The SBIH thing aside, I (and a lot of other people, judging from posters on a few other sites I visit that deal in reviews) don't think using the American school grade system to judge something as "bad" works, because, first of all, most other countries consider a grade below 50% as an F (and there are some that will let you pass a subject with a 40% score depending on your other grades), and second, most sites, American or otherwise, use 50 as an average score rather than a fail anyway (hell, on Goodreads, a 2/5 is considered "average").

The second two seem to be good candidates but the first needs more elaboration.

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.

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?

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.

About 43: As with any rating on that site, it almost certainly includes AstroTurfing.

Also about 43: it only cost $6 million to make, so it's not that surprising that it made back its budget.

"The worst aspect of the film was entirely behind-the-scenes."

What's so behind-the-scenes about the fact that it sucks?

"About 43: As with any rating on that site, it almost certainly includes Astro Turfing." - IMDB (and Metacritic, for that matter) also have a lot of users who just give out low scores for fun. I've notcied instances where the "top 1000" voters have ratings that are widely different from everyone else. You mostly only notice it on pages that don't have many ratings, but still. I think it's always best to lean towards non-inclusion than inclusion for more iffy cases. In my opinion, though, I think there's more than enough to suggest that Movie 43 qualifies, at least as much as a couple of other entries on this list. If the 4.5 score on IMDB was supported with more evidence that it has at least some kind of fanbase, that would be something else. The only thing I'd ask is is it really irredeemably "horrible" or is it just an ordinary stinker?

Also, since Cinema Snob was mentioned, I remember him talking about how low IMDB scores don't always mean anything, because a lot of people are just bandwagon jumping, and that a lot of the movies on MST 3 K, for example, don't deserve to have scores as low as they are on IMDB.

I read about that movie a while back and it sounds like a total stinker. Bringing this up to the "round-up" section below.

Sounds terrible

I'm all up for adding it.

This writeup seems fine for me, but the last parenthese does not belong.

Will do. It was just a proposal anyway, but I will add a proper entry in the Film section soon.

Maybe. Both The Agony Booth and The Cinema Snob reviewed it, so you'd have enough evidence there.

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.

It has a 1.4 on IMDB in case you're wondering: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387545/

Good enough for me.

Found some professional reviews as well.

I have seen Wired and I can agree that it is a terrible movie. In fact, the controversy over the film is vastly more interesting than the film itself.

It's also only available on Amazon Instant Video—and that copy has customers reporting that there are several lip-syncing issues.

Yeah, after reading the plot, this movie very much deserves a spot on here. Bring it on!

Evidence, yes. But on its own it wouldn't be enough.

The first Baby Geniuses was a success, so it doesn't count.

There's also Attack Force.

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.

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.

Actually, I rented it from Netflix and experienced the boredom firsthand. Also, Nathan Rabin covered it in The AV Club once and trashed it.

Why not add it ...

The film did okay at the box office (grossing $156 million worldwide on a $65 million budget) and holds a 6.4 IM Db rating. It doesn't qualify.

Yeah, I was about to come on to say that I changed my mind.

"might" is not a good argument; you'll have to demonstrate that the box office results were because of Bile Fascination.

I checked IM Db 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.

Sadly yes, they were well-liked despite their terrible films. It's why they were cranking out so many; they were making mad profits.

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.

I concur with Idisagree. Add both of them up.

I'll add My Big Fat Independent Movie.

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.

Hmm. What do you think, guys?

Well if there's no fans and a 2.1 IM Db score, then it probably counts. Add it

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 IM Db. 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.

While we'll have to wait on "The Legend of Hercules" (it practically just came out). The other two seem perfect for this page.

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 IM Db. No Kermode review this time, though The Guardian is not particularly kind to this disaster...

Danny Dyer seems like quite the repeat offender. Might as well put him and his free flops there.

The IM Db rating is at a 5.4 so it probably goes under So Okay, It's Average. The Cinemascore was also an okay B.

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.

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.

Having watched Getaway myself, I'd say it earns a spot here.

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).

47 Ronin has a 6.7 on IM Db 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.

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?

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.

your welcome.

Sounds like a good qualifier but should it go in The live action section or here. Other than that, it's a perfect candidate.

Thanks. I'll add it in.

I went ahead and added the sequel, Fred 2, to the list.

Someone seems to have removed the entry when there's evidence proving the film's horrible.

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!

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.

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.

I say we wait til it comes out on DVD/Blu ray, to give it time to "sit" say to speak.

Getaway is out on DVD. Been so since November.

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.

Sorry about double posting.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for answering and I agree with you. That Rock Climbing movie looks boring but not terrible. Not sure about that one either.

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 IM Db, it qualifies but I'll see what I can do to tidy it up. Cheers for the heads up!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

Yeah, probably. It also flopped and failed to make back its budget.

I've actually seen this one and like Jack And Jill, enjoyed it. It's more So Bad, It's Good than anything.

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 IM Db 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.

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.

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 IM Db rating (5.7 to be exact). I know there are some IM Db 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 IM Db 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.

Those ratings on IM Db 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 IM Db'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 IM Db ratings) and it totaled to 42.7142857/100 (41/100 sans the IM Db rating). For A Thousand Words, I did the same thing and it totaled to 39/100 (36/100 sans the IM Db rating). For Battlefield Earth, the score is 17.7142857/100 (14.2857143/100 sans the IM Db 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 IM Db 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 IM Db 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 IM Db rating), both under the SBIH threshold.

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.

That said and done, Stranded could qualify. It has a 0% on RT, a 3.4 on IM Db, 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.

Stranded sounds like crap, try adding it.

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?

Debuted at no. 1 in the box office.

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.

Project X has its share of fans (and made a decent profit at the box office). Also, the IM Db user is at 6.5 after 109,000 votes so it does not qualify.

Well could we put it in So Bad It's Good instead then?

It also got an 11% on metacritic. I also would like to see the other Twilight spoof, Taintlight added.

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.

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.