Talk:List of films considered the worst/Removed films

message: The following films were once removed from the list but have since been re-added once proper sourcing was produced:
*Bat Pussy (unknown, possibly 1973): A loose spoof of the 1966 Batman television series cited as one of the earliest examples of a pornographic parody film, the presumably-1970s pornographic film Bat Pussy has been described as the worst pornographic film ever made due to "some incredibly unarousing sex and a general attitude of awfulness". Possessing no credits or copyright information, there is no known record of Bat Pussys existence prior to the mid-1990s, when it was discovered in the storeroom of an adult movie theater in Memphis, Tennessee, and subsequently released on home video by exploitation film distributor Something Weird Video. Gawker Medias io9 proclaimed the film to be "the absolute nadir of pornography, period. Not just Batman-themed pornography. ALL pornography", deriding its "obese redneck" cast as rendering the film "wank-proof". PornParody.com, a website dedicated to pornographic parody films, acknowledged its status as "the worst adult movie of all time", describing Bat Pussy as "renowned for its technical ineptness and anti-eroticism" due to its "physically unappealing" actors. AV Maniacs contested Bat Pussys categorization as pornography on the grounds of the lead actor's visible impotence and instead labeled the film "anti-porn", asking "How else do you categorize an adult film that completely and utterly fails to elicit even the minutest amount of arousal in its viewers?" The book The Many More Lives of Batman by William Uricchio and Will Brooker also labeled Bat Pussy "the worst porn film ever made", criticizing its poor adaptation of the source material, while Tim Lewis, the general manager of Something Weird Video, selected Bat Pussy as the one film "so nuts it has to be seen to be believed" out of the company's entire catalog, saying it was "only for the truly jaded adult film viewer".
:* Merely called the worst porn film of all time, but never referred to as the worst or even one of the worst films of all time. benǝʇᴉɯ 17:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A close one, but worst Hollywood film isn't enough, we need a source calling it the worst in all of cinema. LM2000 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Most of the criticism for this film comes from Youtube critics, who are not WP:reliable.  So far no reliable sources have been provided which call this the worst film ever made, therefore it isn't suitable for the list. LM2000 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there might not be the necessary "broad spectrum" of critics saying it, but is the problem with the IndieWire source just that it calls it "one of the worst animated films ever made" as opposed to "one of the worst films ever made" in general? Just curious since IndieWire is considered a reliable source. Alphius (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: * Only called one of the worst once. benǝʇᴉɯ 17:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This film has been added too many times without any sources calling this movie the worst of all time. We need reliable sources before re-adding this film to the main page. FN071299 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

text: * Only called one of the worst films ever reviewed by a single critic and one of the worst kids' movies. benǝʇᴉɯ 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since re-added with more "worst" sourcing.LM2000 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Lacks critics from reliable sources calling it one of the worst ever.  It scores remarkably low in IMDB and RT fan polls but those cannot be used due to vote stacking (MOS:FILM#Audience_response). LM2000 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I nominate it to stay. Espngeek (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

text: While making off with seven nominations from the Razzies and having received a 6% rating from Rotten Tomatoes, it's clearly not considered to be the one of the worst ever made.
*Titanic: The Legend Goes On (2001): A direct-to-video title that got panned by The Nostalgia Critic and everyone else despite its' success in Italy. Espngeek (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films re-added to the list 

message: *Barb Wire (1996): The film was an adaptation of the Dark Horse comic book, and was both a critical and financial flop. In her first first starring role, Pamela Anderson promoted the movie at the Cannes Film Festival, but later regretted this movie as a bad choice. Siskel and Ebert gave it "Two Thumbs Down," criticizing the film's poor acting, boring script and elements borrowing heavily from Casablanca.Siskel & Ebert At The Movies - Barb Wire At the 17th Golden Raspberry Awards, the film was nominated for six Razzies (including Anderson's "Impressive Enhancements" as Worst Screen Couple), and Anderson went home with the Worst New Star award.The Official RAZZIE Forum - 1996 Razzie Nominees & Winners
**Someone removed this from the list again, but since this has been removed from the list before, I don't think it should be re-added until some additional references are provided.  It currently has a 30% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, which is much higher than most of the movies on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Only called "one of the worst ever" once, source doesn't verify that MST3K called it one of the worst. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: B

