Follow TV Tropes
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...
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?
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev0bOOajTeM
It has a low rating, so I don\'t see why not. Please add details on how bad the film is, why it is terrible.
I 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.
I think sheer levels of So Bad Its Good will disqualify it.
It\'s an utter trainwreck and people are ecstatic about that.
I think that is more a textbook case of Bile Fascination than it is any anticipation of the finished project. I\'ve heard not one good word about it (and plenty words of outright damnation) in reviews, overall scores on aggregators are less than 1 out of 10, and apparently it\'s currently operating at a massive loss—so much so that they\'ve announced plans to hastily redo it while it\'s still airing in cinemas. I am completely prepared to cast that particular stone.
It\'s been almost half a year. Any consensus?
Would the Made For TV live-action movies based on The Fairly Odd Parents 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.
Contradicting/disrespecting the source material isn\'t enough to qualify as So Bad, It\'s Horrible. Also while I don\'t like that film now, I liked it as a kid so no.
It has a 4/10 rating on IMDB — not good, but probably not bad enough to make it Horrible. And it has a surprising number of positive reviews on Amazon, where the average score is somehow 4.1/5. I don\'t think it qualifies.
(\"I liked it as a kid\" is not enough to disqualify a work from SBIH status. The criterion is \"the work has a small audience\", not \"literally no one ever liked it or at least found it okay\". However, if a bad kids\' film did appeal to kids, or at least a sizable group of kids, it\'s not Horrible.)
Can we add Sgt Peppers 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.
I asked on 3 subpages, now I\'m asking here, too:
Jaws in Japan, aka Psycho Shark, anyone?
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.)
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.
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.
Shouldn't An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn be on the list? It won five Razzies, is on the Roger Ebert Most Hated Film List, and isn't listed as So Bad, It's Good.
There are a lot of really positive reviews on IMDb. So... figure out whether that disqualifies it or not.
Is Captain America (1990) a good candidate for this? 8% on Rotten Tomatoes, 3.3 on IMDB, and Honest Trailers skewered it here
Also, Chris Stuckmann covers it here, and he notes that it makes Fantastic Four (2015) look good by comparison.
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.
Casper: A Spirited Beginning does indeed seem like a good candidate. It's bad through and through, even with James Earl Jones voicing Kibosh.
nvm. wrong page.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know this is a very late response, but the film probably doesn\'t qualify because too many people consider it So Bad Its Good.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Mentioning the source doesn't nullify the point of a lot of the parts of the entry, though. In particular, this The plot reads like a clip show of various Season 1 episodes, except less coherent and made of Swiss cheese (the Fire Nation's Earthbender camp is on land in this one, and yet Aang has to remind them years later that they can escape), and whole arcs are either summarized in narration (such as Sokka falling for Yue) or rendered through utterly-blatant exposition (such as Zuko asking a random Fire Nation citizen about his own backstory). is less saying "it's different" and more saying "they tried to make it the same, and failed horribly."
Could easily use a wholesale rewrite, I suppose, because it truly is a piece of shit.
Of course, but as a whole, it seems to focus to much on how it fails at being the same as the show, and not enough on how it simply fails. The comparison you pointed out is a relevant comparison, since it's pointing out an important issue (bad pacing) and explaining how the show did it better. But things like complaining about the calligraphy or the choreographies would be considered completely irrelevant if not for the show, and thus should probably not be mentioned.
So yeah, a rewrite would probably be a good idea, in order to focus more on the issues of the movie and less on how it is inferior to the show.
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.
27 on Metacritic, by the way.
This movie somehow got worse reviews than Howard the Duck. I'd say that alone qualifies it for a spot here. At least Pixels had mixed-ish audience reviews - I think this is the first major release I've seen this year that was unanimously hated.
It's now at a 4/10 on IMDB. Also, a review of the film ripping it to shreds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtIY1vFAP8&index=28&list=LLVShosEpg8VFiNx6XD2xRzg
I think this is understandable an entry.
I've seen reviews mentioning some good points in this film, mostly the fact that while the film was butchered by producers, the elements brought by the director (treating powers as a source of anxiety, the theme of evolution and accomplishment, some interesting shots, etc...) were good points. As for the catchphrase thing, I've also seen people defend it as Ben turning something painful (suffering abuse) into a strength (being a hero and defending people) ; I gotta admit, when seen this way, it's actually kind of a beautiful evolution of character.
I'm just telling about opinions I've seen, you decide if they are valid enough to save this movie.
The Last Airbender was directed by a famous fan of the series, had a rough draft of the script written up that was much more faithful to the original show than the movie ended up being, was handed over to producers and a ghostwriter who didn't watch and/or care for the show at all, and got butchered into what you see today. It's still on this page.
Just because the director cares about the movie shouldn't save it.
I would also like to add that Fantastic 4 opened with a CinemaScore grade of C- (for comparison, Jack and Jill got a B). Also, it's been mentioned that its Rotten Tomatoes score is lower than Howard the Duck, but it's also lower than Batman & Robin. Add in the fact that it's drastically underperforming at the box office, and I say it qualifies.
There have also been stories surfacing over the past few days that cast doubt on how much Trank really cared. He was apparently a GIGANTIC brat to the actors.
How much shall we wait before putting it here?
^I'd say we should probably wait until the movie leaves theaters, just so we can accurately determine how big of a Box Office Bomb it is.
It's now at a 3.9/10 on IMDB.
It's now at a straight 4/10. That's still pretty low.
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.
I've heard it has a fandom in Italy, but I can't recall WHERE I heard that.
This is already present in Americans Hate Tingle. While the Italian version can be enjoyable, it was a bomb elsewhere because they mismanaged the localization, with VERY clumsy dubbing and editing.
I know it because I'm Italian
Thank you for letting me know about this. I won't add it, though.
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:
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.
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...
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.
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.
Yes. It's THAT terrible. Put it here if you wish.
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: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2095004/
I'm sure this flick goes to the Animated Film section of "Horrible". Post it there if you wish.
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.
That film might have some potential. Any specific reviews or areas where shortcomings are present though?
Here is the link to the Imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1272013/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.
If you are interested, check out the Italian remake, too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3040510/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.
If you're not convinced enough, a little google research will help.
I have an update: "Fuga de Cerebros" was dubbed in the US under the name "Brain Drain", by 20th Century Fox.
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.
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.
Maybe. What are the shortcomings of the work?
Well, I've consulted some reviews from a variety of sources (including Cinemonster) and these seem to be the main gripes:
There's more, but it's hard for me to express. Maybe the reviews on the opposite side of these reviews will help:
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
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.
This one looks like it should be on.
I've seen this at a used goods store, if you guys want I could write a review for the film
I've just watched it, the tag line is "Kill. Justice." & the best way to describe is it unjustly killed cinema, I personally couldn't tell what it fails harder, as an adaption or as a film in general, the film now sits at 4.3/10 which is 0.1 lower score than getaway (yet another movie listed on horrible/film page), which is appropriate because this film shares all the same problems as that one plus more.
The "Plus more" part is this film feels neutered in sexual content (for the most part, & I'll get to that shortly), & it tries to make up for this in unnecessary gore (for example the bullets are also grenades that explod 10-30 seconds after making impact, & it serves no other perpess than to have the dead bodies to explode with blood twice after being shot) none of which is helped by the horrendous special effects, it's basically has the feel of a horrible Sin City knockoff/wannabe
The casting is just horrible, India Eisley is unconvincing & her character comes off as being extremely under age (which makes what was left of the sexual content very uncomfortable), callan mcauliffe has an unexplained British accent, which is extremely out of place scenes everyone else specks with an American or Russian, &
Samuel L Jackson literally sleepwalks through this movie & is still the best actor in it
The music/sound will cause you pain, the cinematography is extremely zoomed in & can't focus on a shot for more then 5 seconds, & the costumes are worse than any 50's sci-fi B-movie
This seems like a perfect entry.
My god, they made an American live-action remake of Kite?!?
And people are balking at Battle Royale.
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.
Not familiar with it, so it could well be terrible, but your point about the animation is the only usable one here, and that wouldn't be enough by itself. All of your other points just make me think, "So what?". Again, I'm not familiar with it, so there could actually be good reasons to justify its inclusion, but you haven't really provided them.
You'd have to watch the movie on Netflix because the trailer is misleading as heck.
The evil russian mafians is just REALLY cliche, but I can see why the last one might not matter.
Ignore this comment
Using a perceived cliche isn't going to be enough. Having a couple of cliches doesn't automatically make something bad. Even if the entire film is a big cliche, it wouldn't be enough unless done particularly poorly (which would need to be elaborated on) and it would still require other major problems with the story. Loads of good works use things that some people may find are cliched. Also, remember this is not just for things that are "bad", this is for the worst of the worst.
I'm not arguing for or against this film's inclusion (especially since I can't find any professional reviews and there don't seem to be many user reviews and ratings either), but it needs to be a lot more convincing. For what it's worth, the trailer definitely looks awful, but I'll leave the film for someone else to watch and write about.
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.
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.
After reading a bit about it on Wikipedia, I really do think That's My Boy deserves a spot here:
(And, of course, I fucking DARE you to write this film with the genders reversed and not have it be a dark, depressing drama.)
It has a 5.6 IM Db rating and had a B- Cinemascore so it probably doesn't belong as audiences found it more average than bad. Also, the Razzies sometimes don't award the worst but rather people they don't really like or to get publicity (Kristen Stewart won a Razzie the same year because it's popular to hate her and the franchise she was a part of).
