Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment

What's the Worst Movie You've Ever Seen? 1675

Posted by Cliff
from the trash-of-the-box-office dept.
prostoalex asks: "A recent Ask Yahoo! article talks about the worst movies ever made and points out this IMDB list of the bottom rankings. The Ask Yahoo! article names Manos The Hands of Fate the worst one, but apparently the IMDB table changed since then to include The Wild World of Batwoman at the top of the list. What would you consider the worst movie ever made? Perhaps anything listed here would also make the list?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's the Worst Movie You've Ever Seen?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @01:52PM (#9968101)
    The very worst movie of all time
  • BFE (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ignipotentis (461249) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @01:55PM (#9968126)
    This review [jabootu.com] shoud just about cover it. Battlefield Earth is the "worst movie ever."
  • Highlander 2 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jumpingfred (244629) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @01:59PM (#9968167)
    Highlander 2 should be there it was exceptionally bad.
  • Re:It must be said (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnarled (411192) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:00PM (#9968185) Homepage
    Are you implying that you actually saw Gigli???
  • Re:Shrek (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Abcd1234 (188840) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:02PM (#9968209) Homepage
    Wow. You're pretty sheltered if that's your idea of a bad movie. Try out the recent Dungeons and Dragons movie (circa 2000 or so, IIRC) and then get back to us.
  • by KrazyNomad (805494) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:02PM (#9968214)
    or every other movie made by Paul W. S Anderson.
  • Signs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarkPNeyer (729607) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:03PM (#9968231)

    I'm sorry, but M Night Shyamalan's movies are full of just absurd plot holes. You mean to tell me that you've got a race of creatures that are capable of traveling through space, but they can't figure out how to break through a door? That those same aliens apparently lack any sort of telescopic device that would show them the Earth being covered in water ? How the hell do you miss that ? That a life form that reacts violently with water is cabale of surviving in an oxygen based atmosphere that is heavily saturated with water vapor? That when faced with an army of invading aliens, you would choose to lock yourself in your basement rather than heading towards a military base?

    Even if you just look at the movie for its message, it's still retarded. You're supposed to come out of that thing thinking like 'oh there was someone looking out for them all along' - of course there was someone looking out for them -it's a movie! It wasn't 'god' that killed Gibson's wife and then set all that stuff up so that the aliens would die - it was M. Night Shyamalan, who wrote the script for the film. Of course it all worked out just right. Gah!
  • Re:Moulin Rouge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Abcd1234 (188840) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:04PM (#9968242) Homepage
    Okay, dude, you're missing the point! There are movies that are bad because they don't appeal to your taste... after all, there are those who quite enjoyed Moulin Rouge (and myself didn't mind it). OTOH, this topic is concerned with those very special movies out there that really are truly, universally, absolutely horrible.
  • Batman & Robin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xpilot (117961) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:06PM (#9968259) Homepage
    Batman & Robin [imdb.com] has to be the absolute worst movie ever. Sure there are similarly campy, idiotic movies out there, but the amount of money wasted in making this horrible movie makes it a bigger insult.

    Tim Burton's Batman movies were cool. Joel Schumacher just totally ruined the franchise. When I saw Batman whip out his "Bat Credit Card" in the middle of some crazy rave party with dancing gorillas, that was the moment when it was clear that Batman had clearly jumped the shark.

  • Re:Eyes Wide Shut (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:06PM (#9968261)
    Agreed. I was about to post this and found that someone else had a like mind.

    Everything about the movie was terrible, but what's worse is the artsy crowds who pretend to like it for some deeper meaning and the types who act like you're a prude if you don't embrace the sexually adventurous and "open" nature of of the film.

    I mean - what the fuck? It's a shitty movie. Period. Bad acting, bad plot, half-assed film score and just duller than hell. Three's nothing sexy or sexually revolutionary about it. I couldn't help but wonder how much of the movie was changed after Kubrick died.

    And for people who claim that if you don't like the movie, you're just too narrow-minded and simple-minded to appreciate fine art and abstract films, let it be known that I absolutely LOVE Lynch and films like Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway. But they're in a category of their own compared to this piece of shit film.

    I'm sure I've seen worse films than Eyes Wide Shut - but what makes it the worst is that, unlikely many other films, it was made by a master and was supposed to be some great pinnical of cinema. It had a higher pedestal to fall from than other bad movies. It started out higher than they did and plummetted as low or lower than any of them.