message: *Eegah (1962): The low-budget shocker Eegah features Richard Kiel as a prehistoric caveman emerging in early 1960s California who clumsily finds love with a teenage girl, and Arch Hall Jr., son of the director Arch Hall Sr. (filming under the name Nicholas Merriweather), performing musical numbers to his girlfriend. The film's notoriety was enhanced as a result of being featured on episodes of Canned Film Festival and Mystery Science Theater 3000, where the cast of the show stated in The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide (), that they consider the shaving scene (where Eegah lolls his tongue around and laps up shaving cream) one of the most disgusting things they have seen. It was also one of the films listed in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time.
:* Only included on one list of the worst films, never explicitly called the worst. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: E

message: * Galaxy of Terror (1981): A low-budget clone of Alien, featuring appearances from Erin Moran, Robert Englund, and Ray Walston. The movie involves a terrifying pyramid found in space that turns many things into horror. One of its unit directors was a young James Cameron, who made maggots wiggle on a severed arm. Appeared in the 2004 DVD documentary, The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made.
*Gayniggers From Outer Space (1992): A short film directed by Danish filmmaker, DJ and singer Morten Lindberg, aka Master Fatman. It tells the story of a group of intergalactic explorers who discover the presence of females on planet Earth.  Using guns that shoot deadly rays, they proceed to eliminate females one-by-one from Earth, which ensures them the ecstatic gratitude of the previously suppressed male population.  Before leaving the planet, they leave behind a gay ambassador to educate the Earthlings about their new way of life.  Some consider Gayniggers From Outer Space to be a cult film. Widely regarded as terrible and a torch for internet trolls worldwide.
*Get Carter (2000): Sylvester Stallone takes up the position of Jack Carter, previously played by Michael Caine. It has a 10% rating at rottentomatoes.com and voters at Screenselect.co.uk named it the worst remake ever. 
*Ghost Dad (1990): This fantasy comedy was directed by Sidney Poitier and stars Bill Cosby as the titular role.  Much like the reviews for Cosby's previous film, Leonard Part 6 (1987), the reviews for Ghost Dad were also negative.  Roger Ebert gave the film half a star, writing "Ghost Dad is a desperately unfunny film - a strained, contrived construction that left me shaking my head in amazement… How could Sidney Poitier, a skilled filmmaker with an actor's sense of timing, have been the director of this mess? How did a production executive go for it? Who ever thought this was a good idea?"RogerEbert.com Chicago Sun-Times movie reviews, June 1, 2007  Vincent Canby of The New York Times wrote  "As the movie goes on, Mr. Cosby's double takes become so long and painfully deliberate that there is time for double takes within double takes."  Peter Rainer of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "A dinky, TV sitcom comedy like Ghost Dad doesn't serve Poitier's artistry, either behind the camera or in front of it."  John Ferguson of Radio Times gave the film one out of five stars, writing, "Bill Cosby has had a disastrous time trying to transfer his TV popularity to the big screen. Following the ill-conceived spy spoof Leonard Part 6 came this equally daft supernatural comedy that, despite the efforts of director Sidney Poitier, also went straight to video over here."  Ralph Novak of People wrote that "the film is confusingly inconsistent. Cosby is totally invisible at times, for instance; at other moments his clothes are visible but he's not."  Jay Boyar of the Orlando Sentinel wrote "Cosby's ill-fated Leonard Part 6 (1987) was, by his own admission, not very funny, and neither is the new Ghost Dad."  Desmond Ryan of The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote "In his last film outing, Bill Cosby survived Leonard Part 6, a massive flop that would have killed the career of anyone who lacked his clout in the entertainment industry. Ghost Dad disappoints anyone hoping for a resurrection."  Dennis King of Tulsa World wrote that Cosby's "recent movies stink.  Cosby's last movie, Leonard Part 6, has become synonymous with "bomb." Ghost Dad does nothing to improve Cosby's track record."  Caitlin Creevy of the Chicago Tribune gave the film half a star, calling the film an "embarrassment."  Ghost Dad currently has a "rotten" 7% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.Ghost Dad at Rotten Tomatoes