I agree that the Razzies should not be used as a measuring stick for this trope. They even went as far as to give the first two Star Wars Prequel movies "Worst Picture" nominations. That, right there, should tell you something about their credibility as film critics.
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:
In addition to Strange Wilderness, I am requesting that The Love Guru be added for the following reasons:
The Love Guru sounds like a very good candidate. While we're at it, does "The Cat in the Hat" movie count? I mean it got expunged because it didn't bomb the Box Office (Jack And Jill also didn't flop at the box office and had a fanbase of mostly consisting of children yet will always count). It suffered from things like horrific Adaptation Decay, reliance on unfunny gags, Character Derailment (the title character went from whimsical and naïve to a charmless Jerkass), haphazard Product Placement, is a Franchise Killer, and lacks rhyming (part of the book's original appeal). It was also reviewed by the Nostalgia Critic. Note that I'm not supporting Jack And Jill anymore but just noting that the "It made it's money back" excuse holds little water here.
Well, I added up and averaged all of the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDB ratings, and they amount to 25% (21.75% without IMDB rating), both of which fall under the SBIH threshold, so it counts. I also suggest that Strange Wilderness be re-added since its 5.3/10 rating on IMDB excuse holds little water here, and has a laundry list of a lot more cons than pros (as I highlighted above for the reasons why it should be re-added).
With that being said here are my entries for Strange Wilderness and The Love Guru
Where did this "SBIH threshold" come from anyway? It doesn't seem like the best way to go about things, since there may be other factors to consider sometimes.
That said, Strange Wilderness looks like it belongs here (unless there's enough evidence that it has a decent amount of supporters) and The Love Guru, even more so.
I came up with the "SBIH threshold" because of how the school grading system works: anything less than 60% is an F. Since 0%-59% is such a wide range, I decided to separate the typical "bad" from "So Bad, It's Horrible", so I used 33.3% as the number that would separate such works from each other (any work below it would be in the SBIH threshold whilst any work above it would not be in that threshold) since 33.3% is one-third of 100%.
Here are other factors that would make a film SBIH aside from lying in the SBIH threshold.
The 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").
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.
I read about that movie a while back and it sounds like a total stinker. Bringing this up to the "round-up" section below.
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".
The Pyramid has a 5.2 IM Db rating so it's probably doesn't qualify (in that it seemed to appeal to its target audience). Also, it did better internationally than domestically (and Fox produced it for an international audience with US numbers being an afterthought). But Ouija could be a viable contender as even though it spent two weeks in first at the US box office, negative reviews, the Cinemascore (a C) and its IM Db rating (4.4) favor its inclusion. The Cinemascore most notably suggest not even the film's target audience (teenage girls) seemed to like it.
I actually thought Oujia was one of the most well-written new horror films I've seen in quite a while (maybe you mean a different movie). However in the case of "Cat In the Hat", one amusing scene/funny joke (like 3 of the fart jokes from Master of Disguise or Al Capino in Jack And Jill) doesn't redeem an otherwise awful/qualifying movie. Also a movie can be decent in the box office and still count if that's the only thing going for it. Also can someone add "Zoom: Academy For Superheroes" and "Kite" already?
Left Behind 2014 is a good candidate for this page. It has 3,1 on IM Db and 2% on Rotten Tomatoes. If Roger Ebert was still alive, he'd give it -1 star out of four. The original one is bad but enjoyable, this one is just unspeakably bad. I mean, how did they get Lorraine from Back to the Future to act in this trainwreck?
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).
This writeup seems fine for me, but the last parenthese does not belong.
Will do. It was just a proposal anyway, but I will add a proper entry in the Film section soon.
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.
I'm all up for adding it.
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%.
I'd be all for including it.
Sounds like an unenjoyable disaster (unlike the So Bad, It's Good predecessor with Kirk Cameron). I will also say it qualifies.
Here is a review of Left Behind by Christy Lemire. To quote it "It should have more smoldering panic bursting into full-blown freak-outs. It should have more passion, more intensity. It should have more bees"
I'll write up an entry for it...but since I'm posting this while in junior high I'm do it when I get home.
The film was released on DVD (and oh-so-recently too...I haven't seen a quicker release from theater to DVD since Walk of Shame and Pimp) and sure enough has a good amount of bad reviews on Amazon.
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.
Seems a bit of a stretch.
I've never heard of it being popular, the only thing I can find about the Kids Choice Awards is being nominated for "best fart in a movie," which... doesn't seem like much. And an appearance doesn't mean it's liked, it just means that there's a sponsorship deal with Nick.
I don't really recall it being "bad" either, maybe So Bad, It's Good, but not outright horrible.
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.
I have seen Wired and I can agree that it is a terrible movie. In fact, the controversy over the film is vastly more interesting than the film itself.
It's also only available on Amazon Instant Video—and that copy has customers reporting that there are several lip-syncing issues.
Yeah, after reading the plot, this movie very much deserves a spot on here. Bring it on!
Does Razzie nominations and/or wins count as evidence?
Evidence, yes. But on its own it wouldn't be enough.
Does Rock: It's Your Decision count?
Maybe. Both The Agony Booth and The Cinema Snob reviewed it, so you'd have enough evidence there.
Worth noting though that two negative reviews (it doesn't matter how popular the reviewers are) is not enough evidence to add a work here.
It has a 1.4 on IMDB in case you're wondering: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387545/
Good enough for me.
Found some professional reviews as well.
I removed the Transformers example because I'm pretty sure that if people USED to like it, then it doesn't count.
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.
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)?
The first Baby Geniuses was a success, so it doesn't count.
There's also Attack Force.
I agree on Attack Force as well. I didn't think the first Baby Geniuses counted but was curious anyway. Someone please do rewrites soon.
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.
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.
I'm guessing you got this from Todd in the Shadows, right? Well, I took a look and considering it's terrible profits, negative reviews, and that Pras's career never took off afterward, this could very well fit.
Actually, I rented it from Netflix and experienced the boredom firsthand. Also, Nathan Rabin covered it in The AV Club once and trashed it.
Why not add it ...
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?
"might" is not a good argument; you'll have to demonstrate that the box office results were because of Bile Fascination.
I checked IM Db and a little under half of the user reviews for Seltzer and Friedburg's movies were positive meaning these movies have their fans so I guess that disqualifies them.
Sadly yes, they were well-liked despite their terrible films. It's why they were cranking out so many; they were making mad profits.
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.
The film did okay at the box office (grossing $156 million worldwide on a $65 million budget) and holds a 6.4 IM Db rating. It doesn't qualify.
Yeah, I was about to come on to say that I changed my mind.
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).
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.
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?
Sounds really bad, so might be worth putting on.
I would like to say that I found Christmas with the Kranks to be a guilty pleasure. Then again, I have only seen about the first 12 or so minutes of the film.
I 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.
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.
Does Ghost Dad qualify? It has a 7% in Rotten Tomatoes and 4.3/10 in IMDB or is it still to high?
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.
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.
Hell Yeah! I've seen that review and it looks like a mess (Bio Dome, not the review itself). They both more than deserve an entry on the list. I fully support adding them.
I concur with Idisagree. Add both of them up.
I'll add My Big Fat Independent Movie.
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%.
I haven't seen it, but the score sounds too high to belong on this page.
Late to this, but a lot of people don't realize that a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes means that at least 44% of the critics who reviewed it thought it was passable at worst. That's a lot of people who don't think it's terrible, and so it could never qualify.
However, if the movie you meant was "The Legend of Hercules" (which you probably did, judging by the date of your post), it actually only has a 3% approval rating (and its IMDB score ain't too impressive either), so it might be worth including.
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?
Hmm. What do you think, guys?
Well if there's no fans and a 2.1 IM Db score, then it probably counts. Add it
Used this post to test an example.
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.
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.
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:
Both movies received negative critical and public reaction despite making money (which is moot since both movies had really low budgets). If you can explain the movies' shortcomings in descriptive, yet concise entries, then I'm game.
EDIT: When writing the entries, note that Scary Movie 5 was the lowest earning entry of the bunch (earning only $78 million in comparison to earlier entries).
Here's my entry for The Devil Inside. I'm currently working on Scary Movie 5.
Sounds good, add it in.
I already did beforehand.
The Devil Inside's entry has been removed by Swim To The Moon for having "a fanbase of its own" and "was a box office success".
Yet Jack and Jill and Movie 43, which are also a box office successes, is still on the list, so I suggest that it be re-added. Also that whatever fanbase it has mostly sees it for Bile Fascination, and that it has a FAR larger hatedom than a fandom.
I agree. It needs to be re-added, but perhaps tweaked a bit to mention the film ends with a link to a defunct website.
I saw no to SM 5. Having seen it myself.=, it is bad not SBIH bad. With the likes of Disaster Movie on here, we should save it for a really bad "spoof" film.
@ Fromthe Wordsof BR: I have The Devil Inside re-edited with the defunct website link, so can I add it.
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?
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?
From what I've seen of Jack and Jill, it looked like Al Pacino was phoning it in. Also, terrible films have been known to be hated but made some money, like Last Airbender which deserves it's spot here. So it comes off as a lazy excuse and I say Yea. Also, Jack and Jill is just one feature-length commercial, which feels cheap and the film comes off as obnoxious.
Movie 43: I'd say yea.
