Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Horrible / Film

Go To

Jan 19th 2021 at 8:00:20 AM •••

Is it possible for awful movies that are also really offensive to count?

I was thinking putting the Human Centipede sequels on Repeat Offenders, due to their extremely low metacritic and IMDb scores, with even the people who like watching sickening movies generally disregarding them, as the movies are not well made, unlike certain other Torture Porn flicks.

Edited by ReynTime250
Aug 22nd 2020 at 7:41:50 AM •••

Should we have separate folders for DTV movies, Mockbusters, and theatrical films?

I ask because mockbusters are generally expected to be of low quality, while DTV movies are generally not at the same level as theatrical releases

Jun 17th 2020 at 7:13:26 PM •••

I have absolutely NO idea why some mafia smut film by the name of 365 dni (or days if your English) is doing in the Netflix Top 10 for each passing day. Well, except for possible Bile Fascination, but I find the very idea too disgusting to even watch. Rotten Tomatoes shows that it is severely Rotten (0% Critical with a spilled popcorn bucket). I would rather marathon-watch some of Dingo Pictures' various mockbusters...

Jun 17th 2020 at 11:20:18 AM •••

I like to nominate Exorcist: The Beginning, the film has an 11% on Rotten Tomatoes, and IMDB rating of 5.2 out of 10. So, I wonder if this qualifies as SBIH?

Dec 24th 2019 at 3:24:54 PM •••

Should Zolar: The Extreme Sports Movie count as So Bad It's Horrible?? it has a 1.14/10 rating on IMDB and Doesn't have a RT Score from Critics and Rebel Taxi even tear the movie apart:

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 17th 2020 at 11:20:59 AM •••

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.

Dec 20th 2019 at 1:29:19 PM •••

I know it just came out, but ''Cats is getting terrible reviews, and most of the people who've watched it say it's unpleasant to look at and has a lot of CGI animation errors. I feel like that would be a good future contender for this list.

Hide/Show Replies
Dec 20th 2019 at 1:34:40 PM •••

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

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

Dec 22nd 2019 at 12:21:46 AM •••

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.

May 4th 2020 at 11:16:09 PM •••

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

Nov 26th 2019 at 4:34:17 PM •••

Would the Made-for-TV live-action movies based on The Fairly OddParents count? They have cheap CGI, blatantly disrespect its source material, contradict the ending to the beloved Channel Chasers special, show that Timmy will never amount to anything as an adult, break the show's rule that fairies are taken away once the godchild reaches adulthood, and in general have much weaker writing than the series proper. And they get worse in each movie.

Hide/Show Replies
Dec 1st 2019 at 12:07:22 PM •••

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.

Dec 1st 2019 at 2:22:20 PM •••

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.)

Nov 8th 2019 at 8:55:22 AM •••

Can we add Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band? I truly believe that it's one of the worst movies of all time. It holds a 12% on Rotten Tomatoes with a 44% audience rating. It flopped when it came out. It ended the film careers of almost everyone involved.

Edited by supernintendo128
Nov 8th 2019 at 3:28:12 AM •••

I asked on 3 subpages, now I'm asking here, too:

Jaws in Japan, aka Psycho Shark, anyone?

Jul 23rd 2019 at 12:44:30 PM •••

Balance, Not Symmetry seems to be one to look out for. It had an interesting concept in that they soundtrack (by Biffy Clyro) was made first, with the plot and characters being inspired by it. While the soundtrack album had been very well received, early reviews of the film suggest that it's terrible. It's been said that it's pretentious and clumsily made, and that the soundtrack doesn't actually work in the context of the film, which means the it no longer has the appeal of its main gimmick. Critical reviews have ratings of one to three stars, and some viewers have described it as one of the worst films they've ever seen. It's due to be properly released on 2 August, so have a look for more reviews around then.

(Also posted on 0-F.)

Edited by Maxiboy136
Apr 14th 2019 at 2:57:04 PM •••

The Haunting of Sharon Tate looks like a qualifier. It has a 13% on Rotten Tomatoes, an 8 on Metacritic, and a 3.1 on IM Db. It also has the Unfortunate Implications (multiple sources calling it out to allow us to call it that, pop up when you look up the film) of turning the real-life Charles Manson murders into a jumpscare-filled horror schlockfest. Brad Jones thought it was much worse then Hellboy. We should wait a little bit just in case someone defends it, but so far it's a shoe-in for the dishonor.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 14th 2019 at 4:02:09 PM •••

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.

Apr 12th 2019 at 3:16:20 PM •••

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

Edited by TheAlmightyKingPrawn
Jul 13th 2017 at 5:19:42 PM •••

Is Captain America (1990) a good candidate for this? 8% on Rotten Tomatoes, 3.3 on IMDB, and Honest Trailers skewered it here

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 29th 2017 at 1:43:04 AM •••

Seems valid.

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

Jan 22nd 2017 at 5:24:01 AM •••

I would like to suggest adding the direct-to-video prequel Casper: A Spirited Beginning to the list. It has a 4.5/10 on IMDB and a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It has atrocious animation that even by late 1990s standards is unbelievably poor, it has major plot-holes regarding the first film, the story has a (no pun intended) mean-spirited tone (especially towards the end), the characters are poorly written and can come off as unlikable to a point where the bullies basically try to murder the kid who was trying to impress his Dad by showing Casper but was taken by the Ghostly Trio, it has a cliche story involving trying to save a mansion that's being turned into a mall and it's not funny at all.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 13th 2017 at 6:30:04 PM •••

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

Oct 18th 2016 at 5:44:31 AM •••

nvm. wrong page.

Edited by supergod
Aug 8th 2016 at 11:44:20 PM •••

I nominate the 2016 English language French "comedy" movie, Nine Lives starring Kevin Spacey. It has an IMDB rating of 3.4/10 and a Rotten Tomatoes score of 4%. It also bombed heavily only getting $6 million from it's $30 million budget.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 19th 2016 at 9:46:40 AM •••

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.

