Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 3

The Star Wars Holiday Special
Shouldn't The Star Wars Holiday Special be mentioned somewhere? I know it was only on TV, but it has all the original actors and actresses and is part of the Star Wars canon. I mean, that was a pretty bad movie to say the least. Masterhatch (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was really more of a special similar to one of the Charlie Brown shows, but it is INSANELY bad. I mean, Life Day?  Jefferson Starship?  WTF?  99.0.102.214 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel [talkative mood, today....])

Ishtar?
Anyone remember this masterpiece? Why isn't it on the list? 128.104.48.196 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering that myself. I remember it being the go-to reference in the 80s.  Seelie (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ishtar" was noted at the time more for Budget Excesses than for total "Badness-Of-Concept" or execution. Pretty good crew & cast. I thought it had some scenes that were pretty funny, & the Faux musical numbers that the two "Musical Artists" (Played by Warren Beatty & Dustin Hoffman) came up with were a hoot. Basically a "2 Coye -out- of- the -goldfish- bowl" story, it was at LEAST as entertaining as any of those dreary Tim Conway- Don Knotts disney comedies that were popular at around the same time. Acting friends of mine used to quote the fake song lyrics from the film, & when I finally saw it, I was surprised at how "Not-That-Bad" it really was. But it went horrendously over budget- almost wrecked Elain Mays career, & hurt the studio. So- a Box office bomb? Yes. Worst ever made? Hardly. Only truly squirm inducing, gritted teeth baring, wince-making artifacts like Robot Monster deserve that inverted accolade. I'm just sayin' ...

71.6.81.62 (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) mbd


 * Vincent Canby ranked it as one of the best films of the year when it came out. Quentin Tarantino praised the film during a recent film festival screening. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Rotten Tomatoes?
This does seem to be very biased towards ONE WEBSITE  out of all the other critic websites. It seems to be, quite clearly, a very bad attempt at a Rotten Tomatoes advert. Koshoes (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes isn't review website, it's review collection website. L-Zwei (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that it's intended to be an advert, but it's a convenient resource, so it might be a little lazy to rely on it so much. It's a good indication of public opinion of the films, because it averages the ratings of a lot of moviegoers. GuySperanza (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Stop! Or my mom will shoot" and "Batman and Robin"
How would these fit on the list? I'd agree the three other batman films of said series are better, but that doesn't make the fourth bad. Also, Stop or my mom will shoot? What's it doing on there? It's awesome and one of the few of his movies I can actually appreciate. 84.31.80.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Never seen Stop!, etc., but George Clooney was wearing a suit with nipples. Detailed nipples. If that doesn't make a movie bad, then I don't know what does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.102.214 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Exorcist 2
This is worthy of mentioning in the "Prequels and Sequels" section. Bad reviews all round, and a terrible story line to go on top of it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.218.13 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDb Bottom 10
The article currently has this listing from IMDb...

This is apparently as of January 21, 2009.

As of today, February 24, 2009, this list would appear like this:

2 The Starfighters (1964) 3 Night Train to Mundo Fine (1966) 4 Daniel - Der Zauberer (2004) 5 The Skydivers (1963) 6 SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004) 7 Monster A Go-Go (1965) 8 Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) 9 Ape (1976) 10 The Hellcats (1967)
 * 1 Zaat (1975)

Barely over a month later and only one common film between the two lists.

So I put the question to the Wikipedians: does an inherently (and rapidly) moving target such as this really lend itself to inclusion in an encyclopedic article of this sort? 76.197.129.91 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable for negative reception?
Why don't we move this article back to List of films notable for negative reception? If a bunch of factors can effect how successful a movie is, it would be better to pass that judgment rather than look for a source that exactly uses the term "worst movie ever"? --ViperSnake151 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. That would be a good idea, as a list of films considered "the worst" makes it seem as if the writer of the article is expressing an opinion. Refering to films as "notable for negative reception", however, is more actual fact and means the article is written from a neutral point of view. Jprulestheworld (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it would improve the article to a great extent; there would be, as noted, much less bias and the movies in the article would have a reason for being there even if they fared better in certain places. Changing it to that, however, would make it too malleable, as any movie that fits into the category of having received specially bad reviews from any particular demographic would be considered for the article. Still, I agree it would be a much better name but, either way, the article needs heavy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.241.209 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sequel Section
As far as I know, the Jonas Brothers 3D concert movie was not a sequel to anything, and may be under the wrong section. Peabody80 (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

TVTropes has something to say on this topic...
So Bad, it's Good So Bad, it's Horrible

These may be worth reading, if not mentioning in-article. ~ Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I Know Who Killed Me
Why is I Know Who Killed Me in the crossover section? Lindsay crossed over from acting to music, not the other way around, so it really doesn't make sense. A better choice would be Glitter. The Glitter article has a link to here and is mentioned to be considered one of the worst movies ever. Anyone agree? --Sylfi (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just added Glitter even before stepping into this section. - Areaseven (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Godzilla (1998)
Anyone would like to second my nomination of Godzilla? I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.11 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No
Not even the worst disaster movie set in New York featuring a lizard -- The Muppets Take Manhattan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup
While I love reading and laughing about bad films as much as the next bloke, this is not the "List of very very bad films", nor of ridicolous, widely panned, Razzie-nominated, so-bad-it's-good ones. There are thousands of them. This is a list of films considered the worst by some authoritative source (critic, book, reliable website). Not just bad, or very bad, or very very very very bad, not just films featuring rubber monsters, visible special effects, laughable acting, caustic reviews and the like, but the worst, or at the very very least the worst in their genre. Goochelaar (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me; this list does need a major rationalisation every so often so thanks for doing it. Mark Grant (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I think "From Justin to Kelly" should be at least mentioned here. Fits the bad crossover section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.139.221 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Highlander II
Really...isn't that the canonical example of an awful sequel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. 12.49.122.178 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel)