Sorry for the belated response. I've been giving the eligibility of Jack and Jill some thought and I am now in favor of adding it in. The presence of The Last Airbender, which had similar qualities that would normally disqualify films as SBIH, convinced me that an exception could also be made for Jack and Jill. I will finalize and add the draft above to the main page.
By the way, I really hope this is the last time we ever have to discuss the film's eligibility. It's on the list of films considered to be the worst on The Other Wiki (click here) and I don't think there is any more point in arguing for or against the film being on the SBIH page. I will put an anti-Edit War warning on the comment for the edit like I did when I placed Movie 43 in the SBIH page.
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.
One more potential UK stinker (coincidentally starring Danny Dyer and torn a new one by Mark Kermode): 2013's Run For Your Wife. Although it's based on Ray Cooney's hit play in West End, the screen adaptation ends up as yet another British sex comedy that fails miserably. This is thanks to horrible acting, a confused plot, retrograde and misogynistic attitudes toward women, excessive and pointless cameos from celebrities such as Judi Dench and Ray Winstone, and a lack of timing for lazy, uninspired jokes. Critics have compared the film unfavorably to Sex Lives of the Potato Men and earned a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 2.5 on IM Db. Run For Your Wife was also a Box Office Bomb in the UK, as it earned only ₤747 at the box office. Here's Mark Kermode's review.
While we'll have to wait on "The Legend of Hercules" (it practically just came out). The other two seem perfect for this page.
Added the latter two to the film page. I found yet another film starring Danny Dyer that might qualify as this: 2010's The Last Seven. The film tells the story of a cataclysmic event that leaves only 7 remaining people on earth and their desperate struggle to understand the events as they are hunted one by one by a demonic power. Many have criticized Last Seven for horrible acting, piss-poor writing, audio and visual editing issues, weak special effects and a terrible Shocking Swerve in the ending. The film received a 0% on RT (Dyer's been in three movies with that score; impressive in a way...), a 9% Audience Score, and a 3.9 on IM Db. No Kermode review this time, though The Guardian is not particularly kind to this disaster...
Danny Dyer seems like quite the repeat offender. Might as well put him and his free flops there.
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.
Having watched Getaway myself, I'd say it earns a spot here.
Lawnmower Man 2, Ricky 1, and Basic Instinct 2 are (finally) cleaned up. Son of the Mask looks fine now, but I'll give it one more look. I am also coming up with drafts for the long-awaited Getaway entry, so I'll have it up sooner rather than later.
Edit: By the way, do you think 47 Ronin should go in? It's a Box Office Bomb and it "earned" a 10% on RT. Reasons for poor reviews include: piss-poor directing, bizarre and haphazard editing, trite dialogue, weak integration of special effects, outright betrayal of source material, and egregious Executive Meddling (to the point that Universal pulled the director and had their co-chairwoman finish the movie).
47 Ronin has a 6.7 on IM Db and got a B+ on Cinemascore (the latter is probably not a great indicator but a B+ typically means average to good) so no, it should not go in.
Okay. I'm not going to risk an Edit War, so that sounds fine to me. Any final consensus regarding Jack and Jill or Movie 43 so we can end all of the nonsense surrounding these two films on this page?
IMDB has a 3.5/10, Rotten Tomatoes has a 3% rating and Meta Critic has 23/100 for Jack and Jill.
Movie 43 has a 4.4/10 on IMDB and a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes.
It sounds like they should qualify given the evidence.
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.
Another suggestion is Agent Red with Dolph Lundgren. With a 2.9 rating on IMDB, it was reedited and reshot after Andrew Stevens (producer of classics like Shadow man and Half Past dead 2) called it unreleasable. Mixing in footage of Fred Olen Ray's Counter Measures and other stock footage, it is dubed on IMDB'S trivia page as 'probably the most unwatchable film ever to be pumped out of Phoenician Entertainment / Franchise Pictures' some statement when they made Battlefield earth and Balisitc Ecks Vs Sever!
The quote in full:It was an example of probably the most unwatchable film ever to be pumped out of Phoenician Entertainment / Franchise Pictures. The company went through three editors and two directors trying to fix the film without any re-shoots. Until finally the powers that be were convinced that re-shoots had to be done. About 40 minutes of the original 100 minutes from writer director Damian Lee's assembly was dumped and then replaced with 40 new minutes of new connective exposition and action sequences written by Steve Latshaw and directed by Jim Wynorski to make the film seem cohesive, as well as stock footage from Phoenician titles and some bigger theatrical movies.-IMDB.
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.
Yeah i saw Getaway. That film is the worst in the editing department honestly. Even with the oner near the end it still gave me a headache.
I say we wait til it comes out on DVD/Blu ray, to give it time to "sit" say to speak.
Getaway is out on DVD. Been so since November.
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.
I wouldn't be supporting a movie if I didn't feel it was decent/watchable (in the eyes of me and people I know). Also it's been revealed that Jack And Jill didn't bomb the box office, had a redeeming feature, and has a a small following (which I'm part of). That's enough to put it off the list.
Also Hatedom doesn't equal So Bad, It's Horrible. By the way, I visit this section frequently and agree with many of the movie on this list.
Sorry about double posting.
I'm sorry, but $70 million at the box office does not equal a cult classic. Also if you are using box office as a reason why something shouldn't be here, then how do you explain the inclusion of The Last Airbender (a much more successful film)?
I suggest it stays on the list (as many things, such as awful reviews and the Razzie sweep would suggest otherwise).
There have been films that at the time bombed at the box office but were also critically acclaimed like The Secret of NIMH (which no one SANE would put it here). Just because it bombed, doesn't automatically make it horrible. It needs to have critical evidence as to why it's so awful. Also, Jack and Jill won a record of Razzies when it came out and the people that did go see it hated it.
In a review by Mark Kermode (I can't remember which but I remember him saying this), he said that just because people went to see it, doesn't mean they liked it and there is evidence proving how critically loathed the movie is. The Last Airbender may have made more money than it's budget, but you can EASILY find evidence of critical savagery with a quick Google search. No one likes the movie and the reviews on Youtube of it get the evidence down perfectly. I say leave it in but in the repeat offenders part with Happy Madison Productions.
At this point, I think we'll leave Jack and Jill off for now since there seems to be evidence for and against the film, but let's not have any edit wars on this film again until then. And Idisagree, although you make good points, please don't get too aggressive about keeping this film off when a consensus is reached.
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.
Sounds like a good qualifier but should it go in The live action section or here. Other than that, it's a perfect candidate.
I'll add it in.
I went ahead and added the sequel, Fred 2, to the list.
Someone seems to have removed the entry when there's evidence proving the film's horrible.
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?
Yeah, probably. It also flopped and failed to make back its budget.
I've actually seen this one and like Jack And Jill, enjoyed it. It's more So Bad, It's Good than anything.
Sorry, but unlike Jack And Jill, it never was successful, is widely hated by fans of The Mask, and has a 20/100 on Metacritic. It also has an overall score (combining the Rotten Tomatoes all critics and audience scores (both definite and average), Metacritic critic and audience scores, and IMDB scores) of 28.7142857/100 (30/100 sans the IM Db rating), lying in the SBIH threshold (has to have an overall score of less than or equal to 33%). It also has the most nominations of the 2006 Razzies (Worst Picture, Worst Actor, 2 Worst Supporting Actor nominations, Worst Screen Couple, Worst Director and Worst Screenplay) and even an award from them for Worst Remake of Sequel.
While you make good points, the entry is pure Natter (more biased, "I hate it because", than general opinion). It should mention stuff I'd agree with like the terrible effects, Uncanny Valley title character, or failed attempts at slapstick. Instead it mentions Childish writing (it's more unsure about itself) and Stock Footage (I don't remember any of that in either the Nostalgia Critic review or the movie itself). Most its "fans" see it as Snark Bait and enjoy it (if at all)in an ironic sense (I'm that way). It's a stinker but deserves a better entry.
I am requesting 5 movies to be added to the list: Red Dawn 2012, Delta Farce, Strange Wilderness and A Thousand Words
I am also requesting that Battlefield Earth be re-added
Evidence in favor of the argument
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
I fully agree with the addition of Strange Wilderness and the reinstatement of Delta Farce. Both films have nothing to redeem themselves, critically or commercially, so feel free to add it in if you like.
I also wish A Thousand Words was on this page, but it has a fairly high IM Db rating (5.7 to be exact). I know there are some IM Db dictators on this forum, so it's best to avoid an Edit War and a possible permanent page lockup of the SBIH pages by not adding A Thousand Words. Red Dawn (2012) was also a highly insulting film to me, but it has a CMOA page and a 5.3 IM Db rating. Thus, against my personal rage against the film, I say the reboot is a No as well.
Finally, Battlefield Earth. I fully concur with your opinion. I waited for more than a week now and no one has come to the film's support, so I'm now convinced that the few people who seek this film out see it more as Snark Bait rather than a film that's So Bad, It's Good. I will reinstate it and also make the long-awaited cleanups of Lawnmower Man 2 and One Missed Call.
