Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Pinocchio (2002 film)

After directing the masterpiece known as Life is Beautiful, winning 3 Academy Awards, Roberto Benigni went on to direct an adaptation of the classic tale, Pinocchio. And, by god, is it awful. After watching it today, in a class, I wasn't surprised to see it with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, or being nominated for multiple Razzie awards. I implore you, put this travesty on the list - the acting, CGI, soundtrack, script and everything speck of scum in between is cringe-worthy garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.207.225 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's better to cite a reliable source than to implore anyone. DonQuixote (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

On Rotten Tomatoes: The New York Times thought it was that awful, that it 'enters the pantheon of wreckage that includes Battlefield Earth and Showgirls'. Entertainment Weekly gave it an 'F' rating. 1/5 from Toronto Star. NO scores above 1.5/5, or 1.5/4. Metacritic score of 11.

  1. 3 on RT's 'Worst of the Worst 2009', which counted down the worst of the 2000's, beaten by Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever and One Missed Call.

So, uh, yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.165.253 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Cannonball Run II (1984) - Include?

The Cannonball Run II has to be one of the worst films ever, certainly the worst one I've ever seen. Although "Bolero" grabbed the Razzie for 1984, this piece of trash did manage EIGHT nominations that year.

Also, Roger Ebert gave it one of the most scathing reviews that I can recall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Run_II#cite_ref-2


Regards, Andy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.65.177 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Both Siskel and Ebert used some harsh language while describing this film so I wouldn't have problems with its inclusion.LM2000 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly

is Mystery Science Theater considered a reputable source? --2601:C:4380:50:CC66:42C7:BCF8:CA4B (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection

Due to recent IP vandalism, past protection, and the risk of further attacks, I am semi-protecting this article for 10 days. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Movie 43

Every indication is that the vast majority of critics hated this. However, we do not have reliable sources directly calling this "the worst". Of all the material quoted, the only things we have that are close are as follows:

  • Peter Howell of the Toronto Star "It provides me with a handy new answer to a question I’m often asked: 'What’s the worst film you've ever seen?'." Close. He calls it "handy" to call the worst he has ever seen.
  • Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called it "the Citizen Kane of awful". Converting that to "the worst film ever" is WP:SYN at best.
  • It is on the MRQE's 50 Worst Movies list. The 50 worst are not the worst.

Comments before I remove? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Lou Lumenick of the New York Post is says: "If you mashed-up the worst parts of the infamous 'Howard the Duck,’' 'Gigli,’' 'Ishtar’' and every other awful movie I’ve seen since I started reviewing professionally in 1981, it wouldn’t begin to approach the sheer soul-sucking badness of the cringe-inducing “Movie 43,’’ which has been dumped on an unsuspecting public without advance press screenings."[1]
  • Frank Shreck of The Hollywood Reporter says "Despite A-list involvement that includes everyone from Kate Winslet and Hugh Jackman through Greg Kinnear and Naomi Watts, this painfully unfunny collection of comic shorts qualifies as one of the worst films of all time.[2]
  • I would also submit that I think Roeper's use of "Citizen Kane of awful" is synonymous with "Worst Movie Ever", but hopefully the other two sources are enough to avoid us going into a long discussion about that.LM2000 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple of notes (but see my remark at the end): Howell did not call it "the worst movie ever made", the headline writer did. Howell repeatedly limits his remarks to what he has seen: "handy" to call the worst he has ever seen, "the cinematic low-water mark for me", etc. Shreck qualifies it as "one of the...", a cliterion that would have us include all 50 films from the MRQE list (among others). The juxtaposition with "Citizen Kane", IMO, raises questions. I've seen numerous really bad films, some were merely very bad films. Others were spectacularly bad while not being as bad as the merely very bad. "Battlefield Earth" and "Waterworld", to me, were spectacularly bad for reasons that far worse films couldn't be (large budgets, big stars, etc. "Plan 9..." was clearly worse, but these two were spectacularly bad (instead of "Who made this crap?", "Can you believe ________ made this crap?" - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, based on old/new sourcesKude90 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As User:LM2000 stated, "Citizen Kane of awful" is synonymous with "Worst Movie Ever". Even if Toronto Star critic Peter Howell didn't explicitly call this "The worst film ever", which he did, I'd still say the sources follow the principle of the unofficial guidelines set in here, that way avoiding WP:GAMETYPE. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While I still believe we are reaching here to include a recent film that included lots of names, the current consensus will probably hold. We need to add the most explicit refs we do have (such as they are). Additionally, the repeatedly added "universally panned" claim (here and in the movie's article) is incorrect as a 4% at rottentomatoes indicates that someone, somewhere (whomever they may be) had something positive to say. I'd tend to say "very widely panned", but that's probably a bit weaselly. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Personally I don't think we should mention Rotten Tomatoes at all for any film, unless its necessary for inclusion. Wording aside, I just don't think it's necessary. In some cases, as we discussed in the Mommie Dearest discussion, it's just misleading because some of these films get high scores for being "so bad its good". Clearly you're right, it was not universally hated.LM2000 (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I was going to look at this with a question over whether or not RT scores should be in articles, but the 4 positive reviews seem to be pretty genuine "a near masterpiece of tastelessness", "if your own inner 14-year-old still finds this kind of material amusing, throw propriety to the wind and enjoy some dirty giggles", etc. Sounds like tripe to me, but sounds like a rare few got some cheap joy out of it. I just yanked another "universally" from the main article. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fred the movie

It got a 0% rating by Rotten Tomatoes, and is said to be one of the most panned movies of all time. --TytheRezac (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering that it's a made-for-TV movie, it doesn't qualify. Freshh (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It was released theatrically in cinemas all over Britain. --Oakshade (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Over the years, many TV movies have been released theatrically overseas. It still makes them TV movies, because they were produced for television first and foremost. I'd see this on there if this was planned as a theatrical film but wound up debuting on TV after completion. Freshh (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we know for sure Lionsgate, typically a theatrical company, produced this for television? Frequently films are made for theatrical release, subsequently can't get theatrical distribution but a TV networks picks it up. We need more info before coming to conclusions. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
On behalf of the rest of the US: My sincerest apologies to Britain. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we have sources calling it "the worst"? Yeah, none of the critics at RT liked it. Critics didn't like it ≠ critics thought it was the worst. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Only God Forgives

I think the new Nicolas Refn movie deserves a mention in this article. The film has some supporters, but it's detractors have openly claimed it as one of the worst ever made. Take this nugget from Rex Reed: "Gruesomely grotesque and pathologically pretentious, a diabolical horror called Only God Forgives may not be the worst movie ever made, but it is unquestionably in the top five." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any other sources? Rex Reed has held controversial opinions on such things before, he also said Synecdoche, New York was the worst film ever made, the same film which Roger Ebert said was the best film of the 2000s. That aside, Reed doesn't even call it the worst, just the top five worst. Only God Forgives has an unironic 38% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which although low, is still too good for this list. It has strong supporters like Richard Roeper who said it was one of the best films of the year. With all of this in mind I really can't imagine it making it into the list, but if there are other sources out there that thinks it is even worse than Reed thought it was, we have to take it into consideration.LM2000 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pimp (2010)

No-one has talked about this film yet because...well, this film has never been released outside of the UK.