 * Exorcist 2: The Heretic. Your move. Dkendr (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Batman and Robin
I'm going to have to challenge Batman and Robin's inclusion on this list for several reasons:


 * The citation for its appearance on the list is a men's general interest magazine without either any focus on films nor a professional critic on staff (plus the citation is a broken link). Researching what was written in this article reveals the list to not be objective, comprehensive, or formal, wasn't based on any popular vote, and the content of the list itself is geared towards films interesting to write about over quality, most likely failing it as a reliable source.
 * The top critics feature on Rotten Tomatos reveal a 20% approval rating and an average score of 4.0, with most of said reviews pretty far from calling it the "worst" even for the year 1997, much less "of all time". The content of most citable reviews suggested ambivalence.
 * While the film was nominated for 11 Razzies, it only won one for what could be considered a throwaway category (worst supporting actress). The film was also nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film as well as Make Up and Costumes, won two Blockbuster Entertainment Awards out of four nominations, and won a Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Award out of three nominations.  The latter two involved direct public voting and one of these awards was even in direct contention with the Razzie win.
 * It made over 100 million dollars domestic for a total of 238 million dollars worldwide, which is pretty firmly in the "success" category regardless of its large budget. While not as large a success as hoped and the least successful Batman film, it was still considered a success.  Both this point and the previous one fail this film as per the guidelines listed in Talk:Films considered the worst ever/Removed films.

While no doubt a bad film, it seems to be pretty far from being considered the worst by any citably large margin of reliable sources and has evidence to the contrary. If there's no objection within a couple days, I'm going to remove it. 140.146.210.18 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, somebody copied and pasted the old text back without addressing the issues and tacked this on the end (as is):


 * Michael J. Nelson, in Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese, says "Batman & Robin is not the worst movie ever. No, indeed. It's the worst thing ever. Yes, it's the single worst thing that we as human beings have ever produced in recorded history."

Would this be considered a reputable source? Michael J. Nelson is a comedian and script writer, not a film critic and the book is mostly comedy rather than serious film analysis. Even then, I can't find any other serious source that calls it one of the worst films. 68.164.1.177 (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Film critics are professionals. Professionals who take their work seriously don't call it "Megacheese". He's no source. GuySperanza (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Delta Farce
Quoted from from the Reception page:

"[Delta Farce] received an overwhelmingly negative response from critics, and currently holds an abysmal 3% rating on review website Rotten Tomatoes."

There are better movies on this page than Delta Farce. 99.0.102.214 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel)

What about Titanic, The Legend Goes On... (NOT THE JAMES CAMERON 1997 MASTERPEICE)
It's an animated musical about the titanic crashing that has a rapping dog, and supports mexican sterotypes (by using mexican mice) that rips off : Cinderella, and The 1997 titanic movie, and is extremely historically inaccurate. (it ends with the phrase "they lived happily ever after". How's that for the one of the worst movies? The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow. Saw the page for it, and you're absolutely right in my opinion.  That kind of reminds me of that one mock Disney trailer on Saturday Night Live, where the Titanic was personified (a la The Brave Little Toaster) and the iceberg was voiced by Whoopi Goldberg.  What next?  The Adventures of Charlie and the Hindendburg?  99.0.102.214 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel [I refuse to log on XP])

Sequels
Not as good as the orginals:
 * Ghostbusters II {1989}: received only a 52% rating from Rotten Tomatoes-in comparison to the original Ghostbusters 93% rating from Rotten Tomatoes
 * Blues Brothers 2000 {2000}: received only a 45% rating from Rotten Tomatoes-in comparison to the original Blues Brothers 77% rating from Rotten Tomatoes
 * Highlander 2 (1991): No list of bad sequels (or bad movies) is complete without this gem, which currently holds a 0% (0/21) at Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 66% for the original.Prebys (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But worst ever? No.  This isn't a list of movies that are just bad.  Your examples are just bad movies.  Nobody compares a movie to Highlander 2 when they want to describe it as a piece of garbage. Dkendr (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzie nominations

 * Tarzan, the Ape Man (1981 film): nominated for 6 Razzies and won 1.
 * Bolero (1984 film): nominated for 9 Razzies and won 6.
 * 'Ghosts Can't Do It {1990}'': nominated for 9 Razzies and won 4.
 * 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane {1990} '': nominated for 6 Razzies and won 3.
 * The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle {2000} : nominated for 1 Razzie

The Love Guru (nominated for 7 and winning 3) is widely considered to be one of the worst films in recent years, yet is missing from the list. -- 134.225.165.163 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * TLG was just a vanity project that flopped. I don't think it was ever made with any expectation that it was going to be any good.  That makes it a very expensive B-movie, and as B-movies go, it wasn't that bad.  If you want to talk about SNL vanity projects that died painful deaths, start with It's Pat, Stuart Saves His Family and Night at the Roxbury, keep digging till you hit Coneheads and stop when you arrive at Superstar.  Dkendr (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic
I don't believe The Nostalgia Critic is really worth citing in any of the entries. He's not a professional reviewer by any extent and his series is mostly based around extreme exaggeration. His videos don't even show up on Rotten Tomatos. Contributions/68.164.1.231 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day
Perhaps there should also be an "overhyped" category. Independence Day, and for that matter anything that directors Emmerich and Devlin touch, was a big dumb movie that never delivered. Full of horrible dialogue, ethnic stereotypes, plot holes, and concepts that defied logic, it was a paragon of a bad movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.46.221 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day was generally well received. Just look here. 64.105.104.243 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This List is too Biased Toward Recent Films
There aren't many movies older than 20 years on this list. This suggests that people contributing to this list are fairly young, and don't have a good general knowledge of film history. This list needs more input from experts, and less from people piping up about their least favorite movie. Also, is there any precedent for deleting comments from the talk page? This page is getting cluttered, and it might be a good idea to remove nominations- not out of disagreement with their opinions, but for lack of objective references? There are quite a few here where somebody just wrote, "What about this, it's the worst one I ever saw", and didn't offer any reviews or polls as evidence. Could those be moved out of the way? GuySperanza (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's obvious people are just sticking the newest crappy movie on here whenever it comes down the pipe (Dragonball Z? Really?) rather than for any substantial reasons, historic or otherwise, for its inclusion. For example, just off the top of my head two films that probably should be on this list but aren't are Exorcist II: The Heretic and Heaven's Gate. Those are films that actually had a wider impact on film history because of their "badness", real or perceived. As for the talk page, the usual practice is to archive older discussions when the page gets too cluttered. I'll do that right now. - Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Exorcist 2 deserves a place on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.159.218 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li
Who else thinks that epic box office failure and embarrassment to Street Fighter and its fans everywhere should be added to the list?

