The voting below means:
What if we like it? Someone put LordOfTheRings on the list; I thought that all three of 'em were great movies.
- Agree: "I would tell my friends to avoid it at all costs."
- Disagree: "Well, actually, it did have one or two redeeming features. I'd tell my friends to wait until someone else rents it." (or maybe you'd actually recommend it, but this is the lower limit)
Please put entries in alphabetical order. Also, please don't delete reviews that you disagree with (DisagreeByDeleting
); rather, add a rebuttal. This has been done to excellent effect several times on this page.
Also, no fair commenting on a movie that you haven't actually seen
(at least a significant part of). If you walked out of the theatre after half an hour because it was so bad, that counts as "seeing" it. If, however, you caught a five minute glimpse of the flick while shopping for TVs at the local Circuit City, that does not. At any rate, no fair piling on widely-acknowledged-as-bad movies unless you have actually made an attempt to watch it yourself. Otherwise, we could ALL trash Plan Nine and such. Hey! I liked Plan Nine. Much better than Soylent Green.
If you can name a good thing and
a bad thing about the movie do you get a RAM chip?
Paying to watch a movie
I'd like to know how much you guys actually pay in order to not watch a movie.
Tootsie will be airing right here on Wiki at 3:00 this afternoon unless the money starts rolling in.
Probably about $20, if I were placed in that situation. It's pretty hard to imagine that I would be, thankfully. I can always gouge out my eyes if it comes to that.
- Whaddya mean? Tootsie is a great film! Though it's been 20+ years since I watched it, I laughed my ass off when I did.
-- A --
- Oliver Stone's take on the life of one of the best military minds of all time.
Allan Quartermaine and the Lost City of Gold
- Agree: ChrisHines (If you don't know history you have no idea what's going on. Alexander provides us with a lot of interesting stories, and Stone ignored them all in favor of melodrama.) JoshuaGrosse (This movie wasn't horrible, and I would have preferred it if it were. As it was, it just hinted at what they could have done without doing any of it. And the accents don't help).
- Disagree: JimmyCerra (I only remembered a general overview of the history - from middle school years ago - yet I understood what was going on. Apparently the movie had above-average historical accuracy too. I definitely think it shouldn't be listed under Movies To Avoid At All Costs.)
- early Sharon Stone flick (before she was known), which is probably why you still see it on TV occasionally. Richard Chamberlain hams it up as usual. Highlights: Cardboard boulders and 24-shot six-shooters (count them bullets!).
Austin Powers 2
- Agree: SteveConover, MartySchrader (Unbelievably bad. Even if I were frozen in a body cast for six months, my time would still be worth too much to watch this mess. In fact, were I healthy enough to chew through my own wrist to escape the manacle tying me to the chair I would give that serious consideration. After listening to Sharon Stone scream her thin little wail for the fourty-umpth time I wanted to gouge my eyes out. Fortunately I found the TV remote control before I found a sharp stick.)
- Disagree: GunnarZarncke (I remember remembering it fondly from youth and being delighted to see it again some time and not being too disappointed, but all of this is now too long ago).
) - The first one was a really good romp - not the greatest movie of all time, but charming, novel, and very funny. From the reviews I expected less than that - but more of the same. This isn't more of the same. It's just a long, dreary, self-conscious series of coprophiliac jokes. That's right - I am not kidding - the whole thing is about shit. Things go into and out of Mike Myers' anus every five minutes like clockwork. At one point Powers actually drinks feces. The dance sequences are short and pitiful. Heather Graham is very pretty but completely wasted by the horrible, horrible plot. The Fat Bastard character isn't even a rip-off of AlexeiSayle
. If you see two movies this summer, make certain neither of them is this unsympathetically vile travesty.
- Agree: PeterMerel, MichaelChermside
- Disagree: KenMegill, RobHarwood, RobertWatkins, JeanPhilippeBelanger, RyanDoupe, JimmyCerra, AndyPierce (mini-me & Scott Evil), TimLesher, GavinLambert (I actually preferred this one over the first one [except for the feces]) [Note: Somebody said, "it ain't as good as the first one by a long shot, but it ain't one of the worst." Who?], KeithCoogan, ThomasColthurst
-- B --
- An AndyWarhol?
movie advertized as "A movie to offend everyone." Rated X.
- Agree: BrucePennington (as newlyweds, my wife and I decided to see our first X-rated movie. Unfortunately, we had no idea what Bad was about. It is the only movie I've walked out on, so technically, having not seen the whole thing, I may not be qualified to list this movie here.)
- A miserable work. Sure, I laughed at a couple things, but otherwise hated this depressing movie. Try JohnWaters?
movies with extremely bad taste.
Batman and Robin
- Agree: JeanPhilippeBelanger (script!?!! We don't need no steenkeen script), PeterMerel, Setok (the great first two films are enough reason to really dislike this one), BrianRobinson, TimLesher, KeithCoogan, ThomasColthurst (this is the only movie I've ever walked out of), MartinZarate (nipples on the batsuit!??)
- Disagree: MikeSmith (a pleasant enough mindless romp; there are far, far worse movies than this.), JimmyCerra (If you've been hard at work thinking all day and your brain is fried, then this movie is enjoyable. ;-)
- Alien bad guys (who have their own problems) conquer Earth and then, centuries later, have problems with Terrans. Purest drivel. F-18s and Harriers that still fly after having had no maintenance for how many hundreds of years? Aliens with FTL and zap ray gun capabilities who lose to a bunch of scrawny, starving, untrained savages? Oy!