*The Giant Claw (1957): A monster movie about a giant bird "...as big as a battleship" starring Jeff Morrow as a pilot. The Giant Claw has gone down in history as one of the worst movies ever made, with some referring it as "The Citizen Kane of bad B-movies",Bad Movie Planet Retrieved 2008-09-08The Monster Shack Retrieved 2008-09-08B-Movie Graveyard Retrieved 2008-09-08 mainly because of its terrible special effects. The bird in particular is considered one of history's worst movie monsters, being an unconvincing marionette puppet with a very odd face. The film is riddled with stock footage, making continuity a serious issue. Jeff Morrow, the star of the film, went to a screening of the movie; the audience laughed and sneered when they saw the ridiculous bird monster, and reportedly Morrow walked home drunk."The Giant Claw" on imdb.comhttp://www.cinemassacre.com/new/?p=2608 This was the only "worst B-movie" to be distributed by a major motion picture studio, which featured it on a double bill with The Night the World Exploded.
*Godzilla (1998): Based on the popular Japanese monster of the same name, The film received generally negative reviews from critics.Godzilla. Metacritic. CNET Networks. Retrieved November 6, 2011. Rotten Tomatoes reported that only 25% of 63 sampled critics gave the film a positive review, with an average score of 4.7 out of 10.Godzilla (1998) - Rotten Tomatoes - IGN Entertainment. Retrieved November 6, 2011. At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average out of 100 to critics' reviews, the film received a score of 32 based on 23 reviews. In 1999, at the Huntley Hotel Garden Room in Santa Monica, California, the film won Golden Raspberry Awards for Worst Supporting Actress for Pitillo and Worst Remake or Sequel. The film was also nominated for Worst Picture, Worst Director, and Worst Screenplay.
::Writing for the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert gave the film one-and-a-half stars out of four, noting that "One must carefully repress intelligent thought while watching such a film. The movie makes no sense at all except as a careless pastiche of its betters (and, yes, the Japanese Godzilla movies are, in their way, better - if only because they embrace dreck instead of condescending to it). You have to absorb such a film, not consider it. But my brain rebelled, and insisted on applying logic where it was not welcome." Ebert also pointed out on his review that the characters Mayor Ebert and his assistant Gene were Devlin and Emmerich's jabs at his and Gene Siskel's negative reviews of Stargate and Independence Day. Gene Siskel also commented on the parody characters arguing "If you're going to go to the trouble of putting us in a monster movie, why don't you at least take advantage of this by having the monster either eat or squash one of us?"  In an entirely negative review, James Berardinelli writing for ReelViews, called the film "one of the most idiotic blockbuster movies of all time, it's like spitting into the wind. Emmerich and Devlin are master illusionists, waving their wands and mesmerizing audiences with their smoke and mirrors. It's probably too much to hope that some day, movie-goers will wake up and realize that they've been had."Berardinelli, James (May 1998). Godzilla. ReelViews. Retrieved November 6, 2011. Stephen Holden of The New York Times wrote that the film "is so clumsily structured it feels as if it's two different movies stuck together with an absurd stomping finale glued onto the end. The only question worth asking about this $120 million wad of popcorn is a commercial one. How much further will the dumbing down of the event movie have to go before the audience stops buying tickets?"Holden, Stephen (May 19, 1998). Godzilla (1998). The New York Times. Retrieved November 6, 2011.
::Very close, but "Entirely negative review" isn't enough. We need reliable sources that is explicitly called the worst PLUS only one critic calls this film the worst.TD712 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to add this as a submission, but it was rejected because, as Czolgolz says, "nothing says this was one of the worst movies of all time". --MaxamillionSmart (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: G

