Worst Movie You've Ever Seen (NO SPOILERS)

[Evil Grantica]

I try to forget the really awful movies.

Recently though? Probably "Deception." It's also known as "Ruby Cairo" evidently: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107999/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_6

It's got Liam Neeson (just a year before "Schindler's List").

It's got Andie McDowell (just a year before "Groundhog Day").

It's even got Viggo Mortensen (of Aragorn fame from the LotR movies).

It's got to be good, right?

It's not. It just keeps promising to get better, to have something interesting happen, to pay off in a big way. It's promise of potential is why this is such a bad movie. I generally don't finish awful movies (though I finished G.I. Joe: Retaliation), but this one seemed like it would be so good. It had everything going for it, yet it managed to be weird, cheesy, poorly thought-out, unsurprising, and frankly, boring.

[Nation of Fast]

Food fight.

[Dundee Derry]

Okay a few:

Sorry if people really like these. But Meh, it's subjective.

Honourable Mentions:
The Lord of the Rings: The first few paragraphs of the preface in a new five hour epic!
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader(2010): Fast and Loose with the plot of the book by adding a totally unnecessary element about

swords!

Star: Trek into darkness (2013). Let's play fast and loose with established Trek Cannon. Lens Flare!

Other Nominnees:
Battle: Los Angeles. (OMG! Actually painful crap dross).

Personal Worst Firm Ever:
Braveheart. (Nuff said really.)

[Pandeeria]

Sharknado.

[New haven america]

Okay a few:

Sorry if people really like these. But Meh, it's subjective.

Honourable Mentions:
The Lord of the Rings: The first few paragraphs of the preface in a new five hour epic!
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader(2010): Fast and Loose with the plot of the book by adding a totally unnecessary element about

swords!

Star: Trek into darkness (2013). Let's play fast and loose with established Trek Cannon. Lens Flare!

Other Nominnees:
Battle: Los Angeles. (OMG! Actually painful crap dross).

Personal Worst Firm Ever:
Braveheart. (Nuff said really.)

You have... interesting tastes(You do know ST: Into Darkness is set in an alternate universe right? It was explained in the first movie)

[Justin States]

Sharknado.

Me too

[Czervenika]

Napoleon Dynamite. I honestly don't understand the appeal. I found myself turning it off about halfway through.

[Pandeeria]

Sharknado.

Me too

If it was a parody, then it would still suck.

However, what makes it literally the worst movie I've ever seen is that it actually tries to take it's self seriously.

[Dundee Derry]

You have... interesting tastes(You do know ST: Into Darkness is set in an alternate universe right? It was explained in the first movie)

Yeah, obviously I know that. And I controversially actually like the 2009 film. Precisely because it does different things with the franchise. But, without wanting to give too many spoilers away, if you're going to bring back a fairly influential character from elsewhere is the franchise, for God's sake at least do the homework on him...

Plot holes abound.

[Dracoria]

To be honest, I feel like the fact that the humans were more reasonable and sympathetic than the aliens is purely a mistake; it seemed JC tried hard to make it all "humans r chaotic evul durr" but ultimately failed, IMO.

Also, lets not forget that, besides the obvious lifts and plagiarizm, that its suspiciously similar to The Jesus Incident by Frank Herbert. But, another thing that pissed me off about it was the military stupidity. Seriously, they had to BS a bunch of stuff, bend realism a bit, and then BS even more to give the Neolithic-age blue guys even a remote chance of winning against the trans-Newtonian humans.

But it's so hard to make proud, magic native peoples who aren't just a little stuck-up! But it's their right because they're proud, magic native peoples who aren't stereotyped at all. And they're always right anyway.

I absolutely abhor the movie Battlefield Earth. I was excited to be entertained with the imaginary works of L. Ron Hubbard only to have those hopes dashed by terrible acting and staring at the same use of tilted angles the entire film.

It used to be that enjoying the imaginary works of L. Ron Hubbard involved joining an all-controlling cult that you were never allowed to leave. Be thankful they stopped at destroying your dreams.

As for myself, it's hard to say. The really awful movies I've seen, I probably don't even remember anything more than snippets of, like that one movie about snakehead fish on Syfy. Probably left or changed the channel. I mean, I enjoy poking fun at Avatar, the Star Wars prequels, and other big budget drek, but at least I could sit through them.