This film only grossed £205 in British box-offices, which has considered to be the biggest British box-office bomb in history. - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/danny-dyers-film-pimp-bombs-at-cinema-big-style.252690/

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film scored a 0% based on 13 reviews, which is the lowest score any film has ever scored on the site. - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pimp_2010/

Mark Kermode panned the film during his BBC Radio 5 Live film review programme with Simon Mayo, - http://www.containsmoderateperil.com/mark-kermode-reviews-pimp-2010/ which he later placed it at No. 3 in his Top 5 Worst Films of 2010. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C29HFdTq5Vg

Cath Clarke from The Guardian gave the film 1 out of 5 stars, citing "This really is snoringly predictable and Cavanah nonsensically presents it as footage filmed by a documentary team: a real doco unit would have scarpered to the nearest cop shop after witnessing five seconds of beatings and torture. With nil insight – into the sex industry or anything else – you might conclude Pimp is a film for men who get their kicks watching Dyer strut around leering at topless women who – in the parlance of the film – look like "the basic pleasure model". One for Zoo readers, then." - http://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/may/20/pimp-film-review

Anthony Quinn from The Independent also gave the film 1 out of 5 stars, citing "The plot, concerning the identity of a snuff-movie killer, is a gruesome mixture of sexual sadism and sentimentality, made even less palatable by dialogue of quarter-witted aggression." - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/pimp-18-1978582.html

Tim Robey from The Telegraph gave the film 0 out of 5 stars, citing "Even by the gutter standards of Britsploitation flicks featuring Danny Dyer, this Soho sex-industry mockumentary is soul-flayingly horrendous. One line is a keeper: “No one gets snuffed on my watch." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/7749457/Pimp-review.html

Time Out gave the film 1 out of 5 stars, citing "With its excessive levels of casual racism, sexism and homophobia, the film feels like nothing more than a rejected ‘Derek and Clive’ sketch that’s been stripped of eloquence and irony and calibrated instead for cheap, leery laughs. The attempts, too, at a faux-documentary style are badly botched, partly because the cast is visibly trying too hard to act naturally but mainly because of a script that’s little more than a contrived patchwork of clichés, spurious historical quotations and so much swearing." - http://www.timeout.com/london/film/pimp-2010

Ellen E Jones from TotalFilm.com also gave the film 1 out of 5 stars, citing "If there’s one thing more heinous than glamourising sex slavery, it’s attempting to glamorise sex slavery and making a drab mockumentary instead. You wouldn’t think a film could actually be both very boring and very offensive. Pimp is that paradox made flesh." - http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/pimp-1

And it was placed No. 13 in Virgin Media's Worst Movies of 2010, citing "A mock-doc that couldn’t feel more phony if the cast were Muppets, it's a total mess – not even so bad it's good like some of Dyer's more agreeable efforts. Sort it aaht, son!" - http://www.virginmedia.com/movies/features/worst-movies-of-2010.php?page=8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.39.35 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope all these references have helped to put this in a place for films considered the worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.39.35 (talk)

The Last Airbender

LM2000 informed me that The Last Airbender was discussed on the article this talk page is about, and said things about sources that actually say it's one of the worst movies ever. The following are those sources:

Nevertheless, LM2000 replied to me with a message that has a specific portion I want to mention:

"A few of those sources look like ones that have been discussed before and we've taken issue with it. It's worth a discussion amongst the rest of the community to see if they agree with you though."

So, my fellow Wikipedians, let the discussion begin. It's offended fans, moviegoers, critics, yet is The Last Airbender truly one of the worst movies of all time? --Matthew (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • CNN, slashfilm, and mysanantonio named Airbender the worst of the year. Worst of the year does not mean worst of all time.
  • E! questions whether it is the worst in the title, but in the article actually says that films such as Battlefield Earth got blasted just as hard, if not more so, by the critics.
  • I'm not sure if disgrasian is a reliable source, it looks like a blog to me, but the only time they mention it being the worst is when they link to the E! article which doesn't even call it the worst. It also contains a few quotations from notable critics who had harsh things to say, but none of them called it the worst film ever made.
  • Time's headline does question if it is the worst movie epic ever. But Epic is a genre of film, it does not encompass all of cinema which is the purpose of this article. Would we include a pirate film in this list if one reliable source called it the worst Swashbuckler film ever made but never indicated that it was the worst film in the history of cinema (the purpose of this article)? No, certainly not. Even with this aside, Corliss goes on to say that this is "worst botch of a fantasy epic since Ralph Bakshi's animated desecration of The Lord of the Rings back in 1978". As User:SummerPhD mentioned in the above discussion about Movie 43, sometimes the headline writer isn't the same as the critic who wrote the actual article. Even if Corliss wrote both the article and the headline, he answered the question to the headline with the LOTR bit which should remove all doubt. No, this isn't the worst film of all time. No, it's probably not even the worst movie epic of all time. But it is the worst movie epic since the animated LOTR came out 32 years ago. No cigar.LM2000 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Roger Ebert said this, though: "'The Last Airbender' is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented." That's pretty bad. But okay. --Matthew (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is pretty bad. But it could've been worse. Ebert gave the film a half a star, he has given other films zero stars and included them in his "Most Hated" list. He clearly gave the movie a harsh review but to claim that he is calling it the worst movie ever made would be disingenuous. The film is clearly notable for negative reception and if this list were covering worst films of the 2010 it would certainly be up at the top. But considering that this is covering all of film I don't think it qualifies.LM2000 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's My Boy

Rotten Tomatoes: 20/10 Metacritic: 31/100

How is a movie that makes light of child sex abuse and incest not one of the worst movies ever made?

Oct13 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether you subjectively think it's the worst because of its subject matter, but whether reliable sources have called it the worst.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Zaat and Daniel Der Zauberer

We're lacking a number of films from the 70s, as well as non-US films. I've been doing some digging the past few days and have already added two films to the list which I think have very solid sources. Here's two that I'm not so sure about though.

Zaat (1971)

  • www.blu-ray.com's official reviewer, Jeffrey Kauffman (whose site biography leads me to believe he's a valid source), said "this is the sort of film Ed Wood, Jr. might have made—on a bad day." and " Lovers of fantastically bad films rate Zaat one of the worst..."[3]
  • NPR notes that it was once took the #1 spot on IMDB's bottom 100.[4]
  • Patrick Naugle DVD Verdict (also a former rotten tomatoes critic) says "The acting in Zaat is below subpar. Actors seem to be whispering their lines and trying hard not to fully comprehend that they're in one of the worst films ever made.[5]
    • In another review, discussing MST3K's review Michael Rubino of DVD Verdict doubled down Naugle's claims by saying "Zaat may be one of the worst films ever created, but the gang never quite hits it out of the park."[6]
  • It was featured on MST3K, as noted above.
  • Also had a RedLetterMedia Half in the Bag episode dedicated to it.[7]

Daniel - Der Zauberer (2004)

This one gets put on the list frequently and then gets taken down. I actually removed it from the list last month because it didn't have any source calling it the worst. I didn't find a whole lot of sources for this, but maybe I found the bare minimum.

  • The only source previously was one stating that the film has some of the worst performances in German history.[8]
  • This source says it was the #1 movie on the IMDB bottom 100 and is fair to call the worst German movie of all time.[9]
  • This is the film's best bet. Daniel Küblböck, who is the main star of the film and is the total focus of the film, says that in retrospect "You have to say this is the worst movie of all time really."[10] Although there aren't a whole lot of sources out there for this film, the fact that the main talent involved admits it was the worst ever probably means it's suitable for inclusion, in my opinion. I think Zaat should be good to go the way it is but I'm erring on the side of caution just in case.

Thoughts on either film?LM2000 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

inAPPropriate Comedy

inAPPropriate Comedy has been trashed by several reviewers and critic sites, including the 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and the 1/100 rating on Metacritic. It was called worse than Movie 43.Hollywood Reporter Does that kind of "acclaim" get this movie a spot on this list?