- Mind numbing dialog, dreary plot, boring performances, and not a single sympathetic character. Major character dies because ... well, no reason. No dying speech, no touching message, no irony, no nothing. Typical Annie Proulx-written garbage. The lack of sarcasm is perhaps the worst thing about it - when one of the cowboys said to the other "I ain't queer" it's just fundamentally unfair that the other didn't reply, "Then why weren't you out shagging sheep like the other working stiffs on this hilltop?". Seriously, if you want to see a really heart-warming gay guy flick, go check out The Sum Of Us
and leave this monotonous claptrap to moulder in its dust jacket.
- Agree: PeterMerel (who believes the movie could be saved by chopping off the last scene and tacking it onto the front - have the thing end with Ennis opening his closet door)
-- C --
- the story and acting are worse than any you've seen elsewhere.
- confused, pseudo-noir story about a "worker" stuck between Heaven and Hell. Busy fighting demons and trying to make a deal with the Devil, literally. Oy.
) - They said it was controversial at Cannes. It was... people booed, hissed and walked out. Other people stayed and gave it a standing ovation, so that doesn't really tell you much.
- Two hotties, Sharon Stone and Halle Berry, face off in a confused and ultimately pointless tale of abuse and revenge.
- Agree: MartySchrader (Authored review. I can't believe nobody's put this one up here yet. Mostly trying to forget the flick ever existed, probby.)
-- D --
- Aliens that look like beachballs with rubber chicken feet intent on murdering the crew, a planet-destroying bomb that starts waxing philosophic and decides it's God, and special effects which were probably created by literally scratching the negatives, are probably the best parts of this movie. So slow and not funny (though it's billed as a comedy) as to give the viewer a real taste of the space dementia the crew of the eponymous spaceship apparently had.
Driving Miss Daisy
- Disagree: PeterMerel (I've never been so tempted to DisagreeByDeleting. Dark Star was hysterically funny the first time I watched it. Tedious on a second viewing I'll admit, but certainly not avoidable), DanMuller (Only saw it once, but it enjoyed it a lot. Disclaimer: I was in an "altered state of consciousness" at the time.), GunnarZarncke (but only in the limiting sense), MartySchrader (the humor was a little dry, but still enjoyable)
- Morgan Freeman drives Miss Daisy (Jessica Tandy) around. That's the whole thing! Won Academy award.
- Agree: BrucePennington (after watching, both wife and I looked at each other and said "Why did someone spend tons of money to make that movie?" It was like watching a screen saver of a gas fireplace for 2 hours.)
) - I assume the only reason it wasn't listed here in the first place is that nobody went to see it. I walked out after fifteen around fifteen minutes, during which saw a dungeon, a dragon, a princess, a bad guy in black, a "look look we can do 3D modeling" magical city, a politically correct (black) elf, a hero yearning for freedom for his country (as the princess is), and quite a few other people who got up and left before we did.
Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam
- Agree: ChuckAdams (It's just too weak to even be hilariously bad, though it has its comedic moments when it's trying its best to be dramatic)
The Turkish Star Wars, with a soundtrack lifted from at least 6 other movies, and clips of Star Wars actually inserted into it. Here are 2 clips: (http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/51229/Turkish_Star_Wars_Training_Scene.html
) and (http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/51548/Turkish_Star_Wars_Training_Scene_Part_2.html?autoplay=true
- Agree: The entire world
-- E --
) - A so-called style movie, this is a movie about two twins, one of whom works in a gas station, the other who works in the mafia. The whole movie is nothing but a setup for a single scene where the brothers meet. And then nothing happens, so the living brother therefore drives to the grand canyon and waves his arms in the air.
- Agree: DanMuller (No discernible plot, revolting imagery. More like a collage of scenes designed to be as disgusting as possible. More than half the audience left before the end when I saw it - a college audience, no less! It apparently has a cult following.) PeterMerel (I tried to watch it 20 years ago. I tried to watch it last week. I am going to stop trying to watch it ever, ever again.)
- Disagree: EricHodges (Revolting imagery and no plot, but also beautiful and fascinating. It fixates on mental states most films and most people want to avoid.), KeithCoogan (brilliantly distopic); ElizabethWiethoff (ya gotta love the lady in the radiator), RonJandrasi This one is about as strange as could be, hypnotizingly weird.. (just don't watch it while eating chicken enchiladas, or anything else for that matter!); JasonFelice (a.k.a. "Eraserhd" - there is actually a plot to the movie and an actual well-thought out deep meaning. I was shocked to find this out years after having fallen in love with it and having earned it as a nickname. Alas, the Internet site which dissected its sheer brilliance has since fallen into oblivion. The essence of the message was the absence of meaning and understanding which a mechanistic, industrialized society falls into.)
- replace alien with dog and space ship with family station wagon and it's Benji.
- Agree: EricHodges, BrianRobinson (I even hated this movie when it came out and I was 7)
- Disagree: MartySchrader (If for no other reason, see this flick for the John Williams music), KeithCoogan (always makes me cry), ThomasColthurst, ScottJohnson (it may be shlok, but it's well-done shlok), JimmyCerra (When I was a kid, I loved this movie. Today, I find it inspiring.), DJGooch (at the time of its release it was pretty good efffects), GunnarZarncke
- can't make up its mind if it's a sci-fi (derogative term, pronounced "si-fee"), a horror thing, or a treatise on exploring the human spirit. So it ends up being none of the above, just a mess.