message: *Jaws: The Revenge (1987): Jaws: The Revenge is rated 25 of the worst sequels ever made by film critics and it earned the lowest amount from the franchise and received poor critical reception. It scored a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and received $5 Million less than its predecessor and contains many implausible scenes such as the Shark swimming from a New York island to the Bahamas (approx. 2000 km) under three days. It received a worldwide Box Office take of $51,881,013.
:This movie has been removed several times, and while it might be the worst Jaws movie, it has no references making it one of the worst ever made.  Sorry, just not notable enough. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fortdj33 It is now. I re-edited its re-entry onto this list with more references than the one above it. 132453626236:CA (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Bad comedy? Yes. Worst ever? No. References making it one of the worst ever made have not been implied. Sorry, not notable enough for it to go there. 132453626236:CA (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: J

message: *Machhli Jal Ki Rani Hai (2014): Machhli Jal Ki Rani Hai is a Bollywood film directed by Debaloy Dey.[1] The film stars Bhanu Uday, Swara Bhaskar, Murli Sharma and Reema Debnath. It is scheduled to release at 13 June 2014. A sequel to the movie is also on cards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troydevinny545 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  WHAT? How could this film not be on the list? Can someone provide an explanation? --Hmdwgf (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Other movies, such as Little Man and Phat Girlz, went to #1 on the Bottom 100 right after its release. For that reason, the IMDb Bottom 100 is not reliable. Although $4.62 out of 1500 theaters is a flop, it isn't exactly a huge loss. Besides, if the criteria for "Worst movies ever" is bad reviews and bad box office, the list would be endless. I also found this statement to be quite POV (A shoo-in for Razzie nominations? That seems to be one's two cents than an actual prediction). Ohyeahmormons 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What is it with your writing style? It's as if you knew that your writing was complete nonsense, so you tried to cover it up by using up a source on every single word. Don't come back to this article until you find more eligible sources claiming it to be the worst ever. End of story. 172.190.24.104 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

text: In it's defense, the MST3K version (which is all most people have seen) is heavily edited, and the full picture without the cuts makes much more sense.
*Moment by Moment (1978): Love story between John Travolta (playing a character named Strip) and Lily Tomlin. The movie was so unsuccessful it was never released on video. Critic John Simon referred to it as "Aeon by Aeon". Named worst movie of the year by Esquire magazine.
*mother! (2017) Directed by Darren Aronofsky, the Biblical and Gaian allegory mother! divided critics and audiences. Despite a Rotten Tomatoes score of 69%, the film attracted several strongly negative reviews from critics, with Rex Reed in the New York Observer calling it "the worst movie of the century", Kyle Smith in the conservative National Review describing it as "the vilest movie ever released by a major Hollywood studio", and Michael Heaton for The Plain Dealer naming it "the worst movie I have ever seen". The Daily Telegraph noted that social media reaction was similarly split, with "some calling it a masterpiece, others proclaiming it the worst film they've ever seen", and the film was one of only 20 ever to receive an F grade, the lowest, from movie audiences as tracked by CinemaScore. Aronofsky and stars Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem were all nominated for the 38th Golden Raspberry Awards. Peter Bradshaw for The Guardian, who had given the film five out of five stars in his review, suggested that the film suffered more from mis-marketing and the audience expectations from casting Hunger Games star Lawrence than its own merits or flaws. A deliberately non-committal review from The Globe and Mail gave the film lowest and highest marks simultaneously, and suggested that it was "a once-in-a-lifetime film, whatever that means to you".
**  The warning on the top of the talk page says that before adding a film "Ensure that it is widely considered one of the worst films by a broad spectrum of both casual and professional film critics". That's most definitely not the case with mother!. Some critics really hated it, but it had a mostly positive reception (69% on Rotten Tomatoes, 75 score on Metacritic). No broad spectrum.  Aquila89 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: M

message: *New York Minute (2004): Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen's first foray into feature films (after years of direct-to-video features directed toward their pre-teen fanbase), earned $5.6 million, the lowest for any film playing at 3,000 theaters. 
:"New York Minute was Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen's first foray into feature films (after years of direct-to-video features" ...and It Takes Two. If a source considering it the WORST EVER has New York Minute, it could be readded.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.49.24 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: N