{As a side-note, I have a feeling Tekken and King of Fighters will make it onto the list after their releases.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.176.14 (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions and other concerns
It seems somebody added a bunch of unexceptional examples along with many that were challenged and removed before. I've reverted the ones that didn't pass a certain threshold or were copied wholesale from the removed entries list.

One trend I've noticed is the tendency of people within limited fandoms to add entries that weren't really that negatively received by those outside. Examples like the Star Wars prequel trilogy, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Batman & Robin, Dragonball: Evolution, and other similar films receive the bulk of their criticism from the fandoms surrounding their franchises while the critics and film scholars are more apathetic than anything. What a fan expects from a property and their rationale for its failure is usually quite different from what a critic would cite. We should probably put a notice somewhere asking fans of a franchise not to add entries of the disliked films stemming from them unless there is citable proof that a majority outside the fandom holds a negative view as well. 68.164.4.183 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DB Evolution was panned by critics and epically failed at the box office. It wasn't just the fandom that hated it. This page also properly lists reasons why critics thought it was terrible. Also, Zac Bertschy is in fact recognized as a genuine paid critic.

216.121.211.142 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is running 21% at Rotten Tomatoes and won Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Actor and Worst Director the year it came out, so it's hard to blame that one on "fandom" either. Indeed, it takes a pretty serious Trekkie to even make it all the way to the end of that one (I know I never have).Prebys (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Trek 5 is so awful that Roddenberry declared it an orphan "out of canon." Worst ever?  Nope. It's still better than Trek 9 (Insurrection)  You have been warned. Dkendr (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing many of these movies to talk
In my mind, "worst", doesn't mean just bad, but really, exceptionally bad, so bad that they have become societal icons of the worst movies. Many of these movies are bad, of course, but they do not rise to the level of Plan 9 from Outer Space, Howard the Duck, or Battlefield Earth which are infamous for how bad they are.

Like some of these questionable entires, there are countless movies which make a 6% on rotten tomatoes, countless movies that have been panned, countless movies which have gotten razzies, but it would be impossible to list them all here, and if we did, it would dilute what "worst" meant. Instead, based on the 2000+ year slant in this articles, it seems like editors simply add movies here with no real guidelines on what "worst" is. Making this article full of recent, forgetabble bad movies. Ikip (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

thumb|210px|right|[[House of the Dead (film)|House of the Dead was Uwe Boll's first video game adapted movie, and was critically to universally panned by critics among other video game adapted films from Uwe Boll.]]

thumb|right|210px|[[Max Payne (film)|Max Payne, starring Mark Wahlberg, and That '70s Show, Grounded for Life, and Family Guy ' s Mila Kunis, was regarded as another horrible video game adaptation, nominated for Worst Actor, Mark Wahlberg in the Razzies, along with The Happening.]] thumb|210px|right|[[Dragonball: Evolution was heavily criticized for its lack of explaining plot elements, its hackneyed storyline and lackluster effort by the actors. .]] right|thumb|210px|The hastily-made movie [[From Justin to Kelly opened on June 20, 2003 and spent until July 4, 2003 in cinemas.]] right|thumb|210px|Written and directed by [[Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, Disaster Movie was a disaster of its own, being hailed by many as the worst movie of 2008, considered a big flop at the box office unlike the team's previous films, and nominated for six Razzies.]] right|thumb|210px|[[Cool as Ice, starring rapper Vanilla Ice, was supremely panned by all critics, since it had Vanilla Ice and it ripped off Rebel Without a Cause.]] thumb|right|210px|Considered the worst in the [[Jaws film series, nominated for Worst Picture and Worst Special Effects in the Razzies, it became the last in the Jaws series.]]
 * House of the Dead (2003): Based on Sega's popular horror-based video game, House of the Dead, Both critics and fans of the genre widely rejected the film. It currently holds a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes. IGN Movies, however, gave it three out of five stars, citing it as "an unabashed B-movie that does an incredibly decent job with a limited budget, unknown cast, and routine storyline."' In 2009, Time listed the film on their list of top ten worst video games movies. This marks the first Uwe Boll film to adapt video games into movies.
 * Alone in the Dark (2005): Based on the popular survival horror video game series Alone in the Dark, specifically Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare, Alone in the Dark stars Christian Slater and Tara Reid and is directed by Uwe Boll (who became infamous for directing poorly-received movies adapted from games, like the equally panned House of the Dead, BloodRayne, and Postal); Rotten Tomatoes ranked the film a score of 1% as of January 2009 and lists it as the second-worst reviewed movie of all time. At Metacritic, it has a score of 9%. On IMDB; it has a rating of 2.2. In a review of Alone in the Dark, Rob Vaux states that the movie makes other "bad" movie directors feel better in comparison: "'It's okay,' they'll tell themselves, 'I didn't make Alone in the Dark.'" Another reviewer wrote that Alone in the Dark was "so poorly built, so horribly acted and so sloppily stitched together that it's not even at the straight-to-DVD level." Common criticisms of the film include an incoherent plot, excessive gunplay, poor camerawork and special effects during fight scenes, a poorly-executed sex scene, an ending which directly contradicts plot points previously established in the movie, and the casting of Tara Reid as an archaeologist. The film received two 2005 Razzie Award nominations: Worst Director (Uwe Boll) and Worst Actress (Tara Reid).