Aug 7th 2016 at 8:52:09 AM •••

I vote the Thunderbirds movie from 2004 make the list. The film was an inaccurate adaptation of the original Thunderbirds series that even the late creator of the show Gerry Anderson hated. The film also bombed only getting $28.3 million (worldwide) on a $57 million budget and has been panned heavily, getting 4.2/10 on IMDB and 19% on Rotten Tomatoes.

May 27th 2016 at 9:29:34 PM •••

I think Cool Cat Saves The Kids should be seriously considered. Not only does it have a 3.8/10 on IMDB, there are actual reports of kids who have seen the movie and they don't just point out it's poor production values but also not liking Cool Cat or the movie (as seen here.

Also, there's also the problems surrounding it's creator named Derek Savage and his threatening of others through emails and false take-down notices on You Tube because people criticized his work and his blatant hypocrisy both regarding reviews and the movie where he makes a movie that's anti-bullying and then goes on to bully Youtubers who criticize his movie and take down certain reviews after praising Your Movie Sucks' review of the film (here's his review). The group of videos that are the story are here:

This kind of hypocrisy is inexcusable. The movie also has poor costumes, terrible writing, lots of padding and even has unfortunate implications. To quote the unfortunate implications section of the movie's YMMV page: The movie depicts Butch the Bully as an overweight child who has no friends. This only implies that maybe Derek Savage was bullied by an overweight child when he was a child or that he might have something against large people. There's also the unlikable characters who either act like stereotypes, are annoying or (in the main lead's case) have a group with him to gang up on the supposed bully (who happens to be overweight) which causes a Broken Aesop in the film.

Edited by warner14 Hide/Show Replies
Dec 1st 2019 at 2:32:54 PM •••

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.

Jan 16th 2016 at 11:25:33 PM •••

Norm of the North is getting a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 2.4/10 on IMDB and a 23% on Metacritic. Also, it's a massive bomb at the box office. It only got 1.6 million against it's 18 million dollar budget. I think it should go to the Animated Film section.

Edited by warner14
Jan 10th 2016 at 5:14:47 AM •••

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip should definitely get a spot on the page. As of now, it has a 17% on Rotten Tomatoes, 3.9/10 on IMDB and 33/100 on Metacritic. Also, it's bombing at the box office only getting 96.2 million against it's 90 million dollar budget. That's pretty terrible.

Edited by warner14 Hide/Show Replies
Jan 16th 2016 at 8:34:12 PM •••

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.

Edited by warner14
Sep 9th 2015 at 1:29:57 PM •••

Okay, I don't like to be that guy, but... I'd like to challenge the entry for The Last Airbender. The reason being, if I remove every sentence that can be summarized as "it's different from the show" from the explanation of why it's bad, I get :

It kinda makes it look like the main argument against it is that it's different/not as good as the show. If that's the case, then I do not think it's enough to justify it being on the list. If there's more beyond that, then the entry should probably be rewritten to better explain why the movie itself is bad (as a movie, not as an adaptation).

Edited by Yugnat Hide/Show Replies
Sep 9th 2015 at 1:43:50 PM •••

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.

Sep 9th 2015 at 3:40:17 PM •••

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.

Aug 7th 2015 at 10:47:05 AM •••

Does anyone else think Fantastic Four (2015) qualifies? It's been blasted to hell and back for being an In Name Only adaptation that takes the Darker and Edgier trope way too far. Awful acting, horrible CGI, excessive exposition, and woeful writing are the tip of the iceberg. The film has also become notorious for being disrespectful to the franchise (case in point: The Thing's signature battlecry "It's clobbering time!" has become an oath Ben Grimm's brother states before he abuses his younger sibling) and butchered characters (such as Doom).

As for scores, it currently has a 4.1 on iMDB and a 9% on RT (which once hit as low as 7%), ranking lower on RT than other notorious comic-based goofs like Howard the Duck (14%), X-Men Origins: Wolverine (38%), and Superman IV (12%). The public and critics unanimously consider it the worst of Fox's Marvel films and Marvel's website does not mention it at all (keep in mind that their site acknowledges Howard the Duck). It is likely to kill Josh Trank's career and end Fox's control of the Fantastic Four license.

Thoughts on the matter? I've posted a review from Chris Stuckmann and a review from Moviebob in case you're interested.

Edited by sanfranman91 Hide/Show Replies
Aug 7th 2015 at 10:39:14 PM •••

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.

Aug 10th 2015 at 12:26:52 AM •••

It's now at a 4/10 on IMDB. Also, a review of the film ripping it to shreds:

I think this is understandable an entry.

Edited by warner14
Aug 13th 2015 at 12:34:22 PM •••

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.

Aug 14th 2015 at 3:47:09 AM •••

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.

Aug 14th 2015 at 3:37:19 PM •••

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.

Edited by toonyloon
Aug 14th 2015 at 8:43:42 PM •••

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.

Aug 15th 2015 at 2:09:50 PM •••

How much shall we wait before putting it here?

Aug 15th 2015 at 8:09:00 PM •••

^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.

Edited by 64SuperNintendo
Aug 25th 2015 at 11:33:51 PM •••

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

Aug 2nd 2015 at 1:53:56 PM •••

Anybody agree that the Roberto Benigni Pinocchio should be up here? If so, I'd rather somebody else take care of it, as I have no idea on how to find a bad movie beyond being a Box Office Bomb or having some lame plot.