message: *Old Dogs (2009) A comedy film from Walt Disney Pictures directed by Walt Becker and starring John Travolta and Robin Williams, along with a few other actors such as Seth Green and Bernie Mac (in his final film role) playing supporting roles, Old Dogs was panned by critics, currently holding a 5% on Rotten Tomatoes.http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009596-old_dogs/ Roger Ebert started his review for the film by saying "'Old Dogs' is stupefying dimwitted. What were John Travolta and Robin Williams thinking of? Apparently their agents weren't perceptive enough to smell the screenplay in its advanced state of decomposition". He gave the film one star out of four. The Orlando Sentinel's Roger Moore gave Old Dogs a rating of one and a half stars out of a possible four. He wrote "The new comedy from some of the folks who brought us Wild Hogs is badly written and broadly acted, shamelessly manipulative and not above stopping by the toilet for a laugh or two." Tim Robey of The Telegraph savaged the film, saying, "Old Dogs is so singularly dreadful it halts time, folds space and plays havoc with the very notion of the self."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/timrobey/7471621/Old-Dogs-review.html He added to the review, "Being a film critic is a wonderful job, but there are weeks when the bad film delirium strikes and we’d all be better off in straitjackets. A colleague opined to me the other day that this might be the deadliest run of releases in his 20-year history on the job, and I can completely see that." He also said, "You'd have to hate your family to take them to this!" He gave the film zero stars. Carrie Rickey gave the film a more positive review, with a rating of two and a half stars out of four. Rickey commented of the multiple cameos in the film, "A child of 5 can see that these brief appearances serve to pad a gauze-thin script." Old Dogs may not be good. But the sight of pesky penguins pecking Travolta and Green in the embrace of an unlikely partner makes it just good enough." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The A.V. Club said the movie was not recommended for adults or children.http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/movies/71974927.htmlhttp://www.avclub.com/articles/old-dogs,35742/ Old Dogs was nominated for four categories during the 30th Golden Raspberry Awards ceremony, including Worst Picture, Worst Actor for John Travolta, Worst Supporting Actress for Kelly Preston and Worst Director for Walt Becker, but lost to All About Steve. Despite the horrendous reviews, the film did well at the box office, earning $96,753,696.
*The Omega Code (1999): the most successful Christian movie of all time
:How is this accurate?
::Yes, arguably a dreadful movie, but not as successful as The Passion of the Christ, among others.  Should this be changed?
::I dropped it from the list until a source for "worst ever" is cited.
:::Note: Passion of the Christ wasn't technically a 'Christian' film, there's a difference between Catholicism and Christianity (not by much really, but there is), plus generally 'Christian films' refers to movies made by Christian companies, which sadly, Omega Code was mostly made by the TBN people; 'Passion' was just a Mel Gibson project that happened to get embraced by some in the religious community. Regardless, I've never heard of Omega Code being successful at all, it blew big time even if one ignores the biblical inaccuracies (which is diffult since they tried to make it the point of the movie.) Dannybu2001 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholicism is a devision of Christianity - check the sources right here at wiki. I think the difference your referring to is between Protestants and Catholics.
*The One and Only (2002) starring Patsy Kensit was concieved as a film to promote a better image for Newcastle-Upon-Tyne receiving funding from the City Council and regional agencies. It was screened for a total of five days in a Newcastle cinema and failed to find distribution. -- I moved this from the article. Movies fail to secure distribution for lots of reasons: the apparent criteria for being included in the article require at least one critical citation of the movie's badness. Ellsworth 17:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: O

message: *Paint Your Wagon (1969): Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood sing (enough said).
: Enough said? Not really. Paint Your Wagon, despite being a weird idea, isn't utterly terrible.
*Petey Wheatstraw (1978) aka "Petey Wheatstraw, the Devil's Son-In-Law": The Devil offers a man the chance to return to earth if he agrees to be the Anti-Christ and marry the ugliest woman on Earth—the Devil's daughter.
:Petey Wheatstraw knows EXACTLY what it is, though.  It's a low-rent Rudy Ray Moore vehicle, with no apologies for being such.  It could almost be considered intentionally bad, if the sequence where Rudy Ray Moore uses his magic powers to turn a fat woman skinny so she can get out of her lawn chair is any indication.  I fucking love this movie.  -HX 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not explicitly cited as the "worst movie of all time". Despite that only 10% of critics gave the film a positive review, its average critic score on Rotten Tomatoes is a 3.8/5, its score on Metacritic is a 29. It holds very moderate audience scores on Metacritic, IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Failed to win Worst Movie of the Decade Razzie. Nominated for Best Science Fiction Film in the Saturn Awards. Swarm X 07:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: P