Those ratings on IM Db are based on fan reaction. It's better to use Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes ratings (as well awards for the worst in film, such as the Razzies) since IM Db's ratings are based off fan reaction instead of critic ratings (which are far more reliable compared to former) and on average are higher compared to those two. Maybe Red Dawn 2012 could go under So Bad, It's Good instead (if not under the Film section). Generally, ratings to make the film qualify on the Film page are based off an overall rating of <=33% (or one-third). For Red Dawn 2012, I added all of the ratings of (Rotten Tomatoes's ratings all critics and audience and their averages, Metacritic critic and user reviews, and IM Db ratings) and it totaled to 42.7142857/100 (41/100 sans the IM Db rating). For A Thousand Words, I did the same thing and it totaled to 39/100 (36/100 sans the IM Db rating). For Battlefield Earth, the score is 17.7142857/100 (14.2857143/100 sans the IM Db rating), so it definitely needs to be re-added. I am also requesting that Movie 43 be added since it got a score of 27.2857143/100 (24.5/100 sans the IM Db rating), within the SBIH score threshold. I also would like to request that 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag be added, since it has a 15/100 on Metacritic and an 11% on Rotten Tomatoes, it flopped in the box office and a total score of 36.1428571/100 (32.6666667/100 sans the IM Db rating). Also in need of mention is Scary Movie V since it has a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 11/100 on Metacritic, and an overall score of 28.1428571/100 ( 27.1666667/100 sans the IM Db rating), both under the SBIH threshold.
I'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.
IMO, Leonard Part 6 should be removed for not being specific enough about the movie itself. If there is proof of any shortcomings within the film and notes from other critics about the film, then it could stay (albeit with some edits). Also, as horrible as Daddy Day Camp is, the film's entry should be revised to incorporate further notes about its B.O. performance, other short-comings in production, and reviews.
IMO, Jack And Jill sucks but you're right in the reasons why it should not be on this page. It did very well in theaters and there's a small, but notable group of fans that enjoy the movie. A SBIH movie is one that should have zero redeeming factors whatsoever. Al Pacino's performance and the B.O. should be enough to push this stinker off this list. Not sure about Going Overboard though, its far more obscure and the Adam Sandler fans I know who have seen it said it was rough at best. So I don't think Going Overboard should be removed.
Finally, Highlander 2. It should be edited similar to the Titanic The Legend Goes On entry in the Western Animation section to make it clear that the original theatrical cut, NOT the Renegade cut, is the one that's terrible. If you ask me, keep Highlander 2 but make it crystal clear that its the original theatrical release that is terrible. Also, feel free to note the Renegade Cut as a So Bad, It's Good redo.
Thanks for answering and I agree with you. That Rock Climbing movie looks boring but not terrible. Not sure about that one either.
Oh boy, that entry for Lost Continent is a poorly-written doozy. From what I've found out, people complain about poor pacing, clueless direction, and Special Effects Failure. With a 2.8 on IM Db, it qualifies but I'll see what I can do to tidy it up. Cheers for the heads up!
Last but not least, Film/The Lawnmower Man 2 doesn't really describe the quality of the movie and is too vague. It could be So Bad, It's Good for all we know. The entry for One Missed Call (the American version) is also a little shoddy at best.
Also anyone notice that Battlefield Earth is missing but Roger Christian still has his own section. Why was it removed again?
Good eye; Lawnmower Man 2 should qualify, but I will need to read its reviews in order to properly clean it up. Also, One Missed Call US should be cleaned up in terms of sentence structure and formatting, but is otherwise fully qualified as this.
Regarding Battlefield Earth, ading said that the film has a fairly large fanbase who see it as a So Bad Its Good film. I'm not sure if that is true; I haven't heard of any cult screenings a la The Room or Birdemic, so jury's out. I say restore the film if you don't find any proof regarding the fans for Battlefield Earth that don't just view it as Snark Bait in a week or two.
An unrelated post but a suggestion is the Jack Palance film 'Portrait of a hitman'. Shot in 1978, but not released untill 1984 and co staring richard rowntree it is dull, full of recycled clips and is in the public domain. Leonard Maltin gave it 'Bomb' stating it was of an unfished quality. Imdb gives it 4.3 (only 124 votes mind),with comments stating awful and dull. Shitcase cinema on Youtube reviewed it stating about the poor pacing and padded duration and the review recieved comments stating how dull the clips were and how poor the film looked. Worth condiering?
A few more badly written entries that aren't descriptive enough include; "The Castle of Fu Manchu", I Know Who Killed Me, "American Ninja V"/American Dragons, Basic Instinct 2, "The Smokers", "Die Sturzflieger", and "Ricky 1". I'm not saying any of these don't qualify a much as I'm saying the entries are bad. Someone make a few rewrites.
Also Jaws The Revenge definitely counts but could someone go into more details and condense the entry a little? Just trying to get this page less objective, more descriptive, and less Natter.
I know this is late, but if you feel that these entries aren't described well enough, then maybe you could contribute to them for us as well? I mean, you are free to edit the wiki too, right?
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).
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.
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
Project X has its share of fans (and made a decent profit at the box office). Also, the IM Db user is at 6.5 after 109,000 votes so it does not qualify.
Well could we put it in So Bad It's Good instead then?
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.
It also got an 11% on metacritic. I also would like to see the other Twilight spoof, Taintlight added.
No word on Taintlight, but Scary Movie 5 has a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes on the user reviews. Not very good, but seems a bit high for SBIH.
Sorry, but the real score on Rotten Tomatoes applies to the Tomatometer, which are aggregated from legitimate film critics, so it may as well be put on the list.
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.
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.
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.
That said and done, Stranded could qualify. It has a 0% on RT, a 3.4 on IM Db, and a 27 on Metacritic. Starring Christian Slater and directed by Roger Christian (yes, THAT Roger Christian), this movie is filled with lifeless, undeveloped characters, poor dialogue, and cheap No Budget sets and visuals (case in point: Slater uses a book-light for a device). It also has terrible pacing and, above all, shamelessly rips off Alien from its basic plot to every last twist found in Ridley Scott's classic.
Stranded sounds like crap, try adding it.
Who removed Battlefield Earth? That movie's got negative reviews up the wazoo, a lack of fans, probably a Box Office Bomb, and is boring to boot. Why'd someone remove it?
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.
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.
Plutonium Baby sounds as bad as that Stranded movie above. Put that bad boy in.
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.
My apologies for no trope links. I'd do it if I knew how.
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.
And WHY were Larry the Cable Guy's movies removed from the Repeat Offenders section of the page?!
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.
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.
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!
I noticed that Movie 43 had been added to the list although according to some comments on here, that it shouldn't be on here.
I would also like to suggest adding Craig Moss (the director of The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It) to the repeat offenders list. Most of his movies (expect for Bad Ass) have a rating of under 3 stars on imdb.com and Film Brain's review of Breaking Wind pretty much sums up Craig Moss' attempt at making a comedy film.
The Craig Moss idea actually doesn't sound half bad.
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.
You just have to know enough to write a decent description with evidence that it's hated enough.
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.
does the movie Smiley, which has a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 3.5 on IM Db count for S Bi H?
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).
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.
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.
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.
Does the "Master of Disguise" qualify as SBIH?
It's got a 1% in Rotten Tomatoes
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.
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.
Who removed the Cat In The Hat movie? That was a painful unfunny mess that makes Jack And Jill look good.
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.
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.
I didn't know it had fans, I thought it was another film no one supported. Sorry.
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
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).
That movie is more So Bad, It's Good. This is for films with zero redeeming factors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The second two seem to be good candidates but the first needs more elaboration.
The last one has several reasons right there in the post as to why it doesn't qualify:
Hey In The Gallbladder,
The Last Airbender also has a 4.5 score on IMDB and made back its budget, yet it completely deserves to be on here. So why shouldn't Movie 43?
We have In AP Ppropiate comedy on here, which is movie 43 the sequel...so having the orginal, which has all the same crimes is kind of...pointless.
About 43: As with any rating on that site, it almost certainly includes AstroTurfing.
Also about 43: it only cost $6 million to make, so it's not that surprising that it made back its budget.
"The worst aspect of the film was entirely behind-the-scenes."
What's so behind-the-scenes about the fact that it sucks?
"About 43: As with any rating on that site, it almost certainly includes Astro Turfing." - IMDB (and Metacritic, for that matter) also have a lot of users who just give out low scores for fun. I've notcied instances where the "top 1000" voters have ratings that are widely different from everyone else. You mostly only notice it on pages that don't have many ratings, but still. I think it's always best to lean towards non-inclusion than inclusion for more iffy cases. In my opinion, though, I think there's more than enough to suggest that Movie 43 qualifies, at least as much as a couple of other entries on this list. If the 4.5 score on IMDB was supported with more evidence that it has at least some kind of fanbase, that would be something else. The only thing I'd ask is is it really irredeemably "horrible" or is it just an ordinary stinker?
Also, since Cinema Snob was mentioned, I remember him talking about how low IMDB scores don't always mean anything, because a lot of people are just bandwagon jumping, and that a lot of the movies on MST 3 K, for example, don't deserve to have scores as low as they are on IMDB.
I'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).
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.
Okay I'll add to the entry, that's a great agrument. More input on the others in a civilized manner.
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.
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.
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
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.
Then I would say the Renegade cut doesnt deserve a place here, but all the others do.
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.
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? ???
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.
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.
Can we add Howard the Duck?
Why would we add that. I thought it was on So Bad, It's Good.
Sorry I double posted...
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).
4.1 on IMDB? Too high.
^ A valid point, but we can't rely on IMDb alone.
I've not seen it, but I agree having a good rating on one website isn't enough to necessarily disqualify it.
^ Yes. Plus Delgo has a 4.3 on IMDb, but it's still listed under Western Animation.