Keep in mind that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic both only have 5 reviews, so it's not a very big sample size. Although the Hollywood Reporter review did say it was worse than Movie 43, I don't think that's enough to qualify because although Movie 43 is notable for negative reception I don't think it is synonymous with "the worst" and none of the language in the review indicates it to be so.LM2000 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Pain and Gain

Pain and Gain is Micheal Bay's attempt at making a thriller/horror/heist slasher, and has been reviled by most respected critics, though it has still managed a 49% on rotten tomatoes. Filled with random camera angles, and lines like "You know why Rabbit rhymes with Habit? Because it takes your whole life down a fucking bunny hole.", this "film" is a horrible bastardization of the truth despite Bay's repeated mentions that it is a "true story". He even went as far as to stage mugshots for the final 'where are they now' slides to create a character for Dwayne Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.11.173 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a citeable source to go with that? DonQuixote (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Even if he has a source, with a 49% rating, it won't end up on this page so this is a somewhat moot conversation isn't it? Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Moot point: Should a high RT rating disqualify for this page? Personally, I'd like to see a few included where a number of critics liked the film while several sources consider it the "worst ever". Further, what are the specific inclusion criteria here? It frequently comes up here and we all seem to have some idea, but I don't think we've really stated it clearly anywhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I'm new to the page, but have watched many stinkers on MST3K from its inception in Minneapolis, so I thus don't really know about previous discussions. However agree that there should be some groundrule set of criteria or else you'll have simple opinion as a guideline and that never goes well. Ckruschke (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ishtar!

i didn't think it was that bad, but for years i've been hearing critics (and late-night comics) cite this as the worst of the worst. how can it not make the cut here?! 209.172.25.244 (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should mention this. I was preoccupied with proposing Zaat and Daniel earlier, but I also ran across numerous sources involving Ishtar. I'll post them here later today when I have time and we'll see if anybody else thinks it's worth an entry.LM2000 (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
does Gary Larson count? :p
http://www.ishtarthemovie.com/images/photos/IshtarFarSide.jpg (missing caption: "Hell's Video Store") 209.172.25.92 (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


  • Hot Air called it "The Citizen Kane of big-budget, A-list vehicular homicides."[11]
  • San Jose Mercury News "Time has not improved this film's reputation as being one of the worst ever made."[12]
  • Time Out "...accept that you're watching one of the worst films ever made and you may find it hilarious. "[13]
  • The LA times actually gave it a positive review, but noted its reputation as one of the worst. [14]
  • New York Times did the same "Today “Ishtar” is the word lazy people reach for when they need a synonym not just for “costly flop” but also for “lousy movie.”" [15]
  • Roger Ebert stated "Ishtar is a truly dreadful film, a lifeless[16], massive, lumbering exercise in failed comedy."; Gene Siskel called it "shockingly dull" and "dim-witted"[17], and they chose it as the worst film of 1987 on Siskel and Ebert.
  • Richard Roeper included it on his 40 worst films ever list. (book source)
  • Included in Michael Sauter's worst films of all time book. (book source)
  • Time Magazine included it on "The 100 Worst Ideas of the Century list".[18]
Alright here are some more. There's more here than there are for most films actually in the list, so I don't see why it shouldn't go in.LM2000 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that this is more than enough, but be aware there is a history of REMOVING this film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AList_of_films_considered_the_worst/Removed_films#I

I dunno how that guy can say it doesn't have the notoriety of other entries. IMHO it has notoriety above and BEYOND most of the other entries here!

If the list were limited to "Top 5 Considered Worst", it would still make the cut, IMHO. I, for one, grew up hearing it was #1 or #2 in this regard. I believe it was the go-to title for Leno and Letterman all those years...at least up until Gigli came along. 209.172.25.243 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was removed previously because whoever put it in the list didn't include proper sources. I think those concerns have been addressed this time around though. Since it has been removed so many times before I'll wait a few days to see if anybody is opposed. If nobody is then I'll put it back.LM2000 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Horror of Party Beach

While this is definitely a terrible movie, I don't think it should be included in this list. I believe past discussion has indicated the "Fifty Worst Movies" documentary by itself isn't enough for inclusion, and none of the other quotes really describe it as one of the worst movies ever. The Lisanti quote "by far the worst of the sixties beach films" is close, but I think we'd need more than that, and the other quotes just describe it as a very bad movie. (In fact, the NY Times film review quote actually points out a redeeming quality.) I think this is one of those movies that are terrible, but not terrible enough or well-known enough to be considered one of the worst. But I wanted to allow for any discussion here though before I remove it. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn 13:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Collect if they have a source for Disney using it as an example of a bad film. I agree, with what it has now it isn't suitable for inclusion. That might help its chances. Right now the Fifty Worst is the only thing insinuating that it is among the worst. Another source calls it the worst beach movie which is completely different from worst of all time (as it refers to only a definite genre) and the Stephen King quote is harsh but doesn't indicate any standing of being "the worst".LM2000 (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Added an obit on the factotum for the film. Also furnished you info that Disney currently features its trailers for laughs at Disney Hollywood Studios. And I suggest King is a valid opinion-holder on horror films <g>. Collect (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean to challenge King's status as a reliable source, it's just that nothing he said signified that he thought this film was the worst he has ever seen. It was a harsh review and he made himself clear that he thinks it was a bad film or a crappy film but as the criteria states this list isn't for films like that, this is for the worst of the worst. I was hoping that being played at Disney as an example of a bad film could settle this.. If indeed this film was the sole film they used as example of how to make a film then that would say a lot. But this source states that it is one of several films played there. As Hunter Kahn points out this film is clearly perceived as terrible by those that are familiar with it "but not terrible enough or well-known enough to be considered one of the worst". It's close to the inclusion line with the blog source you recently included but I'm not sure if that one source enough. I don't think, based on anything I have read so far, that this is considered the worst ever "broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics" as required by the criteria.LM2000 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
King opines rarely - but I suggest "wet fart" is a rather strong usage for him. Consider what the term means. Maltin placed it well up his list on the "50 worst" in his book - which is also pretty strong in its wording. That a person dealing with a large genre of films called it "the worst" also is fairly strong language. That is it used as an exemplar by Disney, and that Disney paid Tenney for the rights to mock it is also pretty telling. That a writer of an obit makes fun of it is pretty strong indeed. As for "one of several" <g> note that "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "Robot Monster" are also featured there. Lastly, this list is not "THE worst ever" but only "one of the worst ever" which it meets in spades. The Maltin book (Fifty Worst), by the way, is a primary list for such films, and many of the films listed give it in their leads. In fact, the lead for this article specifically mentions Maltin as a proper source for this list. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The list lead here also includes Imdb's 100 worst -- which HoPB is on. It is not on Ebert for a simple reason -- it came out before he was a critic. MRE does not include it because it is before their ratings system. Same with MetaCritic. RottenTomatoes has "no rating" but the one and only one "major critic" the NYT "really bad" review Which is more horrible—the monsters or the rock 'n' roll?. If they had more, the rating would be essentially nil - but not many major film critics give ratings of old films. Take your pick. Collect (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a source for the 50 worst Maltin book? I can't find anything on a Maltin 50 worst book or list and I can't find it mentioned anywhere in the article. If you're confusing the 50 worst book with the Leonard Maltin Movie Guide, which is an incredibly reliable source and is used all over the place, I looked through my copy of that and although Maltin gave it a very negative review, he never used such language. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source and is not included in the lead. The bottom 100 is mentioned in the article a few times, but only when it is mentioned by a secondary source. In no way shape or form does the King review meet the article's standards as "wet fart" is in no way synonymous with "worst ever". That isn't unlike the rotten tomatoes reviews, which although negative, never indicate that this is the worst ever. Even if it had enough reviews to get a 0% rotten tomatoes score, without reviews "that explicitly calls it 'one of the worst films ever"that explicitly calls it 'one of the worst films ever'" it would be no cigar. Take a look through the list of films removed from this list and you'll see plenty of films that have pretty much the same level of sources, if not more, than HOPB has.LM2000 (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
IMDb is given as an external link. Ebert was not a critic, nor did RottenTomatoes or MetaCritic or MRE exist when the film was current. Medved was, indeed, the author of The Fifty Worst Films of All Time which includes HoPB - I apologize for saying Maltin. That book is widely mentioned in "worst film" articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Maltin [19] reviewed it as “Billed as ‘The First Horror Musical’ by its producers, who evidently never saw Liberace in SINCERELY YOURS. Makes a CNN article on bad movies [20], etc. Collect (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point I think it has enough for inclusion. Some of us are apprehensive of films which have no individual assessments calling it "the worst" and only have lists, books, polls, etc. which are iffy because they feature a large number of films. The same time this discussion happened, Che! (1969) was reverted three times by three different because it only had two book sources without any actual quotes calling it "the worst". However I think we've met those concerns with this film. We've got it compared to Ed Wood, we've got it being called the worst beach film, we've got some harsh reviews in there, and we've got two worst-ever lists from books. I think that's enough for me.LM2000 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Howard the Duck AGAIN