message: *Raise the Titanic (1980): Based on Clive Cussler's book, this was the first attempt to film one of his novels. Reviews were atrocious, and audiences heavily ignored the movie, which had been criticized for a weak script and the casting of Richard Jordan as Dirk Pitt. Cussler himself admitted he didn't like this movie version of the book.  Speaking of the film's titanic losses, producer Lew Grade reportedly commented "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic."
*Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985): Although it was a smash hit at the box office by racking up over $150 million and being the second most successful movie of 1985 (behind Back to the Future), it could not be spared the wrath of critics and Razzie-voters alike. Critics say that the second Rambo replaces the emotional depth and plot that made First Blood such a well-made movie with mindless shoot-em-up action scenes. Others say that this movie is pro-American propaganda, since they feel that it is an excuse for patching up the failure that the United States suffered in Vietnam. The second Rambo was nominated for seven Razzies, in which it won four (including Worst Picture of 1985, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Actor). The film earned $300.4M worldwide.
*Ready to Rumble (2000): Considered to be one of the worst films of 2000.  David Arquette and Scott Caan play port-a-potty cleaners (which in and of itself leads to plenty of toilet humor) who are dedicated WCW wrestling fans.  The dimwitted duo attempt to help restart the career of their favorite wrestler,  Jimmy King (played by Oliver Platt).  To help promote the film, Arquette was given a brief run as WCW Heavyweight Champion.  WCW fans hated the idea with a passion, and Arquette himself thought it was a bad idea.  Flopped both critically and at the box office; in his Movie Guide, Leonard Maltin gives it one and a half stars, and calls it a "lowbrow timewaster," and the film only made a little more than $12 million domestically.  The film has a 25% rating from Rotten Tomatoes.  Both the movie and Arquette's title reign were inducted into the WrestleCrap archives.
:Yes a bad movie, worst of year, maybe but not one of the worst ever made --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From Justin to Kelly was not a REALITY picture (leaving The Real Cancun to be the ONLY one.) Also the "Razzie for Worst Movie of 2003" award was actually called Worst Picture. It has been that way since it was first awarded on 31 March 1981. Go back to the Wikipedia article about this film and GET A CLUE! Add more references to the film as well. Do that!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.49.24 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: R

message: *Teenage Strangler (1964): Obscure drive-in fare made famous by MST3K-"And he didn't steal no bike neither. I DID!" Espngeek (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: More of a "bad in its release year" film.  Bad box office and cite from the MST3K guy is simply not enough; needs more cites before being re-added. Dannybu2001 18:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Here we go again with epic fail citations. It still is not considered the worst movie ever made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.70.92 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: T

message: *Who's Your Caddy? (2007): The film opened to extremely negative reviews. In particular, many critics have deemed it a "terrible rip-off" of Caddyshack.orlandosentinel.comCurrent Movie Reviews, Independent Movies - Film Threatrottentomatoes.comVariety review of "Who's Your Caddy?" It holds an extremely low 8% on Rotten Tomatoes.
*The Wild World of Batwoman (1966): Featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, where Crow summed up the plot as: "It looks like they just put a whole lotta movies in a blender and turned it on really fast!" Also holds a 1.7 rating on IMDB, thus qualifying it as the #14 on the IMDB bottom 100 (as of August 14, 2005).
**"END! END!" Espngeek (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This film and its write-up are not up (or should I say, 'down'?) to the accepted standards of the purpose and scope of this article. Dannybu2001 06:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, safe to say its not for everyone.  Sure some people like it, but it's a small minority. Some people worship Alone in the Dark, Showgirls, Battlefield, Batman and Robin etc, and all of those are listed here. It was put under gratuitousness because it's just that, gratuitous.  It was only made to show gore for no other reason that to show gore and blood.  Not really anything else unlike most other horror movies. I saw it, I can deal with a "gorey" movie, but without any reason for it, its just watching a slaughterhouse.  Don't worry, I'm not putting it back on, but thats my side.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: W

message: *Xanadu (1980): Despite winning the Razzie for Worst Director and other stuff, the film maintained a fan following (best-selling soundtrack, etc.) to the point of Broadway adaptation. Espngeek (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to note the sequel XXX: State of the Union was significantly worse, but still not bad enough to be on the list. -- 109.79.75.126 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: X

message: I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Would making this page subpages (for example, Talk:List of films considered the worst/Removed films/A, Talk:List of films considered the worst/Removed films/B, Talk:List of films considered the worst/Removed films/C...) of Talk:List of films considered the worst/Removed films be better?.
~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit confusing. Is it an article or not an article? It doesn't seem to belong in mainspace, yet it is. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored the page to its original location. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from New Page Review process