Name the worst movies ever made

[HollyDolly]

You could be right at that! Michael Medved, who used to be on PBS as a movie critic, said the thing that baffled him is that Hollywood KNOWS what movies make money but seems more interested in promoting an agenda, providing cheap thrills via special effects and specializing in sex and violence. However the big money making movies tend to be more “family appropriate.” But heaven forbid Holly-wierd as he calls it, actually make a movie with a positive message, family values or horror of horrors…RELIGIOUS themes.

Go figure
Lisa A

Hollywood in the past produced movies like the silent,The King of Kings , Ben Hur,
The Ten Commandments with Charlton’Moses" Heston and some others. They did family movies then too, but that was back when you had Louie B.Mayer ,Sam Goldwynn and others running the studios. Sure they put out junk too, but they also put out movies like Miracle on 34th Street, It’s a Wonderful Life, I am a Fugitive from A Chain Gain(Paul Muni)
Public Enemy, Frankenstein, Dracula, etc.
Before they had the motion picture code, they did have racy stuff on screen with girls running around in their underwear and movies like Call Her Savage, The Story of Temple drake, movies about white slavery, drug addicition,etc. There was a movie made in the silents called Where Are My Children, about abortion if I recall.
People in the past would not have allowed much of what goes on nowadays in the movies.They wouldf write the big studios, threathen to boycott the movies,etc.
Morals clauses came about after some of the early scandals with Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle and others.That’s why they had publicity departments, to keep quiet what the stars did in their off hours, though once in awhile stuff got leaked out.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Church supports the concept of a just war. I’m not sure whether she supports the concept of perverse and/or degrading films.

What’s degrading or perverse about the films made by Whale or those starring Clift ? How many people even know about the sexuality of either ? I didn’t, until after seeing their films - and finding about about them hasn’t changed my appreciation of either: I liked “Suddenly Last Summer” before learning Clift was homosexual, and I still do. Film actors are film actors, and must be judged on their work as film actors - not on their moral or other failings, real or supposed.​

Clint Eastwood’s opinions on abortion are utterly irrelevant to whether he is good as a film actor or director - what matters to his acting & director, is whether or not he can act. And so with everyone else who follows a profession. The illogic that judges people on their moral character even when that is irrelevant to their competence in their chosen profession should, to be consistent, be extended to everyone else with a profession: but how are the morals of butchers or tailors or architects or estate agents (AKA realtors ?) relevant to whether they can do their job ?

How many people ask plumbers for their views on abortion or tubal ligation, instead of asking whether they can do the work for which they is being employed by them ? A plumber who is addicted to paedophilia may well be harming his soul - but how is that relevant to whether he knows his job ? Plumbers don’t need to be holy,or opposed to abortion, or orthodox Catholics; they need to be competent plumber, for that is what they are employed to do - they aren’t employed for their spiritual excellence. All the orthodoxy desirable is no good for plumbing leaks - all the pro-life zeal imaginable cannot show a man how to to act in films. And no amount of heterosexuality, nor chastity, will make a bad actor into a good one; a talented homosexual is the person to choose.

So ideas about whether a person is good morally, should be kept apart from ideas about whether he is good at his profession.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. It’s become pretty legendary for being the WORST Star Trek movie ever made.

That was truly*** abysmal*** ​

 

[Irish_Kathy]

That was truly*** abysmal*** ​

Hi Michael The thing is, I’m pretty much a very loyal Star Trek fan. But that movie takes the cake. Even if Spock does have a brother, Bill Shatner did a pretty abysmal job of botching up the entire movie.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m going to dodge the arrows of Star Trek fans here.
Ever talk to a Trekkie?
I did once. They went on and on and on about how wonderful the show was and the deep meanings in the episodes (Civil Rights, Vietnam). After a while I looked over and said “you do know you’re talking about a show in which people are running around in thier underwear shooting laser guns at each other, right”?
Man…you’d of thought I blasphemed the Blessed Mother.
Surprised I wasn’t beat up/

Anyway…as to the movies. The first one looked like a leftover script from the TV series. Too much emphasis on special effects, A total of 15 MINUTES in that movie is spent staring out the window. Watch it sometime with a stopwatch.
The Wrath of Khan was great…mainly because Ricardo Montalban chewed up the scenery. IMO, no ST film topped this one. The Voyage Home was silly and made no sense. The franchise went downhill from there.

Wrath of Khan & sequel = Good.​

Whale-rescuing daftness = xollob

ST5 = bad in every way.

6 = good.

After that, what with TNG - I gave up. TNG is horrible. I wanted to strangle the ghastly female played by Whoopi Goldberg; the character has the most appalling, awful, foul, revolting, putrid dress sense; all that dingy purple is hideous: as for that nightmare of a hat…

And her partners in crime were just as bad: they should be trodden on, hard, with determination and extremely heavy boots. As for the plots - 'nuff said.

“Space 1999” is far far better in every way - it’s not inflated and self-important, as ST has become.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi Michael The thing is, I’m pretty much a very loyal Star Trek fan. But that movie takes the cake. Even if Spock does have a brother, Bill Shatner did a pretty abysmal job of botching up the entire movie.

It could have been good, like the very first one. But instead, it deserves five dead turkeys out of five. Sad, that.​

 

[Irish_Kathy]

It could have been good, like the very first one. But instead, it deserves five dead turkeys out of five. Sad, that.​

So true, so true, Michael. The first movie may be slow and have it’s downside too, but at least it’s Star Trek the way it’s suppose to be. The only way I can even think of watching Star Trek 5 is to think of it as a “dream” Kirk is having.

