The worst movie ever made

Blair Witch Project 2.

This list has a few on it I recognize, but have not seen. http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom

The Heartbreak Kid. Didn't see the original, just the remake with Ben Stiller. Heard the original was just as awful.

I dunno. The piledriver scene was kind of fun.

I'm dating myself but "The Osterman Weekend" wins for me. Haven't seen most of the others mentioned so far. 'Open Water" sucked pretty bad.

stuart in mn wrote: Try watching the sequel to Saturday Night Fever, Staying Alive. The one thing that sticks in my mind (before I changed the channel) was seeing Kurtwood Smith (Red Foreman from That 70s Show) playing a mincing choreographer.

That would stick in the mind. I can only recall one other of his roles, and it's basically an evil Red Foreman.

HiTempguy wrote: As for my contribution, the first Mad Max sucks. The 2nd was ok, and IMO, the 3rd one revels in its campy glory and is actually badass

You have bad opinions and you should feel bad.

(frowny face)

I would like to be added to the list of people who have no use for Adam Sandler, Will Farrell, or Star Wars. Also if there is a third Paul Blart movie I hope everyone involved is mauled by hyenas.

Anything with that one trick pony Ben Stiller...

Except Mystery Men, that was awesome.

A new contender appears:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/08/football/fifa-film-united-passions/index.html

Trans_Maro wrote: Anything with that one trick pony Ben Stiller... Except Mystery Men, that was awesome.

And Zoolander.

I watched transformers 4 last night...

It's a contender. It also won several "Worst Movie" awards for 2014

Trans_Maro wrote: Anything with that one trick pony Ben Stiller... Except Mystery Men, that was awesome.

I really really wanted to like Mystery Men, but I just couldn't. Somehow it never made the transition from "mean-spirited" to "funny".

3000 Miles to Graceland. So bad that I cannot remember the plot at all. Something about Elvis impersonators and crime, and Kevin Costner, I think. Maybe.

The 3rd Smokey and the Bandit (where Smokey IS the Bandit) was really bad. It was so bad that I thought it was one of those direct to VHS releases that were prevalent in the 1980's. I bought a SATB box set and saw that on the contents and had no clue it existed. And by that point in my life, I had seen the first two movies probably about a hundred times each. I watched it, and just felt bad for Gleason and Jerry Reed afterwards. It honestly just made me sad.

Many of the movies you guys are mentioning are bad, but low budget movies made for kids explore all levels of terrible. Try out 'Bratz Super Babies' (which my daughter recently made us sit through) to see what truly awful looks like--from start to finish nothing makes any sense at all. The production values are so low that it's barely even a movie.

Sine_Qua_Non wrote: Hey! That movie is a CLASSIC! Read this and you might understand it better. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/

I don't know if it was misunderstood. When I saw it, I could tell it was clearly some sort of dystopia, although I wasn't sure if it was meant to be fascist or simply patterned after the Roman Empire. And I could tell that some parts were meant to be funny - the trouble was, they didn't seem to have their subtly control knob under control. Most of the satire was so heavy-handed it wasn't funny. Then there were ones that I could guess were satire after reading the article, but were too subtle to be clearly a joke. Not much managed to get in between those levels and actually funny.

Duke wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Anything with that one trick pony Ben Stiller... Except Mystery Men, that was awesome.

I really **really** wanted to like *Mystery Men*, but I just couldn't. Somehow it never made the transition from "mean-spirited" to "funny".

That movie was a victim of the director. He got to do Mystery men based on his Taco Bell talking Chihuahua commercials.

Mystery men had so much promise. A wacky story with Paul Reubens, Eddie Izzard, Tom Waites, Bill Macy and a soundtrack by Mark Mothersbaugh. It fell so sadly far from the mark.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Sine_Qua_Non wrote: Hey! That movie is a CLASSIC! Read this and you might understand it better. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/

I don't know if it was misunderstood. When I saw it, I could tell it was clearly some sort of dystopia, although I wasn't sure if it was meant to be fascist or simply patterned after the Roman Empire. And I could tell that some parts were meant to be funny - the trouble was, they didn't seem to have their subtly control knob under control. Most of the satire was so heavy-handed it wasn't funny. Then there were ones that I could guess were satire after reading the article, but were too subtle to be clearly a joke. Not much managed to get in between those levels and actually funny.

What happened was that the movie was based on a book that glorified a heavily militaristic (or even arguably fascist) society. Since playing the book straight wouldn't work too well as a mainstream movie, the movie satirized the book and itself to some degree. But if you didn't know all of that, it just seems like a bizarre movie of heavy-handed satire done for no good reason. It was just a few years too early to pass as a clever critique of post-9/11 society.

In reply to Jumper K. Balls:

Don't forget Tom Waits as the non-lethal arms dealer.

Freddy Got Fingered

I don't find Tom Green funny in any way what-so-ever. I wish they would of removed both of his gonads so he could never reproduce.

GameboyRMH wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Sine_Qua_Non wrote: Hey! That movie is a CLASSIC! Read this and you might understand it better. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/

I don't know if it was misunderstood. When I saw it, I could tell it was clearly some sort of dystopia, although I wasn't sure if it was meant to be fascist or simply patterned after the Roman Empire. And I could tell that some parts were meant to be funny - the trouble was, they didn't seem to have their subtly control knob under control. Most of the satire was so heavy-handed it wasn't funny. Then there were ones that I could guess were satire after reading the article, but were too subtle to be clearly a joke. Not much managed to get in between those levels and actually funny.

What happened was that the movie was based on a book that glorified a heavily militaristic (or even arguably fascist) society. Since playing the book straight wouldn't work too well as a mainstream movie, the movie satirized the book and itself to some degree. But if you didn't know all of that, it just seems like a bizarre movie of heavy-handed satire done for no good reason. It was just a few years too early to pass as a clever critique of post-9/11 society.

And therein lies the real problem: if they wanted to make an anti-war war movie, they should have made Joe Haldeman's Forever War, which is brutal in its indictment of modern imperialism and the military-industrial complex. Heinlein, on the other hand, was at least semi-serious in his proposition that the right to vote should be earned by military service, as explored in Starship Troopers (the book).

The other real problem is that it was a joke that required a lot of explaining, instead of making it clear if you just saw the movie.

Knurled wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: Try watching the sequel to Saturday Night Fever, Staying Alive. The one thing that sticks in my mind (before I changed the channel) was seeing Kurtwood Smith (Red Foreman from That 70s Show) playing a mincing choreographer.

That would stick in the mind. I can only recall one other of his roles, and it's basically an evil Red Foreman.

Wow. How did it never click that this is the same guy?

Wally wrote: I would like to be added to the list of people who have no use for Adam Sandler,

Somehow I have to make an exception for Happy Gilmore. And I accept that there is likely no logical reason for this.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Sine_Qua_Non wrote: Hey! That movie is a CLASSIC! Read this and you might understand it better. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/

I don't know if it was misunderstood. When I saw it, I could tell it was clearly some sort of dystopia, although I wasn't sure if it was meant to be fascist or simply patterned after the Roman Empire. And I could tell that some parts were meant to be funny - the trouble was, they didn't seem to have their subtly control knob under control. Most of the satire was so heavy-handed it wasn't funny. Then there were ones that I could guess were satire after reading the article, but were too subtle to be clearly a joke. Not much managed to get in between those levels and actually funny.

Starship Troopers is a pitch-perfect parody of a B-grade WW2 propaganda movie, and it only works so well because the stars don't realize it. If they had, they would have spoiled it.

Watch something like Air Force or Wake Island. Then watch Starship Troopers. Same basic thing.