Is it ok to add The Cavern? it has pretty low ratings and i doubt anyone likes it.
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.
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.
Can we add Atlas Shrugged parts 1 and 2 on here? They both have 0% on RT.
5.6 and 5.5 on IMDB. I say no.
You seem to really like IMDB.
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...
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.
Oh wait, 33%! I misread you. XD Heck, stick that sucker on here!
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??
I'd say it qualifies - most reviews seem to agree.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Sorry for the slow reply but according to the Other Wiki, it did appeared in some obscure cable channel and aired on late night TV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchon_%28film%29#Release
Too contribute the film's SBIH-ness, there were technical errors such as the film using cardboard cutouts to depict military aircraft.
That's why there's few, if any Korean War movies made in the west.
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.
It has better reasons than a certain other film I've seen that I've met fans of.
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.
Dose one good scene really justifie its removel. Especially when its So Bad, It's Good?
Yes. It's an official Awesome Moment.
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.
Seconded. This film gets Audience Participation. That's an indication of a possible Cult Classic.
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:
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.
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.
Seconded. I just noticed LOL got cut—-there were REASONS for it being listed on this page!
I've put them back with a note to go to the discussion page for further removals.
To whoever cleaned up my entry for "LOL", thank you. Seriously.
How about 'The Devil inside', with its high and glorious metascore of 19?
Debuted at no. 1 in the box office.
it also has a 6% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 22% user rating, as well as a 19/100 on Metacritic (Overwhelming dislike). In its second weekend, the film dropped 76.2%, which was the largest second weekend drop for a film since Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience (77.4%) in early 2009. The only reason why this film was so successful was that it was made to copy paranormal activity's success. Also so mention is that it has an overwhelming negative word-of-mouth and an ending that pissed off the audiences hardcore.
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.
yes. yes it is
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.
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.
I keep hearing it's more of a So Bad, It's Good type of movie rather than SBIH.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
a good chunk of these films have an odd fanbase, even the last airbender.
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.
so thus most of the stuff on this list would disqualfy. so i say it doesn't disqualify them/
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).
Didn't I hear that this trope was still a tiny bit subjective somewhere?
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?
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.
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.
Cut and pasted here for now. I still think it's too soon to call it:
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).
Agreed, although it could also use a larger description if it is eligible.
it's been out for quite a while now. can we put it up?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Merged it with the first important note. Two is fine, but three notes seem excessive.
Added to it a bit, seeing as it didn't seem reinforced enough
Now said entry is needless fan bashing rather than making a valid point and still contains at least 2 redeeming qualities.
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.
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.
I think the Garbage Pail Kids Movie needs to be removed... Even the film's page says that the movie has a fanbase. Also, nobody hated it before The Nostalgia Critic reviewed it (at least not on a large scale).
Well, maybe it was relatively unknown at the time. It's still below So Bad, It's Good so it fits.
Oh it was known at the time. A group got the movie pulled from theaters from how disgusting it was and it only made a million dollars out of it's 30-million budget. It's bad. Very bad.
It's been removed and a few bad examples have been added in its place.
Hey guys, a bit of a future reference here... Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB alone do not qualify as SBIH. Remember, there are people that purposefully skew scores or are so obscure that they have no ratings from these sites. Try to convince us that this movie belongs here.
And on another note, IMDB scores are also not a reason to delete scores unless it's really high, like... around 5.0 or higher. Again, there are people out there that skew scores.
Does house of the dead really belong here? Yeah, I know it's made by uwe boll, but it seems to be more of a so bad its good movie rather then so bad it's horrible. In fact, this movie seems to be a like it or hate it subject, and their are other people who think it's good for some cheesy laughs.
Does "Who's Your Caddy?" qualify? That terrible rip-off of Caddyshack and giving in the negative stereotypes. It got a 6% in Rotten Tomatoes and 1.8 rating in IMDB.
6%, really? With scores that bad, I'd say it does.
Cut the entry for Sean McNamara, since he isn't consistently bad enough to be Horrible even in his genre. Moved his 3 Ninjas film to the appropriate spot. Cut this and put it here for now — I think this is Western Animation.
No, I think that entry was referring to the live action movie (that I wouldn't know about). At least, the link takes me to the page for it.
EDIT: Whoops, already been restored. This is an old post. Silly me.
Someone explain what's horrible about it besides Unfortunate Implications which are probably subtle. Besides the girls in that movie are 20 times cuter than the dolls (in my opinion).
It's the biggest cookie-cutter film you'd ever lay your eyes on. Every character besides the Bratz are one-dimensional to highlight how unique the girls are. Moreover, the Mexican family has a lot of horrible stereotypes (a mariachi band, really?) and the music numbers are appalling remixes. Of course, it also bombed at the box office and has a 2.6 on IMDB.
Good points. I guess it counts, if you could add that to the description.
Video Brinquendo, anyone? Known for such classics as Little Bee, Little Cars, and The Little Panda Fighter?
Already on Western Animation.
We need to edit the Nick Phillips entry...
Criminally Insane is a Guilty Pleasure — there really are fans of exploitation films of The '70s. But Crazy Fat Ethel and the Death Nurse films are horrible and are based off that one. We need to adjust the description accordingly, since we want to make clear which films are Horrible and which aren't...
I oughta do it myself, but it's delicate work.
I did it, I think.
I'm pretty sure the main page was cut by mistake.
Are we sure Obsessed (Beyonce) edition is Horrible? We're rooting for someone, even if it's not the person intended...
I removed it. It has a cult status and critics were mixed on it.
Removed this from the Gigli entry:
First, Gigli is on DVD (although I assume it's no longer in print and it has little chance of a Blu-Ray release). Second, 20th Century Fox had nothing to do with the movie; it was released by Columbia Pictures. I'm guessing it was attached to something else then got moved, but I couldn't see anything it could be attached to.
1) Gigli is definitely on DVD - I rented it to see if it was really as bad as everyone said. (It is.)
2) I think that tag was attached to The Adventures of Pluto Nash, but as far as I can tell, that also got a DVD release (...why?)
About point 2: Not everyone is aware of how uneven the career of Eddie Murphy, actor, is. He had a stellar period around the first Beverly Hills Cop, and his recent "family" films (The Nutty Professor remake, whatever the Doctor Doolittle films are supposed to be) are tolerated, so other films of his might get rented by fans of either end.
"Pluto Nash" comes between those stages; it's probably what drove him into the family film niche. If it's rated below R, that would be another point.
Yes, Pluto Nash has a DVD release, I have it.
Should this really be on here? I mean, it's one of those movies.
Red Riding Hood (2011) a Darker and Edgier retelling so unbelievably detatched from the original tale as to be In Name Only. The plot reads like a fanfiction written by Michael Haneke. The film is loaded with inconsistencies, obnoxious moments, and padding to the point where almost half the film is dedicated to the lead actor staring into space.
If it really is a Love It or Hate It movie, then it does not go here. The "Love It" faction cancels it out.
Cut it and put it here for now. Someone gave it an Awesome Moments page.
Just visited the page. The only entry in the CMOA page should be moved out to the YMMV page since it belongs to the Awesome Music trope. Here's what it says:
And that's it. However, it is a Love It Or Hate It Movie for regular viewers (as the 5.2 I Md B rating and the 4.1 User score on Metacritic indicate), so I don't think that film qualifies.
... What... What happened to Manos: The Hands of Fate? I mean, the Mads APOLOGIZED for this on MST 3 K! It has the world's most pointless "subplot", it has ten minutes of minimal-dialogue driving DESPITE a camera that could only record for thirty seconds, fans acknowledge it's nearly unwatchable in some parts without the MSTing... Why isn't it on here?
Why are there so many people that dont know that we have a page called So Bad, It's Good?
Why are there so many people that don't know that the meaning of "subjective" is "more than one opinion is valid"? Personally, I believe it qualifies for both categories, and therefore deserves to be listed on Horrible as well. As I said, this is the one movie, in the history of MST 3 K, that the Mads felt the need to apologize for. The 'bots broke down in tears over this. Hobgoblins could arguably be considered watchable on its own, and it's listed on this page. To quote Wikipedia on Manos, "It is widely recognized to be one of the worst films ever made." To quote Joel, "DO SOMETHING! My God..." To quote a reviewer on IMDB, "But few films can claim to be so dreadful, you actually feel physical pain while viewing them. So bad are these damned few that you don't experience them or watch them: you "endure" them. This is the mother of all such films!" To quote Wikipedia again, "Warren claimed that he felt Manos was the worst film ever made, even though he was proud of it, and he suggested that it might make a passable comedy if it were to be redubbed." "the show's team of writers stated that they still feel Manos is the worst movie they ever covered, and that the film subsequently "became the standard by which all others are measured."" If it weren't for MST 3 K, if it weren't for Torgo, this film would be unwatchable.
Okay, so the fandom for "Manos" is a Misaimed Fandom. That said, there appears to be one...
The people running this site are already uneasy about this sort of black page — they don't want this to be just another vs. of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. To keep this index from being cut, we must be more selective than usual. We aim to list the worst of the worst here, the works that are indefensible.
Thus, anything that can accurately be listed on the So Bad, It's Good pages cannot be listed on this index. So Bad, It's Good works have a sincere fanbase (many are also Guilty Pleasures); these have only Bile Fascination.
Besides, Torgo is a redeeming factor...