 * Max Payne (2008): Based on the game series, Max Payne, and starring Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis (of Family Guy and That '70s Show), the film was panned by critics everywhere, even though it was number one in the box office, with an 18% "rotten" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 117 reviews, and a consensus opinion that "While it boasts some stylish action, Max Payne suffers severely from an illogical plot and overdirection." Another review aggretator, Metacritic, gave the film a 35/100 approval rating based on 25 reviews falling under the "generally negative reviews" category.


 * Dragonball: Evolution (2009): Based on the best-selling manga series by Akira Toriyama, the film was widely panned by critics worldwide while it dropped out of the top ten on its second week in the U.S. box office after debuting at #8. Zac Bertschy of Anime News Network gave the movie an overall failing grade, criticizing the film's lack of explaining plot elements, its hackneyed storyline and lackluster effort by the actors. Slant Magazine's Rob Humanick considered the film "uninspired" and implausible with an "aimlessly hyperactive construction and complete lack of substance" and "cobbled-together FX fakery". Christopher Tookey of the Daily Mail called the film "a turkey", stating that "the story seems to have been made up as the film went along, and not by anyone talented. The fight scenes and special effects are shamefully pathetic." The film is currently ranked at 14% on Rotten Tomatoes.
 * Cool as Ice (1991): Loosely based on Rebel Without a Cause, the film was rapper Vanilla Ice's acting debut. The $6 million film earned only $639,000 at the box office. Reviews of the film were universally negative. While reviewing the film, Richard Harrington of The Washington Post said, "Having established that he can't rap or dance, Vanilla Ice now adds acting to his resume -- call it the tri-imperfecta of pop." Blender ranked Vanilla Ice's performance in the film as the seventh worst performance by a musician turned actor. Rotten Tomatoes has it ranked at 8%. Director David Kellogg later disowned the film.
 * From Justin to Kelly (2003): American Idol finalists Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini starred in this movie musical. It stayed in theaters for only two weeks before being released to stores on DVD six weeks later. The film was rushed into production to capitalize on the popularity of the TV series American Idol. When asked about why she did the film, Clarkson told Time Magazine, "Two words: Contractually obligated!" Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 8%. As of June 2009, it is in the number 29 position in the IMDb bottom 100 with a score of 1.6 out of 10. The film was awarded a special Razzie (for Worst "Musical" of Our First 25 Years) in 2005; however, it was nominated for four Teen Choice Awards. Stephen Holden of The New York Times wrote, "for the panting masses of American Idol fans who imagine winning and going to live happily ever after in Lotusland, the message couldn't be clearer. You, too, might one day end up starring in the motion picture equivalent of Cheez Whiz."


 * The Hottie and the Nottie (2008): A romantic comedy starring Paris Hilton. The film was universally panned. Online film critic James Berardinelli described the film's comedy as "about as funny as the anal rape scene in The War Zone". Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers gave the film a half-star rating, saying that the half-star was because "it takes guts (or gross dim-wittedness) [for Hilton] to appear on screen again after House of Wax." Film critic Scott Feinberg reported that a colleague muttered, "Shoot me in the fucking face", during a Boston press screening of the film. The movie was featured on several worst of 2008 lists including those of The Times, New York Post, The Star-Ledger, The Tart, and Metromix . Rotten Tomatoes has the film ranked at 5%. Hilton was the big winner at the 29th Golden Raspberry Awards, taking home the Worst Actress and Worst Screen Couple awards, plus the Worst Supporting Actress award for Repo! The Genetic Opera.


 * Disaster Movie (2008): This was the fourth film made by former Scary Movie writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. The movie, just like their previous movies Date Movie, Epic Movie, and Meet the Spartans, spoofed contemporary blockbusters like Juno, Enchanted, Cloverfield, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Sex and the City. It stars Carmen Electra, Kim Kardashian, and Vanessa Minnillo. The film was near-universally panned by critics. Reviews of Disaster Movie were almost entirely negative. The film received a 2% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with 59 reviews. Metacritic gave the film a metascore of 15%, based on 12 reviews. As of February 5, 2009, the Internet Movie Database shows the movie ranked as #2 on the Bottom 100. Also, the film had a $20 million budget, and the film grossed $14 million in the US, bombing at the box office. Seltzer and Friedberg are also lambasted in a Chicago Sun-Times movie review as the two "most talentless hacks in Hollywood". The film later received six  Razzie award nominations. The same amount went to another one of their movies, Meet the Spartans.


 * The Love Guru (2008): Despite facing fierce competition from Disaster Movie and Meet the Spartans, this film - which starred Mike Myers, Jessica Alba and Justin Timberlake - managed to win three Razzies out of seven nominations at the 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. Harry Knowles of Aintitcoolnews.com was utterly disgusted with the film, considering it one of the worst films of at least the past several years, and going so far as to declare it a career-killing movie for Myers. To date, the film has grossed $40,854,735 worldwide - two-thirds of its $62 million budget. The Love Guru is ranked at 14% on Rotten Tomatoes.


