What film do you call the worst of all?

A lot of people include "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" in their lists of bad movies. And yes, it is a very bad movie. But...I think it should be disqualified from consideration as a bad movie, because the producers KNEW they were making shlock. A truly bad movie should be one that the filmmakers think is worthwhile, but isn't.

I agree Equus, self-recognized schlock is not true schlock. Now, I recently saw Rob Zombie's 'House of 1000 Corpses'. He is a huge fan of schlock horror, and this was his tribute....what surprised me, it was GOOD! Really good, for the genre, IMO. Sort of the anti-killer tomatoes...recognizing you are producing schlock, but doing something new and interesting with it. Hmm...

I also agree with Equus that the worst movies are actually those with high minded intentions which just fall flat as a pancake. Like "what were they thinking?" Those that were made with no intention but a quick buck effort short on production values are too easy to make pot shots at. Ed Wood's effort are hard to categorize as the did believe he was making great pictures but obviously didn't have the money to complete anything better than the schlock that appears on the screen. Some films that critics believe are not-so-good are those guilty pleasures we are often embarassed to admit that we like (and then sometimes not! ).

One of those was "Summer Lovers," a rather silly confection but it's so much like a dream vacation nobody ever had that I enjoy the film.

"Jefferson in Paris" was a high-minded, way too pretentious Merchant/Ivory film that should have stayed in the far recesses of their minds to make. Nick Nolte as Thomas Jefferson? They could have hired Keanu Reeves or Jim Carrey and done just as well.

Incidentally, it's often difficult to determine if the director didn't intend a send up rather than an attempt to make a serious film.
"Piranha" and "Alligator" fall into that category.

Adam Sandler's Mr. Deeds makes my top-5 list of lameness ..even though Crazy Eyes & that Italian dude were a bit funny.

I usually do not watch a movie unless I think it has some merit. Somehow I got hoodwinked into thinking "Dances With Wolves" was such a movie. It turned out to be silly and pretentious.

I've never been able to put my finger on what made "Dances" so forgettable. It looks good and has some points to make about the American Indians but somehow it still seems flat in perspective and uninteresting in concept.

To say nothing of its being 3 hours long!

I did like Dances With Wolves when it first came out. I tought it was entertaining and had a few memorable scenes.
As time passes, the memorable scenes become fewer and the film seems watered down.
My present opinion is that the film had good coating but not so much substance, cinematical or other.
But I wouldn't qualify it among the worst.

"Dances" had great cinematography and I loved the depictions of native Americans. BUT...Costner's acting was terrible- a dead flounder could have played Lt. Dunbar almost as well. In some scenes it looked like Costner had just stepped from 1990's southern California, clothing and all, into 1860's prairie.
Also, I did not appreciate the implication in the movie that all white people (except Costner and Stands-with-fist) are either insane or blood-hungry racists or both.

Why is it that seemingly ALL Native American epics are told from the point of view of the white man living as an Indian? I would love to see an Indian epic that doesn't fixate on race and is entirely or mostly from the point of view of a Native protagonist.

There are too many films that try so hard to be profound but fail in their endeavor that a "worst" film is difficult to define. I still believe one has to ask, "What in the world were they thinking?" I believe Costner's heart was in the right place and his direction was a great deal better than his acting but somehow the film doesn't make up in scope what is a very simple thing. I agree that it still got tangled up in stereotypes which clouded up a lot of the symbolism. Why not tell a simple story simply instead of trying to clothe it in trappings of an epic? 1992's "Thunderheart" was more like it.

Most of the old "bad films" are entertaining now for reasons the studios and the directors never intended.

Of the more recent bad films released, "Charlie's Angels" (2000) was a good "walk out in the middle" film.

Warning: Cameron, Drew and Lucy will be back this year with "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle".

Speaking of Native Americans, did anyone see 'The McMasters', with David Carradine as 'White Feather' and Burl Ives as the sympathetic landowner Mr. McMasters? The movie seems dated, but at the same time, a movie like this could never be made today. It's message about racism, and reverse racism, seems potent still...I liked Brock Peters in the lead role as well.

That's more like it also, cacfancier. Going as far back as the silent era:

"The Vanishing American" http://us.imdb.com/Title?0016480

I will have to check that out LW...thanks!

I have to add Anger Management to the, er, pantheon of bad cinema.

Unfunny, idiotic and boring.

I kept looking at the screen and hoping that Marisa Tomei and John Tuturro were paid well. Jack Nicholson once again plays Jack Nicholson. Very annoying. Adam Sandler plays Adam Sandler.

Woody Harrelson puts in 2 cameo appearances which may very well tank his career. Heather Graham puts in a cameo which may also tank her career. I hope she and Woody have good investments to tide them over during the lean years.

You know a film is bad when it feels the need to bring in Derek Jeter, Roger ack I forgot his last name but he's a Yankee pitcher who was once on the Red Sox, Kevin Nealon and Rudy Giuliani for cameos.

There is a particularly unfunny sequence about a brawl at a Buddhist retreat.

Has anyone mentioned 'Death to Smoochy?' So much wasted talent in that stinker....I tried watching 'Vulgar', on the chance that it was edgy humour, but it was just plain bad.

In terms of wasting good film stock, how about "Freddy Got Fingered"? There was something in there to offend absolutely everybody. If ever a movie deserved to be walked out of, that was it.

Was it "The Blair Witch Project"?

I really awful film. I think anything with Keven Cosner is worth missing.

I personally felt trapped during the showing of Forrest Gump. I was with a friend who loved it so I couldn't leave. That movie dragged on and on and on.

Terrific lists! Hard to pick the worst. The ones I remember walking out of were Dr. Zhivago and West Side Story. Oh, and Ishtar!