I'd like to nominate Fat Slags, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'll go here first: What I know is against it:
That looks like enough. Go add it.
Did Halloween Horror Hostel ever make it to theaters?
If not, then it should be moved, since it was produced by a TV channel.
Cut and pasted there. It seems to fit on the page, but with little elaboration.
Well it is on the IMDb bottom 100. Someone should reinstate this...
Someone (not me) has.
Can someone give a reason other than it being offensive to people with aspergers syndrome?
I've never heard of that movie, but it looks like it might have a good case if someone that's seen can come in with a level head and explain further.
Nyet. Nein. Nope. Not only does it have a 56 on Metacritic, it scored a 7.1 on IM Db. With a thorough revision, it could be placed on the Unfortunate Implications page. But So Bad Its Horrible, Adam is not.
This Troper that dose not sound very bad at all due to zero elaboration.
This was added by Super Saiya Man, so that can't be good.
That looks very So Bad, It's Good.
On another note. I'm calling bullshit on this:
Hold on, "Blue". One of the worst Red Dwarf episodes? True, the show kind of went to crap after Stoke Me A Clipper and Ouroboros and I suppose it wasn't THAT good, but can someone elaborate why it's considered among the worst?
Single episodes of live-action television shows go in the live-action TV page of Wall Banger. This doesn't belong on this index at all, let alone the film page of it.
That didn't answer my question. At all. I was talking about a reference to the writer's other works in the "From Justin to Kelly" section.
This one has no elaboration other than citing a Rotten Tomatoes score. If it's so bad, elaborate on why it's as terrible as it is.
Do we have any reasons to list A Serbian Film other than its being both squicky and probably illegal?
I personally think not. While the fellow troper made some valid points why (s)he personally didn't like the movie, I have, after actually seeing it, a different opinion. It was solidly written and well acted. I can't agree with the "niche market" argument as the movie (to me at least) didn't seem to be a sexual exploitation but more a brutal deconstruction of it. Also, the movie in general recieved a mixed reception being an excellent example of Love It or Hate It which you can't really say of a movie that is supposed to be listed in here.
I took the liberty of removing the entry for A Serbian Film.
Feel free to put the entry back as long as you provide valid reasons why the movie should belong in here instead of a personal opinion.
Cutting this and putting it here for now:
From what I can see, the justification for putting this on the list is "it's Darker and Edgier and stands a very good chance of scaring children". Darker and Edgier is nothing new, and if having terrifying moments were enough reason for a movie to be Horrible, we'd have movies like The Lion King and the original Jaws on here. Besides, there's a positive review, proving that someone likes it.
Understood. We'll keep an eye on it.
This film oughta be listed in Adaptation Decay, at least, or even In Name Only, if that description is accurate and it isn't there already. The Nutcracker with neither ballet nor magic, even if it gets Vindicated by Cable, is not gonna have much resemblance to the original ballet. (The storyline is something like this: a girl sees a fight between a nutcracker soldier and the Rat King. The nutcracker soldier wins, and then turns into a handsome prince. What follows is her visiting the court to beautiful music until the end of the work... No, you can't do this in a visual medium with neither ballet nor magic.
I notice someone just added Secret Agent Club, a film made as part of a Ponzi scheme. Now, that doesn't affect its status at all — some Ponzi schemes produce fine products anyway — but it did make me wonder if someone was trying a Springtime for Hitler ploy...
I removed it due to low elaboration. If it is comparable to the 4th 3 Ninjas film, it might be worth re adding.
I don't believe that The Adventures of Pluto Nash belongs on this page. Perhaps some of you dislike the movie and that's fine, your opinion, but I loved every minute of it. It was fun, it had action and suspense, I loved the actors in it - it was quite enjoyable. :)
I'm contesting its position on this list and request it get moved to so bad it's good instead at the very least.
You seem to be the only person that liked it. If you read the Wikipedia article, you will see that it is constrained one of the worst films ever made. Just because one person liked does not mean that it is not horrible.
^"Also, do not start edit wars. If somebody challenges a claim, do not try to pull the "it's only you" crap. Civility is not something Darth Wiki allows a pass on."
While I thank you for politely bringing your case on the talk page and not starting an edit like so many others, I have to raise an eyebrow at the "Perhaps some of you dislike the movie"-part, Pluto Nash is the biggest loss in cinema history and has atrocious ratings on review aggregators like Metacritic or IMDB - it's not just some obscure target of nerd-hatred.
I won't Edit War if you remove the entry, but take a look at the overral reputation of the movie before doing so.
Also, the entry says this about a Robot Chicken skit:
Adult Swim has uploaded it on to You Tube. Here it is.
Here is the part about the box office.
I added The Wild Life, and someone removed it. Why? Maybe it was someone perverted that removed it...
I removed it because the entry didn't say anything about the quality of the movie, just what the plot is about. Being "perverted" is no reason to add something anyway, there's a warning saying "Merely being offensive in its subject matter is not enough to justify a work as So Bad It's Horrible. Hard as it is to imagine at times, there is a market for all types of deviancy (no matter how small a niche it is). It has to fail to appeal even to that niche to qualify as this".
O.K., I finally added one of those note that only editors can read to not add the The Star Wars Holiday Special. Here it is.
Deleted this comment and placing it here:
I personally find this pointless Fan Hating, but in case anyone objects to it...
What fans? If this was something other than So Bad Its Horrible, I would delete it.
He's just saying it'sn eedlessly insulting and not needed.
Exactly. Why it's bad has been written already, so I see no point in having this on the page.
Really? From what I saw, it looks So Bad, It's Good.
Re Vampire Sucks: Anonymous Mc Cartney Fan removed it o nthe ground that "Twilight haterss likes it" but I went on IMDB and not only is the user rating pathetic, but there's actually a forum thread asking why even Twilight haters don't like it. So... uh?
I think he just said that so that Super Saiya Man would stop adding it. He thinks that a horrible movie can do good at the box office.
Okay, what's our current stance on direct-to-DVD movies? Do we list them here, in Live-Action Television, or what?
I ask because someone is trying to list Steven Seagal's direct-to-DVD filmography there, and my recollection was that we were only supposed to list films that did see theatrical release here.
Cut the general entry for his filmography, and alphabetized the two named films. I still am unsure that they should be here, since they are direct-to-DVD and since they apparently contain narm. If it can be sincerely enjoyed without a MST, even for the wrong reason, then it doesn't belong here.
Attack Force seems far too So Bad, It's Good to be here. Besides if the entry makes it sound remotely entertaining, then it should be cut.
Quick question, as I'm not too familiar with the franchise: Is Power Rangers seriously known for terrible fighting choreography?
It has that reputation among other people who know about the franchise. I don't know how justified it is, but it's a common charge.
Should there be a section for "Giftedly Bad Directors", instead of just saying "Everything by ______"?
To think of it, maybe it is a good idea.
Brad Jones thought highly of Caligula, so I'm not sure if it fits. Do other exploitation buffs think the same?
There are two sequels to that film. That in itself isn't definitive, either, and perhaps Penthouse is Doing It for the Art, But, when you consider that any genuine fans of that kind of work are gonna be underground anyway because of the subject matter, it's possible.
My theory about the relation between box office and film quality:
Failing in the theaters doesn't make a film Horrible, but succeeding wildly means that the film must have redeeming features.
We may want to use a sliding scale for profits here like the one we instituted in the Music section. Films with known box-office draws in them (famed actors, directors, or producers) may be judged in comparison to their previous work...
Cut this and put it here for now, as we (or at least I) have no idea what most of these films are and because "recent" is not a fixed period. If it is reinstated, then please file under the filmmaker's last name; that is, alphabetize as "Lowell," not "Ulli"... Or maybe write an entry for Son of Sam alone.
Looking into it, the first was Mockbuster Zodiac Killer (currently in imdb's bottom one-hundred at number thirty with 2,024 votes) in 2005. In the same year there was BTK Killer, Green River Killer and Killer Pickton (banned in North America, apparently for being Too Soon). Next was Black Dahlia (another Mockbuster) in 2006, and Diary of a Cannibal, Borderline Cult and Curse of the Zodiac (another apparent Mockbuster) in 2007. 2008 had Dungeon Girl (based on the Joseph Fritzl case) Son of Sam, Baseline Killer (infamously given a "FUCK THIS MOVIE out of 5" by Dread Central) and Killer Nurse. In 2009 there was Nightstalker and the last one before he apparently quit horror was D.C. Sniper (which a Joblo review said "is his best work. But that doesn't say a lot.")
Okay. That is five years worth of films from a guy who directed for almost three decades. I'm reopening this topic now that he has a listing because I'm not sure he should have a listing — it looks like most of his work pre-2005 is just So Okay It's Average. But if he's delisted, we need to make sure the specific films now listed are filed properly first.
Cut this and put it here for now. The films that were listed under it have been listed individually. If the guy had been making films for two decades, we shouldn't list him just because of his last four years.
Hey, he might have lots of non-horror films out there.
Box Office returns and gross shouldn't factor. If a movie has been panned by critics and viewers alike, it should be an automatic entry. Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie, Date Movie, they all qualify. But due to the idiotic notion 'they made a lot of money', meaning that they aren't horrible films? That is just stupid.
Its like saying The Iron Giant, Treasure Planet, or Titan AE sucks since they bombed at the box office but performed well with the critics.
if they made a lot of money, than a lot of people must of wanted to see it.