 * Jaws: The Revenge (1987): The fourth film in the Jaws series ignores the events of the more successful and less (although, still heavily) panned Jaws 3-D, and uses a plot involving a Great White shark seemingly plotting to murder the surviving members of the Brody family after recurring character and youngest son Sean Brody is killed by a shark. The shark appears to have a psychic bond with matriarch Ellen Brody (Lorraine Gary), as it is able to track down family members, even following Ellen from Amity to the Bahamas. At the end, the shark is heard to roar repeatedly as it receives electric shocks (which is biologically impossible) before being struck by the broken bowsprit of a sailboat driven by Ellen and either being impaled or exploding depending on which ending is used. In the 'explosion' ending, marine biologist Jake (Mario Van Peebles) survives his seemingly-fatal attack by the shark minutes earlier, appearing on the water surface, bloodied but alive. Viewers can also notice the very obvious "ocean" shots in the final scenes are inter-cut between the real ocean and ones shot on a back lot water tank. In several scenes, you can clearly see the water splashing against a painted canvas backdrop. Michael Caine missed attending the Oscars that year to receive his first Best Supporting Actor award in order to keep the film on schedule. A studio test screening in Houston brought in an unprecedented low score of 3% "awful", which the studio promptly spun to The Hollywood Reporter as an amazing audience response of 97% (they didn't mention that 97% of the audience hated it). It has a 0% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. It was nominated for seven Razzie Awards including Worst Picture, winning one for Worst Visual Effects.


 * Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987): Following the mixed reaction to Superman III and the failure of Supergirl, producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind sold the Superman film franchise to Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus of Cannon Films. Christopher Reeve, who was unsure about doing a sequel, was enticed by Golan and Globus when they offered him support for his film Street Smart. Warner Bros. gave Golan and Globus $40 million to produce Superman IV, but they only used $17 million and allocated the rest to Cannon Films' other works. As a result, the film was marred by poor sound and visual effects, which were the common complaints by critics and moviegoers. Desson Howe of the Washington Post quoted: "More sluggish than a funeral barge, cheaper than a sale at Kmart, it's a nerd, it's a shame, it's Superman IV." The film is ranked at 11% on Rotten Tomatoes. Because of this film's reputation, all hopes for a new Superman film went to development hell until Superman Returns hit theaters in 2006.


 * Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): The fifth of Paramount's Star Trek franchise was considered the worst universally, including critics and fans worldwide. It has provoked strong controversy amongst Trekkies, many of whom consider it to be one of the worst Trek movies, if not the worst. Fans complained about the sub-standard special effects, and that too much of the humor was at the expense of the popular supporting characters, particularly Uhura and Scotty, who the film strongly hints are romantically involved. However, much of the humor is also at the expense of the main characters (including Kirk). David Ansen liked the film, recommending its lack of "cynicism" and its cast, who "know each other's moves so well they've found a shorthand that gets more laughs out of the lines than they deserve ... it ain't art, but it's peculiarly satisfying." The Golden Raspberry Awards declared Star Trek V as the Worst Picture of 1989, with Shatner also being named as both Worst Actor and Worst Director. It also earned nominations for DeForest Kelley as Worst Supporting Actor, Worst Screenplay and "Worst Picture of the 1980s".


 * Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)
 * This sequel to the cult hit Highlander reunites the two original protagonists in a dystopic future even though one of them had died in the original film. Moreover, it took the premise of the first film (that immortal humans throughout the ages fought each other for a prize until only one was left), and retcons that they were actually aliens from another planet exiled to earth by an evil dictator. This change caused several points of discontinuity with the first film and arguably changed the genre from fantasy to science fiction. It was so badly received by the fans that several alternate versions were eventually made of it including one by the director himself. A widely quoted comment, alluding to the catchphrase of the original movie was "There should have been only one". The subsequent films in the series completely ignore this film and follow directly from the first film.


 * Amityville Dollhouse (1996): This eighth installment in the Amityville Horror saga went direct to video. It was unconnected to the previous films, with no mention or reference to Amityville or any of the previous events in the series with the exception of the titular dollhouse, which resembles the house from the first 3 films. The word "Amityville" is never even used in the film. It is largely panned for its disjointed story, terrible special effects, ridiculous premise, and complete lack of scares. After this entry, no more Amityville films were made for nine years (until the loose Michael Bay - produced remake of the first film).
 * Wild Wild West (1999): The theatrical remake of the 1960s TV series was universally panned by critics. Rob Dreher of the New York Post cited it as "the movie that stole Will Smith's mojo!" Roger Ebert gave the film one star, calling it "All concept and no content!" Wild Wild West won five of its seven Razzie nominations - including Worst Picture, Worst Director and Worst Screenplay. Robert Conrad, who played James West in the original series, publicly denounced the film and even attended the 20th Golden Raspberry Awards to pick up three of the five awards the film won. Nine years later, in 2008, Will Smith apologized to Conrad for the poor fan and critical response to the film.


 * The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008) : A third part in the Mummy remake franchise, critical reaction has been mostly negative. As of now, it holds a 14% "Rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 160 reviews. Metacritic reported, based on 33 reviews, an average rating of 31 out of 100. This film did not become number one overall in the box office on opening weekend, unlike the first two of the remake franchise, claiming only $40.4 million, which allowed The Dark Knight to claim the top spot for the third week in a row with $42.6 million.