I believe me and several other users went through this a long time ago: Howard the Duck is not credible for this list. We had it removed, but now it is back. While it is definitely a negatively reviewed film, there are no specific sources that cite it as being "one of the worst movies ever made". Winning Worst Picture at the Razzies doesn't count either. There needs to be a source that specifically says "one of the worst movies ever made". The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In 2011 it was deemed acceptable (albeit requesting it be strengthened) after the list was updated to the current "worst ever" criteria.[21] They posted two sources that call it the worst ever, that for some reason never got put into the article.[22][23] Either way I think it should stay given all of this plus its notoriety.LM2000 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
If this is your reason, then why aren't those sources in the article? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Those sources should be in the article, I'm not the one who kept reverting you every time you tried to remove it. You were right to remove it as it reads now because nothing in that entry calls it the worst. I'm just saying that given the sources provided here the film should be included once they're put in, don't you agree?LM2000 (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I put them in either way. If you still don't think it's adequate let me know and I'll do some more searching.LM2000 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that's adequate. The Shadow-Fighter (talk)

Sex Lives of the Potato Men

I think the British "comedy" Sex Lives of the Potato Men should be on the list. When it was released, James Christopher of The Times described SLotPM as ""one of the two most nauseous films ever made" as well "a masterclass in film-making ineptitude", while writer Will Self described the same film in The Evening Standard as "mirthless, worthless, toothless, useless". [24] Catherine Shoard, in the Sunday Telegraph said about SLotPM: "It’s hard to know what to say to this - it’s like finding the right words at a nasty accident... Less a film than an appetite suppressant. " and Gary Panton in "Movie Gazette stated "About as funny as being stabbed repeatedly in the face with a bread knife... How on earth Humphries managed to convince such an impressive cast to take part in his truly awful film should go down as one of the biggest mysteries in Brit flick history". [25] 176.61.97.121 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

SLotPM also has a "0%" at Rotten Tomatoes with 10 negative reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-sex-lives-of-the-potato-men/reviews/. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Several reviews of SLotPM described it as being one of the worst films; Kevin O'Sullivan in the Daily Mirror, March 5th 2004 called it "one of the worst films ever made". Catherine Shoard in the Telegraph review of "SLotPM" (February 22 2004) said it was "Probably the lewdest Brit-com since "Confessions of a Window Cleaner", and certainly the worst". Henry Fitzherbert in the Sunday Express, (February 22nd 2004) said ""Sex Lives is so awful it left me slack-jawed in disbelief...it must be one of the worst British comedies." So I believe it meets the criteria to be on the list. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

'cult film like Rocky Horror'...

Hi, I'm removing several unsourced claims on this page comparing numerous films to Rocky Horror and stating that they are 'cult' films. Only the ones that have no citation for this claim, though. It's something of a pet peeve for me, because it's such a wooly claim, as it explains in no way why any of the films are like Rocky Horror (are they musicals? Do people dress up in costume to watch them) or what defines them as a cult film. If anyone's unhappy with any of the edits, I want to be able to discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.Parallax (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn

I just don't think this fits in with the rest. It seems to only be here because of Ebert's harsh review, and perhaps an in-storyline quote from the actual movie which compared the movie-inside-a-movie to Showgirls. This was clearly a contender for worst movie of 1998 but I can't find anything that calls it the worst ever made. In the archive I've seen this source use to justify it's inclusion but the "going down as one of the worst movies in Hollywood history" line actually referred to Eszterhas' other project, Showgirls, not this film. Any thoughts before I remove?LM2000 (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

From Justin to Kelly

WHy isn't it listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.210.175 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly because there's little citable sources to indicate that it's considered to be the worst film. Remember this isn't a list of films that are just bad, but ones that are considered to be the worst ones ever made. Which is a pretty tall order by any regard. But hey, if you can find a reputable source that indicates this, why not add it? :) Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Jaws: The Revenge

It seems as if this movie does not seem to fit in with the rest. Roger Ebert's review of this movie may have gotten 0 stars, but there is no reputable evidence in that review that clearly states it's one of the worst of all time. Second, there is only one link for the statement "It is often considered one of the worst movies ever made", and somehow, that link is broken. In addition, I don't believe EW's "25 Worst Sequels Ever Made" list is a very reputable source, either. Some of those films on the list are actually pretty good (such as The Matrix: Reloaded at #25), while others (such as Leprechaun: Back 2 Tha Hood! at #3) were direct-to-DVD, so there was not much attention to those films by critics.

If anyone here finds any sources besides the ones in the article that you think are truly reputable, feel free to tell. Otherwise, I request that this section be taken down due to a lack of reputable sources that say this is one of the worst ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.156.6 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been removed several times[26], the last time it was discussed the consensus was to remove it. The dead link which is cited isn't even a review, it's an obituary for the film's composer which mentions the film very briefly. It looks like this was readded without discussion, so I think you should just go ahead and remove it.LM2000 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of films considered the worst

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of films considered the worst's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TV Guide":

  • From Inchon (film): TV Guide staff. "Inchon review". TV Guide. movies.tvguide.com. Retrieved 2009-10-21.
  • From The Garbage Pail Kids Movie: http://movies.tvguide.com/garbage-pail-kids-movie/review/124179

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I Spit on Your Grave... Really?

