Worst movies ever in eye of the beholder
The quality of a movie is, of course, an entirely subjective thing. Nevertheless, I wanted to check out the numbers on the worst movies ever.
RottenTomatoes.com collects movie reviews from a vast base of critics that includes professionals, amateurs and anyone who knows how to pick a username and password. Thanks to this collective approach of rating the quality of a movie, I decided to go with their ruling on worst movies ever.
Without further ado, here are the 10 worst movies ever, according to Rotten Tomatoes.
10. “Half Past Dead”
Directed by Don Michael Paul, “Half Past Dead” came out in 2002. This film got a score of 2 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, which means only 2 percent of the people who weighed in on “Half Past Dead” gave it a positive review.
Despite the 98 percent consensus that this Steven Seagal movie was “rotten,” the film still managed to make some money. The movie cost $13 million to make, and it pulled in $15.4 million worldwide at the box office.
Unfortunately, a $2 million profit is still going to leave the filmmakers running for a faxless payday loan before they can make another movie.
9. “The Master of Disguise”
Dana Carvey’s previous success on “Wayne’s World” and “Saturday Night Live” wasn’t enough to save “The Master of Disguise.” The film also appears to be a career-ender for Carvey, who hasn’t made a movie since “The Master” was released in 2002.
“The Master of Disguise” makes No. 9 on the worst movies ever list with a 2 percent score. Nonetheless, the film actually pulled in a pretty big chunk of change. The movie cost $16 million to make and pulled in more than $40 million at the box office. Not bad for being one of the worst movies ever.
8. “Twisted”
Who would have thought a movie starring Samuel L. Jackson would end up a No. 8 on the worst movies ever list? “Twisted” also scored 2 percent.
The 2004 release bombed big time at the box office. Crime drama “Twisted” cost $50 million to make and only made $25 million. Ouch. In addition to the audience, the producers of this film probably consider it one of the worst movies ever.
7. “National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers”
You had to know you’d see one of the National Lampoon’s series movies on here. Rotten Tomatoes says “National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers” was “tame, toothless and dull.” I guess the shock factor was easier to achieve when National Lampoon’s movies started coming out in ‘89.
“National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers” was released under the name “Lady Killers” outside the U.S. IMDB doesn’t list the movie’s budget — maybe to avoid embarrassment. The film’s box office earnings barely broke the half-million-dollar mark. Oh, and 0 percent of Rotten Tomatoes critics gave it a good review.
6. “Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2″
Needless to say, the rest of the movies on this list got 0 percent scores at Rotten Tomatoes. “Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2″ proved that “bad jokes still aren’t funny when coming out of a toddler’s mouth,” according to Rotten Tomatoes.
The film managed to attract a few people to the box office, and it pulled in about $9 million. However, I couldn’t find the budget for this film either, so I am willing to bet they lost a truckload. The box office earnings probably barely covered Jon Voight’s salary. Scott Baio probably had to go without a paycheck.
5. “King’s Ransom”
“King’s Ransom” seems to be one of those movies that was so bad it actually piqued people’s curiosity. You know what I’m talking about; you’ve rented a movie just to see if it really qualified as one of the worst movies ever.
“King’s Ransom” made almost four times as much from video rentals as it did at the box office. It fell just shy of making $4 million in movie ticket sales, but curious film watchers spent $15 million on renting it. Luckily, that $15 million covered the cost of making the movie, so that $4 million at the box office was all profit.
4. “Pinocchio”
Wait, wait! Before you write a strongly worded letter demanding how people could dig on a classic Disney film, you should know: We’re talking about the 2002, live-action film.
Don’t remember that? Consider yourself lucky. Rotten Tomatoes says: “Torturous. Avoid it like the plague.”
Well, people did avoid 2002’s “Pinocchio.” It barely broke $1 million on its opening weekend, and only sold $3.7 million at the box office overall. Um, the really bad news? Live-action “Pinocchio” cost $54.4 million.
Maybe the filmmakers could borrow some money from the makers of the cartoon version of “Pinocchio.” In 1940, “Pinocchio” cost $2.6 million to make and pulled in $39 million at the box office. Re-releases made $26 million in 1984 and $19 million in 1992. It has made more than $40 million in rentals.
3.”Crossover”
“Crossover,” directed by Preston A. Whitmore II and starring a bunch of people I’ve never heard of, came out in 2006. Wayne Brady did have a part in the movie, and that might account for the $7 million it made at the box office.
Luckily, the film only cost $5.6 million, which shows that you get what you pay for, I suppose.
2. “Alone in the Dark”
Despite the star power of Christian Slater and Tara Reid, critics gave “Alone in the Dark” a resounding thumbs-down. Moviegoers agreed it was one of the worst movies ever.
The 2005 flick cost $20 million to make and made a bit more than $5 million at the box office. Can I get a “whoops”?
1. “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever”
What? Yeah, that’s what I thought, too. Here’s what critics on Rotten Tomatoes thought of “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever”: “Wall-to-wall action without a hint of wit or plot.”
Still, a few people managed to utter the title well enough to get a ticket. The film made about $14 million at the box office. Unfortunately, it had a budget of $70 million, making it a costly nail in the coffin on the list of worst movies ever.
Some movies don’t deserve to get box office success, nor should they have been greenlit for production because they really are that bad – and a lot of the films on this list are certainly included. (Ecks vs. Sever is abysmal.) However, a lot of the most successful films are in fact worse – far worse, because they get packaged as good when they are the same garbage over and over again. Titanic, Forrest Gump, just about anything with Matthew MaConaughey in it, let’s be frank – most movies are not that good. Granted, they are entertaining as long as you don’t expect anything intellectually stimulating. 90 to 120 minutes, the good guy always wins and gets the girl, and the plot is always the same and they keep running out of ideas – really, most of the movies that come out these days are an insult to just about anyone’s intelligence. Doubtless, a bunch of people are going to jump in with the “but they make money” defense – which is kind of a bankrupt defense. Yeah, people like it, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually good cinema. Just because a movie makes a lot of money at the box office doesn’t mean that it has any artistic value or worth.