- Agree: MartySchrader (authored the review), JasonArhart, ScottJohnson (bored me to death, a bad thing for a horror flick), GarryHamilton (all the worse for its complete lack of science)
- Disagree: KeithWright (Oh come on, Perfectly good spooky little sci-fi horror. Right up there with "Hellraiser: Bloodline". Considering how many horror and sci fi movies are completely boring and inane, I don't see why this should be on the list, just for not having a nice tight concept behind it.), AndyPierce, JimmyCerra
-- F --
(1980) Herve Villachaize and Oingo Boingo? Ouch!
-- G --
Ghosts of Mars
) - Absolutely terrible. For a more complete review, see http://www.thekeep.org/dar/reviews/ghostsofmars.html
-- H --
) - Don't believe the idiots at IMDb. This is the worst movie ever made. Contains cameos by Iggy Pop and Motorhead's Lemmy. Some really liked the strange tempo and atmosphere. To each his own I guess, but this is the only movie I've ever walked out of. When they killed the protagonist I'd had enough.
HighLander 2: The Quickening
) - We won't even go there. There should have been only one. Well, actually the movie says it all: There can be only one. Winner of the Hardware Award for the Worst Movie since Hardware!
- Agree: [See Note 1] AndyPierce, RobHarwood, JeanPhilippeBelanger, PhlIp, ThomasHolenstein?, PeterMerel, MarkoSchulz, ChrisBaugh (who reluctantly has to say I appreciated the cool visual effects of the shield graphics - that would have made a good 5 minute computer animation demo) JanLarsen (good thing number 3 completely ignores it), RobertWatkins (though I like HighLander 3: "The Apology"), BrianRobinson, RyanDoupe (the only redeeming quality is SeanConnery?, although it doesn't make up for the rest of the movie to justify watching it), AnonymousDonor (the only movie sequel so outrageously bad that it made me stop liking the original movie. Takes the interesting concept of the first movie and reduces it to boring RickBerman? style garbage.), MartySchrader (It was on TV yet again today, but this time on the Spanish channel. I kept scanning by it while watching March Madness games. Having the dialog replaced by [to me] gibberish sorta pointed out how really bad this flick is. There was no dialog to distract from the wooden acting, the totally crappy swordfight scenes, and the junkbox leftover sets and props. Oy!), KeithCoogan (To the producers of HighLander 2: PLEASE WATCH THE FIRST MOVIE BEFORE YOU CREATE A SECOND ONE WITH THE SAME TITLE AND THE SAME CHARACTERS AND THE SAME ACTORS. THE SECOND INVALIDATES ALL WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST MOVIE. IT WAS A DISASTER. THE FIRST ONE LOOKS SILLY NOW. THE THIRD ONE IS EVEN WORSE.) StraightDope?, KatieLucas (I liked the TV show though...)
- That movie about the guy that becomes invisible (Starring KevinBacon
& Elizabeth Shue) The guy becomes invisible and does nothing but squeeze some boobies? He has about 3 days of invisibility and doesn't do anything more interesting than that? Come on!
- Agree: Anonymous (no redeeming qualities, technological masturbation masquerading as cinema), WilliamUnderwood, SteveConover (Go to IMDB, look up this movie, click on Paul Verhoeven and you get a list of some of the worst movies of the past 15 years. The goofy looking plastic special effects, acting, and generally the loud obnoxious experience remind me of my cousin's parties at Chuck E Cheese's.), GarryHamilton (even MemoirsOfAnInvisibleMan? was better)
- Disagree: KeithCoogan (Elisabeth Shue's my girl), Anonymous2 (any narrative film with a main character who is invisible is always worth watching)
-- J --
- Really scary up to the point when you see the bad guy and then its not really scary at all. Then there's the other 85 minutes of the 90 minute film that I can't recall.
Joe vs the Volcano
) - Y'know, somehow I don't think Hanks and Ryan are going to be pulling this one out as their best movie.
- Agree: SeanOleary (Meg Ryan appears in three roles, NONE are the cute quirky blonde we know and love. Meanwhile, Abe Vigoda as a south pacific islander?? Fugeddaboudit!), DJGooch (It was pretty lame)
- Disagree: TobyFarley (It is silly, quirky and dumb. At the same time It is on my top ten list. As with most movies it is a matter of taste. Some of the lines are just classic.), ChrisBaugh (I agree with Toby, it's a mindlessly fun show.), KyleBrown (It's bad, mindless and banal but there are many, many others that are worse. However, it's got a few yuks.), TomStambaugh (I loved this silly, quirky, dumb, escapist and totally charming romantic comedy. See it with a lover whose presence makes you feel warm and smiley inside. Leave your critical brain outside, lighten up, and just go with it.), PeterHansen (One of my favourite quirky movies. The entire first part in the basement office with the dripping and the fluorescents and the boss on the phone ["I'm not _saying_ that!"] are hilarious.), BrianRobinson (I can never abandon the movie that introduced the phrase "brain cloud" into my vocabulary. I use it constantly.), KeithCoogan (loved it)
-- L --
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
- Rivals only StarshipTroopers
for being "movie that is the total polar opposite of the book" - although there is an odd reversal in that ST the movie was satire (said satire being arguably the sole redeeming feature of ST), while in LXG it was the source graphic novels that were satire instead of the movie. Worse, the movie became exactly what the book was a satire of - bland pop-stories that ignore just how seedy and nasty we really are. The real LXG was a team of rapists, drug addicts, terrorists, and a suffragette. Mina Harker was the leader, and was most certainly _not_ a vampire.