Edited by AlanPalgut Hide/Show Replies
Aug 14th 2015 at 8:41:56 PM •••

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

Aug 15th 2015 at 3:01:34 AM •••

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

Edited by VAIAZ
Aug 16th 2015 at 6:55:03 PM •••

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

Jul 29th 2015 at 8:12:15 AM •••

Does Grace of Monaco belong here? In spite of its 5.6/10 on I Mdb and Emmy nomination for Outstanding TV movie, there are plenty of arguments for its inclusion:

  • 21 on Metacritic
  • 9% on RT (the high user score is "Want to See," so RT didn't bother to change it after its theatrical release got cancelled)
  • Made $26.6 million worldwide on a $30 million budget
  • Harshly criticized by the royal family of Monaco for its historical inaccuracy, particularly the negative portrayal of Prince Rainier III
  • The Weinstein Co. (its North American distributor and one of its production companies) had numerous arguments with the director (typical Executive Meddling on their behalf), and by the final cut, they had so little faith in the film after its Cannes premiere that it skipped the theaters and debuted on Lifetime instead - making it the only (that I know of) Cannes opener that premiered on network TV without a theatrical release
  • In a Twitter tell-all/commentary that screenwriter Arash Amel wrote while the film was being aired on Lifetime, he basically disowned it and expressed regret over some of the decisions involved in its production (best quote: "I wrote a Peter-Morgan-type biopic that became a Douglas Sirk melodrama")
  • More than several of the I Mdb reviews praising it seem fake

Edited by troperwithoutaname Hide/Show Replies
Jul 31st 2015 at 3:40:49 PM •••

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.

Jul 28th 2015 at 12:20:59 PM •••

Would Pixels count? It's a cheap '80s-nostalgia cash-in Ghostbusters knockoff with all of the typical flaws of Adam Sandler movies and a dose of Unfortunate Implications (female characters literally being called "trophies" for the male leads) to top things off. It's got near-universally negative critical reviews, and audience reactions are mixed at best...

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 28th 2015 at 8:16:56 PM •••

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.

Jul 23rd 2015 at 4:25:16 PM •••

Would A Christmas Story 2 be a good candidate for this list? A lot of fans of the original hate the sequel, especially since it rehashes jokes and goes nowhere with them. Take a peek at the trailer's like/dislike bar, as well as the comments.

Edited by Izzy1 Hide/Show Replies
Jul 28th 2015 at 9:04:46 AM •••

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

Jun 18th 2015 at 9:02:32 PM •••

Where the dead go to die needs to be on the list. I implore you, just look up an iamge of the film and you will know why. Imdb page here:

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 10th 2015 at 12:22:37 PM •••

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

Jun 10th 2015 at 9:40:15 AM •••

Hello, ladies and gents. Since this page has Bollywood films and films from several other countries, why not putting something from other european countries, such as Spain or Italy? I "fondly" remember a horrible film called "fuga de cerebros", a comedy film in which some teenagers do nasty stuff, with some of the worst acting i've ever heard. Even worse, some Italian dude made a remake of it, which is essentially a dull and lazy copy-paste of the former film, with even more forced and repetitive jokes and even worse writing and acting. Even if you don't understand Spanish or Italian, see for yourselves. And I dare you.

Edited by VAIAZ Hide/Show Replies
Jun 11th 2015 at 5:51:25 PM •••

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

Jun 12th 2015 at 4:54:19 AM •••

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

Jun 17th 2015 at 10:42:24 AM •••

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

Jun 6th 2015 at 6:02:53 PM •••

FIFA-funded film United Passions should be here. Already controversial due to funding from a corporation known for blatant corrupt, the film has been ripped apart by critics and viewers for poor acting from actors like Tim Roth and Sam Neill, cringeworthy storytelling, uneven pacing, and poor direction. It also gained notoriety for being biased in their portrayal on the origins of the world governing body of association football, often self-aggrandizing Sepp Blatter as a savior of football (I'll leave this part to you if you think there should be an implementation of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement).

Regardless, United Passions has received a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 2.7 on iMDB. Here's a review from The New York Times.

Feb 9th 2015 at 8:38:17 PM •••

Hey, should Can't Stop the Music be here? It inspired the Razzies, won the very first Worst Picture award and sank the Village People's already burgeoning career.

Edited by MinisterOfSinister Hide/Show Replies
Feb 10th 2015 at 7:53:14 AM •••

Maybe. What are the shortcomings of the work?

Feb 12th 2015 at 5:46:29 AM •••

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:

Jan 11th 2015 at 4:23:00 AM •••

should we ad more films to this page?

like Copper Mountain (1983), Anne B. Real (2003), or Danes without a Clue (1997)

I couldn't find any info rotten tomatoes & all of the reviews on IM Db bash these films & have a score under 3/10

Jan 7th 2015 at 11:01:59 AM •••

Kite should be on the list. On the Wikipedia list of films considered the worst in the 2000s, it's got a metacritic score of 19/100, a rotten tomatoes score of 0% (which doesn't happen that often) and was universally panned by viewers AND critics alike.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 7th 2015 at 11:57:45 AM •••

This one looks like it should be on.

Jan 11th 2015 at 4:25:36 AM •••

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

Jan 12th 2015 at 1:08:52 AM •••

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

Jun 12th 2015 at 6:22:00 AM •••

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

And people are balking at Battle Royale.

Jan 7th 2015 at 7:54:23 AM •••

Add Dwegons and Leprechauns.

Where do I even begin?

-The animation is terrible and the characters lips don't even move with what they're saying.

-The bad guys are introduced within 10 minutes. They're Russian. And part of the mafia. And trying to steal a fucking priceless jewel.

-Later in the film, a NEW bad guy is introduced for no apparent reason

-There are no leprechauns WHAT. SO. EVER.

-It is a 4.8 on IDMB, but it only has 20 reviews.

-The moving plot point is a family moving into their old relatives home who dies of a heart attack. Did I mention that this happens 7 MINUTES INTO THE MOVIE?!?!?

