Worst film you've ever seen

[Guest El Satanico]

...

[2GOLD 0]

Speed 2

Return of the Living Dead 5 (jesus christ could that movie had been MORE boring?!?!)

Ready to Rumble (deep hurting)

The Ring 2

 

I could name a bunch of low budget indie flicks but when you are low budget, your chances of crappy multiple way too much. There is no excuse for a movie with a big budget to be a piece of shit.

[Renegade 0]

The Doom Generation

[Mole 0]

Matrix Reloaded

[Guest Fook]

Revolutions was far worse than Reloaded.

[Mole 0]

They both were horrible movies

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Wing Commander isn't that bad, seriously, at least it sorta makes sense and tries.

[Anakin Flair 0]

Kingpin. Saw it for free at a friend's birthday party, and I seriously wanted to walk out.

 

Battlefield Earth was horrible, but it was made better by my friend and I MST'ing it in the near-empty theater.

[Guest Coffey]

Ax'Em in a landslide.

 

Other noteables: The Dead Pit, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, Razorback & Demonicus.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I'm also not a big fan of Police Academy: Mission To Moscow. I used to love that series more than anyone, but seriously...quit while you're (somewhat) ahead, guys.

The thing I can't figure out about that movie, is what the hell is Ron Perlman doing in it? In fact, Perlman is a great actor, IMO, yet he seems to make some horrible career choices (Police Acadamy 7, Alien Ressurection)

 

Also, almost every shot on video zombie movie made sucks, but the one that really takes the cake is "Shatter Dead". It's a really pretentious, obnoxious film with the worst acting in the history of SOV zombie films. Plus, it makes no sense, is boring as hell, and well...the list goes on really.

[Der Kommissar 0]

Hard Rock Zombies for me.

 

The only redeeming part of this film was Hitler.

[naiwf 0]

I'm going with The Blair Witch Project.

 

The movie itself sucked ass, but that was only compounded by the fact that even in NYC it took us nearly 2 hours of travel time to find a theater that was playing it, the seats were like something out of an amusement park in that they bounced and swivelled around AND I got sick watching the camera gyrate throughout. The fact that it wasn't the least bit scary, or interesting for that matter, and I got to see way too much of the narrator's nostrils and the snot that came from it just make me cringe every time I hear someone praise this movie.

[Si82 0]

The Butterfly Effect

[Steviekick 0]

Ignore this one....

[Steviekick 0]

Whats with all the hate for Kill Bill v1?

 

You really can't judge it by itself, since Kill Bill was shot in the intent of being one movie and only split into two volumes in post production.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm going with The Blair Witch Project.

 

The movie itself sucked ass, but that was only compounded by the fact that even in NYC it took us nearly 2 hours of travel time to find a theater that was playing it, the seats were like something out of an amusement park in that they bounced and swivelled around AND I got sick watching the camera gyrate throughout. The fact that it wasn't the least bit scary, or interesting for that matter, and I got to see way too much of the narrator's nostrils and the snot that came from it just make me cringe every time I hear someone praise this movie.

Sounds like your judging the movie by the experience you had watching it, rather than the film itself.

 

Blair Witch Project was very good for what it was: a low budget movie that relied entirely on merely implying creepiness instead of actually showing it. I'd argue that the amusement park inspired-exhibition of the film worked entirely against the film's true genre, the mock documentary.

 

Plus, you gotta give them credit for tricking a bunch of gullible bastards into thinking that it was a legitimate documentary.

 

Here's what Roger Ebert said about it:

 

The Blair Witch Project

 

Release Date: 1999

 

Ebert Rating: ****

 

By Roger Ebert / Jul 16, 1999

 

We're instinctively afraid of natural things (snakes, barking dogs, the dark) but have to be taught to fear walking into traffic or touching an electrical wire. Horror films that tap into our hard-wired instinctive fears probe a deeper place than movies with more sophisticated threats. A villain is only an actor, but a shark is more than a shark.

 

"The Blair Witch Project," an extraordinarily effective horror film, knows this and uses it. It has no fancy special effects or digital monsters, but its characters get lost in the woods, hear noises in the night and find disturbing stick figures hanging from trees. One of them discovers slime on his backpack. Because their imaginations have been inflamed by talk of witches, hermits and child murderers in the forest, because their food is running out and their smokes are gone, they (and we) are a lot more scared than if they were merely being chased by some guy in a ski mask.

 

The movie is like a celebration of rock-bottom production values--of how it doesn't take bells and whistles to scare us. It's presented in the form of a documentary. We learn from the opening titles that in 1994 three young filmmakers went into a wooded area in search of a legendary witch: "A year later, their footage was found." The film's style and even its production strategy enhance the illusion that it's a real documentary. The characters have the same names as the actors. All of the footage in the film was shot by two cameras--a color video camcorder operated by the director, Heather (Heather Donahue), and a 16-mm. black and white camera, operated by the cameraman, Josh (Joshua Leonard). Mike (Michael Williams) does the sound. All three carry backpacks, and are prepared for two or three nights of sleeping in tents in the woods. It doesn't work out that way.

 

The buried structure of the film, which was written and directed by Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick, is insidious in the way it introduces information without seeming to. Heather and her crew arrive in the small town of Burkittsville ("formerly Blair") and interview locals. Many have vaguely heard of the Blair Witch and other ominous legends; one says, "I think I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel or something." We hear that children have been killed in the woods, that bodies have disappeared, that strange things happened at Coffin Rock. But the movie wisely doesn't present this information as if it can be trusted; it's gossip, legend and lore, passed along half-jokingly by local people, and Heather, Josh and Mike view it as good footage, not a warning.

 

Once they get into the woods, the situation gradually turns ominous. They walk in circles. Something happens to their map. Nature itself begins to seem oppressive and dead. They find ominous signs. Bundles of twigs. Unsettling stick figures. These crude objects are scarier than more elaborate effects; they look like they were created by a being who haunts the woods, not by someone playing a practical joke. Much has been said about the realistic cinematography--how every shot looks like it was taken by a hand-held camera in the woods (as it was). But the visuals are not just a technique. By shooting in a chill season, by dampening the color palette, the movie makes the woods look unfriendly and desolate; nature is seen as a hiding place for dread secrets.

 

As fear and desperation grow, the personalities of the characters emerge. "We agreed to a scouted-out project!" one guy complains, and the other says, "Heather, this is so not cool!" Heather keeps up an optimistic front; the woods are not large enough to get lost in, she argues, because "This is America. We've destroyed most of our national resources." Eventually her brave attitude disintegrates into a remarkable shot in which she films her own apology (I was reminded of explorer Robert Scott's notebook entries as he froze to death in Antarctica).

 

At a time when digital techniques can show us almost anything, "The Blair Witch Project" is a reminder that what really scares us is the stuff we can't see. The noise in the dark is almost always scarier than what makes the noise in the dark. Any kid can tell you that. Not that he believes it at the time.

 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d.../907160301/1023

[eiker_ir 0]

Zombie Nightmare

[Matt Young 0]

Kill Bill? Butterfly Effect? Those are two of my favorite movies.

 

The worst ones that stand out are The Cave, The Village, and Hope Floats.

[CBright7831 0]

In a theater?

 

Snow Day and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III come to mind.

[Guest Zarock]

1. The Devil's Rejects- Goes waaay too far in being sadistic (the gun rape scene is just horrible), decides not to have any likeable characters, finishes with one of the most masturbatory ending scenes ever, and completely fails at the whole "Villain is focal point of movie" genre. Worst movie I saw in 2005.

 

2. Blazing Saddles/Airplane!/History of the World pt. 1- I feel sorta like Noboru from "Cromartie High School" when he watches a wildly popular comedy show and doesn't get why it's funny (Wow, referencing an anime show, what a great way to start!). These three movies are the most overrated comedies ever. The jokes fall into two categories: racial stereotypes and puns and both are cringe-inducing. It's like watching "Mind of Mencia" if it were hosted by Billy Crystal.

 

Also, pretty much any romantic comedy ever.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I tend to miss the really horrible movies, although I have seen plenty of bad ones. But the absolute worst that I can remember seeing is Jaws: The Revenge. I loved the first Jaws, and Jaws 2 was decent enough. I even got some enjoyment out of the one set at Sea World. But Revenge is just horrid on every level. Even Michael Caine sucks in it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Blazing Saddles/Airplane!/History of the World pt. 1- I feel sorta like Noboru from "Cromartie High School" when he watches a wildly popular comedy show and doesn't get why it's funny (Wow, referencing an anime show, what a great way to start!). These three movies are the most overrated comedies ever. The jokes fall into two categories: racial stereotypes and puns and both are cringe-inducing. It's like watching "Mind of Mencia" if it were hosted by Billy Crystal.

 

Those movies are products of the times they were made in. I've never been a fan of "History of the World Part 1", but I can appreciate "Blazing Saddles" based on how innovative it was for 1974. (I like to think that the comedy comes from making fun of stereotypes.) I actually saw "Airplane" when it was originally released (this is back when you could put tits in a PG movie, apparently) so I totally get why people find it funny. It basically was THE funniest movie I'd ever seen for most of my childhood, and watching it now still gives me quite a few chuckles.

[RepoMan 0]

The Hot Chick, 3 Ninja's 2, Armagedon, Peral Harbor, Air Force One, some John Whyne Red Scare era, Old Yeller, The Apple Dumpling Gand, some flick I saw on AMC where commies are upper class and racist. At least get your villians motivations kind of right.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

The only people I've known to call Kill Bill awful or "the worst movie" they've ever seen are closed-minded people who've been conditioned to think that half of the crap mainstream Hollywood runs out each year is worth watching.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I don't get the "If you think *insert shitty movie here* is the worst movie ever, then you haven't seen enough movies, like *insert obscure shitty movie here*." thing. If those movies are as bad as you make them out to be, then wouldn't it be GOOD that we haven't seen them? I mean, why would I want to see a movie if it's that bad?

