Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Worst movie you've ever seen?


Recommended Posts

I don't know why, but I always have trouble bringing things to mind when I'm asked a question like that. Even though I know there are bad movies out there, and their numbers are as the grains of sand on the beach. Or even beaches.

 

But right now the only one I can think of is a wretched Natalie Portman thing from 2000, *Where the Heart Is*. One reason it's so bad is because it thinks it's good. Natalie plays a teen mum who gives birth in a small town's Wal Mart ( I think.) She pals around with Ashley Judd and Stockard Channing, who gets sucked into a tornado. I don't remember much else, except that I wanted to throw my remote at it, and hopefully hit Natalie and/or Ashley right on their carefully windblown hairdo's.

It's just so earnest and silly.

One sappy dopey movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a tough one to answer. Most really bad movies reach the point of being unintentionally funny. I watched about twenty minutes of MODERN GIRLS (1986) last night and it was pretty bad without being funny at all.

 

One of the least enjoyable movies I ever saw was TENDER MERCIES. It had a big buildup and I kept waiting for something interesting to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those cheap movies on the SyFy channel. This past week "Alien Opponent" is just about mindless as they come. Well had nothing on anyway so I took a chance. LOST!

 

I try to *forget* the worst I've ever saw so at this moment doing that is a disadvantage. (is this a good thing??)

 

I hated "Skyline", it would make a skunk hold its nose. Dodged a bullet, was planning to watch "Prometheus" on Pay per view but after reading the plot in wiki, it looks like an "Alien" ripoff. Learned my lesson from "Skyline", check it out ahead of time and saved my money.

 

So what's the biggest...

iXSkEG_pVfwY.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=sfpcc1 wrote:}{quote}Monkeybone. Lisztomania

>

> (It's actually really hard to say.)

 

*Lisztomania* is one of my favorites, I think it's a great film. Two of the worst films that had any kind of a budget that I have seen are Eastwood films, *The Gauntlet*, and *The Eiger Sanction*. But, I'd bet that there are those who love them... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I didn't like 'The Gauntlet' either when I saw it. But when I revisited it in later years, I realized that Eastwood was doing something very different in it - an aspect I hadn't appreciated at first. He was stepping outside of his usual coolness and playing a rube cop - a dummy who is absolutely not cool or even very street smart. Now, and in spite of its ridiculous over-the-top climax, I think it's not that bad. It's a comic book of course, but seeing Clint deliberately playing a dummy for a change is kind of refreshing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I wanted to throw my remote at it, and hopefully hit Natalie and/or Ashley right on their carefully windblown hairdo's. It's just so earnest and silly. One sappy dopey movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't gonna post here, as selecting an all-time worst is problematic when one has seen thousands of movies. But I like that you just went with a movie you really didn't like and what you've said above reminded me of one where my feelings are almost an exact duplication of yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Mystic Pizza' (1988) - one of Julia Roberts' most amateurish, unconvincing performances ever - and the template for much of her other work - plus a ridiculously lame character played by Lili Taylor (who is actually a good actress). Really, really annoying movie. Insulting in it's naked manipulativeness, trying to be 'cute'. Syrupy, overplayed, gag-reflex inducing. The throwing the remote thing was definately an urge to suppress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What really annoys me is that it had a 3 star rating. I truly couldn't see how it could be rated above a single star by any discerning viewer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember the name, but it had George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones in it, and it was about people who got married and fooled each other over and over again. It stank. It really stank. Not for one second did I suspend disbelief and convince myself they weren't acting for the next five minutes so they could take a break and get something to eat, or check to see if it weren't time to go home yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}You know, I didn't like 'The Gauntlet' either when I saw it. But when I revisited it in later years, I realized that Eastwood was doing something very different in it - an aspect I hadn't appreciated at first. He was stepping outside of his usual coolness and playing a rube cop - a dummy who is absolutely not cool or even very street smart. Now, and in spite of its ridiculous over-the-top climax, I think it's not that bad. It's a comic book of course, but seeing Clint deliberately playing a dummy for a change is kind of refreshing.

 

I don't care for the Dirty Harry movies in the least, and the first Eastwood film I really liked was *Bronco Billy.* So, I have no problems with Clint playing an odd-for-him role. I just think *The Gauntlet* was stupid, brutal, pointless, way past improbable... so to me, it stunk. The only way I'd watch it again is if I was forced, by being at some friends' house when they insisted on watching it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy question. Brazil, directed by Terry Gilliam. The worst piece of overrated *&%@ that ever was. Highly touted by film dilettantes, I saw the long version, in the UK, before twenty minutes was cut! Gilliam is ok in small bits -- his Monty Python animations. But not as a feature film maker. He churns out gobs of cliched art direction and passes it off as cinema.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So many bad films, so little time . . .

 

 

 

Besides, my "least favorite" is bound to be someone's "most favorite" . . . and you know how some folks interpret "critique" as "personal attack."