Ebert hated the movie. Ok, I get his point. But that's ONE guy, Siskel agreed with him, so 2. They collectively thumbed down hundreds of movies. However, I Spit is not a consensus worst movie. Look for it on Rotten Tomatoes and see that it is relatively fresh- 17 of 31, or 55%, of critics gave good notices. True Plan 9 has a higher percentage, but that's clearly a "so bad it's good" effect. I Spit...'s percentage actually reflects reviewers' opinion of it's artistic merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.35.169 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes scores are irrelevant when factoring this sort of thing... only half may give it a rotten score, but they hate it so vehemently that it becomes notable for being discussed as "the worst". Mommie Dearest has about the same score that ISOYG has and we ultimately decided that was fit for inclusion (while some positive scores like it for being campy, prominent critics like Maltin and Kael legitimately liked it). The straw that broke Mommie Dearest's back was a local CBS reporter in Minneapolis calling it "the worst", after we saw that we all agreed it should be included. Siskel and Ebert are arguably the two most famous American critics in history, so their word holds more than the CBS reporter's. When they railed against the film on their TV show it gave ISOYG a high level of notoriety. There's also a RT critic calling it the worst of the decade who wasn't associated with Siskel and Ebert, not to mention a harsh review from The New Times, so I think ISOYG should stay, there's more going for this entry than some of the others.LM2000 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The inclusion standards with this film seem a lot less stringent than with other films. You might remember the debate over Mommie Dearest when an editor wasn't satisfied that it swept the Razzies one year, was later considered by the Razzies "Worst Film of the Decade" and included in Michael Sauter's book The Worst Movies of All Time. The editor demanded a reliable sources explicitly calling it the "worst film ever." Interestingly a source actually said that. With this film, I don't see even the sub-"worst film ever" standards coming from reliable sources. While it might have been a bad film, I don't see the wide "worst film" accolades from reliable sources as we've been demanding of other films for this list.--Oakshade (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Addition - Well, looking at the sources more closely, as I should've done, it does seem both Sikel and Ebert considered it the worst film or one of the worst films ever, so it doesn't does seem consistent with our inclusion standards.--Oakshade (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused. Did you mean to say that it does seem to consistent?LM2000 (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
With my correction, yes. The standard of inclusion does seem consistent. --Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So it seems I can't rescue the movie at this point. I would research critical response to it if there was potential use to it; for argument sake, if a few critics of higher profile than Fangoria magazine wrote somewhat well of it, would it matter, or is it's inclusion cemented due to Ebert's strong opinion? I know that at least some genre buffs, some who review films, consider it good for what it is (almost no one says that of Jack and Jill or Movie 43), and think a case to support that notion could be made from neutral to favorable reviews, especially if I could find mainstream examples... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.35.169 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If it was just Ebert's opinion and nobody else's then I don't know if it that alone would be strong enough for inclusion, but since there's Siskel as well, along with a couple of ultra-nasty reviews as well, it builds a strong case. I think that this film is like Mommie Dearest, Heaven's Gate, or At Long Last Love. Half, or more than half, of those that see those think they are genuinely good films, but those who do not like it are more vocal so it becomes notable for being a turkey. For all of those films we have a few sentences that give a positive perspective for the sake of WP:NPOV. I added a little blurb about ISOYG for NPOV's sake, feel free to expand on that.LM2000 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think the added blurb strikes the balance between the discrete critical loathing typified by Ebert, and avoiding the false impression that almost all critics consider this a "worst film" candidate, as they do in the case of 2 recent films I mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.35.169 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't M night Shyamalans movies like The Last Airbender be on here?

Hello wikipedia users for "movies considered the worst." I know you have high expectations for worst movies ever but I just wanted to confirm to you that M Night Shyamalan the movie director is notable for making worst movies ever. They even called him the next Ed Wood. I feel very sorry for his movie carrier and that he messed up "The Last Airbender" very badly. In fact M. Night Shyamalans fans want to send him back to directing school.

Anyways I wanted to point out that he went from making popular horror thriller movies like "The Sixth Sense", "The Village" and "Signs". To making what both critics and movie audiences consider the worst movies like "Lady in the Water", "The Last Airbender", and "After Earth".

Anyways I do know that M. Night Shyamalans movie "The Last Airbender" 2010 made alot of people both movie critics and fans of The Last Airbender cartoon fans very angry, insulted, and they called it a waste of their time, and said there wasn't any fun, laughter, not much lines, the movie very rushed, called his special effects the worst ever. Even the story's wooden and too serious and the casting controversy awful, the mispronouncing Aangs name to Anng, the slang term bender insulting to British people.

I even have family members and my friends that were very angry, upset, insulted and they called it a waste of time and said that M. Night Shyamalan shouldn't have made the live action version and they have forgotten about the movie ever since. I was disappointed that he completely changed the movie. The only funny thing I found about the movie was the bloopers of "The Last Airbender" but the movie itself is slow paced and forgettable.

Also as you know "The Last Airbender won many razzie awards of 2011. After that movie another movie both critics and audiences didn't like and also called the worst was "After Earth" I'm not sure if it will win Razzie awards. But anyways I would like you to work on "The Last Airbender" 2010 because it definitely fits in with "Films considered the worst." I would like to work on it only if it's acceptable. Let me know if I've convinced you. CrosswalkX (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Airbender has been discussed here approximately 100 times and nobody has ever supplied adequate sources. You should know this better than anyone since you were involved in most of the discussions.LM2000 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Last Airbender, Mommie Dearest,, and I Spit on Your Grave

How serendipitous that I too come to this Wiki-page just a few hours after the last person to suggest The Last Airbender be added to the list.

I was surprised to see that it was not yet included on the list. I know that Rottentomatoes, The Razzies, and Metacritic doesn't necessarily solidify its place as a movie considered "The Worst," but many of the films on this list did BETTER in all of these categories. The Last Airbender currently holds 1 positive review from Metacritic (its positivity is questionable, since Scott Bowles says "He hasn't mastered the craft yet, but M. Night Shyamalan may be on to something with this action-movie thing," and is given a score of 63, which barely passes for favorable). It holds a 6% on Rottentomatoes, and The Last Airbender received nine nominations at the 31st Golden Raspberry Awards including Worst Picture. The film went on to sweep the Razzies with five awards: Worst Picture, Worst Director (Shyamalan), Worst Screenplay (Shyamalan), Worst Supporting Actor (Jackson Rathbone), and a special award for "Worst Eye-Gouging Mis-Use of 3D." Add to that all of the controversy and racism involved in casting, the sheer anger it induced in fans of the series, and the deplorable script, directing, and acting, and I can assure you, it is on the top of my list for "Worst Movie Ever." If you need actual sources deeming it the "Worst Film Ever," you need only do a Google search to find this Time Magazine review ('The Last Airbender' Review: Worst Movie Epic Ever? - http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2000996,00.html). One great quote from the article: "The actors who didn't get to be in The Last Airbender are like the passengers who arrived too late to catch the final flight of the Hindenburg." And Ebert's review was just as scathing: With a "one-half of a star out of four" rating, Ebert wrote: "The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented." Plus, I would say that non-critic audiences hated the movie just as much. At least with Howard the Duck, audiences could find some fun in it. The Last Airbender sucked every ounce of fun out of the original series, and replaced it with... nothing. It was god-awfully boring, to the point of tears. Surely, it deserves an entry on this list.


Mommie Dearest and I Spit on Your Grave were perhaps considered the worst when they were first released, but by today's standards they should no longer be listed, because MANY critics gave them POSITIVE reviews. I understand that Mommie Dearest didn't elicit the response that was intended (it intended sympathy and elicited laughter), but it is no longer a blight on Faye Dunaway's resume, and it is often cited as one of her best performances alongside Network and Bonnie and Clyde. In fact, John Waters considers it his favorite film of all time (of course, this is coming from John Waters). When judged as a drama it fails, but when judged as a black comedy it is quite successful.

And I Spit on your Grave is regarded as the BEST and most exemplary film in its genre (Rape/Revenge Horror). Ebert's reaction does not nullify its greatness and longevity. If Ebert would have called The Maltese Falcon the worst film of all time, would it have been listed here? No. I use this example because The Maltese Falcon epitomizes its genre (Film Noir), much like I Spit on Your Grave does. Because Rape/Revenge Horror is not a popular genre should not mean that its best example should be listed as "The Worst Film." I would most certainly suggest removing both of these films, because they are no longer regarded as the worst films, and have grown on audiences and critics alike.76.170.193.42 (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if all of your claims are accurate, the argument reeks of WP:RECENTISM. Films like At Long Last Love, Heaven's Gate, Mommie Dearest, and I Spit on Your Grave have plenty of sources calling them the worst. They also have plenty of sources which claim their reputation has improved over time. For the sake of WP:NPOV it's important to tell the whole story, but it doesn't change the fact that the sources provided do match our current criteria. These films, Mommie Dearest in particular, have been discussed to death here, so I can't really see them being removed.LM2000 (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I just went through the list of "Films removed from the List of Worst Films" and I Spit on Your Grave was removed for exactly the reasons I detailed. So, in the past, consensus was that I Spit on Your Grave was NOT a Worst Film, or why else would it be listed under that list. Notably, The Last Airbender is not listed at all.76.170.193.42 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I Spit was removed previously long ago, but someone recently readded it and we discussed it last month. Feel free to share your opinion on that issue in the pertinent thread above. Last Airbender has discussed on the talk page and you can find those discussions in the archive. Although I know it has been added to the list, nobody put it in the list of "Films removed from the List of Worst Films", probably because it was never there for long.LM2000 (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... appears that this might be a lost cause

If this talk page has discussed The Last Airbender as a candidate for "Worst Film Ever" hundreds of times before, as you stated LM2000, why then is it not listed? It would appear that it is commonly regarded as a candidate, and the only person who doesn't think so is you. You have said that we need reliable sources that claim it is "The Worst" and people give them to you, but you ignore them until they go away. This person gave you 6 sources that state that Airbender is regarded as the worst film ever, but you never responded to his post:

-Understood, although if you want some sources that call it one of the worst, I know some examples. I can add the film to the list again with these credentials if you wish.

