Skip to main content

Mon, Sep 17, 2018 9:47 AM

Live Poll: IMDb Poll Board Worst Movies

This is a poll board poll. Poll authors and poll commentators can contribute by chosing a film. Please let me know, what is the worst movie you have ever seen?

Poll description:
The IMDb poll board members have chosen the worst movies they have ever seen. Which movie do you think is the worst? Or, which one seems the worst to you?

My list: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls028182023/
Poll: https://www.imdb.com/poll/kPul7h1JSjs/

Responses

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

227.5K Points

2 years ago

Hard to say what to choose out of those contenders... 

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Can you choose one for this poll?

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

227.5K Points

Hm. Let it be Violent Shit (1989) then. Andreas Schnaas got (slightly) better over the years, but that movie is practically devoid of any charm low budget movies usually have and tries too hard while remotely not having enough skill or passion.   
 
CliffJ, jokes aside I actually have a list of my own worst works for reasons I can't quite explain. 

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Thanks Nikolay! I added the movie.

1 Message

 • 

120 Points

I voted Solaris as worst movie simply by mistake. I just adore it, and can't understand why would anyone put it in any worst movies list. Let that be said.

2.3K Messages

 • 

66.4K Points


This freaking poster! So painful! Are they sleeping while sitting up? The terrible poorly photoshopping montage of random images (that one sharp line down the not-quite center of the poster. Forgetting that less is more powerful.



I'm glad I came back to this thread to witness your list of [url=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crime+against+cinemanity]crimes against cinemanity[/url].

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

@Peregrin: It’s a long time when I saw Solaris. I hated the movie. It’s slow and nothing happens. It’s weird, with awful Cinematography.

@Stephen: Maybe a nice poll idea, Worst Movie Poster (or worst crime against cinemanity)

1.4K Messages

 • 

51K Points

2 years ago

odd list...but right off the bat, i know the two worst films i have ever seen in my life...

'man of steel' and 'jerry maguire'...

pathetic on both accounts...

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Which one do you like to add to the list?

1.4K Messages

 • 

51K Points

tough call...but i'll go with jerry maguire to add to the list...

2.3K Messages

 • 

66.4K Points

So... lacking any reasonable amount of perspective, how would you compare Jerry McGuire (acting wise; production value; story and script , etc...) to...



Mac and Me (1988)?  I'm going to assume you probably think this 95 minute long Coca Cola Classic and McDonald's product placement ... was snubbed by the Academy for Best Picture?  Is that a fair assumption?

221 Messages

 • 

6.4K Points

 how would you compare Jerry McGuire (acting wise; production value; story and script , etc...) to... "Mac and Me"?

Mac and Me is mostly remembered nowadays because two of its young extras went on to become high-profile actresses. One was 19-year old Jennifer Aniston, the other a 10-year-old Nikki Cox. 

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

227.5K Points

Dimos Dicoudis, well, to be honest Mac and Me (1988) had a resurgence of sorts thanks and even received a sort of cult status, mainly due to being popularized by several prolific movie reviewers on the Internet, if for all the wrong reasons. 

I would say that poll is actually shaping to be interesting because of how different the movies are.  

Champion

 • 

6.2K Messages

 • 

177K Points

2 years ago

'Tough one but the list will be interesting to see. I'll think on it and go through my lists. Narrowing it down to one will be difficult but I like challenges. :)

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Yes it's difficult, I know. I also have to think about it. But indeed it's interesting to see the list afterwards.

421 Messages

 • 

12.1K Points

2 years ago

I second Nikolay Yeriomin's choice of Don't Go in the Woods (1981)

....Also:

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points


Thanks! For now, I use 1 pick a person. I added Don't go in the Woods (1981).

421 Messages

 • 

12.1K Points

NoooOO that was just me agreeing with someone else, Eraserhead is my 1 choice. I want the satisfaction of seeing others express their hatred so me and my father will stand in solidarity no longer

CliffJ no

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Sorry I misunderstood. I replaced the movie for Eraserhead. What do you mean with your father? Does he like the movie?

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

227.5K Points

Ha, interesting. Despite I consider Eraserhead (1977) dangerous movie which doesn't have full understanding of its own methodology I consider it a very solid directorial debut too, even if it gave me a few panic attacks. 