It's not saying that at all. If a movie was a major box office success, even if it sucked, it means it appealed to enough people to draw them in. People who "don't know any better" still count; to qualify as SBIH it has to alienate even most of them.
That must mean The Iron Giant, Treasure Planet, and Titan AE suck since they weren't box office successes.
The entire point of the So Bad Its Horrible film section is people actually paid money to see the crap. Not because of box office 'success', but because they are indeed horrible films. This rule should be changed.
So that means that the first Street Fighter movie goes here? It was universally critiqued and it made a lot of money. I guess that all of the bombs need to go also.
Box office gross can be a factor to include or exclude something, but I don't think it should be the only reason to remove something.
Vampire Sucks is a Twilight parody. Twilight has an hatedom both among nerds on the internet and annoyed boyfriends who are forced to see all the movies in theater. Even if not a lot of people see it, it'll make at least some profit because it is so cheaply made.
We should see first if the negative word-of-mouth makes a dent to the sales after the first week. If not, we'll then the entry is a bit shakier. But that a lot of people saw it doesn't mean they liked it (The Atari 2600 E.T sold one million, yet it got many returns - something not quite possible with a movie ticket). Users rating on sites like Tv.com and IMDB should come first IMO.
I really don't see where you got the idea that SBIH is for things "people actually paid money to see the crap". Things that are bad and enjoyable because of it belong on SO Bad Its Good, SBIH is for the shittiest shit that ever shat out.
But if it makes a lot of money, it cant go here. It looks horrible, but if it makes as money as there other films, it cant go here.
Again, money doesn't matter. Again, does it look like The Iron Giant sucks because it didn't make a lot of money?
I rather profoundly don't give a fuck about whether anyone thinks anything is horrible or not, but I'd say you could make a very good case that box-office success means it is the lowest possible denominator stuff, meaning that big box office equals garbage.
In most cases. There are examples of good stuff that does well at the box office. Rarely.
I mean, we all understand that big box office is only a measure of the quality of the advertising campaign, not the work itself.
EXACTLY. The only reason why Meet The Spartans, Epic Movie, etc. even broke even was because of their effective ad-campaigns that bring in the lowest common denominator.
Box Office numbers shouldn't matter in So Bad Its Horrible. Just because it attracted an audience through ad-campaigns doesn't say the movie is good in the slightest.
If you take out sales as an indicator of popularity and allow people to declare an audience as "Lowest Common Denominator", the lists become utterly useless as people start declaring such and such group of people as "not counting". It also encourages the factionalistic "these people are fucktards" attitudes that make the endless flame wars over Twilight and such so tiring to read.
Twililght, despite all its flaws, doesn't fit in with So Bad Its Horrible. Hell, people make it into Guilty Pleasures and everything, making it at worse So Bad, It's Good.
So we agree-Box Office Gross doesn't affect quality, so Friedberg And Seltzer's other films can be added in again.
I was just takeing it off because their other films got removed earlier. If they can go back, good.
Okay, I'm going to be very serious here since you don't really get it.
Only Disaster Movie belongs here. You say that Twilight doesn't belong here, but somebody else would feel differently about that and add it because they think it's really bad. If we disallow commercial success as a factor, the list would explode so horribly that we'd get countless edit wars and conflicting opinions because one guy feels that it's not that bad and will do whatever it takes to remove it.
Besides, if it's a commercial success, then that means that a lot of people liked it. A movie can only belong here if a lot of people hated it and it can't possibly be hated if a lot of people have seen it. It's not like those billions of dollars appeared out of thin air. Yes, the people were the "lowest common denominator", but they're still people that liked the movie. Now do you see the point?
And no, we're not instigating a box office flop means that it's so bad it's horrible. I have no idea where you got that, but that's flat out wrong. It has to have made a small amount of cash and be panned by critics and moviegoers. Not one or the other. Both.
Long story short, commercial success is a factor to keep this trope from becoming nerd rage central as it does somewhat measure how many people saw the film. Unless they become box office bombs as well as critically panned movies, the other Seltzer and Friedberg works stay off. And that includes Vampires Suck because it hit number one which means a lot of people saw it and enjoyed it.
Oh, by the way, I checked IDBM and it seems there are a lot of people (mostly Twilight-haters) that really dig this movie, so I don't think this really checks out. It's bad, but not that bad.
Wait till the end of this week-it won't even break even and will drop below 10 on the most viewed movies.
Moved Vampires Suck to a sublet of Disaster Movie (as it is don by the same troupe.) But now, my two cents:
Judging by the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I'd say it ain't budging anytime soon...
Very well. But if this does happen to open the floodgates for all Seltzer and Friedberg movies to end up here in an edit war, it's out for good.
Claiming that "Box Office Success" is a matter of advertising campaigns is total bullshit. Why did "Terminator Salvation" ultimately fail to make a profit in theaters (and no, the studio doesn't get the whole gross back - they usually only get slightly more than half of it)? Or the second "Fantastic Four" film? Or "Prince of Persia"?
Glowsquid: how come you said that I want SBIH deleted? What does that mean?
Read this, as it's pretty much the same situation as what's happening now. At this point, it doesn't matter how much the damn thing sucks, what matter is that Ethereal Mutation is so hell-bent on removing the damn thing that adding it back is pointless.
O.K. I will levee it alone until he quits removing it.
methink you don't get it.
For future references when testing this page's capacity:
There really is a film called Z. It's an art film about Greek politics, made and released approx. 1970 (give or take a couple of years)... And no, it isn't Horrible.
I, uh, didn't know that.
That's okay. It's an art film, after all. Only the greatest art films are likely to be known by the average person. That film isn't horrible, but it's not So Cool Its Awesome either.
Okay, so Jaws 5 is an exploitation film and not an official Jaws film. Is there any other reason it's an invalid entry? Did it fail to make theaters?
Did anyone notice that Fast Eddie removed So Bad Its Horrible from the Garbage Pail Kids Movie page? Yeh, I fixed that.
And I fixed it back. So Bad Its Horrible doesn't go in the main pages. We're not about opinions in the main pages.
I yanked out a lot of vile from that page and it still wasn't good enough? You know what? I'm starting to get pretty sick of this "locking because of negative opinion" thing. I don't care if you're the owner, this has to stop because you're just making yourself look tyrannical now. :/
I am HIGHLY tempted to slap The Last Airbender on here... Saw first showing today and my GOD it was horrible. Horribly integrated 3D, bad BAD acting, the Shyamalan plot twist that doesn't bear any respect to the source material. Everything about it was terrible.
Also the reviews of the movie are universally negative. 8 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with the only positive reviews given by people who were probably bribed into doing so... I know it's only been out for a day but oh my GOD it's terrible.
It's already on here.
GAH RAGE!!! My GOD! The horror! Sorry I know I sound like an amateur but just my god this was so amazingly dull...
So they don't have time and money for a fourth season or, I don't know, an ANIMATED movie, but we sure as hell can pay for this.
Funnily enough, the RT community gives it 60%.
Oh, great. That means that we probably have to take it off!
Unless you think someone is spamming the Rotten Tomatoes community...
But the complaints I've read about this film look like ones that only people who already know the series would find a problem. There are almost certainly people watching the movie who haven't seen the series, who wouldn't understand why "racebending" is a problem, who wouldn't even know there is an extra twist in the ending. Adaptation Decay isn't Horrible in itself.
In short, this could be another Batman & Robin.
Oh, and this film exists being Shyamalan was Doing It for the Art. He's the fella who got this into production.
Why would we need a fourth season or an animated movie, BTW? The series finale was a Grand Finale — a fourth season would've been a Postscript Season. While such a season probably wouldn't make the Horrible index, it wouldn't necessarily be appreciated if it existed.
Even in the absence of knowledge about the series, the 3-D was terrible. Especially wherever there was fur or hair. I've seen better 3-D in viewmasters
Not defending the movie, really, but I'm not so sure it belongs. I mean, it certainly wasn't that good, but compared to most of the stuff on the page....
Though, I don't doubt it sucks, I think it'sm ostly on this page because of fan reactionism. I heard it has a good user rating on Rotten T Omatoes, and there are some positive reviews on this very site. Still, not in a hurry to remove it.
>Why would we need a fourth season or an animated movie, BTW? The series finale was a Grand Finale — a fourth season would've been a Postscript Season.
I think a better reason for any kind of continuing the series not being possible would be that the voice actor for Iroh already passed away.
Also, they could've made Zuko's missing mother a plot point.
Who likes this movie? I've yet to meet anyone who said anything remotely positive about it. Not to mention that it's lost over 100 million at the box office. This is a Pluto Nash level disaster.
Plenty of reviews and huge amounts of discussion over proper page tone on the film's discussion page shows a non-trivial number of people like the film.
And we still have an Edit War again.
We shouldn't have an edit war for this, there are people out there who like Disaster Movie, but they don't matter, because so many more people recognize the film for the pile of shit that it is. The Last Airbender belongs here.
The IMDB score is a decent 4.3, but I've noticed that most of the new reviews are very negative. In the first 10 pages, the highest score was 3 stats out of 10, and he said that it was crap. I think that most of the positive reviews are over and that the score will drop very low in the next few months. If it drops below a 3, it should go here without question.
Well, it's gone now. So what do we do?
I'm putting it back on. Though it's been removed several times, with one exception, the only person who deleted it was Ethereal Mutation. I think that qualifies him as a troll, as he's clearly the only person in the universe who doesn't think the film belongs here. I swear to god, if he deletes it one more time, This... means... ''war''.