Legally Blonde 2
- Agree: MartinZarate (authored review)
- Disagree: PeterMerel (I love the books to death. I avoided the movie because I'd heard it was a travesty. But I caught it halfway through at a friend's house and soon realized it's not a travesty - it just has nothing at all to do with the books. Given that, it's mindless happy fun.), GunnarZarncke (not having read the book(s?) I second the 'mindless fun')
- The first movie was a fairly average but enjoyable film. This sequel basically takes every decent element from the first film, flushes it and replaces it with annoying blonde jokes. Did the writers even see the first film? There was a little thing called character development
. It was important. And the Snaps Cup. Dear God.
- The JrrTolkien
books "The Hobbit" and "LordOfTheRings
" are classic works with quality in many details. The movie has a watered down script, so what is left is without intrigue. As a movie it's of questionable quality [http://www.movie-mistakes.com/film.php?filmid=1778
], but it has good visuals and computer graphics. The worst thing about this film is it can spoil your book reading experience.
- Agree: TomStambaugh (Also applies to parts 2 through N. A meaningless "war", comprised of interminable "battles" between myriad monsters. So what. An overblown, excruciatingly boring demo reel for the special effects community. Even duller than Quake. Even my six year old was bored.) Even taken as individual films, they're all tl;dr
- Disagree: KyleBrown (This movie is great! My wife had no problem following it and she's never read Tolkien in her life. I've heard the same from several other friends who aren't Tolkien fans as well. Definitely one of the MoviesToConsider.), RamonLeon, PeterMerel, ThomasHolenstein?, MarkoSchulz, JeanPhilippeBelanger, WilliamUnderwood, CameronSmith, MartySchrader (Who was the jamoke who originally nominated this one?!?), TimLesher, TomAyerst, KeithCoogan (great vision), GeorgeDinwiddie (While not a great movie, it's not bad. It's certainly better than parts 2 & 3, but I'd suggest the books over the movies.), JeffLangr, ScottJohnson (the movies ought to stand on their own. If they were a newly-created story, rather than an adaptation of a literary work treasured by so many; I suspect much of the griping would go away.), DaveFayram (I'm with ScottJohnson on this. Great movies, excellent adaptations, kept the spirit while also making a good movie.), ThomasColthurst, KatieLucas (OK, I *HATED* the books because they're tedious and poorly written. The films are stunning work. They're epic and beautiful and involved. They have a scale and a depth that makes most of the fantasy genre films ever made look poor cartoons by contrast. The tedium and boring detail and anoraky linguisting toying of the books are turned into compact, neat scripts that make fantastic movies.), JimmyCerra, MartinZarate - Part II (with Jar Jar Gimli) might belong here, but not part I. BrucePennington (I was impressed with how closely Jackson had come to portraying the look I'd imagined while reading the book. If anything qualifies for this page, it would be the very ending of Part III.), GunnarZarncke (considering the complexity of the matter it's good. After all it's not only one book but part of the live of its author; it is a mythology become world become story become legacy to stay. I didn't expect too much, but it covers it's ground well and technically it's great.), rmsgrey (Okay, it's not as good as the books, and it's less faithful than, say, HarryPotter One, but it's still a better movie than, say, HarryPotter One - forget about the books, and you'll probably find it's one of the better movies you've seen. Jackson's sin is in not living up to the original, not in the quality of what he produced)
- Not that anyone here is likely to watch this willingly, but even my wife wanted to walk out halfway through this one. But you have to watch at least some of it, so that when you watch InTheLoop?, you get the reference when Jamie shouts "Shut it!... Love Actually!"
-- M --
- Martians come to Earth to kidnap women because a genetic accident of some kind causes births on Mars to be predominantly boys. Ironically, the lead role of Dop the Martian was played by TommyKirk?
, who a few years earlier, was supposedly fired by Disney for being gay.
- a comic book plot drowned in take-away philosophy. Lots of visual effect to hide the fact that the movie doesn't have even one original idea.
- Agree: BeauWilkinson (people aren't good batteries)
- Disagree: JimmyCerra (So what! It was fun to watch, the fast-food philosophy is a decent introduction akin to the science of StarTrek (and Trek inspired me to pursue my chosen career). As for originality, The Matrix wove a lot of unrelated ideas into a single entertaining tale. That's creativity too.) MartinZarate - name one sci-fi movie that isn't a "comic book plot drowned in fast food philosophy" - at least Matrix had the last great use of trick photography and image-editing in a fight scene before the whole field was replaced with CG puppets. PeterMerel (Um, you didn't like TheMatrix? Ah, okay, I see you are not a geek.)
- mindless superhero plot dressed up in visual elements of the superb original movie. Gunfights, car-chases, explosions, kung fu, deathless heroes, vampires, ghosts, and good vs. evil. Not bad as your standard Hollywood FX movie, but horrifically dull and disappointing for anyone who enjoyed TheMatrix
- Agree: PeterMerel, TomAyerst (hoping that its just suffering "middle of trilogy syndrome"), JeffLangr (loved the first; this one bored the tears out of me. One giant video game, didn't care about any of the characters [see also: PhantomMenace?]), MartySchrader (What was the point? No, I mean, really? Was there a point to this whole mess?), GunnarZarncke (but I didn't like 1 even)
- Disagree: RobHarwood (Not as good as the first, but a good sequel nonetheless), JimmyCerra, MarkoSchulz, ThomasHolenstein?, RamonLeon, SteveConover (I suspect most naysayers are simply jumping on the bandwagon to be hip. Was an excellent movie with some gripping moments and effective suspension of disbelief. Up against anything but the first movie it's superior, certainly in the top 3 or so science fiction movies of the past 5 years. (Seek out a qualified mental health professional pronto! --Pete), TimLesher (I left the theatre feeling vaguely betrayed, but not an "avoid at all costs".), KeithCoogan (not as bad as Revolutions), DaveFayram (I'm not sure what exactly people were expecting. The first Matrix wasn't that much better, just more surprising because of its novelty. Not as good as Revolutions, but certainly not a "must-avoid." A solid action flik at worst.), ThomasColthurst
- While the first was action-packed and original, and the second merely action-packed, the final installment of this trilogy stitches together sequence after dreary sequence of action movie cliches as threadbare as the clothing worn by the inhabitants of New Zion. Enemies that can't shoot or simply mill about menacingly, giant robots, continuous blaring machine gun fire, and a final mano y mano
Fight Sequence To Save The World, set to blaring choral music, rather reminiscent (perhaps redolent is the better term) of Highlander ... 2.
- Agree: MartySchrader (Yeah, I gotta go along with the review. I rented the thing and found myself reaching for the fast forward quite a bit. Jeez, you'd think these dumb-ass machines would be capable of using a gun, wouldn't you?!? Or how about a nice fuel/air bomb to bury Zion once and for all? Oy!), PeterMerel (who understands VforVendetta makes up for it all), GunnarZarncke (but I didn't like 1 even)
- Disagree: MartinZarate - I watched it with no expectations, still having the bad taste of Reloaded in my mouth. Revolutions provided a nice climactic closure for the series. The final battles were stupid, but at least they gave you something to end the series with. Reloaded, by comparison, felt totally pointless.
- the world's most trite love story. They thought flashy visuals and cheesy 80s pop songs redone in Broadway musical-style could make it more interesting. No. I got two things from this movie - learned what "a pimp" is, and understood once more that LifesJustTooShort to watch moving images. Tango Argentino scene seemed the only one with some message. Camera and editing job were disgustingly bad. The only really good thing there was that, ending was told in the beginning of the movie and everyone could leave without any worries that movie will get any better.
I also left the cinema. I've only ever walked out on two films. The other was a 1940s nazi propaganda film. This film was dire.
- Agree: ChrisBaugh (I had to leave the theater because I was dizzy and nauseous from the jump-cut, swish-pan photography style. I found the attempted story to be annoying and could just imagine the authors snickering to each other about their cleverness at sticking together so many pop culture references. What a miserable movie.); RamonLeon (Even Cheese has a limit, intentional or not, this was way too much, unwatchable!); EvanDeaubl (Let's make a musical, and then short them on the music budget! That's the ticket! The 80's/90's pop culture references got old after about 5 minutes.); ElizabethWiethoff (If I hear "Bohemian" one more time I'm going to puke.)
- Disagree: Peichin (The innovative representation of theatrical art is superb! It is the form that is intriguing.)ThomasHolenstein? ([Completely disagree] How could such a movie get on this list?), JeanPhilippeBelanger (I thought the cheesy love story was the point. Everything was extremely naive.), Unknown (Cheese is the point! It's fun and silly and not serious. I liked it and it's my girlfriend's favorite movie ever.), JohnFarrell (could have been better, but was still very good, and I don't even like Nicole.), MarkoSchulz ([Completely disagree] I didn't want to see it first when I heard about it, then I was surprised by the good critics, watched and enjoyed it. I experienced some parallels to the film version of RomeoAndJuliet? with LeonardoDiCaprio?: Both are somewhat like a video clip and contain stories which are not really something new. Of course RomeoAndJuliet? still contains the far better story, but MoulinRouge? does a better job of overwhelming you visually; the latter is especially nice in the beginning of the film, where it transports the feelings the young poet must have had, when he first saw the Moulin Rouge. I call it one of the MoviesToConsider.), Unknown (Totally disagree - it's on my top list of this year's movies.), Unknown (It's amazing how this movie pushes peoples' buttons), Unknown (Yes. I loved it tremendously, but while leaving the moviehouse, I remarked that this movie would do just that. Anyone who appreciates pop music [like me] will love it. Anyone who perceives pop music as an assault on their fine sensibilities [like me when I'm being uptight] will hate it. I look forward to the DVD.), KeithCoogan (always watchable, very entertaining). RonJandrasi (I loved it.. Laughed too loud in the theatre. I also loved StrictlyBallroom?.. an earlier BazLuhrmann? film. MoulinRouge? makes more sense if you're already hip to Baz.), ThomasColthurst, JohnDougan? (What's not to like? - It's a Bollywood musical transposed into the key of Paris)
- Robin Williams in drag, complete with a grating phony accent and weird moralism throughout. Harvey Firestein turns in a performance as a flamboyant queer which is not so much over-the-top as it is under-the-bottom. Need I say more?
Manos, the Hands of Fate
) - This is what happens when you give a fertilizer salesman a small amount of money, a camera, and an inkling of ambition. Unlike most movies on this list, this one is truly bad in a profound, painful way. Do not watch without the safety guards of the MST3K crew jabbing at it, or you might just end up clinically insane. The only thing I can think of worse is Red Zone Cuba.
- Agree: DaveFayram (Wrote the review. Was tired of seeing decent or modest movies be railed on as bad, so I'm gonna put some real stinkers in here. You don't know how bad a movie is until you see the Chinaman-on-the-phone scene of "The Wild, Wild World of Batwoman.")
-- N --
Nick of Time
) - With Johnny Depp as the good guy and Christopher Walken as the bad guy it can't be that bad, right? Wrong.
-- O --
The Omega Code
) - I went to this movie hoping for an interesting look at Jewish mysticism. Instead, they use the Bible code theories as a flimsy backdrop for a prophetic computer which introduces hokey plot elements too late for the protagonists to do anything about it.