You can watch the movie on netflix. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jan 7th 2015 at 9:50:05 AM •••

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.

Edited by
Jan 7th 2015 at 10:44:18 AM •••

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.

Jan 7th 2015 at 10:59:13 AM •••

Ignore this comment

Edited by
Jan 7th 2015 at 11:53:49 AM •••

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.

Edited by
Jan 4th 2015 at 6:27:17 PM •••

The Cat In The Hat should be here, due to terrible critic reviews and the fact that it prevented any more live action adaptations from being made. Sure, it made money in the box office but so did The Last Airbender and it's on the list.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 7th 2015 at 10:47:55 AM •••

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.

Dec 24th 2014 at 2:38:56 PM •••

After reading a bit about it on Wikipedia, I really do think That's My Boy deserves a spot here:

  • It's got a 31/52 on Metacritic and a 20/52 on Rotten Tomatoes.
  • It "won" eight Razzies in 2012.
  • It was a Box Office Bomb, made at a loss of about $13 million dollars.
  • Many critics have torn into it, calling it "reprehensible" and "[sad] and... exhausting".

(And, of course, I fucking DARE you to write this film with the genders reversed and not have it be a dark, depressing drama.)

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Dec 30th 2014 at 4:44:07 PM •••

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).

Jan 22nd 2015 at 1:18:38 PM •••

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.

Edited by MartyD82
Dec 24th 2014 at 1:25:44 PM •••

Rabbit Test has removed Strange Wilderness on the grounds that it has a 5.3/10 rating on IMDB, yet I disagree since it has a lot of negative marks that outweigh whatever is good about it. I am requesting that Strange Wilderness be added for the following reasons:

  • Ranks 7th on Rotten Tomatoes' Worst of the Worst 2009 list (which covers the 100 worst films of the 2000s), as well as 2nd worst film of 2008.
  • Ranks 30th on Metacritic's worst reviewed films.
  • It has a 12/100 rating from Metacritic and a 0% rating from Rotten Tomatoes.
  • It bombed in the box office, making back barely a third from its $20 million dollar budget
  • It has an overall approval rating of 30% (24.25% sans the IMDB rating), both of which fall under the SBIH threshold. (The Film has to have an overall approval of less than or equal to 33% in terms of overall ratings rated on average to qualify).

In addition to Strange Wilderness, I am requesting that The Love Guru be added for the following reasons:

  • Won the Worst Picture award at the 29th Golden Raspberry Awards in 2009, as well as receiving the most awards and nominations.
  • Flopped in the box office, making back $40 million out of its $62 million budget.
  • Has an overall score (counting Rotten Tomatoes all critics and audience ratings, Metacritic critic and user ratings and IMDB ratings) of 29.6% (27.5% sans IMDB rating), both of which fall under the SBIH threshold.
  • Mike Myers has regretted starring in the film, as shown in a Saturday Night Live sketch.
  • Acted as a Star-Derailing Role for Mike Myers; this film was meant to mark his return to live-action acting after the failure of The Cat in the Hat, and ended it even faster than the previous film.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Dec 31st 2014 at 3:43:58 PM •••

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.

Jan 2nd 2015 at 1:00:57 PM •••

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 and 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.

Edited by
Jan 3rd 2015 at 5:46:22 AM •••

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.

Edited by
Jan 3rd 2015 at 2:19:35 PM •••

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:
  • 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.

Edited by
Jan 3rd 2015 at 3:31:52 PM •••

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").

Edited by
Dec 18th 2014 at 6:17:00 PM •••

Here's another British "comedy" film I would like to nominate: 2014's Pudsey: The Movie, starring the dancing dog that became famous for winning Britain's Got Talent in 2012. The film's plot is the dog trying to save a village from dog-hating Mr. Thorne, an evil real-estate developer who seeks to tear down Pudsey's home to build a supermarket. The already weak plot is further hampered by an awful soundtrack, poorly-timed jokes, sloppy pacing, incompetent direction, and scenes that blatantly plagiarize Babe. It currently has a 2.0 rating on IMDB and a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. Here is Mark Kermode's review of the movie.


Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Dec 19th 2014 at 5:21:58 PM •••

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

Dec 12th 2014 at 8:05:55 AM •••

Okay, time for a round-up. Switch (2013), Zoom: Academy for Superheroes, Rock: It's Your Decision, Wired, Left Behind (2014), Pudsey: The Movie, Kite (the 2014/2015 version, not the original anime) and Ouija are now candidates to the list. Entries will be written soon.

UPDATE: The Pyramid is now ruled out as merely mediocre rather than horrible. Also, I hate to say it, but I actually found ONE (just ONE) scene in the otherwise-terrible Cat in the Hat movie somewhat amusing—the scene where the Cat freezes the movie to make a Product Placement remark about Universal Studios, before chuckling and saying "CHA-CHING!". Also, the "DIRTY HOE" joke was kind of amusing to me too despite a bimbo joke being uncalled for in a Dr. Suess movie. So even though it's got lots of evidence I'm not sure if it counts as being on the page.

UPDATE 2: By "soon", I guess I accidentally meant "nearly half a year from when I posted it".

Edited by FromtheWordsofBR Hide/Show Replies
Dec 30th 2014 at 4:48:34 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Mar 1st 2015 at 9:28:17 AM •••

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?

Aug 15th 2015 at 2:56:40 AM •••

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?

Nov 28th 2014 at 5:43:03 PM •••

Nativity 3: Dude, Where's My Donkey, anyone? This threequel has been panned for its horrible singing, infuriatingly bad dialogue, disorganized plot development, cheap-as-chips sets, annoying characters, and a plot involving abducting an entire class of children. It has blasted to hell and back by the public and the critics in the UK and it currently has a 3.8 on iMDB. For reference sakes, Mark Kermode shares his thoughts here and Matthew Buck gives his two-cents here (who states it's WORSE than Keith Lemon: The Film).