 * Punisher: War Zone (2008) : A reboot from the 2004 film, The Punisher, Punisher: War Zone received mainly negative reviews from film critics. On the film review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes, the film received an 26% approval rating, based on 96 reviews, with an average rating of 4.2/10 (6% approval rating from top critics and 72% from the RT community). Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times awarded the film two out of four stars, writing "You used to be able to depend on a bad film being poorly made. No longer. The Punisher: War Zone is one of the best-made bad movies I've seen." And that the film's only flaw is "that it's disgusting". On its opening weekend Punisher: War Zone grossed $4 million in 2,508 theaters in the United States, ranking at #8 at the box office. As of March 10, 2009 the film has grossed $8,050,977 domestically, making Punisher: War Zone the lowest grossing film based on a Marvel Comics property ever since Howard the Duck and Elektra. It has also grossed $2,038,396 internationally, bringing it to $10,089,373 worldwide.
 * Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997): Despite the success of the 1994 action blockbuster Speed, Keanu Reeves opted not to co-star with Sandra Bullock in this sequel (Jason Patric replaced Reeves as the sequel's main protagonist). The film was universally panned by critics worldwide. Mike Clark of USA Today considered it "a waterlogged sequel that'll soon be bottom-feeding with Beyond the Poseidon Adventure." Speed 2: Cruise Control is ranked at 4% on Rotten Tomatoes. The film was nominated for eight Razzie Awards that year and came home with the Worst Remake or Sequel Award.


 * Swept Away (2002): A remake of the 1974 Italian film of the same name, starring Madonna, and Adriano Giannini (son of Giancarlo Giannini, who played the same role in the original), and directed by Guy Ritchie, this film was widely panned by critics, and was a box-office bomb, only grossing $600,000 (compared to its $10,000,000 budget) in the US box office and being released straight-to-video in the UK. It has won five Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Actress, Worst Screen Couple, Worst Remake or Sequel and Worst Director. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 5%, with the consensus "Muddled and lacking the political context of the original, Swept Away offers further proof that Madonna can't act." Madonna has rarely acted since, her sole live action performance following this film being an uncredited cameo in the James Bond film Die Another Day (for which she also wrote the theme song).


 * Doogal (2006): A CGI movie version of the French/British TV series The Magic Roundabout that was made largely to cash in on British adults that had enjoyed the TV series as children. This is the American version, as it is known as Doogal in North America. Although the original French/British version (titled there as The Magic Roundabout), has a 5.4/10 score on IMDb, the American version has a 2.6/10 score on IMDb, got 7% from Rotten Tomatoes, received an F rating from Entertainment Weekly magazine, and is considered to be one of the worst animated films of all-time.

===Comedy sequels===
 * Caddyshack II (1988): The sequel to the 1980 comedy Caddyshack received two Razzies for Worst Original Song and Worst Supporting Actor (Dan Aykroyd). It holds a 0% from 8 critics at Rotten Tomatoes and a rating of 3.4 out of 10 on IMDb, as of January, 2009. The film was also listed on ESPN Page 2's "Worst Sports Movies Ever" at number 4, in contrast to the original Caddyshack being listed at number 8 on the "Top 20 [Best] Sports Movies of All-Time". Caddyshack II continues to appear on numerous "worst movies ever" and "worst sequels" lists including a number two spot on the Entertainment Weekly list of Worst Sequels Ever. It should be noted that promos for the original Caddyshack included a voice-over by Chevy Chase, saying, "Caddyshack!  Better than Caddyshack II!"


 * Son of the Mask (2005): The Razzie Award-Winning sequel to the 1994 comedy The Mask is featured on The Internet Movie Database's Bottom 100, currently ranking as #89. The story and plot have little to no connection with the original film, which starred Jim Carrey as its protagonist and was nominated for an Academy Award for best visual effects. This film, starring Jamie Kennedy is about an aspiring cartoonist who ends up possessing the mask and, through a strange night of events, becomes the reluctant father to a baby with supernatural abilities. It was universally panned by critics, who mainly criticized the movie for its insufferable performances, heavy reliance on CGI effects, plot inconsistencies, and overall poorly written script. Kennedy was nominated a Razzie for Worst Actor, as were Alan Cumming and Bob Hoskins for their supporting roles. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 5% rating, and on the Everyone's a Critic bottom 200, the film is currently ranked at #8. Professional critic Richard Roeper commented: "In the five years I've been co-hosting this show, this is the closest I've ever come to walking out halfway through the film, and now that I look back at the experience, I wish I had."


 * Daddy Day Camp (2007): This sequel to the Eddie Murphy movie Daddy Day Care had Cuba Gooding, Jr. recast in Murphy's role. Originally intended for straight-to-DVD release, it tested so well with preview audiences the studio decided to release it theatrically. So far, Daddy Day Camp holds 1% on Rotten Tomatoes with 70 user reviews and 18 on Metacritic with 18 reviews. It is also criticized for being a rip-off of the Bill Murray comedy, Meatballs. The film received a rare "F" from The A.V. Club, It holds 2.1/10 on IMDb, and holds the #46 place on the IMDb Bottom 100. On its first day of release, the film came in 9th place with a box office gross of $773,706. At the 2007 Razzie Awards, the film was nominated for Worst Picture, Worst Actor, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, and "won" the award for Worst Prequel or Sequel.

Batman also removed by anon
An anon just removed batman and robin, and wanted to discuss it.

Ikip (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a bunch of reasons for the removal about halfway up this page from the first time. None of them have been refuted yet. Also, there's a sub-page to this discussion for placing entries that were removed. I'll move most of the above entries over in about a month or so. 68.164.4.183 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed from Plan 9 from Outerspace
But reception from professional critics was generally positive: the review site Rotten Tomatoes reported that 62% of critics gave the film positive reviews.