[Breadknife]

Ok, so I haven't seen a number of the nominees (and agree/disagree pretty randomly about others, e.g. agree strongly about After Earth but disagree at least as much about Zulu) but as far as films I've seen at the cinema, I think my all-time-low was with Death Becomes Her, a couple of decades back. I've generally been lucky with what I've picked and chosen to watch. Not infallably so, but never quite so near as to actually walking out of the screening as for Death Becomes Her.

(Movies on TV are different, there's no monetary compulsion to keep watching, I could press record on the VCR and take a break, there's always another channel, etc... But I feel far more upset about any feeling that I should exit a cinema screen, even if it's definitely a car-crash of a movie.)

I also watched Monuments Men, recently, under a slight misapprehension as to how it would pan out. There was a "Meh"-like attitude exuding from those others who left at the end, and it wasn't what I expected, although I've no doubt it was a worthy tale at core and it could have been worse...

[Breadknife]

I absolutely abhor the movie Battlefield Earth. I was excited to be entertained with the imaginary works of L. Ron Hubbard only to have those hopes dashed by terrible acting and staring at the same use of tilted angles the entire film.

It used to be that enjoying the imaginary works of L. Ron Hubbard involved joining an all-controlling cult that you were never allowed to leave. Be thankful they stopped at destroying your dreams.

The book was better. I read that (and his other (wholly-acknowledged) fictional works) long before I knew of the organisation he spawned, but (above all) the pictures are better in the imagination and it doesn't have a sycophantic ham in the main antagonist role (totally re-envisaged in form... these days he'd be voicing a full CGI, and animatronic in close-shots, construct). Mind you, it makes me wonder what it would be like if it had been produced in the '80s with him in the role of the human protagonist. Depends on the SFX budget, I suspect.

[Trollgaard]

Some so called cult horror called 13 seconds or something from Canada. It was so bad it needed dubbing...and it was from Canada.

Only watched half of it I was so mad about how bad it was.

[Cata Larga]

Fred the Movie all the way.

Followed closely by American Hustle, helped to its position among worst movies ever by how overrated it is.

[Cata Larga]

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal skull.
CGI Fest.

Say what you will about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, at least it wasn't Temple of Doom.

[The Federal Republic of Varsal]

Without a doubt in my mind I can say... ok there is a doubt. It was a film adaptation of "Oliver Twist" and it was the longest, worst piece of crap I ever saw. Food Fight was decent by comparison.

[Cata Larga]

Without a doubt in my mind I can say... ok there is a doubt. It was a film adaptation of "Oliver Twist" and it was the longest, worst piece of crap I ever saw. Food Fight was decent by comparison.

Was it that one Disney flick with the dog released in '89 that got wrecked in the box office because it competed with The Land Before Time?

[The Federal Republic of Varsal]

Without a doubt in my mind I can say... ok there is a doubt. It was a film adaptation of "Oliver Twist" and it was the longest, worst piece of crap I ever saw. Food Fight was decent by comparison.

Was it that one Disney flick with the dog released in '89 that got wrecked in the box office because it competed with The Land Before Time?

Oh no, this was in the early to mid 2000s. I wish I could remember the name and date. But the one you referred to wasn't even CLOSE to this in the "ughhh how many ceiling tiles are there" department

[United Provinces of Akhantos]

Sharknado.

Sharknado is a BAD movie? Come on! It's freaking funny!
That's how bad actors should be used, it's so badly done it's quite positively surreal, in fact it's the best film Asylum has made so far.
Did i mention this film has Mr. McCallister from Home Alone? THAT was aa nice touch.

Anyway, the worst film i've seen so far ought to be Return to the Batcave: The misadventures of Adam and Burt. See for yourselves, i don't want to deal with it again.

[Castille de Italia]

It used to be that enjoying the imaginary works of L. Ron Hubbard involved joining an all-controlling cult that you were never allowed to leave. Be thankful they stopped at destroying your dreams.