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Nov 29th 2014 at 2:11:46 AM •••

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

Nov 29th 2014 at 8:24:54 AM •••

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

Nov 19th 2014 at 9:46:07 AM •••

The latest entry to List of Films Considered the Worst in The Other Wiki is 2014's Humshakals (think of it as Bollywood's response to Movie 43 or ABC's Work It). From what I understand, Sajid Khan's "comedy" is loaded with disgustingly misogynist and homophobic "jokes", scattershot plot, horrid dialogue, and terrible acting from stars such as Saif Ali Khan and Bipasha Basu. India Today has called the film one of the worst of the century and Emirates 24/7 suggested that Humshakals could be Bollywood's worst ever film. Moreover, it's an Old Shame for both Esha Gupta (who implored her family not to see Humshakals) and Saif Ali Khan (who admits acting in the movie was a mistake). It also has a 2.1 on iMDB out of 3,637 votes and flopped at the Indian box office.


Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Oct 18th 2014 at 6:05:21 PM •••

This is pushing it since at the time of this writing it came out 15 days ago, but could the 2014 remake of Left Behind qualify? It's not like the original is a total classic either, the former version having a 16% RT rating, but this one is even worse apparently, having a 3% rating, plus a 3.2 rating on IMDb and 12% on Metacritic. Many people are calling it Anvilicious propaganda, with bad special effects, terrible writing, and acting "so wooden you could make a basketball court out of it." It also grossed just $13,000,000 in America against its $16,000,000 budget. Should we put it in, for wait for it to come out so it can get a video review and proper reception?

UPDATE: The rating is now a measly 2%.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Nov 7th 2014 at 7:14:37 PM •••

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

Nov 11th 2014 at 11:27:28 AM •••

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"

Edited by
Dec 11th 2014 at 7:57:58 AM •••

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.

Jan 8th 2015 at 7:47:53 AM •••

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.

Oct 16th 2014 at 10:00:02 AM •••

This may be asking for trouble, but does The Master of Disguise really belong here? I remember it being pretty popular with kids when it came out. Or at least, the "Turtle Guy" character was; Carvey even appeared as the Turtle Guy at the Kids' Choice Awards.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 16th 2014 at 11:07:28 AM •••

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.

Jan 18th 2015 at 12:09:02 PM •••

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

Sep 5th 2014 at 10:09:40 AM •••

Can we add the 1989 "bio-pic" of John Belushi Wired. While it has a 4.7 on IMDB, it has a 8% on Rotten Tomatoes, the film tried to be a dark-comedy/drama that focuses on Belushi's ghost being driven around by a cab driver named Angel who (along with other characters, including the author (played by J.T. Walsh) of the book this movie was based) mostly reminds him on how his drug habit cut his life short. Some very inappropriate scenes including Belushi's autopsy which has a laugh track added and one scene were they are trying to get his casket onto a plane but can't due to his weight so they put him in a body bag and sit him on a chair in the plane. The film mostly focused more on the downward spiral of Belushi's life and not how he got there.

The movie was severely trashed by critics, several people who were close to Belushi denounced the film and some (Bill Murray and John Landis) threatened to sue the makers if there names were actually used in the film. They couldn't get the rights to any SNL sketches so they had to make up their own, Michael Chiklis' (who played Belushi) career was derailed for 18 months for his participation in the film. To this date the film has not been released on DVD and is only available on an out of print videocassette. The Cinema Snob reviewed it as well, but seemed uncomfortable doing comedic bits on the episode due to the subject matter and the unflattering portrayal of a beloved comedic icon. If you want to see it for yourselves its on Youtube (for now) split up into twelve parts.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 20th 2014 at 11:45:33 AM •••

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.

Oct 10th 2014 at 7:06:18 PM •••

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!

Edited by
Aug 26th 2014 at 10:54:16 AM •••

Does Razzie nominations and/or wins count as evidence?

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 26th 2014 at 1:32:30 PM •••

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

Jul 26th 2014 at 3:55:09 PM •••

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

Jul 27th 2014 at 2:46:11 AM •••

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.

Jul 4th 2014 at 1:25:21 PM •••

I removed the Transformers example because I'm pretty sure that if people USED to like it, then it doesn't count.

Jun 15th 2014 at 12:28:52 AM •••

Endless Love shouldn't be here. It holds a 6.3 IM Db 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.

Edited by
May 24th 2014 at 6:53:54 PM •••

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)?

Hide/Show Replies
May 25th 2014 at 11:36:33 PM •••

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

May 27th 2014 at 8:11:29 PM •••

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.

May 22nd 2014 at 5:38:49 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Apr 17th 2014 at 9:48:17 PM •••

A possible new entry: Turn it Up, a 2000 attempt to make rappers Pras and Ja Rule movie stars that has a 4.3 IM Db, 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.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 22nd 2014 at 6:19:38 AM •••

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.

Apr 22nd 2014 at 9:45:40 AM •••

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

Apr 5th 2014 at 11:40:03 AM •••

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 IM Db. 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?

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 5th 2014 at 11:46:27 AM •••

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

Apr 5th 2014 at 12:00:33 PM •••

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.

Apr 22nd 2014 at 6:20:47 AM •••

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

Mar 27th 2014 at 11:59:23 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 5th 2014 at 1:32:51 PM •••

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.

Apr 24th 2014 at 6:39:05 PM •••

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

Mar 18th 2014 at 10:13:49 PM •••

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 IM Db 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).

Edited by
Mar 15th 2014 at 12:40:35 PM •••

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.

Mar 12th 2014 at 5:35:40 PM •••

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?

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Mar 21st 2014 at 3:21:00 PM •••

Sounds really bad, so might be worth putting on.

Jan 6th 2015 at 7:52:34 AM •••

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.