 

[tee_eff_em]

So true, so true, Michael. The first movie may be slow and have it’s downside too, but at least it’s Star Trek the way it’s suppose to be. The only way I can even think of watching Star Trek 5 is to think of it as a “dream” Kirk is having.

…Nightmare… *Brr-rr-rr-rr…! *:winter:

tee

 

[cthulhubryan]

Hi Michael The thing is, I’m pretty much a very loyal Star Trek fan. But that movie takes the cake. Even if Spock does have a brother, Bill Shatner did a pretty abysmal job of botching up the entire movie.

At least he didn’t jump on the hood of the enterprise as he liked to do as Tiberius James (TJ) Hooker.

 

[jmcrae]

That was truly*** abysmal*** ​

Punny.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

At least he didn’t jump on the hood of the enterprise as he liked to do as Tiberius James (TJ) Hooker.

Hi Cthulhubryan – I never did watch him very often when he was on TJ Hooker.

 

[HarmonyServant]

Year One – Not quite blasphemy, but it comes awfully close at times. It’s supposed to be a comedy, but the humor was very stupid.

 

[Secret_Square]

Many of the “Godzilla” movies of the '60s and '70s fall into the “so bad they’re good” category for me due to bad dubbing, cheesy special effects, etc. The “Godzilla” remake with Matthew Broderick was pretty lame IMO as well.

However, the ORIGINAL “Godzilla” from the 1950s is actually very good, and downright moving at times… you can tell it was made by people for whom the effects of radiation and the ethics of using weapons of mass destruction was not just an intellectual exercise, but something they had recently lived through (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

 

[Nyarlathotep]

However, the ORIGINAL “Godzilla” from the 1950s is actually very good, and downright moving at times… you can tell it was made by people for whom the effects of radiation and the ethics of using weapons of mass destruction was not just an intellectual exercise, but something they had recently lived through (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Indeed. You can get the original 1954 Japanese version (“Gojira”) from Netflix. Apparently, the American release had been heavily censored; that is, Orson Welles had redacted many of the more “controversial” discussions among the protagonists regarding nuclear weapons and such.

The original Godzilla was less about the monster and more about the interplay between the political leaders and the scientists, and the sub-conflict between applied and “pure” science. Also note how differently Japanese culture handles love triangles.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Also note how differently Japanese culture handles love triangles.

Somehow I don’t think you’d need to watch Godzilla to know that.

 

[havana1]

Indeed. You can get the original 1954 Japanese version (“Gojira”) from Netflix. Apparently, the American release had been heavily censored; that is, Orson Welles had redacted many of the more “controversial” discussions among the protagonists regarding nuclear weapons and such.

Got a source for that? That’s the first time I have ever heard Orson Welles was in “Godzilla.” In the 1950’s, Welles would have been in “The Third Man,” “Napoleon,” “Mr. Arkadin,” “Moby Dick,” and the classic “Touch of Evil.”

Might you be thinking of Raymond Burr? He was in “Godzilla.”

 

[carmelitenovice]

I’m a movie nut and have a perverse fondness for “so bad it’s good” films.
One I did not see mentioned here is " Night of the Lepus": a town is attacked by giant…

BUNNIES!

The best part is when someone comes running into a drive-in movie theater and yells something on the order of “There’s a group of giant rabbits and they’re headed this way!” And, of course, everyone goes zipping off to help (Sure, that would happen on a Saturday night at a local drive-in right, RIGHT?)

Dondi was pretty wretched too.

And (okay, here it comes) Star Wars Episode 1-3 were terrible (especially Yoda’s fight scenes). Somehow they did not have the magic of the original Star Wars (now known as Episode 4). (I’m about to be slaughtered as a heathen in my household.).

One of the first posters mentioned Somewhere in Time, I just saw it again for the first time in years and I must agree: Reeve can’t act. He looks much too young for Jane Seymour and the whole thing was pretty dull. The best part of it was the Mackinac Island scenery (I live in Michigan and I dream about spending the winter on Mackinac (…no motor cars, not a single luxury, like Robinson Crusoe, as primitive as can be.))

I got a hoot over a previous poster singing “Sea-Lion Dyin’s” "My heart will go on (and on and on and on) from Titanic. Speaking of Leo DiCaprio (who reportedly thought he deserved an Oscar for Titanic!?!), while the movie itself wasn’t bad, he ruined Man in the Iron Mask.

I know this is about worst movies, not worst performances, but Leo’s bad performances reminded me of one other: The woman who portrayed Saint Bernadette in the newer pair of movies about Lourdes (Sidney Penny?) was no Jennifer Jones. Penny portrays her as a whiny, bratty American teenager. Not inspiring at all. (I only saw her first one, I hope she improved in the second one.) The idea that her version is apparently the one they show regularly at Lourdes is appalling to me

At any rate, those are my two cents. You got me started now, I may come back with more.

 

[sauce]

No one has mentioned RODAN.

But at the time it was sensational. Bad acting, bad effects, but I think it set the standard
for “horror” reactions and screams and screaming…on screen.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

Many of the “Godzilla” movies of the '60s and '70s fall into the “so bad they’re good” category for me due to bad dubbing, cheesy special effects, etc. The “Godzilla” remake with Matthew Broderick was pretty lame IMO as well.

However, the ORIGINAL “Godzilla” from the 1950s is actually very good, and downright moving at times… you can tell it was made by people for whom the effects of radiation and the ethics of using weapons of mass destruction was not just an intellectual exercise, but something they had recently lived through (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

What about Godzilla vs the Smog Monster? That movie was no winner in my book.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

So ideas about whether a person is good morally, should be kept apart from ideas about whether he is good at his profession.

Should it?

I wonder at a society where people passionately proclaim their ‘right’ to indecent entertainment, yet unborn babies have no right to live.