    Oh - and as for the film score, one of the main musical themes was actually a famous piece of music played backwards. I wish I could recall what the original was.
  • Worst movie ever (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TechniMyoko (670009) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:06PM (#9968263) Homepage
    For the longest time on IMDB (and still in my mind) You got served
  • Re:That's easy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768NO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:09PM (#9968304) Journal
    yeah but you get angalina's tits in that
  • by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:15PM (#9968387)
    That "special" (as in Special Ed, I guess) should have tipped me off as to what Lucas had in mind with the prequels.

    I'd nominate those, but in reality, there are plenty of movies that are worse, though none that were hyped as much.

    What kills me is how the wonder and magic of the movies I loved is gone. And it's not that I don't crave such experiences still (a good Disney movie like Aladdin or a Looney tunes cartoon still enthralls me), it's just that those things are lacking completely from the prequels.
  • Re:Shrek (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKnightCowboy (608632) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:16PM (#9968400)
    Mod parent down as troll.

    Why mod anyone down in a topic about asking what you think is the worst movie you've ever seen? So, if someone said Star Wars Episode 2 would you mod them down as a troll too? Because I'll say that.. Attack of the Clones sucked donkey balls. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. Man, that's why I like Fark better.. no idiotic moderation system. If you post something bad enough then it just gets deleted, but here the moderators will basically delete your posts (mod them below 1) because they don't agree with your opinion. That's pretty fucked up.

  • So many choices! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by payndz (589033) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:18PM (#9968430)
    Being a former film critic, I've seen a *lot* of bad films - sometimes even seeking them out on purpose just so that I can gain a new appreciation for the rare actual *good* films, as opposed to merely okay, that I saw.

    Anyway, here's a (partial) list of some of the horrors I've witnessed, and these don't even include anything from MST3K! (Although if it were ever to come back, they would be eminently suitable for MSTing...)

    The Cat In The Hat
    Torque
    Fire Down Below (Harry Dean Stanton, no! What *were* you thinking?)
    Batman & Robin (obvious, I know)
    Double Team
    Evilspeak
    Saturn 3
    Practical Magic
    Vampire In Brooklyn
    Wing Commander
    Gigli
    Highlander 2
    Rollerball (the remake - Jesus, this was from the man who made Die Hard and Predator! What the fuck has he been smoking for the past 15 years?)
    Jaws: The Revenge
    The Master Of Disguise
    Ballistic: Ecks Vs Sever
    Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle

    Pearl Harbor
    Ugh. Just thinking of the films on that list makes me want to go and watch North By Northwest or Aliens or The Shining, just to cleanse my brain!

  • That depends (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Temsi (452609) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:29PM (#9968528) Journal
    Are you talking about worst "bad" movie or worst "good" movie, because there are two categories here.

    The "bad" category is simply that, bad. It's the movies everyone loves to hate, such as Plan 9 From Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, The Postman, Glen or Glenda, Glitter, Gigli etc.

    The "good" category is more complicated, but it's also a lot more fun (or more infuriating). It's the movies that were overhyped. Movies that may have won awards or broken box office records. Still, watching them is practically unbearable to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
    My list would of course have to include Armageddon, Pearl Harbor (or just every Michael Bay film), Men In Black 2, Godzilla and that overcooked turkey of last year: Cold Mountain.

    So, if I have to pick one from each,
    Battlefield Earth and Cold Mountain.

    BE was awful in every way, and nobody made any excuses for it (well, Travolta did, but what do you expect).
    CM was horrifyingly awful and yet Miramax spent millions buying Renee Zellweger an Oscar (which in reality had more to do with her previous two non-winning nominiations than it did Cold Mountain). It was overdirected, overwritten, overacted (really badly by some), overproduced and just over-everything...

    In any case... those are my choices.
  • Re:Shrek (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xerph (229015) * <andrewmhunt@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:39PM (#9968630) Homepage
    Because Shrek is generally accepted as a funny, quality movie packed into a tight 90 minute package. If you don't like the movie, it's a matter of poor taste, not poor production.

    That's not the point though. This particular post is asking for people's opinions, and poor taste or not, his opinion is just as valid as yours is. You can't ask for somebody's opinion and then mod them down for giving it simply because you don't agree with it.
  • by TiMac (621390) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:41PM (#9968655)
    Without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen.
  • Re:Shrek (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dont_think_twice (731805) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:43PM (#9968671) Homepage
    Why mod anyone down for that comment?