Feb 28th 2014 at 1:04:51 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Feb 28th 2014 at 8:01:58 PM •••

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.

Feb 26th 2014 at 10:01:10 PM •••

Does Ghost Dad qualify? It has a 7% in Rotten Tomatoes and 4.3/10 in IMDB or is it still to high?

Feb 26th 2014 at 5:49:23 PM •••

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.

Feb 22nd 2014 at 2:15:39 PM •••

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 IM Db rating of 3.3, and it was made at a budget of $3,000,000, yet only got $4,655.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Feb 26th 2014 at 5:46:00 PM •••

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.

Feb 28th 2014 at 8:02:49 PM •••

I concur with Idisagree. Add both of them up.

Feb 21st 2014 at 2:21:22 PM •••

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%.

Hide/Show Replies
Feb 21st 2014 at 3:27:45 PM •••

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

Jan 3rd 2015 at 3:47:07 PM •••

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.

Feb 16th 2014 at 11:38:02 AM •••

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 IM Db. Thoughts?

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Feb 18th 2014 at 5:48:01 PM •••

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

Feb 2nd 2014 at 7:02:07 AM •••

Used this post to test an example.

Edited by
Jan 30th 2014 at 12:58:46 AM •••

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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jan 31st 2014 at 1:14:50 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Jan 28th 2014 at 5:08:32 PM •••

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 IM Db 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 IM Db 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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jan 29th 2014 at 12:01:38 PM •••

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).

Edited by
Jan 31st 2014 at 9:45:23 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Feb 9th 2014 at 3:52:00 PM •••

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".

Feb 11th 2014 at 8:32:01 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Mar 2nd 2014 at 2:37:18 PM •••

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.

Mar 5th 2014 at 7:08:38 PM •••

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.

Aug 1st 2014 at 4:22:37 AM •••

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

Edited by
Aug 30th 2017 at 12:52:03 PM •••

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?

Jan 14th 2014 at 1:12:42 PM •••

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?

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jan 15th 2014 at 9:41:03 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Jan 28th 2014 at 10:45:32 AM •••

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.

Jan 12th 2014 at 12:40:01 PM •••

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 IM Db, 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 IM Db 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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jan 12th 2014 at 6:50:05 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Jan 12th 2014 at 9:35:14 PM •••

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

Jan 13th 2014 at 2:11:27 AM •••

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...

Edited by
Feb 18th 2014 at 5:47:03 PM •••

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

Jan 7th 2014 at 11:12:58 AM •••

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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jan 7th 2014 at 11:32:35 AM •••

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

Jan 11th 2014 at 12:44:27 AM •••

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).

Edited by
Jan 11th 2014 at 3:25:10 AM •••

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.

Edited by
Jan 11th 2014 at 8:52:19 AM •••

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?

Jan 14th 2014 at 6:41:15 AM •••

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.

Edited by
Dec 17th 2013 at 8:44:22 AM •••

I'm not sure if Mutant Chronicles should be on here. Though Rotten Tomatoes ratings in both departments are very low, the IM Db 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.

Hide/Show Replies
Dec 28th 2013 at 12:40:10 PM •••

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!

Dec 28th 2013 at 12:40:50 PM •••

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.

Dec 8th 2013 at 2:41:15 PM •••

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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Dec 10th 2013 at 11:24:23 PM •••

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.

Dec 12th 2013 at 5:50:39 AM •••

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

Dec 25th 2013 at 8:59:01 PM •••

Getaway is out on DVD. Been so since November.

Dec 6th 2013 at 9:41:12 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Dec 7th 2013 at 11:48:43 AM •••

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.

Dec 7th 2013 at 11:55:31 AM •••

Sorry about double posting.

Edited by
Dec 8th 2013 at 1:29:02 AM •••

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).

Dec 13th 2013 at 5:44:58 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Dec 15th 2013 at 10:42:30 PM •••

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.

Dec 6th 2013 at 3:27:07 AM •••

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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Dec 7th 2013 at 11:58:28 AM •••

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

Jan 1st 2014 at 9:37:30 PM •••

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

Jan 8th 2014 at 6:36:51 PM •••

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

Dec 1st 2013 at 8:09:17 PM •••

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?

Hide/Show Replies
Dec 2nd 2013 at 6:09:24 AM •••

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

Dec 3rd 2013 at 4:37:35 PM •••

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

Dec 3rd 2013 at 6:21:38 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Dec 11th 2013 at 9:43:50 PM •••

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.

Nov 28th 2013 at 4:38:34 PM •••

I am requesting 5 movies to be added to the list: Red Dawn 2012, Delta Farce, Strange Wilderness and A Thousand Words


  • 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 IM Db

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

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Nov 30th 2013 at 12:24:25 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Nov 30th 2013 at 4:47:32 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Nov 13th 2013 at 9:42:02 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 14th 2013 at 3:04:23 PM •••

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.

Nov 15th 2013 at 7:00:14 PM •••

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

Nov 18th 2013 at 11:23:41 PM •••

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!

Edited by
Nov 19th 2013 at 5:07:02 PM •••

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?

Nov 19th 2013 at 11:14:22 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Nov 27th 2013 at 5:24:29 AM •••

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?

Nov 30th 2013 at 7:27:48 PM •••

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.

Dec 15th 2013 at 10:37:50 PM •••

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?

Nov 3rd 2013 at 12:51:14 PM •••

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 IM Db 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).

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Nov 18th 2013 at 11:43:25 PM •••

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.

Nov 3rd 2013 at 1:55:07 AM •••

Can we please add Project X to the list?

It got 28% on Rotten Tomatoes (I would disregard IM Db 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

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Nov 3rd 2013 at 12:49:15 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Nov 3rd 2013 at 9:21:05 PM •••

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

Oct 12th 2013 at 11:23:10 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 16th 2013 at 8:20:51 PM •••

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

Oct 16th 2013 at 11:53:43 PM •••

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.