FYI. Ikip (talk)

While the reason given isn't terribly good (not contemporary critics even though modern ones probably have better perspective on its history), it's worth noting that nearly all the positive reviews even flat out state it's a bad movie, but an enjoyable bad movie. 68.164.4.183 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Alone in the Dark
Is there a specific reason on why Alone in the Dark is not present here in the section "Poorly executed adaptations"? Considering "it's not alone, and it's not in the dark", IMHO it would be first choice among these movies. --Lo&#39;oris (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It used to be there, but from the look of the deleted entry in the list of films removed from this article page, there was no cite that a reliable source had called it the worst movie ever. The article has to be limited to the worst of the worst, merely being horribly bad doesn't cut it. Mark Grant (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this one added back to the list. It is on the Top 100 Worst lists at both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and is actually in the Top 10 of the Bottom 200 at Everyone's A Critic.  Surely that's enough references for there to be a consensus? Fortdj33 (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Disaster Movie
Why is Disaster Movie no longer on the list either? I'm I bit confused, because it's also not on the list of movies removed from the list. There was a brief entry on it before, and when that was removed, I added another, more detailed, entry about it with several references. But this has also been removed. I don't think there is any question as to whether or not it belongs on the list. It was once ranked #1 on the Internet Movie Database bottom 100 list, and it's score is still barely any higher than the movie currently holding that position, it was ranked as the worst movie of 2008 by The Times newspaper, and several movies recieved a bit better by critics are already on the list. Friedberg and Seltzer's movies have featured lousy attempts at comedy and offensive gags in ways that no other movie has. They definitely stand out among the worst attempts at filmmaking. (Not to mention that Disaster Movie was a bit of a box office disspointment.) 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.120.73 (talk) (UTC)


 * Disaster Movie is merely awful. It is not among the WORST EVER. It is a badly made piece of exploitative dreck made by bumbling morons with a cell phone camera and a single Amex card.  Then again so was Star Wars: Phantom Menace.  Nobody points to Disaster Movie and says "What a piece of crap" because it was designed and expected to be a piece of crap.  Dkendr (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed additions
A couple movies that I think need to be returned to the list are The Hottie and the Nottie (2008) and Son of the Mask (2005). Both movies are currently on the Bottom 100 at the IMDB, both are on the Rotten Tomatoes list of the Top 100 worst reviewed movies of the last 10 years, and both have been included in Top 10 lists of the all-time worst movies (The Hottie and the Nottie on Metacritic, and Son of the Mask on Everyone's a Critic.com). Additional references to being one of the worst can be found on the articles for both of these movies. I've spent some time on this article, cleaning up the references to all of the above sources, but if no one objects I will plan on adding these to the Star Vehicles and Sequels sections respectively. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Objection. Those movies merely are awful, but nowhere near among the worst ever.  The list is already clogged with movies that are just really, really bad, and not the very worst ever.  In their respective genres: Moron T&A exploitation: Hottie/Nottie was still better than Pia Zadora in Butterfly.  Stupid sequels: Son of the Mask was still better than The Crow: City of Angels.  Dkendr (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, saying that these movies don't belong, because you liked them better than other movies, is just one person's personal opinion, which is not what this article is about. There are movies that have been added to this list that I personally enjoyed, but I haven't removed them because they are generally regarded as some of the worst movies ever made, by sources much more credible than me. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Son of the Mask was already removed once, and I'm removing it again. It is NOT one of the worst movies ever, it is just very, very bad.  It did not bankrupt a studio.  It did not end a career.  Nobody got sued.  Nobody points to it as a definitive piece of garbage.  It is pedestrian, stupid and pointless.  The worst movies ever are far from pedestrian, much deeper than stupid, and actually accomplish something with how bad they are.   The world would be no different if Son of the Mask had never been released.  Now, can you tell me if the world would be different if Plan 9 had never been released? Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect -- this is the list of the films considered the worst movies ever. Son of the Mask does not rate as one of the worst ever.  Simply being a piece of crap does not make you the worst ever.  The list is getting polluted with every single winner of a Golden Raspberry award, which even they will tell you is not emblematic of being the worst EVER, just the worst of a given YEAR.  It doesn't matter where they're rated on metacritic or rotten tomatoes, because those sites are skewed only to movies released or re-released contemporaneously.  Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dkendr, with all due respect, you are apparently the one who "doesn't get it". The intro of this very article states that the movies on this list should be "cited by a combination of reputable sources" and examples of those sources are "Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, Rotten Tomatoes, the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list, and the Golden Raspberry Awards." Son of the Mask is cited by THREE of those sources as being one of the worst movies ever made, plus I included additional sources from 2 noted film critics, AND a fourth reference used by numerous other films in this article. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but this list is not about someone's personal opinion.  It is about films notable for being the worst, and everything I have posted can be backed up with suitable references. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not interested in continuing the flamewar beyond this: You proposed re-add after the item was deleted from the list. The only vote which came in went against you.  You re-added anyway.  That's not playing quite by the Wikipedia rules, now is it? Dkendr (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in having an edit war either. I re-established Son of the Mask on the list, because I was able to provide new references as to why it belongs there. I followed the Wikipedia rules, by posting here first, to see if anyone had any documented reason for me not to add it. The only opposition, was your personal opinion that "Son of the Mask was still better than The Crow: City of Angels"  With no references to back up your statement, and no opposition from anyone else, I went ahead and added a movie that meets the same criteria as Disaster Movie, From Justin to Kelly, Glitter and House of the Dead. My goal is to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'm not so sure that it does meet that criteria, as Disaster Movie has ranked lower on every single list in which they both have been included.130.49.131.173 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many movies that aren't the worst ever
This list is starting to become a collection of simply bad movies, instead of being the worst films ever. For example, I Know Who Killed Me is epically bad, but it's still better than Myra Breckinridge or Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Troll 2 was straight-to-video; if it never was released cinematically, it shouldn't be on this list. Monster A Go-Go appears to be on the list solely because the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew hated it so much. Howard the Duck was bad, but still better than Blue City and Casual Sex?, also from 1986. Alone in the Dark is awful but not one of the worst ever. Kazaam was no worse than expected and certainly not one of the worst ever. Glitter doesn't belong in the Crossover category (which should be abolished altogether) as it was a star vehicle for Mariah Carey. Disaster Movie doesn't count because it's a bad spoof made by bad spoofers and is there simply because the bad spoofers are collectively so bad that the worst element of their oeuvre is included to represent the whole thing. Showgirls is basically a large-scale T&A exploitation flick and should be judged as such (deserves to be on list); Striptease doesn't belong on the list, largely because it a) was better than Showgirls; b) made a lot of money, thereby proving only that Demi Moore naked is a bigger draw than Elizabeth Berkley naked; and c) Striptease was still better than GI Jane. Swept Away was really bad, but it was still better than Shanghai Surprise which in turn was better than Dick Tracy.  The From Justin To Kelly fiasco doesn't deserve to be on the list either, since as movies starring two mismatched, repellant personalities go, it's still better than King Ralph and as musicals go it's still better than Can't Stop The Music.