And while When a Stranger Calls (2006) is far from original it's a nice little slasher flick, I don't seen aything too bad with it. Then again it's me and I consider notorious Prom Night (2008) watchable and not completely devoid of charm (it won me over with opening scenes set to "Time of the Season"). 

And Don't Go in the Woods (1981) is, at times, at least plesantly baffling. Many films on my list are next to unwatchable. 

2 Messages

 • 

170 Points

2 years ago

This is a great idea - it certainly is no easy task but it will yield some highly interesting results. As people have already mentioned above, it will be interesting to see how much this deviates away from the IMDb Top 100 worst :D

Champion

 • 

13.6K Messages

 • 

413.8K Points

2 years ago

Hoekkie,

For your consideration:
Leonard Part 6 (1987)

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Thanks! Added.

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.7K Points

2 years ago

I think the concept of a "worst movie ever" should go beyond its badness, some movies are bad but the way they are bad is interesting or at least entertaining, the worst movies are those you can't even finish or maybe movies that elicit the strongest negative response. I remember I hated and hated "Life of David Gale" because of that stupid ending, it's a decent movie until the last minute.

But anyway, if I've got to nominated one, the worst movie I saw, it would probably be Rules of Engagement (2000)

And here's why:

Cinematic Crime Against HumanityElMaruecan8214 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers

Woody Allen said that after listening to Wagner, he always felt an urge to invade Poland. There was a line of truth behind that joke, one that echoes the opinion of many Holocaust survivors. Not that I put the same experience on the same level, Wagnerian music can be appreciated regardless of any historical contextualization, I think that watching a movie like "Rules of Engagement" will inspire a similar urge to go shoot some Arab civilians or kick them out of the country or just call them by the names they (supposedly) deserve.

Obviously, there are two ways to look at this film. If you're an Arab, you're probably going to join that angry crowd and call it "one of the most racist films against Arabs Hollywood ever made". If you're not an Arab, you might consider it a flawed but not uninteresting military trial movie questioning the methods of the US Marines Corps, with an interesting friendship between two Vietnam veterans played by Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. Well, it would have been interesting if the Marines were really being unethical, but then the Marines Corp. would never have permitted it. It was "A few Good Men" again.

Which leads to the premise of the film, the whole trial revolves around the fact that the man charged to evacuate the US Embassy in Yemen deliberately killed 83 civilians, even using the word with M and F so cherished by Jackson, to call the people. At that point, the film had already crossed the line, because I can't recall any other instance that made a villain out of people, children and women included. I guess it could only be done for Arabs and/or Muslims. And then the McGuffin of the film, the piece of evidence is a missing tape that will prove that the civilians were armed, again, even the children.

Sure, the film isn't anti-Arab, it is anti-Extremist, no kidding. As soon as the kids carried guns, they were a threat, they were killers and they "deserved" to be killed. That's not the element I blame on the script, what I condemn is the idea that such a story had any particular relevance, that there was a need to find a case to justify a mass-killing of civilians. To make a movie where Samuel L. Jackson the most popular US actor, defended by Tommy Lee Jones, who's not hated either, would take crap from everybody because he ordered to kill women and children, so that the emotional 'Gotcha' of the film, would be the proof that the hero was right, after all. What a relief! American honor is safe, it was the Arabs all along.

Some say the film was prophetic, anticipating 9-11, how is that exactly? Did women and children pilot these planes? 9/11 was the result of a context starting with Muslims being ruled and killed by Barbarian regimes, and the military interventions didn't make things easier. But people have an inclination to accept Arabs and Muslims as fully barbarians and irremediably bad guys. I'm not saying that's the intent of William Friedkin, but what was he thinking? He's brandishing the authorization he got from the King of Morocco to shoot the film, not to mention that many extras were Moroccans, so they were part of it, it's not the Asian-looking guys passing for Libyans in "Back to the Future".

But, as a Moroccan, I don't give much credit to Friedkin's defense, my country was the scenery of many movies that weren't exactly Arab-friendly, I even saw the shooting of some "Homeland" scenes in my neighborhood, and I was surprised to see that the place I grew up with could pass as Iran. But in the long history of Arab and Muslim shaming, this film is probably the culmination. I have seen it many years ago, I have loose memories, but I'll never forget the ending and the infuriating effect it had. It was the only instance of a movie that made an aggressive statement against a population, and not having a single redeeming character, it was American Marines vs. Arab Civilians.