    Because Shrek is generally accepted as a funny, quality movie packed into a tight 90 minute package. If you don't like the movie, it's a matter of poor taste, not poor production.


    Let me get this straight. If someone says something that contradicts the general consensus, then they must be a troll?

    I know it is hard to imagine, but there are actually people out there who think for themselves instead of just repeating the party line.

    He could be a troll, but the only way to tell would be to actually know what he thinks of Shrek, something which is basically impossible.
  • Re:MST3K Anything (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nicnak (727633) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:44PM (#9968688)
    The MST movies are consistanly among the worst. Including gems such as

    Manos: the hands of fate. (Master will be angry)
    Hobgoblins (Never store pupets in the film vault)
    The wild world of Batwoman (interesting subplot about a horseshooe)
    Future War (it's not in the future and there is no war but I'm not complaining)
    Puma man (Pumas don't seem to fly, just sort of fall out of buildings)
    Giant Spider invasion (alien spiders are incased inside of dimond geods)
    Eegah (Ahhhhh, Arch hall Jr. "My dune buggy's tires are filled with water)

    The list just gos on and on. But of all their movies I do have to agree that the worst was Night Train to Mundo Fine, AKA Red zone cuba. Dialog such as "Water, sick man, ..., water, sick man, ..." could only be created by the genius of Coleman Francis. I commend you for creating the worst movie ever.
  • Re:Eyes Wide Shut (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrHanky (141717) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:48PM (#9968723) Homepage Journal
    I happen to be in one of those artsy crowds that like the film, but I didn't like it for its 'deeper meaning'. I liked it for its actual qualities: The cinematic expression and, well, the nudity. It's not Kubrik's best film, but it's also far from being the worst film ever. Try Ecks vs Sever for a crappy film with a budget, or Makaroni Blues [imdb.com] for a film made without much money or talent. The worst films aren't well known, not even well known for being bad. Even Plan 9 From Outer Space has its qualities.
  • Re:It IS Manos (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:56PM (#9968789) Homepage Journal
    Given what's coming out of Hollywood these days, it's almost all financed by fertilizer salesmen.
  • Re:That's easy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:58PM (#9968808)
    I don't know why but I love Hackers. I think we all know that it doesn't have anything remotely resembling real hacking in it, but that's not the point. To me it's a film that piles on the extra cheese and makes fun of itself at the same time.

    The cast isn't bad at all - Johnny Lee Miller pulls off an American accent quite competently and Jolie makes for good eye candy. Matthew Lilard, Jesse Bradford and Renoly Santiago all put in adequate performances too.

    Hackers is a mindless nineties throwback with some great lines thrown in. It has one of the best soundtracks I've heard to date: two great tracks from Prodigy (One Love and Voodoo People), the beautiful Halcyon & On & On from Orbital, that nineties classic Connected from Stereo MCs and some Urban Dance Squad thrown in too.

    "Check it out it's got a 28.8 bps modem!"
  • some good posts (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BlackShirt (690851) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:58PM (#9968811) Journal
    Many "worst movies of all time" lists tend to not include the absolute worst ones ever made. Many obscure poorly done films are overlooked, and instead these lists will only put in the bad films that will be remembered. In fact, we could sum most of these lists up to be really lists of 3 things: 1) most disappointing hyped-up films, 2) most memorable bad films, and 3) worst recent films.
    http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117776&op= Reply&threshold=2&commentsort=0&tid=186&mode=neste d&pid=9968333 [slashdot.org]

    And to all of you. Wouldnt it be nice to include title of the movie in the post near link to IMDB. Half of post here are not easy to read as they dont include the title of the movie in post.
  • Re:Eyes Wide Shut (Score:2, Insightful)

    by binary paladin (684759) <binarypaladin@gm ... m minus caffeine> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:59PM (#9968817)
    Yeah, seriously... WTF was the point of that movie? I was repairing my dad's computer one night. His HD was dying and I was doing a Ghost of it when that movie came on.