I nominate the following be dropped from the list, as described above:
 * I Know Who Killed Me
 * Troll 2
 * Monster A Go-Go
 * Howard The Duck
 * Alone in the Dark
 * Kazaam
 * Disaster Movie
 * Striptease
 * From Justin To Kelly
 * Swept Away
 * Remove the Bad Crossover category, drop Kazaam from list and move Glitter to the Star Vehicles section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the above movies are referenced as to why they belong on this list. Saying that one movie is better than another is a matter of personal opinion, and this list is supposed to be about the movies that have been determined by a CONSENSUS to be the worst of the worst. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those references are insufficient to mark as "the worst ever." They are merely very bad.  You cannot have multiple "worst ever" and simply because two amalgamator sites mark something as "stinks" does not make them WORST EVER.  Obviously you are not getting the concept. Mystery Science Theater's declamation, for example, does not make a movie bad, and if you look, every single movie I cited as being "better than" is in fact rated better and box-office outperformed than the movie being compared.  If you plan on making Rotten Tomatoes the official denouncer of bad movies, then perhaps this page should simply be redirected over there. Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you can state those references as "insufficient", when they are the basis for what this article is all about. If you look at the External links section of this article, the first 6 websites are cited by MULTIPLE movies as being one of the worst movies ever made, and ALL of the films you mention above are cited by more than just Rotten Tomatoes. In most cases, such as Alone in the Dark, From Justin To Kelly and Disaster Movie, they are cited by 3 or more of those sources, in addition to Rotten Tomatoes!  I have gone to great lengths to make sure this page is properly referenced, and I do not add or delete material based on my personal opinion. If you disagree, then apparently you are not "getting the concept" of what Wikipedia is all about. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, those movies are "worst of the last 10 years," "worst reviewed," etc. They are not THE WORST EVER.  It's really, really simple. Dkendr (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about all of them, but I think it's pretty well-established that Justin to Kelly richly deserves its place on the list. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are sources that make Disaster Movie a contender for the title "worst movie ever" (rather than "merely awful"). It's rating as the worst movie of 2008 by The Times is one example. (If it's the worst movie of 2008, shouldn't it be comparable to the worst of other years?) As is the fact that it was once #1 on the Internet Movie Database bottom 100 list. (Movies that were never #1 over there have a secure spot over here in this article.) 71.162.2.126 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Myra Breckinridge and Rex Reed
Reed went on the talk shows and describe how bad it was, while it was still in production. I doubt there have been many movies where that happened. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst → List of films notable for negative reception — The current title of this article uses weasel worlds; who "considers" them to be the worst? This proposed title would work much better. --ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for removal of weasel words. The proposed title is neutral. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Perhaps "negative critical reception"? Tevildo (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Critical reception" isn't necessarily the type of reception recieved. What matters is that it's negative overall.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

INTRIGUE B LUE (talk|contribs) 03:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The grammar of the existing title seems somewhat awkward as well. —
 * Oppose I think that this article has move protection on it, because it has already been moved a couple times. This page could possibly be better served, by deciding on a definitive criteria for inclusion. Lots of films have "negative reception", this page should be reserved for the "worst" of them, according to a combination of critics, box office, and review sites such as IMDb, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I consider the present title to be more objective. If some professional critic, or journal, or film dictionary claims that some film is "the worst (in the history of cinema/in its genre/etc.)", this is an unquestionable fact. On the contrary, with the new title we should find a source that not only says that the film is bad, but also that it is notable for being considered bad. Goochelaar  (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose That would broaden the concept to include every film ever made that has less than a 3-star rating by Leonard Maltin, as an example. And that would be thousands. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is a narrower criterion by several orders of magnitude, and an objective one. There's nothing "weasel" about "the worst" either, compared to "negative reception". Shreevatsa (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Support- That is a better name for the article. Golem866 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Golem866

New Sources
I know that there has been criticism of the objectivity of this page, but most of the movies on this list have been added by a consensus, as being one of the worst movies ever made. However, there are several other lists online, which can be used as references here. The more lists that a movie appears on, as one of the worst movies ever, the more evidence there is for it to be listed here as well.

Two sources that I think should have more consideration, are the DVD The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, and the 100 Worst Movies list at digitaldreamdoor.com. The first one now has it's own page on Wikipedia, and has already been mentioned by a few of the B-movies on this list. The other has already been added to the External links of this article. Taken into consideration, there are movies on both of these lists that are also listed as one of the worst by IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Everyone's a Critic. I propose that if a movie meets more than one criteria for being the worst (e.g. it appears on more than one of these lists, PLUS it won Razzies and/or had bad reviews and/or poor box office), then it can be safely added to this article with the proper references. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of these videos have been commented on by professional film critics. Reviews on Amazon and IMDb criticize 50 Worst Movies Ever Made as being poorly-produced and state that the film does not adequately describe the films it criticizes, instead relying heavily on clips from the films, or their trailers, in instances where clearances for the films would be expensive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I realize that those sources are equivalent to just adding a couple more opinions to the list, I just thought that I would mention them here, since they had already been mentioned in the main article. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)