Oh dude, the South Park movie made me blush, and laughed my ass off. It was my first experience with South Park. I thought "surely the tv show is much more toned down than the movie". I found the opposite to be the case. Wow! Brilliant. We need South Park. And Simpsons. And King Of The Hill.
and family guy.
Alright, I know its late in the post but there are some people who need defense. Even if he wasn't the most gorgeous man alive, Steven Seagal is still one helluva actor. I don't have time to elaborate, but spend two seconds unbiasedly looking at this man and you'll understand too.
Second and in the same vain, Pauly Shore is quite possibly one of the greatest actors of our time. Although not as gorgeous as Steven, watching Encino Man or Bio-Dome will prove his greatness to anyone, even my friend Tony.
Third, I have noticed "Waterworld" showing up on quite a few 'worst' movie lists. Admittedly its not the greatest film ever, but if approaced with an open mind letting go of all the hogwash spewed out by critics, it is a very enjoyable film. Come on, the movie starts with Kevin C drinking his own pee!
Also, speaking of bad movies, how about Batman Forever. I know its not the worst but I watched it the other day after seeing "Batman Begins" (awesome) and was horribly disapointed. Even though Val Kilmer rules everything (Tombstone, True Romance, The Doors, etc...) Batman Forever sucks everything.
Urban Menace with Snoop and Fat Joe
It's the movie "Mileage Boy". It's about a wannabe runner who's getting nowhere and people are telling him he should quit. But he ups his mileage to 70mpw and wins Olympic gold.
At the end the wise old guy who persuaded him it was all about 70mpw points out that when he overtook the other guy on the outside of the final bend for gold, that extra tiny bit of distance meant that he'd averaged exactly 70mpw for the year instead of 69.999 or something. The implication being that had he already been leading his lack of mileage would have meant he would have been outkicked.
Terrible movie but you'll love it.
Eraserhead sucked,
Forrest Gump
Here's some serious garbage for your consideration.
Patch Adams
The Accidental Tourist
In The Gloaming
Everything, Everywhere, All At Once
Generally I try not to waste my time with bad movies. I'd probably say of movies I've tried watching, the worst ever would be Birdemic: Shock and Terror. Though like many movies considered to be "worst ever", it might have been going for worst ever.
If I were to give weight to how hard the filmmakers were trying to make a good movie, the size of the budget might be the best objective measure. Of movies that seem to have been made for lots of money with an honest effort to be entertaining in a positive way, Batman and Robin, Catwoman, and Green Lantern are all awful. Imagine those movies without the goofy costumes?
Message from Space
Night of the Comet
XC ACE wrote:
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes...hands down.
I thought that when young and thought it was actually trying to be serious, then I grew up and saw it was a dumb spoof.
A better question would be "Worst movie to be nominated for Best Picture Oscar" or something.
A better question is: "Worst movie to be nominated for Best Picture Oscar" or something.
Roger Biebert wrote:
Generally I try not to waste my time with bad movies. I'd probably say of movies I've tried watching, the worst ever would be Birdemic: Shock and Terror. Though like many movies considered to be "worst ever", it might have been going for worst ever.
If I were to give weight to how hard the filmmakers were trying to make a good movie, the size of the budget might be the best objective measure. Of movies that seem to have been made for lots of money with an honest effort to be entertaining in a positive way, Batman and Robin, Catwoman, and Green Lantern are all awful. Imagine those movies without the goofy costumes?
What could possibly have motivated you to watch Birdemic: Shock and Terror? Of course, it was gonna suck.
Missing at 17
"Jury Duty" is so bad that any sane person wants physical harm to come to Pauly Shore's character the entire movie.
I've never seen a movie where every single character in the movie was submental. That is, until I saw Napolean Dynamite. Someone brought it up so I'm going to comment. Napolean puts several tator tots in his pants pocket and then starts eating them in class. His classmate says "give me some of your tots". Would you eat tator tots out of someone's pants pocket? Neither would I. But in this movie, no one has an IQ over about 60.
Magnolia (1999) is overrated AF
Andtheoscargoesto... wrote:
A better question is: "Worst movie to be nominated for Best Picture Oscar" or something.
In the early days of the Oscars a lot of the nominated movies were crap. Some of the greatest movies ever made were during that time period, but there was absolutely no depth in terms of quality and nominators didn't really know what they were doing either. 3 of the 5 nominations in most of the 20s and 30s would be complete garbage. Sticking to post 1960, my list of worst best picture nominated films would include Tom Jones, Dr. Doolittle, Crash, Prizzi's Honor, Shakespeare in Love, Ghost, Bohemian rhapsody. Then there are those that a lot of people still think are good and I wouldn't agree...Licorice Pizza, Call Me By Your Name, Gosford Park, American Beauty, Everything Everywhere All at Once, American Sniper, Dallas Buyers Club, The Wolf of Wall Street, Avatar, Life of Pi, Babel, Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, Chocolat, The Cider House Rules, Scent of a Woman, Sunset Boulevard, Tootsie, Grand Hotel. These are still way better than the average nominated film back in the first decade of the Oscars though
Very Bad Things w/ Christian Slater I think.
2000 mules