    I kept hoping the movie eventually came to some sort of resolution or something or explained the point or... SOMETHING! Nope. Nothing. Mind you the nudity makes it a better movie than the second Mortal Kombat movie, but not by much. (All it would have taken is the use of the word "Animality" in Eyes Wide Shut to make it worse.)
  • by ajs (35943) <ajs@[ ].com ['ajs' in gap]> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:59PM (#9968819) Homepage Journal
    You list Coneheads and Blues Brothers 2000.... while neither of those captured the box office, both had positive qualities. Sit through Manos and tell me that the cinematography in Coneheads was worse. Tell me the costuming in BB2000 was worse. Tell me that either movie had worse acting (relative to each other, not to the skits and/or movies).

    Personally, I liked Coneheads, but just objectively there are FAR worse movies out there. BB2000 I have only seen trailers for, but the trailers alone run circles around Monster-A-Go-Go or Plan 9.

    When you have a hundred years of movies to draw on, picking recent box office dissapointments is likely to yield useless results on this particular list. Same goes for good movies. You might feel really good about AVP (just an example) and think it's the best thing ever, but looking back 10 years from now, you'll have to admit that it had nothing on dozens of movies from all the way back to the beginning of movie making.
  • Re:MST3K Anything (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DeltaHat (645840) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:04PM (#9968865) Homepage
    You forgot 'Hercules Against the Moon Men' with its fifteen minute non-sequential sandstorm scene. One of the few movies that came close to breaking the minds of the SOL crew. Deep hurting! Deep hurting!
  • Re:Shrek (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xerph (229015) * <andrewmhunt@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:05PM (#9968882) Homepage
    In this specific case I'd tend to agree with the claim that it was a troll, but not for the same reason.

    What caught my eye was the comment that the animation looked like a beta version of A Toy Story, and unless he was viewing a test-copy of the rendering for the movie, that statement is simply untrue and an obvious clue to the intent of the poster.

    The point I wanted to make was that without evidence like that, there's no real way to claim for sure that he was trying to be an ass, even if the movie is widely accepted as "good", perhaps relevant experiences in one's own life would lead them to strongly dislike it. Who knows.
  • Re:Moulin Rouge (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kynde (324134) <kynde@noSPaM.iki.fi> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:10PM (#9968917)
    I believe Moulin rouge is one of those very movies.

    You still don't get it. Here's another clue-by-4. The point is to find a movie that the most of the people hate the most. Not the movie _you_ dislike the most.

    Regardless of how much you hate Moulin Rouge you must have noticed that quite a few people, myself not included however, actually did like it, enough for it to never qualify as the worst movie ever.

    Moreover, I'm dead certain it wasn't the worst movie you've seen, unless you seen only a few dozen movies. It wasn't for me eiher, there was absolutely nothing for me. But hell, I'm first to admit that there are far more agonizing movies out there that are virtually meant for no one.
  • by E_elven (600520) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:10PM (#9968918) Journal
    Liking a movie doesn't mean that one identifies with the characters of the movie. Happiness is a very, very good movie about very, very bad things.
  • Re:Moulin Rouge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hazem (472289) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:15PM (#9968950) Journal
    Hey, I liked Moulin Rouge... but I also liked Star Trek Insurrection... well, parts of it.

    I think Moulin Rouge appeals to a limited set of people. I actually enjoyed the vivid overload of colors and wished I had seen that in the theatre. The story ... well, is a typical Bohemian story of impossible love ending badly. Sure, it was cheesy at times, but overall I felt is was welldone. I found the use of pop music interesting - particularly the Tango Roxanne. That was probably one of songs that was truly improved by the movie over the original (and I like the Police).

    Now a *bad* movie would be any of the Death Stalker movies - particularly the one with Queen Kong.
  • by hazem (472289) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:17PM (#9968975) Journal
    here was actually more depth to it than commonly perceived

    Yeah, like co-ed showers!
  • Re:Moulin Rouge (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dorothy 86 (677356) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:19PM (#9968991) Homepage
    only on /. would torvalds be in the ranks with men such as einstein and tesla
  • Re:MST3K Anything (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jlleblanc (582587) <contact@NosPAM.jlleblanc.com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:23PM (#9969013) Homepage
    Add "The Final Sacrifice." Watch a 15 year old overthrow a Canadian cult and consequently revive an ancient civilization.

    -Joe
  • Re:'Event Horizon' (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:27PM (#9969034) Homepage Journal
    Ok, no.

    This is not even close to being the worst movie of all time, this is a movie you didn't like and you feel the need to troll on the many people who did like it.
    I was one of them, it was a haunted house...in space. It was something to do for 2 hours.