In 1993, people wept with the little girl from "Schindler's List", she was the living incarnation of the tragedy lived by the Jews. Arabs deserve reverse symbols, the one little girl who's seen dying in the film carried a weapon, I'm a father of a little girl and I don't want to venture into an analysis that would lead me to the conclusion that one deserved to die, but the film wants me to do so. As for the prophetic argument, those who claim that the film somewhat anticipated 9/11, well, how about an even that happened the very year of the release. Let me refresh your memory.

In 2000, a Palestinian kid died under the arms of his fathers who was begging everybody to stop shooting. It was proved that an Israeli soldier did it, and I'm sure it was an accident, but even that kid's death met with denial. Supporters of Israel said it was a set-up, he was killed by one of their own, I even remember a French actor saying that he read the father was ready to sacrifice another son, no one questioned the veracity of this information. Now, there was a kid, he wasn't armed, and he was killed but no one made a symbol out of him, outside the Arab world, it's like the Western audiences would rather have fictional Arab villains than genuine victims, and that's the core of the problem.

Same shtick, when Muslims die in a bombing, it's because they wanted to, when their kids die, it's because they were used as shields. There's already a strong anti-Arab resentment and movies like "Rules of Engagement" make it worse. it will teach them to always be careful about Arabs, even women, even little girls, who knows? They might hide grenades inside their dolls.



1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Thanks! I added Rules of Engagement (2000).

960 Messages

 • 

46K Points

I haven't seen Rules of Engagement but it sounds like the kind of movie that "liberal" Hollywood is glad to make every now and then. Lone Survivor and American Sniper are other examples.

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.7K Points

I gave "American Sniper" a four because at least, the character study was interesting... but overall it's the same.

You can tell the respect an artist has toward a culture when he makes an effort to portray some of its objectively positive aspects in a favorable way, or at least neutral. Like he did with the Japanese with his "Iwo Jima" series.

 But no, Iraqi or Arabs can't afford the luxury of one redeeming quality in this film. Fair enough, let's just say it wasn't the point, the film wanted to embody Kyle's personal vision, but then how about showing (instead of telling) that the hero wasn't killed by an Arab and that the misuse of weapons doesn't have a flag.

Because when the film ends, it's like the best way to honor Kyle's memory is to share his contempt toward Arabs, I can't believe a filmmaker of Eastwood's stature, intelligence and yes, humanism, could let that go. But I guess that's what made the film successful. A common enemy is the best social cement.

102 Messages

 • 

3.3K Points

2 years ago

A serious Man by the Cohen brothers
The most boring film I’ve ever watched

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Thanks! Added. 

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.7K Points

Damn, I loved that film!

2.5K Messages

 • 

73.9K Points

2 years ago


The Weird World of LSD (1967)


Not only with the lowest quality of acting and production possible, but a film that tries to educate about drugs in the worst possible way, scaring, and missinforming and making something impossible to take seriously.

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Thanks for your contribution! This movie is very unknown. And there isn’t an image with this movie. Can you choose another film with at least 1,000 votes?

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Number of votes doesn't realy matter, but I think it's good that the picks have movie posters.  

2 Messages

 • 

170 Points

Agree,numbers doesn`t matter at all."This doesn't explain why people go to vote in America if some other people are the ones who actually choose oil the president"

2.5K Messages

 • 

73.9K Points

It is a shame this doesn't have a poster, because I find it hard to believe there can be something worst. I rated it 2 instead of the 1 I gave to this one, but if you want another then I'll nominate Eegah, which is also quite terrible, altought it fails to be morally questionable so that earned it the extra point.

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Eegah seems terrible. I added this one. There are movie posters on internet from Weird World of LSD. I thought I could upload an image, but there isn't a plot description as well. So the voters can't read what this movie is about. So you can add those things if you want your first pick. But maybe this movie don't deserve this attention, I don't know.

2.5K Messages

 • 

73.9K Points

It only deserves to be more widely seen so that it could claim a worthy place in the IMDb bottom 100, it easily fits the worst 10.

2K Messages

 • 

47K Points

2 years ago

I’ll go with Saving Christmas. What a piece of S*** lol

1.1K Messages

 • 

26.1K Points

Thanks! Added