-- P --
- The movie does not follow the standard "disaster formula" because the story is about real people in a real storm. Therefore the movie's no fun. On the other hand, the people are so stupid it's impossible to care about any of them. They can all drown for all I care, and many of them do. Read the book, instead.
- the remake that is. It starts out bad, and gets worse, and worse, and worse... And then just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it has TheWorstEnding
. It is disillusioning that TimBurton?
did such an trivial movie. And did anyone else notice the continuity error when the main antagonist was locked in the crashed ship's bridge? He was jumping around (monkeys do that, you know) and blasting away at the door with his Zap Ray Gun, when, in one of the cuts, it suddenly becomes a Beretta 92FS. In the next cut it's back to a Zap Ray Gun again. Aren't they supposed to pay people to catch errors like this in a "blockbuster" movie?
- It was a polymorphic gun. You anti-OOP bigot! -- top :-)
- Agree: PeterMerel, RobHarwood, DanielKnapp, KeithBraithwaite, MarkoSchulz, EricHodges, MartySchrader (It's pathetic. Really.), KeithCoogan, JasonArhart
- Disagree: AlexPopiel, RyanDoupe (Yeah, it wasn't great, but I'd watch it again on cable, if I was really bored.), JimmyCerra (I agree with RyanDoupe)
) - Based on Shakespeare's The Tempest. I guess. If it had been merely bizarre, I might have enjoyed it. If all the naked bodies had elicited any kind of hormonal response, I might not have regretted sitting through it.
- a story consisting of a bunch of blood and gore separated by aimless wandering and rambling by its antiheroes. I would add more of a description, but thankfully I have wiped (most of) this movie from my memory. I felt a weight had been lifted from my soul when the end credits started rolling.
- Agree: EvanDeaubl (Original reviewer - I'm gonna get a lot of disagreement on this one!), GunnarZarncke (but I haven't seen it completely (on tv))
- Disagree: JasonArhart, JeffLangr (This is one of my favorite movies of the past 15 years or so. A second viewing demonstrates that little of the wandering in the movie is "aimless," and I think the dialogue is more compelling than most other movies. As far as weights lifting from your soul, some think that the main point of the movie is soul salvation.), PeterMerel. AndyPierce
-- R --
- Oy. That simple, that bad.
Return of the Jedi
- I bought the StarWars
DVD box while feeling some nostalgia. I remember when it came out that Return of the Jedi was my least favorite. The Ewoks were overly cute, but I remember thinking that the rest of the movie made up for it. I was wrong: Return of the Jedi is awful. Mark Hamill gets even uglier and still can't manage to act his way out of a paper bag. Carrie Fisher looks desperately like she wants to be somewhere else. My wife (who happens to love things like Spiderman) had never seen it, and a half hour in she gave up on it. I was embarrassed to be watching it. A horrible mess of a movie. I fell asleep 15 minutes after the wife got up, I was so bored with it. Addendum: I gave the DVD set an additional chance and watched all the movies again. I realized that The Empire Strikes Back is actually pretty good, save the Jonah and the Worm diversion. But Return of the Jedi is still just plain bad, particularly the acting and the dialogue. It's not a question of disbelief. And Luke is never convincing as a serious Jedi.
- Agree: JeffLangr (authored review)
- Disagree: ThomasColthurst (while not in the same league as New Hope & Empire Strikes Back, this is watchable and even has some decent moments, especially in the first half in which Luke gets to act like a kick ass Jedi.), MartySchrader (Why do people here like to pick on all things Star Wars? There's nothing wrong with this flick that a little suspension of disbelief can't cure.) ScottJohnson (ROTJ is still better than 90% of the SF dross that gets printed on celluloid, and certainly above-average when you consider Hollywood cinema as a whole. And the final confrontation between Luke, Vader, and the Emperor still give me chills. OTOH, the final space battle was a joke... and too bad the Death Star, before being blown to bits, didn't turn its big-ass ray gun on the Endor moon and vaporize all them annoying Ewoks...), JimmyCerra, MartinZarate (the speederbike scene still blows me away, and the Ewoks are still better than the Gungans).
- Julia Roberts & Richard Gere are the Barbie and Ken dolls of the industry. Producers are forever putting them together in different ways (For a rant by JamieZawinski
see also http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/appeal.html
- Agree: PhlIp (the morning after my wife dragged me to see it, the punk-rock DJ on the radio said, "My girlfriend drug me out to see RunawayBride? last night. I am SUCH A WUSS!")
- Disagree: MartySchrader (Sorry, folks. This one had redeeming features. Can't blow it off.), ScottJohnson (not great by any stretch, but there is far worse out there.)
-- S --
) - KurtRussell?
schlock of the nth degree.
- Agree: RobHarwood (<loud orchestral music... no dialogue>, <fast-forward>, <loud orchestral music... no dialogue>, repeat; the commentary on the DVD is especially hilarious), JeanPhilippeBelanger, MarkHazen (I felt so ripped off for paying the $3 rental fee that I ripped voice samples out of it to create a truly horrific techno mockery of the movie. [http://www.markh.com/killemall.mp3] but only if you have a strong constitution.)
- Disagree: MartySchrader (Yes, truly schlock, but has a few redeeming features if it comes on at 22:30 on a Saturday night after the kids are in bed. It will make you sleepy enough to go to bed yourself.), JasonArhart (This is one of those movies you watch to see stuff blow up, and it delivers - stuff blows up. Then again, I enjoyed MarsAttacks too. The key is that I never expected a plot, so I wasn't disappointed.) Lemme get this straight, you own this movie on DVD? <chuckle> (NO!! Rented!)