 

Edited by: dpompper on Oct 24, 2012 8:29 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to pin down any one movie as "worst", but just about all my contenders would have been made between about 1967 and 1973: Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Last Tango in Paris, etc., etc. There were also some great films being made then, like The Panic in Needle Park, Mississippi Mermaid, and They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, but by and large movies made in that period had a bigger dose of pretentiousness than those made in any other era before or since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swithin, Gilliam directed *The Fisher King* , and I thought IT was a good film. I sort of agree with Valentine about *Bronco Billy* , although, at the time, many Eastwood fans I knew hated it. Wasn't the atypical Eastwood flick, which oddly enough is why I LIKED it.

 

 

I can think of several movies that might be listed here, if only I could remember the titles. That they were SO bad I couldn't commit the titles to memory should say enough.

 

 

If I had to pick one that any of you heard of, it would have to be *Beverly Hills Chiuahua*.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you all raise an interesting question-- why was it the worst movie? Because it was supposed to be amazing and wasn't? Because the story was irritating? Because the acting was bad? Because it was B-level (or lower) filmmaking? Because you just couldn't sit through it? Or perhaps because you hate a particular actor, style, or subject and therefore wanted the movie to shut up?

 

All good reasons to hate a film, I'd say, but what is it for you all?

 

I for one think that a bad B-movie (or lower) is not nearly as bad as a bad A-list movie. Perhaps because you're thinking, "All that money and/or talent and THAT'S the movie we get?"

 

See in many ways, for me, the whole TWILIGHT series is as bad or worse than some of the worst MST3K movies I've seen because, really, all that money and that's what you throw at us? Almost like they're up in a production meeting saying, "Hey guys, the fans will see this no matter how good or bad it is, so let's make it as fast and cheap as possible and keep the money!"

 

And on that note I think the worst, shall we say, non-MST3K movie I've ever seen (because those don't count as "real movies" to me) is probably that evil LORD OF THE RINGS cartoon from the '70s. One of the only movies in my entire life I couldn't even look at let alone finish. Evil!

 

But back to you all. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These days, having become attuned to the reputations of older movies and the reviews of newer ones, I'm usually pretty careful now about which movies I spend my time on. As a result, I rarely even start on a movie that doesn't sound promising, and most offer something worth seeing.

 

But there was a time when I wasn't so careful. I always loved movies, even as a small child, but I wasn't even minimally knowledgeable about them until I was in my early 20s (about 30 years ago). So if a movie had someone in it whom I had liked in other movies, or had a plot that sounded halfway interesting, or was a movie that my friends wanted to see, I went to see it. I could never see enough movies, so I was always up for a trip to the theatre.

 

So, back in the 70s and early 80s, I saw some duds -- movies that I not only would never want to see again, but regret ever seeing, except as a point of reference. A few examples:

 

BILLY JACK -- A friend in my Explorer Scout troop wanted to see it. I remember it as a violent movie about a vigilante. Even at the time, it gave me a bad feeling.

 

THE GOODBYE GIRL -- Even though I liked other Neil Simon shows, I walked out of this one at the theatre. Richard Dreyfuss's smart-aleck character, the way-too-precocious kid played by Quinn Cummings, and Simon's then-wife Marsha Mason, who just never appealed to me, added up to a movie that I couldn't even sit through. Maybe I'd like it more now -- it's the kind of movie that I thought I should like but just couldn't at the time.

 

THE ROSE -- Being a big music fan, and having enjoyed Bette Midler's humorous persona on the Tonight Show, I thought I'd like this story about a Janis Joplin-like character. But it portrayed the music world in such a hokey way that I walked out on it. The friend I went with was of the same mind.

 

PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE -- This is a very bad movie, such a cliche that I almost hesitate to mention it. It's incompetently made in every way, and with the exception of Bela Lugosi, none of the "actors" should have been allowed within 5 miles of a movie camera. The only thing is, it was pretty entertaining because it was so bad, so maybe it doesn't belong on my list. I saw it on TV when the movie ED WOOD (which I liked a lot) generated interest in it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I concur, Lonesome . . . THAT really is the more interesting question.

 

 

I approach films like a consumer these days -- especially when plunking down $ to see one in a theater (something I rarely do anymore). When it comes to DVDs on Netflix, I find that the star system can be helpful and reviews, too -- although I try not to read too much so that I'm pleasantly surprised (it can backfire, though). Regarding TV, easy enough to switch the channel on the remote.

 

 

Your point about over-hype and then delivery falling flat is a good one that I agree with. I'd say that "Prometheus" (2012) fits that bill for me. I was VERY enthusiastic about seeing it. The actual product failed miserably to deliver and I was highly disappointed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1964 film THE STARFIGHTERS was so bad that members of the audience were booing it, then they started throwing objects at the screen, destroying chairs and eventually the police were called in to quell a small riot. It was the companion feature to a "Murray the K" live rock show that I attended at the Brooklyn Fox in 1966, thus the audience was rather youthful and not at all pleased with this low-budget item which was totally incoherent and comprised mostly of boring stock footage.

 

But if we're talking about films with budgets and stars, I have to say that Jim Carrey's ME, MYSELF AND IRENE had me waiting in the lobby for my then spouse who would watch anything with Carrey. Thirty minutes was all that I could take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...