Oct 17th 2013 at 9:03:29 PM •••

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.

Sep 19th 2013 at 2:45:16 AM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 19th 2013 at 11:58:36 AM •••

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.

Aug 30th 2013 at 1:18:21 PM •••

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 Dont Like rather than something that is SBIH. I've been reading reviews throughout IM Db 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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Aug 30th 2013 at 1:41:30 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Oct 5th 2013 at 6:29:23 PM •••

Stranded sounds like crap, try adding it.

Nov 16th 2013 at 9:10:09 PM •••

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?

Aug 24th 2013 at 8:26:21 PM •••

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 IM Db and RT (there were no professional reviews on RT) for Surf School are abysmal. Surf School's 2.0 on IM Db 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 Dont Like rather than a legitimate entry for this page.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Aug 30th 2013 at 12:12:29 PM •••

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 IM Db 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 IM Db 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 IM Db. 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, Were The Millers, The Butler, and Elysium, so it's a likely possibility.

Edited by
Oct 5th 2013 at 6:36:47 PM •••

Plutonium Baby sounds as bad as that Stranded movie above. Put that bad boy in.

Aug 2nd 2013 at 1:23:10 AM •••

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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Aug 2nd 2013 at 2:10:01 AM •••

My apologies for no trope links. I'd do it if I knew how.

Edited by
Aug 24th 2013 at 6:19:42 AM •••

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.

Aug 1st 2013 at 6:19:28 AM •••

And WHY were Larry the Cable Guy's movies removed from the Repeat Offenders section of the page?!

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 7th 2013 at 9:43:19 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Jul 1st 2013 at 9:01:37 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 2nd 2013 at 1:58:24 AM •••

To parrot Antwan, the IM Db 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!

Jun 30th 2013 at 9:46:48 PM •••

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 and Film Brain's review of Breaking Wind pretty much sums up Craig Moss' attempt at making a comedy film.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jul 13th 2013 at 7:29:47 PM •••

The Craig Moss idea actually doesn't sound half bad.

Jul 19th 2013 at 12:14:17 PM •••

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.

Jul 19th 2013 at 3:40:31 PM •••

You just have to know enough to write a decent description with evidence that it's hated enough.

Aug 4th 2013 at 5:06:15 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Jun 29th 2013 at 2:07:08 PM •••

does the movie Smiley, which has a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 3.5 on IM Db count for S Bi H?

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jul 2nd 2013 at 2:05:01 AM •••

Go ahead. I can't find any Smiley fanbase on the internet and it has low RT and IM Db 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 IM Db scores).

Jul 5th 2013 at 12:08:50 AM •••

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.

Jun 16th 2013 at 12:32:33 AM •••

I'm not sure if Skidoo truly qualifies. The IM Db 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.

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 24th 2013 at 1:44:46 AM •••

Remember, the IM Db 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.

Jun 11th 2013 at 8:29:28 PM •••

Does the "Master of Disguise" qualify as SBIH?

It's got a 1% in Rotten Tomatoes

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 12th 2013 at 9:35:03 PM •••

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.

Jun 14th 2013 at 6:29:34 PM •••

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.

Apr 26th 2013 at 7:12:49 PM •••

Who removed the Cat In The Hat movie? That was a painful unfunny mess that makes Jack And Jill look good.

Hide/Show Replies
May 2nd 2013 at 2:13:14 PM •••

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 Jerkass), 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.

May 3rd 2013 at 12:13:29 PM •••

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.

May 3rd 2013 at 7:45:32 PM •••

I didn't know it had fans, I thought it was another film no one supported. Sorry.

May 8th 2013 at 5:48:31 AM •••

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

May 17th 2013 at 2:55:34 AM •••

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 IM Db rating).

May 25th 2013 at 1:12:13 PM •••

That movie is more So Bad, It's Good. This is for films with zero redeeming factors.

Jun 24th 2013 at 1:42:47 AM •••

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.

Edited by
Jun 28th 2013 at 3:27:45 PM •••

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.

Apr 12th 2013 at 12:09:10 PM •••

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.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Apr 12th 2013 at 1:01:56 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Apr 10th 2013 at 1:00:25 PM •••

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.

Edited by sanfranman91 Hide/Show Replies
Apr 10th 2013 at 4:52:11 PM •••

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

Apr 11th 2013 at 6:38:28 PM •••

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.

Apr 18th 2013 at 2:41:44 PM •••

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?

May 8th 2013 at 5:50:31 AM •••

We have In AP Ppropiate comedy on here, which is movie 43 the having the orginal, which has all the same crimes is kind of...pointless.

May 28th 2013 at 1:55:51 PM •••

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

Jun 6th 2013 at 4:28:46 AM •••

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

Nov 27th 2013 at 1:43:32 PM •••

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

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

Jan 3rd 2015 at 6:07:44 AM •••

"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.

Edited by
Apr 4th 2013 at 2:10:39 PM •••

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).

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 5th 2013 at 6:10:56 PM •••

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.

Apr 5th 2013 at 7:43:00 PM •••

Okay I'll add to the entry, that's a great agrument. More input on the others in a civilized manner.

Apr 14th 2013 at 4:08:39 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Apr 19th 2013 at 4:05:16 PM •••

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.

Apr 24th 2013 at 3:19:41 PM •••

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

Apr 26th 2013 at 7:08:36 PM •••

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.

May 5th 2013 at 5:32:17 PM •••

Then I would say the Renegade cut doesnt deserve a place here, but all the others do.

May 25th 2013 at 1:13:55 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Oct 5th 2013 at 6:27:32 PM •••

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? ???

Feb 9th 2013 at 11:55:42 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 27th 2013 at 12:54:47 AM •••

The IM Db 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.

Feb 5th 2013 at 2:07:50 PM •••

Sorry I double posted...

Edited by Cakeman
Nov 30th 2012 at 5:40:55 AM •••

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).

Edited by Spinosegnosaurus77 Hide/Show Replies
Dec 8th 2012 at 3:28:59 PM •••

^ A valid point, but we can't rely on IMDb alone.

Jan 14th 2013 at 3:55:16 PM •••

I've not seen it, but I agree having a good rating on one website isn't enough to necessarily disqualify it.

Jan 22nd 2013 at 5:22:11 AM •••

^ Yes. Plus Delgo has a 4.3 on IMDb, but it's still listed under Western Animation.

Edited by Spinosegnosaurus77
Nov 3rd 2012 at 7:52:23 AM •••

Is it ok to add The Cavern? it has pretty low ratings and i doubt anyone likes it.

Nov 2nd 2012 at 11:56:41 AM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 4th 2012 at 1:08:43 AM •••

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.

Oct 17th 2012 at 2:22:58 PM •••

Can we add Atlas Shrugged parts 1 and 2 on here? They both have 0% on RT.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 31st 2012 at 11:21:17 AM •••

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...

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 2nd 2012 at 9:24:26 AM •••

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.

Sep 2nd 2012 at 12:10:14 PM •••

Oh wait, 33%! I misread you. XD Heck, stick that sucker on here!

Sep 4th 2012 at 7:00:07 AM •••

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??

Sep 7th 2012 at 2:13:26 PM •••

I'd say it qualifies - most reviews seem to agree.

Oct 17th 2012 at 2:21:58 PM •••

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?

Oct 18th 2012 at 2:22:06 AM •••

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.

Aug 10th 2012 at 10:17:21 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 11th 2012 at 1:51:59 PM •••

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.

Aug 7th 2012 at 10:50:09 PM •••

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?

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 10th 2012 at 10:05:48 PM •••

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?

Aug 15th 2012 at 6:46:10 PM •••

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.

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.

Jul 9th 2012 at 9:21:16 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 20th 2012 at 1:28:15 PM •••

It has better reasons than a certain other film I've seen that I've met fans of.

Jul 9th 2012 at 9:11:34 PM •••

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'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.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 9th 2012 at 10:02:32 PM •••

Dose one good scene really justifie its removel. Especially when its So Bad, It's Good?

Jul 9th 2012 at 9:02:10 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 9th 2012 at 1:04:15 PM •••

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.

Jun 1st 2012 at 7:49:14 PM •••

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.

May 20th 2012 at 7:16:56 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
May 21st 2012 at 7:07:14 AM •••

Seconded. I just noticed LOL got cut—-there were REASONS for it being listed on this page!

Telcontar MOD
May 21st 2012 at 10:21:15 AM •••

I've put them back with a note to go to the discussion page for further removals.

May 12th 2012 at 2:16:18 PM •••

To whoever cleaned up my entry for "LOL", thank you. Seriously.

Apr 13th 2012 at 11:11:25 AM •••

How about 'The Devil inside', with its high and glorious metascore of 19?

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 16th 2012 at 7:46:59 AM •••

Debuted at no. 1 in the box office.

Nov 16th 2013 at 5:14:36 PM •••

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.

Edited by
Apr 8th 2012 at 4:18:44 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 10th 2012 at 4:29:05 PM •••

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.

Apr 11th 2012 at 7:50:21 AM •••

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.

Edited by RhymeBeat
Apr 11th 2012 at 8:05:01 AM •••

I keep hearing it's more of a So Bad, It's Good type of movie rather than SBIH.

Apr 11th 2012 at 9:58:05 AM •••

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.

Jun 13th 2012 at 9:13:53 PM •••

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.

Jun 20th 2012 at 8:13:36 PM •••

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.

Jul 20th 2012 at 1:30:28 PM •••

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.

Mar 22nd 2012 at 10:52:54 AM •••


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?

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 10th 2012 at 7:31:44 AM •••

a good chunk of these films have an odd fanbase, even the last airbender.

Apr 11th 2012 at 8:04:33 AM •••

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.

Apr 11th 2012 at 9:06:40 AM •••

so thus most of the stuff on this list would disqualfy. so i say it doesn't disqualify them/

Apr 11th 2012 at 12:46:16 PM •••

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).

Apr 13th 2012 at 10:01:20 AM •••

Didn't I hear that this trope was still a tiny bit subjective somewhere?

Edited by SamMax
Apr 16th 2012 at 7:49:13 AM •••

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?

Jun 1st 2012 at 7:37:59 PM •••

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.

Jun 13th 2012 at 9:19:01 PM •••

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.

Mar 14th 2012 at 1:45:56 AM •••

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."

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 21st 2012 at 5:17:43 AM •••

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).

Edited by SamMax
Apr 7th 2012 at 2:33:43 PM •••

Agreed, although it could also use a larger description if it is eligible.

Jan 11th 2013 at 5:09:49 PM •••

it's been out for quite a while now. can we put it up?

Jul 2nd 2013 at 1:56:26 AM •••

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.

Feb 23rd 2012 at 10:12:40 AM •••

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.

Jan 21st 2012 at 2:24:34 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 25th 2012 at 6:38:42 PM •••

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.

Feb 1st 2012 at 6:55:09 AM •••

Merged it with the first important note. Two is fine, but three notes seem excessive.

Edited by Antwan
Feb 4th 2012 at 3:08:29 PM •••

Added to it a bit, seeing as it didn't seem reinforced enough

Feb 11th 2012 at 5:29:10 PM •••

Now said entry is needless fan bashing rather than making a valid point and still contains at least 2 redeeming qualities.

Jan 2nd 2012 at 7:22:15 PM •••

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.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 12th 2013 at 1:14:54 PM •••

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.