- Perhaps the stupidest movie I've ever seen. The "shocking truth", that people choosing suicide in a seriously overcrowded world were being recycled, is the only part of the movie that made any real sense. The only redeeming value was the movie-within-a-movie: the scenes shown in the suicide parlor. The shocking truth is what they're being recycled as. As an early '70's take on dystopia, it was topical for the population explosion, women's rights as well as the great divide between haves and have-nots. Nothing like it until BladeRunner really.
- Agree: GeorgeDinwiddie (reviewer)
- Disagree: MarkTilley; ElizabethWiethoff (a fan of Whit Bissell, the one-line wonder); PeterMerel (I love the opening sequence. If you really want to catch the Erhlich-induced 70s doom zeitgeist, watch it back to back with ZPG and RollerBall?. Ooh! And TheOmegaMan?!) Don't forget Logan's Run
- Re: "70's take on dystopia, it was topical for the population explosion" - Anybody who has taken L.A. freeways during rush-hour will still find it topical.
) - Get a balance scale. On one arm, put Young Frankenstein
, The Producers
, and Blazing Saddles
. On the other, put Spaceballs
. The spectacular un
funniness of the latter is almost enough to cancel the combined humor of the other three. Why in the world didn't anyone close to Mel Brooks warn him that he was risking his standing as a funny person by making this film?
Star Wars Episode I & II
- Agree: MartySchrader (Mel Brooks wasted a lot of time, talent, and money making this beater)
- Disagree: JimmyCerra (I laughed at the jokes.) Scott Johnson (Not Brooks' best, but still hilarious. "Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb" is one of my favorite lines in all of cinema, for some reason. I almost wish that Brooks would now make a sequel, given that there have been 3 Star Wars movies, 4 Star Trek series (plus 6 movies), the Matrix trilogy, and much else since the first Spaceballs was released (in 1987). Plus, Bill Pullman needs the work. We can find out how Dark Helmet rose from his humble beginnings as a nerdy Canadian comic, to become a Dark Lord of the Schtick. Plus I want to see Yogurt kick someone' ass.'', GunnarZarncke (yeah, part 2 would be a great idea), MartinZarate (I actually liked this one better than Blazing Saddles). And Brooks got much worse than this - anyboy see Dead And Loving It?
- Mixed: "Pizza The Hutt" sight-gag almost makes it worth while.
- I remember being very excited as a kid to see each of the first three Star Wars movies. At first I thought I was disappointed with the Phantom Menace (and the Clones One) because I was a jaded adult. But even my son, who was heavily into Harry Potter and other fantasy junk at the time, was bored to tears by these movies. I can barely remember anything about them now, just that they seemed like a bunch of technical wanking. Unlike episodes 4-6, it didn't seem like there was any reason to care at all about what happened to any of the characters. Completely forgettable.
- Agree: JeffLangr (reviewer), JasonArhart, ApoorvaMuralidhara, PeterMerel (Though I'd rather watch both of them over and over than Episode III ever again).
- Disagree: no doubt lots of people. [They're both watchable. -- ScottJohnson] AndyPierce (my 3-year-old son loves the "robot movie" and I think I was the best of all of them, but only if you already know the kid grows up to be DarthVader. II sucked big-time later: III was good), JimmyCerra (While not nearly as good as the original trilogy, Episodes I and II were entertaining.), GunnarZarncke (I was good, II and III had the understandable belivability problems with smoothly connecting to IV, but the acting was horrible)
- I'm sure there was a story, but somewhere among the Texan-drawl robots, preprogrammed computers (wow!), and The Hoff's Headgear (I understand he'd prefer not to discuss the role)....
- Alleged sequel to SaturdayNightFeverTheMovie?
, which is actually a good drama. The sequel makes no sense on its own and even less sense as a continuation of the story. Everything about this one sucks, and not in an entertaining way; it's just bad. -- ChrisBaugh
- Agree: SeanOleary (Directed and written by Sylvester Stallone, need I say more?) Rocky was written by SylvesterStallone?... (I agree that Rocky was a great movie, but he didn't direct Rocky. Most of his other [non-Rocky] films could be included on this list as well [Rhinestone, Over the Top].), ElizabethWiethoff (The dance sequences in this movie are a waste because they suffer from Flashdance/MTV syndrome: too much cutting to different camera shots every 2 seconds. You don't get to see a continuous dance sequence. In fact, the actors didn't dance continuously anyway. They'd spend 6 hours setting up for a leap and shoot the leap, then spend another three hours shooting the leap's catch. And so on. Watch Travolta's nearly continuous dance to "You Should Be Dancing" in SaturdayNightFeverTheMovie?. Or watch Singing in the Rain. Or watch any musical filmed before the 1980s.)
- Disagree: TimLesher (only because of Finola Hughes...)
- Ick. Vincent Gallo is the only redeeming feature of this confused tale of the first manned expedition to Mars crashing and getting stranded there. Horrid acting except for Gallo, who can't save this beater. Dumb story, completely useless ending. Technically a non-starter. They used real training simulators for sets, and still
couldn't get the technicals right. This is how independent movie making gets a bad name.
- Agree: MartySchrader (authored the review), PeterMerel (who remembers suffering through this one on Saturday afternoon TV in the seventies and just being certain that there had to be some goddamned payoff at the end of it all ... but there's not.)