The book was better. I read that (and his other (wholly-acknowledged) fictional works) long before I knew of the organisation he spawned, but (above all) the pictures are better in the imagination and it doesn't have a sycophantic ham in the main antagonist role (totally re-envisaged in form... these days he'd be voicing a full CGI, and animatronic in close-shots, construct). Mind you, it makes me wonder what it would be like if it had been produced in the '80s with him in the role of the human protagonist. Depends on the SFX budget, I suspect.

It could have been better, but it'd probably been the quality of a typical 80's action or science fiction movie, which it may be enjoyable, but filled with unrealistic fight scenes and cheesy one liners.

[Forsher]

Napoleon Dynamite. I honestly don't understand the appeal. I found myself turning it off about halfway through.

The real question is how you got that far into it.

I've tried watching it twice because a) I remember it being well recommended years and years ago and b) it was on. The second time we got further through it. That said, I'd still say it is better than The Mighty which I've watched in its entirety too many times (ah, year nine English).

[Dracoria]

It used to be that enjoying the imaginary works of L. Ron Hubbard involved joining an all-controlling cult that you were never allowed to leave. Be thankful they stopped at destroying your dreams.

The book was better. I read that (and his other (wholly-acknowledged) fictional works) long before I knew of the organisation he spawned, but (above all) the pictures are better in the imagination and it doesn't have a sycophantic ham in the main antagonist role (totally re-envisaged in form... these days he'd be voicing a full CGI, and animatronic in close-shots, construct). Mind you, it makes me wonder what it would be like if it had been produced in the '80s with him in the role of the human protagonist. Depends on the SFX budget, I suspect.

If it was in the 80s, they'd be using borrowed Star Trek props, a moderate to large number of pyrotechnics, and enormous hairdos. By comparison, it would be glorious.

[Machina Haruspex]

Battle of the Stars. I mean it's no DBZ live action movie terrible, but it's still pretty bad.

[Germanic Templars]

It was more environmentalist than anti-imperialist, given that ultimately the Humans were more reasonable and sympathetic. Proper imperialist strawmen don't do everything they can to reach out to the population and establish diplomacy, to the point of spending billions of dollars, creating a school, offering valuable technology and medicine, all while their civilians are getting murdered on a daily basis, and wait to resort to violence until all else has failed.

They go straight to the violence, and the racial slurs, and the general nastyness and bigotry. The RDA leadership were assholes, sure, but at least they tried, and the natives were even bigger assholes.

To be honest, I feel like the fact that the humans were more reasonable and sympathetic than the aliens is purely a mistake; it seemed JC tried hard to make it all "humans r chaotic evul durr" but ultimately failed, IMO.

Also, lets not forget that, besides the obvious lifts and plagiarizm, that its suspiciously similar to The Jesus Incident by Frank Herbert. But, another thing that pissed me off about it was the military stupidity. Seriously, they had to BS a bunch of stuff, bend realism a bit, and then BS even more to give the Neolithic-age blue guys even a remote chance of winning against the trans-Newtonian humans.

Sad thing is that this fail of a movie got positive reviews all around.

Even Roger Ebert, my cinema hero, liked the movie. Let's not forget how people say it was anti military, anti imperialist (even comparing it to US vs British Empire during revolutionary war).

Why people loved it is beyond me, in fact I remember leaving the movie theater with my brothers being the only one saying on how stupid that movie was.


Moving on, another stupid movie would be Watchmen. The only good character in the whole movie dies by the hands of Blue Balls (aka Dr. Manhattan).

[Unidox]

:Rant: So reading through the thread I was struck by how many of the movies listed are post 2000, which saddens me as to how so many have barely scratched the cinematic surface. :Rant:

That said:
In the Woods- how I loath this rubber suit monsters, beer fueled slush.
Only God Forgives- I would have walked out on this movie, but I would have walked out of my own home. Really I'm not against indie movies, I am a David Lynch fan, but this was just a high depth gore fest with sub-par acting and poor storytelling. And, yes, the amount of gore in this movie made me (a horror fan) uncomfortable.
Spring Breakers- Choppy, not a fun movie contrary to the movie poster, only four good actors; two of which were twins with no speaking parts.
Do You Want to Know A Secret- my secret; how bad I feel for Joey Lawrence for being associated with this snooze fest of a slasher flick.