    Now, if you want bad, go rent Zardoz.
    THAT, my friend, is a bad movie. THOSE are bad special effects. THAT is a cheesy, incosistent plot.
    Its redeeming qualities (to be fair): Boobies, and Sean Connery in full shaggy chest glory. + its hilariously bad.

    Mild spoiler: It features a giant flying rock head that vomits guns on barbarians. I am not making this up. Giant flying head made of stone, guns are projected from its mouth...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:32PM (#9969069)
    Ugh. Please stop insulting Douglas Adams.
  • Re:Eyes Wide Shut (Score:5, Insightful)

    by localman (111171) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:03PM (#9969270) Homepage
    If you didn't like the movie, fine. All I can say is that it cast a spell over me (and my wife). Somehow the movie felt like watching a dream. I don't know exactly why that was, but it totally sucked me in. Since I can't explain it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, but it's an experience I'm very glad I was open to and had the chance to experience.

    I guess you can label me a moron, or a art-house junkie. If we met and had a chat I doubt you'd continue to label me as such. But I just liked the way it made me feel.

    Oh, I had been married for many years when I saw it. And several people I know who did like it were older, or were experienced in traditional long-term relationships. I sometimes wonder if it just plays better to people who are older? There are certainly exceptions to that, but it seems to be correlated.

    Hopefully it's crime wasn't being aimed at an older crowd. There's nothing wrong with that, as there isn't anything wrong with the normal set of films that play only to the young.

    Anyways, just some non-flame thoughts from someone who feels almost the exact opposite way about the film as you.

    Cheers.
  • by juan_is_working (772314) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:15PM (#9969369)
    House of the Dead must be the worst movie I have ever seen. For starters, there's the "Rave of the Century" which has 15 people attending. I swear I've been to birthday parties for 13 year olds that were more happening. Next the zombies are friggin acrobats that can jump high into the air, ignore the trampolines on screen. The constant video game screens from the actual game are annoying. And the showdown where everyone gets a their own "bullet time" showcase to kick ass for 2 minutes was never cool. I used to think Street Fighter the movie was the worst movier ever! But House of the Dead takes the cake. They don't even get to the House until the end of the movie. Should have been called Island of the Lame Ass Shitty Monsers.
  • by sp0rk173 (609022) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:16PM (#9969371)
    Here's my little theory on MST3K: It takes the true creative genius of hollywood - the fabled B movie - and massages it in a way that allows movie snobs, who would generally turn their nose up at the idea of possesed bulldosers attacking the general public, to enjoy them in their intended glory. What glory is that, you ask? These movies were MADE to be made fun of. They weren't made to be "good" in the classic hollywood sense. For example - go rent a movie called Sorrority Babes in the Slimeball Blow-a-rama. When you see that movie, you will understand what cinnematic zen really is.
  • Michael Moore (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rock_climbing_guy (630276) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:39PM (#9969546) Journal
    I guess I must be the first one on slashdot to say that Michael Moore's UnFahrenheit 9/11 is a fetid pile of feces. It's two hours of selective reporting and ambush journalism at best, a collection of lies at worst.

    OK, I was going to post this anonymously, but I changed my mind. /me dons a flame-retardant suit.

  • by Tassach (137772) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:40PM (#9969561)
    Some movies are so bad they're good in their own way. Showgirls is enjoyably awful, as was the classic sexploitation film The Perils of Gwendoline in the Land of Yik-Yak, or cult classics like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Toxic Avenger. The key to making somthing that's enjoyably cheesy, to me, seems to be to not take yourself seriously, but to not make a joke of yourself either. Whether through design or accident, some "bad" films manage to pull of this balancing act.

    A bad movie which tries to take itself seriously, like Highlander II is unwatchable, as is a bad movie which tries too hard to make fun of itself like Leanord, Part 6.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:41PM (#9969566)
    The fight that Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise had was the way actual couples fight. Not screaming and hitting, but just little comments that to your heart. When Nicole Kidman takes a hit on the doobie, and starts admitting that the only reason she married Cruise was because he was the safe choice, its so *REAL* that it felt like an actual fight.

    I've watched that movied 10 times, and the problem with it is the beginning is brilliant. Absolutely, freaking great. But its clear that around the point where he heads to the "ceremony" that's where he died and someone else takes over.

    But up until that point, Man. I hated the movie the first time I watched it, but I kept watching it, and now I put it in my all-time greatest list of movies.