- Disagree: I've never seen it, but it sounds like it's based on a TheodoreSturgeon story, which makes me want to.... A few minutes with Google has found the full text of the story, The Man Who Lost the Sea: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090413/lostsea-f.shtml
- Agree: RobertAtkins (Worst portrayal of computer hacking in a movie since Jurassic "I know this, this is Unix!" Park, terrible plot, godawful acting and surprisingly, Halle Berry's breasts aren't even a redeeming feature), KeithCoogan (couldn't follow it)
- Disagree: JasonArhart (I can't disagree with your comments, but somehow I still rather enjoyed the movie)
-- T --
- rather dull love story set against the background of a sinking ship (aka "WorldGoneMad?
"). Those sort of plots get dull during the era of silent films!
- Agree: RobertWatkins, DanielKnapp (The characters all acted like completely modern people. Very poor mimesis.), KyleBrown (I found LeonardoDiCaprio? to be totally unbelievable as someone from the turn of the century.), SteveConover (wasn't this movie like 5 hours long?), BrianRobinson (so boring), JasonArhart (The effects were great though.), KeithDerrick (What tweaked my sense of irony most was that, just after they launched this film, I saw a documentary on TV proving that the stern of Titanic never lifted more than about 20 degrees or so before she broke up. Kind of blitzed the entire action section of the film.) GunnarZarncke (walked out), ElizabethWiethoff (a "Dish Night" rule in Passage by ConnieWillis? is "And no Titanic!")
- Disagree: AlexPopiel, WilliamUnderwood, RyanDoupe (yes, it's an old theme, but it was told well, and the effects were good.), PhlIp (it's an old theme cause it's an old story.), MarkoSchulz (yes, it is not a great movie, has quite some weaknesses, the AcademyAward?s it got are very questionable and I wouldn't pay to watch it again, but I do not mourn the money I spend on it: It simply is shallow entertainment.), EricHodges, MartySchrader (hey, the effects were pretty durn good, and I actually paid to see it twice.), KeithCoogan (not the best, but certainly the biggest movie made to date), ThomasColthurst (not a good movie, but certainly watchable), JimmyCerra, AalbertTorsius (but only because of the funniest spoiler I've ever heard - "The ship sinks; he dies, she lives.")
- Is this a reverse spoof of The Player?
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
- I like surreal, really I do, but this movie is just annoying!
- Agree: EricHodges (I loved the TV series and most of what David Lynch creates, but this was crap.)
- Disagree: AalbertTorsius (but I've never watched the TV series, and I watched the movie in the dead of the night, alone - it scared me), PeterMerel (It was pretty bad but I enjoyed revisiting the few characters and sets that didn't hit the cutting room floor. Okay, and nipples.).
-- W --
Who's That Girl?
- Agree: DanMuller (A comedy. By intention, anyway. Saw it on a double date, one person from each couple fell asleep during the movie. There was one joke in the entire movie that made me laugh.)
- Disagree: EricHodges (Black comedy about class distinctions in the USA. One of my favorite films.)
- Madonna's acting is the best part, which should tell you a lot.
-- Z --
- Stunningly bad direction, astonishingly wooden acting, and no script whatsoever combine to make this movie that does nothing, goes nowhere, and in which nothing at ALL happens the canonical example of MoviesToAvoidAtAllCosts
For a list of bad movies with reviews, try http://rinkworks.com/badmovie/
What, is it considered fancy to add here movies just because they didn't fit your mood or what? Snobbish.
Some of the reviews explain why these movies must be avoided at all cost. And as for snobbish? Some of us pay good money to view these film things, and feel the need to express how much it annoyed us, or insulted us, or bored us. Can't stomach a critical review? Move along - for you, there's nothing to see here.
I love the name of this page - moves to avoid at all
costs?! If I had to choose between death and watching an Adam Sandler movie, I'd probably watch the movie.
There are no Adam Sandler movies listed on this page. If you don't like Adam Sandler, that should say a lot about the movies that
are on this page. Then again, as in the case of Lord of the Rings, some movies are here because a few people really didn't like them. However, in the case of Adam Sandler flicks one should probably keep a flame thrower handy to destroy the TV or movie house, should one be forced into a position of watching one of his masterpieces.
Most of these movies I have never seen - I guess from the sound of it I'm Lucky to have missed them.
Hmm...I have to agree with this. I'd much rather listen to VogonPoetry? than watch a Sandler flick. Failing that, sliding down a 10 meter razor blade into a pool of iodine seems much more fun as well.
- I concur with many of the opinions expressed by my most esteemed wiki wanderers in the current paragraph. I object, however, to the lack of vehemence in establishing the degree of ill-luck and mind crushing horror it is to be exposed to this nightmarish work. I enjoyed the first movie. When I heard there was to be a sequel, I said to myself, "Bravo!" I had doubts about the wisdom of resurrecting Sean Connery - well, anyhow, one cannot be too choosy. I remember fleeing early from an excruciating class (a class on discrete mathematics - god, how I loathe discrete mathematics - but that is a topic for another page) and queuing up and paying $6.95 for the matinee show. At first, and it is most disconcerting if you have seen the original movie several times (as I had), there's a sense of dislocation and discontinuity, as though you are living in a parallel universe. You start to think to yourself - am I in the right place? why doesn't this movie make sense? did I walk in late by mistake? did I black out and miss something. But then the truth dawns on you - the movie is pastiche of stream of consciousness editing and just the most pathetic writing imaginable. "What happened? Why me?" you cry over and over. I have seen many of the movies mentioned on this page. This movie is not comparable: it lives in a hell of its own. I would rather have my eyes replaced with rectums than to see this "piece of entertainment" again; you must think I exaggerate, but I do not. -- [not signed]