Again, look at the fucking pages I linked and keep in mind that an admin was willing to lock both Film.The Last Airbender and Avatar The Last Airbender because of this retarded site-wide war over its inclusion.
NO. No one has been giving truly positive reviews. I checked those archives and comments, not one person said the films were actually good. The closest thing to a positive review I saw there was "So Much Awesome, Yet So Much Fail." The posts can be divided between 3 lukewarm reviews, and about 20 vitriolic reviews. That doesn't give it enough clout to avoid being on here.
You're not helping anything by deleting it, you're literally the only person on the site that thinks it doesn't belong. So stop deleting it.
The informal rules of this section are "if people regularly contest it, it's not an example". There are reams of people contesting it all over and the problems caused by it have been significant enough to require page locks. It is not an example and you're not making a very strong case by come in as an anonymous member less than half a day ago to throw around dire accusations and blatantly false hyperbole.
No, the only person contesting it is you. I looked at the posts you linked to. There aren't any real defenses, just a few people saying the film was lukewarm at best. If you do this again, I'm reporting abuse.
Putting it in the middle of the page is a great gambit, people always look for recent movies at the bottom of the page.
Maybe I should do the same with Sonic The Hedgehog 2006. The only people defending that have Stockholm Syndrome.
It isn't much of gambit as the entries being alphabetically sorted. And in case you forgot, L (for Last, we ignore The when sorting stuff) happen to be 12th alphabet from 26 letters. That's why it's in the middle of page, it can't be help that several of near bottom entries start with S (19th) and the last one start with T (20th).
Musing on The Last Airbender:
Okay, this film is known to be bad. But this film was the ninth biggest grosser of Summer 2010 — I got that part from Entertainment Weekly. Just how expensive was it that it was still unprofitable?!
Another musing on The Last Airbender:
This film is a Fandom Heresy. This makes it difficult to judge the worth of the film, since most people who would be interested are in the fandom. But there were a few who aren't — for some reason, the film industry still thinks M. Night Shyamalan sells. While virtually no one loves this film, there are reports that people who aren't in the fandom can tolerate it.
The 4.3 on the IM Db, if it hasn't significantly gone down, should be another hint.
So reviewers are not familiar with the cartoon it was based on. And it holds a 6% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
BTW, I took it off the list for the time being. There have been endless debates and Edit Wars on weather The Last Airbender truly belongs on the "horrible film" list.
Didn't work, someone put the exact entry back. <shrug>
It's me, sorry...I'll take it off again.
Now about the film, Very few people genuinely liked the film. Most fans hated the film and people outside the fandom are apathetic about it. Is it true that this film is a Fandom Heresy?
Judging from the reactions, yes. The people who hate this film the most and are most likely to call it Horrible are people who watched and liked the cartoon. (This does include Roger Ebert.) Unfortunately, that is a high percentage of the people who would go to watch the film. But people who watched because they are fans of Shyamalan or the general concept are more likely to just shake their heads sadly; people who aren't fans of ATLA are likely to have stronger reactions to Lady In The Water.
One other note: this film was one of the twenty top-grossing films of 2010 (pre-December). Exactly how expensive was it that that's still not too popular to qualify?
For the record, I am reposting a discussion of Batman & Robin from this page's discussion archive. The gist seems to be that this, while an Ink-Stain Adaptation, isn't necessarily Horrible. Unfortunately, the people most motivated to watch the film are the ones who seem to like it least, so...
Ethereal Mutation: Does Batman and Robin really belong here? It might be Canon Defilement of the highest order, but outside of the cyclic hatedom (just like Jar-Jar Binks, people that have never seen it are more than happy to talk about how much they hate it), it's really just another really expensive (125 million dollars!) turkey without anything really noteworthy (positive or extremely negative) about it. Most of the reviews for it are around the 2 out of 4 star range (which is technically in the "rotten" threshold of Rotten Tomatoes, but not this bad). The huge amount of hatred piled on the movie is more directed at the politics behind it rather than what's really on screen.
triassicranger: Just checked the recent history where someone removed it, but for those who can't be bothered to look (that and it'll vanish off the recent changes page eventually) Batman and Robin is an example of Accentuate The Negative (whatever that means) and not on the level of "Horrible". I would also like to groan that seemingly no one cares to explain why the film is so bad.
Besides, upon watching the thing it's firmly So Bad, It's Good. It's oddly like the Adam West Batman with a much higher budget and more violence.
Marmaduke seems to be a future candidate. 1.7 on IM Db, 10% on RT, and considering the advert I just saw was just one big fart joke, I'm not too confident with this one.
Well, it's too soon to say, but we will keep an eye out if this continues. Thanks.
Did Space-Thing ever get a theatrical release?
Cut this and put it here:
I haven't seen the movie, but this entry is non-explanatory. If someone can rewrite it to be more explanatory, put Space-Thing back in.
Okay. I cut Ax Em because it had a scene listed as worth seeking out. (It was also listed as both So Bad, It's Good and So Bad Its Horrible on its page.) It got restored without the note about the scene, on grounds that "elements worth seeking out" happened in Action 52...
Okay, I understand the confusion. But the element in "Cheetahman" in Action 52 is a piece of music that cannot properly be appreciated within the game itself because the SFX get in the way. (It's fifty-two games in the cart; there may be a few So Bad, It's Good games in there, but Cheetahman isn't one of them.)
The good element in Ax Em is part of the film proper — a DJ doing "yo mama" jokes — and apparently the SFX failure doesn't get in the way so much that the scene can't be watched.
Okay. Videogames do seem to have laxer standards — and if a game's unplayable, then that overrules everything else. But that's no reason to loosen the standards here.
No offense, but are you kidding? Because it has one likable scene, it doesn't belong here? That...doesn't make any sense to me. And besides that, not everybody found the yo mama joke battle funny at all. Some see it as mere Padding and nothing more.
If we defended all movies by having "one good scene", then the list would be a lot shorter.
Re added it.
I'm not gonna start an edit war, but — this list being a lot shorter wouldn't be a bad thing. Ideally, we just want the crap of the crap.
Cutting this and putting it here for now. Maybe it belongs on the page, maybe it doesn't, but I am uncomfortable with having a Your Mileage May Vary block on an entry on this page. It does look like whether you find Club Paradise Horrible or not depends on your expectations... and face it, Eugene Levy and Rick Moranis are unambiguously comedians, so expecting them in a straight-up sex romp is kinda naive.
Funny thing is, I * yes, it's me. I lost my cookie and password :( recently had second thoughts about posting it in this category, as I realized it did have a redeeming quality (for me, anyway): Robin Williams, shirtless and cute. Well, that and the fact that him and Peter O'Toole (!) were clearly doing the best they could with the film. It could have been so much better though...
Now, speaking as this Wiki's resident Robin Williams expert (But still one who is quite opinionated in her own right), I have to ask: Does anyone else think License To Wed belongs here? I'm not sure I can really say because I've never actually seen the whole thing and therefore couldn't actually complain without being jumped on. It says something though that I of all people don't want to see it despite Robin playing a main character (and I liked Flubber, Father's Day, and RV!).
I'd like to semi-retract my removal of Furry Vengeance. "Semi-" because I've seen some unfavourable reviews, but I still think it's too early for it to be listed here (I think we should give it another week or two) and again because you need to say more than just "it fails".
Rotten Tomatoes gives it 7 percent, and the reviews with a fresh rating have tons of comments telling those guys they're idiots.
Not to forget that we have films on this pages with a lot higher ratings on that site (I remember seeing Cutthroat Island with a close to 50 percent rating).
Cutthroat Island has now been cut.
I've checked the IMDB. At the time of writing Furry Vengeance has a 1.7 rating out of 1281 votes. However it's apparently no.2 at the box office as well. How they came to that conclusion I don't know.
Consider any protest from me withdrawn. Aside from the fact the entry wasn't well elaborated.
Being #2 at the box office is an objective measure — it means it's sold the second highest number of tickets of any film the week at the time it was numbered. (#1 is probably A Nightmare On Elm Street — yes, they rebooted that franchise.) If this holds for another week, Furry Vengeance will be disqualified because it will be too popular — it'll be a Guilty Pleasure, so to speak.
Wasn't Disaster Movie #2 at the box office as well?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay, then Furry Vengeance is still eligible — probably.
It's now on IM Db's Bottom 100, standing on #33 at the moment.
It's the lowest ranked for 2010 on Rotten Tomatoes. Also, I've seen at my local Best Buy they still have a buttload of copies of it, basically nobody wants to buy it.
As for Box Office earnings, it made WAY less it's second week than it did it's first week. Sometimes films should not be judged based off of opening weekend box office numbers.
Cut this and put it here for now. This film appears to have fans in high places. (And I think thylacine were real.)
Do we have any reasons for listing Christmas With The Kranks other than the Family-Unfriendly Aesop?
I haven't seen the movie (nor do I wish to) but the linked review brings up other problems: lack of humor and characters arbitrarily acting like assholes for reasons that make no sense. Plus, Jamie Lee Curtis's screaming.
Well the thing is that's all Christmas With The Kranks was above, it hammered you over the head with its Family Unfriendly Aesop over and over
So that's the reason I hate Hair Spray and isn't that well-recieved. Does that make Hair Spray So Bad Its Horrible, NO! Figure this out yourselves.
Removed the following: