What is the worst movie you ever saw?

[Adora]

One for me would be the third transformers movie also batman and robin which I think is the reason why they went the opposite direction with batman begins.

 

[On the Inside]

Boxing Helena will have a reserved spot on my all-time worst movies list. It was so bad that I had to sit through it to believe it. I've never felt mad that I watched any other movie. Can't think of any others right now.

 

[Tom]

'Monster from the Green Hell' was pretty bad.

It was about mutant oversized Wasps and was a contender for worst special effects ever and woeful acting.

 

[Warmheart]

Mars Attacks was so terrible, that I loved it!

 

[Tom]

Mars Attacks was so terrible, that I loved it!

Yes, that was a good kind of bad. I remember the original gum cards coming out in the sixties.

 

[Randomperson]

"Attack of the killer tomatoes".....

 

[inabox]

Horror In The Attic is a truly terrible movie. It's slightly amusing but i really don't think it's meant to be!

 

[Flinty]

Jimmy Hollywood. It was the second week in the theaters, there were 10 people in the 400-person theater, and our group openly talked over the movie. And I don't think anyone minded because that was less boring than the movie.

 

[Adora]

Mars Attacks was so terrible, that I loved it!

Yeah gotta agree even though it is a terrible movie I will still watch it if it's on TV and my dad use to love Mars attack he seemed to like the crazy movies.

 

[Marycv]

Mars Attacks and Forest Gump, to me are the worst movies I ever saw.

 

[Mia]

The B movie: I spit on your grave

 

[Tyler Myers]

Tank Girl.

 

[dudeman]

batman and robin

I take it you're not a fan of the Adam West series? 'Cause that's all Batman And Robin was, a big budget revival of the 60s Batman that didn't take. If you ARE a fan of that, it's a great movie.

The worst one I ever saw was Harold And Kumar Go To White Castle and I personally blame that film for why there are no good comedy films anymore, or if there are, they're very few and very far between. Hollywood saw how much money Harold And Kumar made, decided that was what people wanted and that was all she wrote for that genre. The worst part is that Seth Rogan openly admitted in an interview that comedy actors know these movies are terrible and only stupid people like them and they really don't want to do them, but if they want to have an acting career they have no choice because those are the only comedies Hollywood will fund.

 

[wyverary]

I take it you're not a fan of the Adam West series? 'Cause that's all Batman And Robin was, a big budget revival of the 60s Batman that didn't take. If you ARE a fan of that, it's a great movie.

The worst one I ever saw was Harold And Kumar Go To White Castle and I personally blame that film for why there are no good comedy films anymore, or if there are, they're very few and very far between. Hollywood saw how much money Harold And Kumar made, decided that was what people wanted and that was all she wrote for that genre. The worst part is that Seth Rogan openly admitted in an interview that comedy actors know these movies are terrible and only stupid people like them and they really don't want to do them, but if they want to have an acting career they have no choice because those are the only comedies Hollywood will fund.

But can't one enjoy a movie while simultaneously acknowledging how awful it is? I know a number of people who belong to "Bad Movie Night" clubs. Sometimes I enjoy revelling in the stupidity of what I am willingly witnessing, heh.

I am not hip to today's cinema. I can think of a couple of comedies, though, that came out in the past decade or so, that I thought were simultaneously extremely silly, but immensely enjoyable and really not all that bad...Pineapple Express is a particular favorite of mine (though I have no idea if it would stand up to a second viewing)...that's one Seth Rogen movie...And really, I thought 50/50 was incredibly smart and full of heart (again, Seth Rogen being involved).

All that said, I hope never to have to witness films like Ted, par exemple. There is absolutely an abundance of so-called comedies out there that only make me cringe, and I think your post makes an excellent point.

 

[Datura]

I sometimes seek out strange and "so bad it's good" cinema.
The worst (and yet still entertaining) movie I have ever seen is "Birdemic".

As for a film that is simply unwatchable; I would have to go with the latest Ninja Turtles movie. I am sure that if I remembered further back I could think of something worse, but Ninja Turtles is the worst thing I have seen in recent memory. The effects were wonderful (I loved the detail to all the gritty textures) but to see such technical achievement wasted on horrible cinematography and virtually non-existent characterization was disheartening.

If you have watched the cartoons or the old live action movie then you know that these characters, despite being cartoons, have a level of depth and charm. In Michael Bays world; however, they are merely one dimensional caricatures (of already over-the-top characters) occupying the same space, spewing one liners, but never having a real conversation or relationship to one an other. What they did with Raphaelle was the worst. Formerly wise cracking, sarcastic, and cynical, this new Raphaelle is merely angry, all the time, for no apparent reason. What a waste of a character.