    I can see, though, if you only watched it once, why you'd hate it.
  • by vakuona (788200) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:56PM (#9969667)
    I think Titanic is one of those "its now fashionable to hate it" movies. Seriously, who was watching it when it made 1.8 billion dollars at the box office. I watched it, I liked it. I have actually hearc criticism from people who haven't watched it. Damn.
  • Re:Eyes Wide Shut (Score:2, Insightful)

    by konaforever (744753) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @05:30PM (#9969883)
    How can any movie with Nicole Kidman naked throughout and saying "let's f*ck" at the end be the worst movie?

    Just for that, I'd put it in my top 10.
  • Insult to Nintendo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jatic (776089) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @05:43PM (#9969969)
    Super Mario Bros. The Movie. Enough said.
  • Garfield the Movie (Score:2, Insightful)

    by plusser (685253) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @05:59PM (#9970080)
    Garfield The Movie gets my vote for the worst movie of the year, and probably the worst I've ever seen. There is nothing in the movie that couldn't have been done in thirty a second commercial. Bill Murray must be in for a raspberry for his singing alone.

    The only film on the imdb top 100 I have seen is Highlander II, and that is the second worst movie I have seen (Highlander being one of my all-time favourites).

    The big tip I have been given, if the trial tells the whole story, then the film is BAD.
  • Re:Shrek (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Soul-Burn666 (574119) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:03PM (#9970110) Journal
    Shrek is an OGRE, not a troll.
  • by Soul-Burn666 (574119) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:16PM (#9970200) Journal
    in which a movie is so bad that it actually becomes enjoyable?

    I've seen not a few movies that were so seriously flawed in plot and connection between scenes that it actually became really fun to watch.

    The best example I can think of is "Starship Troopers". Haven't read the book, but the movie is so full of plot holes and stupid scenes. It was so stupid it actually made me laugh for hours, making it really fun for me to watch. It was full of fanservice and stupid scenes showing aliens kicking the life out of the stupid humans. It showed all the stereotypes of the genre, making it an excellent parody imho.

    Sure, some movies are simply bad and boring or simply not bad enough to be able to enjoy as a parody, but many movies are simply dumb yet enjoyable, like various kungfu movies.

    Feel free to comment about such movies you've encountered.
  • Re:Shrek (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:25PM (#9970264)
    No, the point is this:

    There is a difference between posting an unpopular opinion and posting flamebait.

    If he actually held this opinion, it would be okay.

    However, it is highly unlikely that he or anyone else would find Shrek so horrible that he can't find anything worthwhile in it, and considers it a worse movie than say Ice Pirates, or Dreamcatcher or any of the other hundreds named here.

    So, while it may be your opinion that his opinion is an honest one, some of us think that he wasn't sharing his opinion at all, but merely acting as a troll and posting flamebait. Last I checked it was okay to mod that down.
  • Re:Donnie Darko (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) <fuzzybadNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:54PM (#9970406)
    Wow, flamebait mod for expressing my opinion in a freaking /. poll. Good job, mods.
  • by randyest (589159) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @07:23PM (#9970617) Homepage
    Wow, proposing rape for celebrities to stop them from making "slutty and trashy movies" achieves +1 Insightful on slashdot.

    That's really pathetic.
  • by thephotoman (791574) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:34PM (#9971033) Journal
    Swordfish is redeemed by Hallie Berry's boobs.
  • Re:Signs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dprovine (140134) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:53PM (#9971136)

    Signs would have been 10 times better if they had never answered the question "Were there really any aliens?" That would have been hard to pull off, because then the "Swing away" line wouldn't have gone anywhere, but maybe that could have been done.

    The movie wasn't about the aliens. The signs of the title had nothing to do with crop circles. The movie is about "when something good happens, do you see it as a sign, or do you see it as a coincidence?"

    Mel Gibson begins the movie believing in coincidences, and finally decides that the things which happened can't be a coincidence. It would have been better if someone else had disagreed with him, saying it proved nothing, but maybe the idea was that the audience would be the skeptics.

    The question How unlikely and important does it have to be before you don't believe it is a coincidence? is an interesting question, and worth a movie. It's worth a better movie, but it is worth a movie.

    I give Signs points for that good idea, recognising the flaws in execution.

  • by Goonie (8651) * <robert.merkel@nOSpam.benambra.org> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @09:45PM (#9971397) Homepage
    Let me guess. You loved the novel, and you wanted a faithful homage to what you regard as the brilliant description of a futuristic army.

    Verhoeven read the book, and noticed that the book was, at least at one level, militaristic (and arguably fascist) propaganda of the kind that convinced Germans to come invade his ancestral homeland in 1940. So, he decided to make a movie that was a pisstake on Nazi propaganda and pro-war propaganda more generally. And he did that very well, and quite subtly in parts. Watch Triumph of the Will and then watch Starship Troopers again. Or, if you're American, cast your mind back to the bullshit ra-ra media coverage you got before the Iraq invasion and then watch Starship Troopers again.

  • by fm6 (162816) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @10:10PM (#9971536) Homepage Journal
    If you think Highlander II is the worst movie of all time (and I agree it's a serious stinker), you obviously haven't seen Highlander III, Highlander IV....
  • by Nf1nk (443791) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [kn1fn]> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @10:37PM (#9971677) Homepage

    Titanic has a moral and an important lesson for us all.

    When the shit hits the fan dump the bitch or you will die.

  • Re:Signs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brandybuck (704397) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @11:15PM (#9971869) Homepage Journal
    Not just plot holes, "culture holes". If I didn't know better that he actually grew up in the US, I would swear that Shyamalan was a hack director working out of Bangalore.

    Gibson's character just didn't make sense to me. He sure looked like a Catholic priest. But he was married. While watching I thought maybe I was mistaken and he wasn't supposed to be Catholic. But as soon as I think that he goes and takes confession in the drug store!
  • by Onan (25162) * on Saturday August 14, 2004 @11:40PM (#9971985)
    I wouldn't call it anywhere near the worst, but it was pretty bad. I have extremely mixed feelings about Heinlein, but taking one of his worse books and stripping it of the few interesting bits is not a way to make a good movie.

    There were two interesting parts to the book: an exploration of how a much more militaristic society would look, and the technology and methods used by that society. The movie discarded them both:

    There was a scene in the boot camp in which one of the trainees asks why they have any need to train humans to use simple weapons when they have the technology to effortlessly obliterate people at a distance. In the book, this prompts the instructor to explain that the goal of war is almost never to actually kill all your opponents, but rather to convince them behave differently, ideally in the least destructive way possible. And that tactics of varying harshness and efficiency are sometimes needed for that convincing. In the movie, this prompts the instructor to engage in pointless brutality and an inane quip.

    In the book, the armored infantry are a very flexible and personal weapon, and are used only in the above-mentioned situations in which complete extermination is not wanted. Whereas in the movie, our spacefaring race appeared to have no more effective tools for planetary-scale warfare than sending fifty thousand kids with machine guns.
  • by magicmonster (795044) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @11:51PM (#9972034) Homepage
    hehe I'd have to say this this is the worst movie I've seen in the past year. I wasn't even funny in a bad way, which is usually the saving grace of a B grade movie. What makes it worse is that you can tell that they had a fair sized budget for this film, but just wasted it.
  • by Christ-on-a-bike (447560) on Sunday August 15, 2004 @12:11AM (#9972123)
    But that's part of the fun! Some people so strongly expect fascistic behaviour in (sci-fi) movies, that they refuse to believe that Starship Troopers is itself satirical. Rather, they see it as just another straight Hollywood product.

    It's not just Heinlein that Verhoeven is satirising, it's movie-making itself. Action-hero stereotypes are, for Verhoeven, fascist stereotypes. Genius.

  • by Okonomiyaki (662220) on Sunday August 15, 2004 @12:56AM (#9972298) Homepage
    Because of things like the "so bad it's good" factor and budget issues and just movies that were never supposed to be anything but trash from the beginning, it's useful to put some kind of constraints on this kind of discussion. It should be something like "what's the worst movie released by a major studio into theaters in the past 20 years that wasn't just marketed as a vehicle for some fad (Masters of the Universe the Movie) or short lived celebrity (Cool as Ice)?" Maybe to make it a little harder, add "not produced by Centropolis."

    It's a tough decision but I'm going to go with Very Bad Things. That movie was complete shit.
  • Re:Michael Moore (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 15, 2004 @01:42AM (#9972444)
    Major coalition partners? Speaking as an Australian who knows that we've sent less than 1000 out to the war and less than 200 have even set foot on Iraqi land, I sincerely doubt you can count as as much more than Gabon or Liechtenstein or the other hundred nobodies in the "coalition of the willing". It's no more than a symbolic gesture compared to the thousands upon thousands of Americans running around.