--Matthew (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)-

If so many people come here, expecting it to be listed, why isn't it listed? When asked for sources, they give you sources, and you still say no. Is this some kind of pet project? Are you M Night Shyamalan?

Please excuse the humor. In reality, if hundreds of people come here saying that it is one of the worst films ever, give sources to critics who corroborate this claim, then why is there not a section for The Last Airbender yet? I would be the first to tell you that art is subjective. What one might find beautiful and encapsulating, another might find dull and boring. Wikipedia is a resource run by a community, not one person. If hundreds of people give source after source about how critics and audiences alike say that The Last Airbender is the worst film ever, it would seem that they are right, because the worst film is subjective. In reality, because of the subjective nature of the list, is it even appropriate for Wikipedia? The Last Airbender is considered by MANY people (both critics and audiences) to be the worst film ever, for many of the reasons that have already been expressed. If this list exists, The Last Airbender belongs on it. That is, if you are trying to be as objective as possible. If you are not, then the list doesn't even belong on Wikipedia, and you should post it on your blog (if you have one).76.170.193.42 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Another user posted those same exact sources in the archive, and I actually did respond and I went through each of them. I'll repost my previous answer from before:
  • CNN, slashfilm, and mysanantonio named Airbender the worst of the year. Worst of the year does not mean worst of all time.
  • E! questions whether it is the worst in the title, but in the article actually says that films such as Battlefield Earth got blasted just as hard, if not more so, by the critics.
  • I'm not sure if disgrasian is a reliable source, it looks like a blog to me, but the only time they mention it being the worst is when they link to the E! article which doesn't even call it the worst. It also contains a few quotations from notable critics who had harsh things to say, but none of them called it the worst film ever made.
  • Time's headline does question if it is the worst movie epic ever. But Epic is a genre of film, it does not encompass all of cinema which is the purpose of this article. Would we include a pirate film in this list if one reliable source called it the worst Swashbuckler film ever made but never indicated that it was the worst film in the history of cinema (the purpose of this article)? No, certainly not. Even with this aside, Corliss goes on to say that this is "worst botch of a fantasy epic since Ralph Bakshi's animated desecration of The Lord of the Rings back in 1978". As User:SummerPhD mentioned in the above discussion about Movie 43, sometimes the headline writer isn't the same as the critic who wrote the actual article. Even if Corliss wrote both the article and the headline, he answered the question to the headline with the LOTR bit which should remove all doubt. No, this isn't the worst film of all time. No, it's probably not even the worst movie epic of all time. But it is the worst movie epic since the animated LOTR came out 32 years ago. No cigar.LM2000 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Check the archive folks, we've been through all this before time and time again. It wasn't just me that was active in these discussions, some of them took place before I even started editing here. Previous consensus has always been against the adding the film.LM2000 (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That just proves my point. If you discuss this time and time again, why is it not listed???!!! This is a community, not a dictatorship, and it would appear that many more people view this as a candidate than those who don't. The fact that you keep addressing it, proves it. And since this is a purely subjective list, The Last Airbender should be listed, or the list should be deleted. One of the other. Because if The Last Airbender doesn't fit the bill, then none of them do.76.170.193.42 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Taste in film is subjective, much like you have said, but we have an objective way of going about this list. The Last Airbender could possibly go in someday if the community decides that it does meet the criteria. Jack and Jill (film) was discussed here COUNTLESS times. Just because a crowd of people, myself included, thought it should have been included, didn't get it in the list. What did get it in the list, eventually... after many many discussions, was adequate sources.LM2000 (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I have found three other sources, one that claims that The Last Airbender is the worst film ever, another that claims that it is the 6th worst film ever, and the final stating that it is the worst film the author has ever seen (which of course, the author could have seen 3 films, but I doubt it.). The first is from a lifestyle online magazine called HI! Magazine (http://www.hihimag.com/ents/film/2013/08/the-worst-films-ever-the-last-airbender/) and the second is from the writers of Mystery Science Theater 3000 at Rifftrax (http://www.rifftrax.com/worst-movies-of-all-time-top-10). If the writers of MST3000 do not know what the worst films are, then I give up. But the last is an article from Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/07/25-questions-you-may-have-about-the-last-airbender) which is a pretty reputable source. I would definitely say that there is objective consensus that The Last Airbender is considered The Worst Film ever.76.170.193.42 (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few more: (http://www.ivillage.com/last-airbender-worst-movie-all-time/1-a-215574) from IVillage, and here is one through Comcast: (http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-franchiseflops/10/)76.170.193.42 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


We can't use the Rifftrax poll because it is a fanpoll, we discussed this during the Twilight discussion (Twilight won that fanpoll). However, Hi and Vanityfair seem legit. Combined with the Time source which was supplied before, I'm not opposed to Last Airbender's inclusion because these sources seem adequate. Since this has been discussed so many times before I would wait until other users have a chance to discuss before you add it to the list, but I think that this is good enough for me.LM2000 (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! How long is an adequate time to wait? 2 weeks?76.170.193.42 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally I just wait a week after proposing something to see if anybody has a comment on it. It was just a suggestion, you can go ahead and make a WP:BOLD edit and just readd it if you want to. Just make sure that you include the strongest sources when you do.LM2000 (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so there hasn't been any discussion against adding The Last Airbender since Sunday. I will go ahead and type up a blurb about it using the Time, Hi!, Vanity Fair, IVillage, and Comcast articles/links. I should have a rough draft by tomorrow night. Any objections? 76.170.193.42 (talk)00:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So I waited a whole week for more discussion on the topic. There was none, so I added The Last Airbender using the sources listed above. Can someone please review it for me? This is pretty much my first entry, and I wanted to make sure that it adheres to community standards.76.173.178.162 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I added Casting Controversy, since it is one of the reasons this film is so hated. Along with wooden acting, muddy visuals, and horrendous dialogue, I would say that the Casting Controversy was one of the biggest reasons it was panned so much, but definitely not the only reason. It adds a layer of racism and offensiveness to "bad artistic endeavor." 76.173.178.162 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Worst -- or just axe-grinding?