Also, isn't it more matter of what movies we've seen as opposed to number of movies?

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm surprised Gerry hasn't been mentioned on here again. Dear God what was THAT?

 

The Hulk was a total piece of shit too.

 

And yes, Boogeyman was one of the worst movies I saw all last year. In Maltin's book he actually gives Boogeyman ** while giving Sin City *1/2. Crediblity, thy name is Leonard Maltin.

 

The worst movie I've ever seen in a theater though? One Man Out, a really crappy "soldier of fortune in South America" type movie. I saw it at Stonybrook theater when it first opened in 1990 and I STILL hate the theater because of it. The tagline for that movie:

 

"If you're not on his side...change sides!"

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I don't get the "If you think *insert shitty movie here* is the worst movie ever, then you haven't seen enough movies, like *insert obscure shitty movie here*." thing. If those movies are as bad as you make them out to be, then wouldn't it be GOOD that we haven't seen them? I mean, why would I want to see a movie if it's that bad?

Also, isn't it more matter of what movies we've seen as opposed to number of movies?

If you're referring to what I said, it's simple, really. If something like Kill Bill V1 is actually the "worst" thing you've seen, then it's clear you haven't seen too many movies. Whether you liked it or not, there's still several elements to it that aren't that tough to be appreciated, although some have found a way. To call it one of the worst movies you've ever seen when there's pure garbage out there with next to no redeeming qualities, seems odd.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I'm surprised Gerry hasn't been mentioned on here again. Dear God what was THAT?

I'm going to guess you aren't familiar with Van Sant. I haven't seen Gerry, but I've seen the other two parts of his unofficial tragic trilogy (Elephant and Last Days) and understand it follows a similar style. Sparing dialogue and a real open-ended story and conclusion.

 

It's certainly a style that has evoked a real love/hate reaction from people, but I find a sense of comfort in it. Not everything needs to be wrapped up in a tidy, little package for us. Sometimes it's refreshing to be left with a lot of questions.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I don't get the "If you think *insert shitty movie here* is the worst movie ever, then you haven't seen enough movies, like *insert obscure shitty movie here*." thing. If those movies are as bad as you make them out to be, then wouldn't it be GOOD that we haven't seen them? I mean, why would I want to see a movie if it's that bad?

Also, isn't it more matter of what movies we've seen as opposed to number of movies?

If you're referring to what I said, it's simple, really. If something like Kill Bill V1 is actually the "worst" thing you've seen, then it's clear you haven't seen too many movies. Whether you liked it or not, there's still several elements to it that aren't that tough to be appreciated, although some have found a way. To call it one of the worst movies you've ever seen when there's pure garbage out there with next to no redeeming qualities, seems odd.

 

Again, it seems like it's a matter of WHAT movies you've seen as opposed to number of movies. I mean, I think Kill Bill vol. 1 kicked ass, but there are plenty of better movies out there. I mean, okay, I'll give you that it's REALLY unlikely that someone will have seen tons of movies and them be ONLY the ones that are better than Kill Bill vol. 1, but it's at the very least possible.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

1. The Devil's Rejects- Goes waaay too far in being sadistic (the gun rape scene is just horrible), decides not to have any likeable characters, finishes with one of the most masturbatory ending scenes ever, and completely fails at the whole "Villain is focal point of movie" genre. Worst movie I saw in 2005.

Actually, it succeeds with the "villain is the focal point of the movie" aspect since, well, the villains were the whole focal point of the movie. Sheriff Wydell isn't in the movie for nearly as long as Otis and Baby are, or even Captain Spaulding, and he's the "good guy" of the flick. Maybe it's because I'm a blind Rob Zombie fan...no, wait, The Sinister Urge is a terrible album with only a few listenable tracks (and they were all released as singles), and I found House of 1,000 Corpses to only be good due to Bill Moseley's performance as Otis and Zombie's directing during certain scenes.

Basically, The Devil's Rejects succeeds as the sort of flick it is - exploitation/horror - for nearly every reason you just gave for not liking it. It's what Hollywood was in desperate need of in a post-9/11 world: a film that pulls few punches. Plus, given the knowledge that the whole movie was completed in 30 days? That, in itself, is a triumph given how it was more coherent and better in a cinematography sense than the majority of films that have come out in the last few years.

 

Really, if your only reason for not liking the movie is because of how sadistic the Firefly clan is and how it shows the more despicable side of good when Wydell gets revenge, then you shouldn't be watching these kind of movies. That'd be like me watching Saving Private Ryan and not liking it for how it depicted D-Day.