 

[wyverary]

The world of bad cinema is such a deep rabbit hole! Allow me to pick some low-hanging fruit and name Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest. I honestly thought it was hilarious, but was later informed (by several sources, including this forum) that it was actually NOT meant to be funny, that it was meant to be a real mystery/action film. So does that count?

 

[Datura]

The world of bad cinema is such a deep rabbit hole! Allow me to pick some low-hanging fruit and name Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest. I honestly thought it was hilarious, but was later informed (by several sources, including this forum) that it was actually NOT meant to be funny, that it was meant to be a real mystery/action film. So does that count?

I had really never thought of it that way. Hitchcock is generally considered a master of his genre, so placing one of his more popular works on this list seems a bit strange. If you found it enjoyable for its failings though, then I suppose it really is a case of "so bad it's good." Such things are subjective anyway.

 

[dudeman]

As for a film that is simply unwatchable; I would have to go with the latest Ninja Turtles movie. I am sure that if I remembered further back I could think of something worse, but Ninja Turtles is the worst thing I have seen in recent memory. The effects were wonderful (I loved the detail to all the gritty textures) but to see such technical achievement wasted on horrible cinematography and virtually non-existent characterization was disheartening.

If you have watched the cartoons or the old live action movie then you know that these characters, despite being cartoons, have a level of depth and charm. In Michael Bays world; however, they are merely one dimensional caricatures (or alredy over-the-top characters) occupying the same space, spewing one liners, but never having a real conversation or relationship to one an other. What they did with Raphaelle was the worst. Formerly wise cracking, sarcastic, and cynical, this new Raphaelle is merely angry, all the time, for no apparent reason. What a waste of a character.

You're wrong, but thanks for playing. Speaking as someone who's been a huge fan of the franchise my whole life, I can testify that it's an excellent adaptation. First of all, the change in the origin story works to the film's benefit because it makes a lot more logical sense than either the cartoon or the original comics and adding April to the origin makes the character dynamic between them work a whole lot better, making it the superior rendition. Secondly, the film repeatedly goes out of its way to openly and unapologetically acknowledge how ludicrous it is, so any complaints about that are completely invalid. Third, just like Batman, Superman or any number of other franchises, every version of TMNT is completely different from every other version, so saying that one particular version somehow "doesn't count" just makes you sound like a whiny fanboy. To quote stevelikestocurse.com, you're confusing "I wouldn't have done it that way" with "this sucks" and that's a really ****** attitude. If you think you can do better, write some fanfic. I'll be glad to read it.

 

[Datura]

dudeman; none of the arguments you addressed are ones that I raised. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your confrontational tone. I understand feeling defensive about a piece of beloved media, but it is important to remember that all assessments of quality are purely subjective (or objective analyses, none the less deferent to a subjective reference point). Opinions will differ.

I am not saying the film "doesn't count" (though that is somewhat irrelevant as it is part of a separate cannon) I am simply saying that I really disliked it. Your opinion is equally valid. If you enjoy it then all power to you.

It is also not the case that I dislike it merely because "I wouldn't have done it that way." The changes to the origin story were okay (if, perhaps, a bit too serendipitous) but that isn't what I was complaining about.

For me, the characters fell flat. Speaking specifically of the turtles, Bay took an unconventional family unit of interesting characters and turned them into four shallow stereotypes with no chemistry. I actually feel that this is endemic of the Michael Bay movies I have seen, and am therefore not a fan of his films in general. This is, of course, just my impression.

It is expected, and somewhat necessary, that when reinterpreting old properties one make substantial alterations. Those alterations are subject to evaluation on their own merits, but will inevitability be held culpable if they fall short of the source material they have replaced.

A good example of this would be M. Night Shamalan's "The Last Air Bender." This film is almost universally reviled by fans of the animated series. It's greatest sin, however, is merely being mediocre, not terrible. The art direction was uninspired, but the effects were great. It also attempted to fit an epic story arch into far too short a time span. However, it was quite faithful in retelling the story of the original, even if it merely glazed over the protagonist's epic trans-polar journey. My former boyfriend, not being familiar with the cartoon, loved this film, and I can see why. Knowing the source material though, I miss the comedy, depth, and pacing of the series.

I also dislikes Bay's cinematographic style. It is excessively bombastic and disorienting, even when that does not serve the scene. I can appreciate the skill this takes to execute, and believe that Bay's techniques can sometimes be effective, but that he would be better off exercising more restraint. Again, this is my aesthetic preference. A lot of people love Bayhem.

All of this said, I only watched about half the film. Perhaps if I watched it again in its entirety I might have a different outlook.

 

[dudeman]

Bay didn't direct it, you know. He only produced. Jonathan Liebsman directed it. I got a good laugh when the film referenced Bay's idea of making them aliens and said how stupid that was. In fairness, the characters on the original series were pretty flat too and the plots were just as silly and off the wall, probably more so, but the same people who bash the new film praise the original show to no end. The hypocrisy astounds me.