It seems like most of the films on this list aren't really exceptionally bad, among the majority of films out there which are also bad - rather, someone has an axe to grind on each one. One has a brutal rape scene that some people don't like seeing portrayed, one was a well-known NC-17, one vilifies marijuana. One director blew up a horse, and another director shot downwind of some fallout. One film was made by Moonies, one by Scientologists. The common thread is that the films are distinguished mainly by having some bloc out to get them so that they can draw an unusual number of downvotes in a forum. Of course, I can't just put that in the article on my say-so, but is there some way to dig up a source that can debunk the idea of "worst films" so as to be more fair to the people being criticized here? Wnt (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger Ebert would have said that it's not what a film is about, it's how. The Scientologist film and anti-pot film, in addition to pushing unpopular agendas, also ended up becoming unintentionally hilarious camp cult classics. Blowing up a horse isn't anything exceptional when it comes to film -- there's a scene in Apocalypse Now where a cow is butchered, Touki Bouki featured numerous scenes of cattle being slaughtered. Heaven's Gate was riddled with various problems, including alleged animal cruelty on set, other problems with the film ultimately crashed United Artists. On top of that it was ruled a totally unwatchable film by critics of the day (note that the current cut available on the market is different than the ones screened for critics in 1980). This article from Jezebel discusses how when they made the poster for I Spit on Your Grave "they make goddamn sure that they also airbush that ass"... Ebert and other critics argued that it was one of the worst ever because it went about the topic of rape in the worst way. I do think that in some cases we need to address WP:NPOV concerns and I've tried to add tidbits to the most controversial ones. Are you suggesting that we expand this to give the flip side of the coin for every film?LM2000 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Nay, I'm more skeptical of the concept in general. My intuition would be that the hierarchy of film quality should be a pyramid, with the layer at the very bottom being made up of the largest number of bricks. I don't know if there are good sourced discussions of the concept of "worst film" in the abstract, though. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted iVillage Quote and Citation

I deleted the following from the article because the quote didn't seem to add any detail as to why it is considered to be the worst. However, the title of the article does state that it is the worst film ever, but that argument is not stated or investigated further within the article. The article, in turn, is nothing more than an conglomeration of quotes from critics who have panned the film, and the quote used just details that many critics panned it. Here is what was deleted:

Donna Kaufman of iVillage stated "How many ways can a movie writer say that a movie is appallingly, shockingly, historically bad? More than we can count, in fact!"[1] 76.173.178.162 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Last Airbender question

I have noticed that a few people have been trying to designate that Avatar: The Last Airbender was vastly more popular than its film counterpoint. I, myself, removed such a comment that seemed unverifiable. But I would say that part of the reason that this film is so despised is because, as RottenTomatoes put it, "[the film] squanders its popular source material." It had potential to be excellent, but didn't measure up to any modicum of artistry. The story was there! Shymalan just failed to realize it.

How would one designate that Avatar: The Last Airbender was widely more popular without falling into "puffery?" I only ask because I feel that it is an important component as to why this film is so hated. That, and that it had nothing to offer its audience. At least some of the films on the list fall into the "so bad, it's good" category, coming full circle, and being hilarious. No laughter can be garnered from this tragedy of a film. (But, that is just me.) 76.173.178.162 (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Even Ebert called the animated series: "hugely popular." 76.173.178.162 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the lack of response to this thread means that it isn't worth discussing. Is that the case? So, no matter how much critical response says that the animated series was popular and that the series' popularity was a factor in why some critics and fans despised the film so much, it doesn't matter because it equates to WP:PEA? I am legitimately asking, and am not trying to be condescending or tongue-in-cheek. 76.173.178.162 (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It's just one man's opinion, but I don't think it's important, it really goes without saying. How many unpopular television shows get big screen adaptations? There are ways of attributing quotes to people to get passed PEA if you really want it in there. I removed the bit about it being universally panned, because it was at 6% on RT and that is too high for that. But I left one of the reviewers claiming that it was universally panned since it's his own words. When we call things popular or unpopular without attributing proper sources it starts to become WP:OR.LM2000 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot

I'm questioning whether this film should belong here. The only source that says that this movie is among the worst is from Sylvester Stallone, who isn't really a professional film critic. In addition, the Washington Post review is more mixed than it is scathing, claiming the concept to be better than other recent attempts by Stallone. And neither Roger Ebert nor Gene Siskel stated that it was the worst movies they'd ever seen in their reviews. If anyone feels that this film should stay up here, please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.156.6 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There's been a lot of inadequate films added to the list in the past week or two. Most have been removed already, I think that this is the last one to go. Close but no cigar.LM2000 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Caligula

In regards to the debate about whether the infamous Caligula should be included, the Australian newspaper The Age described the film as ""Caligula", billed by critics everywhere as one of the worst films ever made".( The Age, "News Diary", June 8, 1981 p.2). Link here: [27]

Also, the website "Film Critics United", cited for several other film reviews on Wikipedia, describes "Caligula" thus: " could very well be the worst movie ever made". [28] 176.61.97.121 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Kangaroo Jack

Doesn't Kangaroo Jack, which was included on one respected newspaper's list of "worst films ever" (1) and was also described by a film critic in a noted British newspaper as not just as a bad film, but the worst film the same critic had ever seen released (2), mean the film merits inclusion here? While I understand The Western Mail isn't in the same tier as "The Guardian" or "The Times", doesn't it still fit the criterion of a reliable source describing the film as one of "the worst?"

I don't believe movies should be put on this list unless they have at least two references describing them as "the worst". I submitted KJ because I thought the TWM review and "The Age's" movie list both fitted the requirement of "Kangaroo Jack" being "cited by reputable critics in multiple reputable sources as among the worst films ever made"

(1) Lawrie Zion, "Home Movies". The Age, September 11, 2003. (p.7)

(2) "Kangaroo Jack is the most witless, pointless, charmless drivel unleashed on an unsuspecting public". Gary Slaymaker, The Western Mail, May 16 2003, (p.2). 176.61.97.121 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Slaymaker quote is awfully harsh, but I don't see anything he says as being synonymous with being the worst ever made. Plenty of films get thrown into lists where they are with X amount of other films, but that alone isn't enough for the list. If we included every film ever to be included in a list, book, or poll the list would be enormous. A comparable case to a film in this article would be Amanti. Roger Ebert is quoted as saying that it was the "most godawful piece of pseudo-romantic slop I've ever seen!" Yet, although very harsh, he didn't actually think it was the worst ever made, he actually gave the film two stars. Amanti was also included in a book covering the worst movies ever made, with 49 other films. Some of those 49 films made it into the article and some of them did not and there is a reason for that. Ebert and the book alone wouldn't have gotten it into the list, but a critic from the LA Times did call it the worst film he had seen since 1926 (since talkies didn't even come about until 1927 this effectively means it was the worst sound film he had ever seen). Combined with Ebert and the book, there's a case for Amanti's inclusion.
A reviewer could call a film the most annoying thing they had ever seen, the most witless thing they had every seen, or even the "most godawful piece of pseudo-romantic slop I've ever seen", and although harsh, that doesn't necessarily mean it dethrones Plan 9 from Outer Space as the worst film they have ever seen.LM2000 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


OK, fair enough.

If I can find two or more separate quotes from RS saying KJ is one of the worst films ever, I will try resubmitting it for the list; if I can't, then I guess KJ stays in the "very bad, but not the worst films" section. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Great work with Caligula by the way.LM2000 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Master of Disguise

Hello all. I found the following quotes on Rotten Tomatoes for the movie The Master of Disguise that explicitly state it is the worst movie ever made.

  • Alan Morrison (Empire Magazine): "The worst film ever made: a film about idiots, made by idiots, for idiots."[2]
  • Matthew Turner (ViewLondon): "This is a serious contender for the title of The Worst Film Ever Made."[3]
  • Oz (eFilmCritic.com): "Quite honestly, I've never seen anything less competent. And I mean that."[4]

I also found that the film is ranked among Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100 Worst Reviewed movies of the 2000s[5] and Bo Derek was nominated for Worst Supporting Actor at the 2003 Golden Raspberry Awards for playing herself in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.156.6 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Legend of Hercules.

I hear that another terrible movie came out in 2014, According to Rotten Tomatoes, this film has only 3% fresh[6]. such a bland movie should be on this article. SuperHypercane (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those reviews explicitly say that this is the worst film ever made, so unless we see one or two articles that say this, we're gonna have to leave The Legends of Hercules off of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.156.6 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fire Maidens from Outer Space

I wonder if the British low-budget sci-fi flick Fire Maidens from Outer Space might be eligible?

Halliwell's Film and Video Guide describes the film as "a strong contender for the title of the worst movie ever made, with diaphanously clad English gals [sic] striking embarrassed poses against cardboard sets". (John Walker (ed.) Halliwell's Film and Video Guide 2000, London: HarperCollins, 1999, p.287). Film historian I.Q. Hunter also lists FMFOS as one of the candidates for "What is the worst British film ever made?" alongside other poorly received films such as Parting Shots, Pimp, Sing As We Go and Sex Lives of the Potato Men (I. Q Hunter, "From Window Cleaner to Potato Man" in British Comedy Cinema, edited I.Q. Hunter, Laraine Porter. Routledge, 2012 (p.154)). 176.61.97.121 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a few sources calling this the worst awhile back but I was adding a bunch of films at the time so I never ended up getting around to this. I think it meets criteria anyway. The one review from Rotten Tomatoes says "Fire Maidens of Outer Space is as bad as anything you can imagine" which is pretty close too. DVD talk said "may be among the worst-ever professionally produced science fiction films". There's probably more out there but combined with the ones you have that should be good enough for now.LM2000 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just added FMfOS to the list. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Run for your wife

I deleted this film since it only mentioned being "possibly the worst British comedy ever." As far as I know, this page is reserved for films that are critically regarded as the worst film ever, in any genre. Gstridsigne (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for this list are that a film has to be listed by "reputable critics in multiple reputable sources" as being among the worst films ever made. The London Independent and the Daily Mirror are two long-running, respected British newspapers, so they fit the "reputable sources" claim. The former paper's report describes "Run For Your Wife" as "the ultimate big-screen flop" and states "You wait years for the “worst film in history” and then two contenders come along at once. Just weeks after star-studded Hollywood effort Movie 43 was panned as the “Citizen Kane of awful”, a new British film is being hailed as an even bigger turkey.Run For Your Wife, which stars Danny Dyer and Dame Judi Dench... critics failed to see the funny side. Savage reviews published today included the verdict: “As funny as leprosy.” More than one publication urged viewers to run for the exit."[29] " The latter states that " "Run For Your Wife" was branded the worst British film ever". [30] In addition, the review of Run For Your Wife" in the UK paper Metro described it as "possibly the worst British film ever". [31] 176.61.97.121 (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, The Berkhamsted & Tring Gazette review of RFYW (admittedly, not a publication with the same circulation as the other papers mentioned, but still a Reliable Source) recounted in its review of Run for Your Wife, "critics have being queuing up to batter recent release Run for Your Wife, with general agreement that it ranks among the worst British comedies of all time".["Run for Your Wife", Berkhamsted & Tring Gazette, March 11, 2013.] So we have two reviews and two articles from RSs describingRun For Your Wife as not just a bad film, but among the worst films "of all time". The fact that it is British shouldn't disqualify it; this list has "worst films ever" from the US, France, the UK and India- the "worst films ever" can orginate from any country. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Three of these examples say it is the "worst British film ever," and the other one said that it was a possible contender as "worst film in history," alongside Movie 43. I would say that this doesn't really fit the criteria, especially since the article deeming it "worst film in history" is more of an amalgamation of other critics perspectives. Probably an awful film, but Worst British Film Ever ≠ Worst Film Ever. And I am not disqualifying it for being a British film, as if this list should not include British films, but because all of these films have been called the worst film ever, not just in its country of origin, but the world. Mommie Dearest wasn't called the worst American Film Ever Made, it was called the Worst Film Ever Made. Just like we shouldn't (and don't) include worst of a genre, we shouldn't (and don't) include worst of a country-of-origin. Then this list would be nearly 255 films long, because we would have included the worst of every Country that has ever made a film.Gstridsigne (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Even in his article, Nick Clark of the Independent never calls Run For Your Wife "the worst film ever." He says that it and Movie 43 were "contenders" for the title; they hadn't achieved it yet, they were merely in the running. From what I understand of the criteria to be included on this list, a reputable critic must say that it is "The Worst Film Ever Made," or something comparable. What Nick Clark writes in the Independent is equivalent to saying that the Denver Broncos or the Seattle Seahawks are in the running to win the super bowl. The other three sources implicitly do not fit the criteria. So, I am under the impression that The Independent did NOT call Run For Your Wife the worst film ever and therefore should not be included, but I am open to other opinions and arguments. I will leave the passage for now until debate is settled. Gstridsigne (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gstridsigne. Clark's comment's come close, but we need more, and the sources calling this the worst British film aren't enough to cut it.LM2000 (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, valid points. But if I can find a RS that calls "Run For Your Wife" the "worst film ever", though, then I think it merits being put back on the list. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Keith Lemon

Lots of poor reviews, the only one that calls it the worst is from The Daily Mail, which is a tabloid, and fails WP:RS. I've removed it for now. 0% on RT doesn't count, and "the most staggeringly perfunctory piece of filmmaking I have ever seen" falls under the same category as "most godawful piece of pseudo-romantic slop I've ever seen!"LM2000 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick question. I notice that there is also a Daily Mail article cited in the Parting Shots paragraph. Is it okay if I remove it, knowing that The Daily Mail fails the WP:RS? 67.242.156.6 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Remove the Daily Mail reference, or remove the whole film? Probably for the best if anything referenced to Daily Mail gets taken down. There are other legitimate sources there which call it the worst though so I wouldn't remove the entire section without further discussion.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't care for the Daily Mail's news section, Christopher Tookey is a fairly respected film journalist and critic. I'm not sure his reviews should be disqualified simply because they appear in a downmarket newspaper (Tookey also wrote for more respectable publications, such as Prospect and the Sunday Telegraph). 176.61.97.121 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my question was worded a little awkwardly. I did mean to remove the Daily Mail reference, not the film itself. The film is fine where it is. However, after reading the statement above, I will keep that reference up. Thanks for the help, everyone. 67.242.156.6 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In the past we've kept Huffington Post as source, even though it isn't generally reliable, because the critic seemed legit. Seems like we've got a similar situation here, where although Daily Mail isn't generally reliable Tookey is. So in this instance it's fine to stay where it is. Thanks for the input 176.61.LM2000 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Last Airbender is gone

I just came by here to see that The Last Airbender, which has been on this list for a considerable amount of time, has been removed. I'm aware that there has been some controversy over whether it is among the worst films of all time in the past. Any thoughts on this? 67.242.156.6 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored. Anon editor seems to have deleted it. Ckruschke (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Dreamcatcher

In an article discussing adaptations of Stephen King novels, Tasha Robinson mentions "the execrable Dreamcatcher, which frequently turns up on lists of the worst films ever made". http://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/248-what-the-shining-miniseries-reveals-about-the-king/

Dreamcatcher is also listed as Number 18 on Empire's list of the Fifty Worst Movies ever: http://www.empireonline.com/features/50-worst-movies-ever/default.asp?film=18 If we can locate a few more references to Dreamcatcher being "one of the worst movies ever", then it should be added to this list. 79.97.164.232 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kaufman, Donna. "Is 'Last Airbender' the Worst Movie of All Time?". iVillage. Retrieved 22 December 2013.
  2. ^ http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/ReviewComplete.asp?FID=8674
  3. ^ http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/the-master-of-disguise-film-review-3673.html
  4. ^ http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=6017&reviewer=1
  5. ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/9/
  6. ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_legend_of_hercules/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst/Archive_10&oldid=1075506913"