    Yes, Moore was being selective, but if you look at the list, apart from Britain you're essentially a one-country-army with a group of cheerleaders along the sides. Which was his point.
  • by Nos. (179609) <(ac.srrekeht) (ta) (werdna)> on Sunday August 15, 2004 @02:55AM (#9972631) Homepage
    No kidding, this was the biggest problem I had with that movie as well. The plot was good, as was most of the acting, but that accent was so annoying it really turned me off the movie. However, my wife and I watched Cold Creek Mountain, and honestly, I wish we hadn't wasted the time. Same with A.I. I want those three hours of my life back!
  • Re:That's easy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by metal_llama (585304) <wmf22@NOSPaM.cornell.edu> on Sunday August 15, 2004 @04:36AM (#9972841) Homepage Journal
    Not really... if that's what you're looking for, I think you want Pushing Tin. I haven't seen Taking Lives, so I'll take SphericalCrusher's word on that. I also think it's unfair to slam Hackers because it's portrayal of hackers is ludicrous. Of course it's ludicrous. Movies never get our subculture -- or any subculture, for that matter -- right. It's still a fun movie if you're willing to turn your brain off and not get pissed shouting about how much they got wrong.
  • Re:Eyes Wide Shut (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mav[LAG] (31387) on Sunday August 15, 2004 @05:01AM (#9972904)
    If you didn't like the movie, fine. All I can say is that it cast a spell over me (and my wife). Somehow the movie felt like watching a dream. I don't know exactly why that was, but it totally sucked me in.

    "Cast a spell" - this is probably the best description of watching it for the first time. I thought the whole thing was both exquisitely filmed and disturbing at the same time.

    Oh, I had been married for many years when I saw it. And several people I know who did like it were older, or were experienced in traditional long-term relationships.

    I've noticed this as well. If you're not married and haven't grappled with thoughts of infidelity or been through the odd bad patch where just about every girl you meet comes on to you, then you're not going to identify with Dr. Bill at all - and identifying with the main character is vital in this film.

    I thought it was vintage Kubrick which as usual yields more detail and enjoyment on each subsequent viewing.
  • Re:Signs (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 15, 2004 @05:18AM (#9972935)
    Jesus H. Christ, I'm sorry, but I'd expect that level of stupidity on an IMDB board, not on slashdot (hahaha). It wasn't the water they were reacting to, it was the bacteria IN the water. Wasn't that obvious? The little girl mentioned it about 4000 times...
  • by klang (27062) on Sunday August 15, 2004 @05:55AM (#9972992)
    As a Dane I understood quite a lot of what the Vikings in "The 13th Warrior" were saying as it was a mix of the different Scandinavian languates.

    I'll give that the movie was confusing, but that's the point. It's told as The 13th Warrior would tell about his trip to the North and he doesn't understand what is going on, most of the time. A lot of what we see is based on stories that he is told on the way and has retold later; truth is bended quite a bit.

    Not the best movie ever made but .. different from what we have come to expect in the way a story is told in a movie.

  • Re:Shrek (Score:3, Insightful)

    by el-spectre (668104) on Sunday August 15, 2004 @06:24AM (#9973027) Journal
    A correction: Here the community moderates (and users can choose to browse at -1 if they want), at Fark the moderators censor. There's a difference.
  • Re:Signs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pamar (538061) <marinoNO@SPAMinrete.it> on Sunday August 15, 2004 @12:25PM (#9974199) Homepage
    I already explained what the actual meaning of the film was (IMHO), so please have a look here (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=76036&cid=679 3075 [slashdot.org]) before the usual tirade about how water-soluble aliens are "implausible"...
  • by real gumby (11516) on Sunday August 15, 2004 @05:24PM (#9975922)

    Years ago I learned to walk out of movies that suck (this is because I failed to walk out of "The Adjuster" and regretted the time wasted).

    One day I sat down and saw a terrific movie, Drowning By Numbers. [imdb.com] After about 15 minutes I thought, "you know, this looks kind of familiar..." but then I wasn't sure. Eventually I realised that I had walked out of this movie years before!

    So did the movie suck or not? Or maybe I just suffered brain damage in between...

The bug starts here.

Working...