Badmovies.org Forum

I know there are heaps of bad films out there, some are guilty pleasures where as other have 0 redeeming qualities and are a struggle to get through. Batman & Robin had a budget of $140 million and we all know how terrible it was, but financially is it the biggest waste of money in film history. I mean its one thing to claim a film with a 10 times smaller budget to being the worst, but the money put it to B&R was literally wasted down the toilet. In my eyes this makes it the worst of the worst. Think of where that money could have gone.   

Avatar despite its lack in creativity and poor script was a revolution in CGI and set the bar in 3D technology. I don't love it, but there are enough legitimate reasons for it not to be even close to crap like B&R even though it had a massive budget .

Excuse my ignorance but whats TDTESS?

Sure there are plenty of tittles worthy of that crown, but B&R comes to mind because not only is it a shocking film, but it was a very, very expensive one. 

wait, wasn't Cutthroat Island the biggest flop in history?

I thought it was Waterworld. 

Personally, I dodn't even think Batman and Robin was a bad movie.  It felt like a nice update to the old Adam West series with a much bigger budget, and Clooney was a huge improvement over Kilmer.

By normal standards Batman and Robin is pretty horrible [I didn't mind it so much though]

By our standards around these here parts, it is way better than the stuff we gladly subject ourselves to on a regular basis...

Batman & Robin isn't that bad.  You don't even have to step outside the Batman franchise to find two movies that are much worse:  Batman Forever and Batman Begins.


Waterworld was actually profitable.  Just barely, but it made more money than it cost.

If we're talkin worst movie ever made...that goes to Manos: The Hands of Fate.

But worst movie with a budget: B&R takes it.

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.

Funny, I haven't seen that particular film abbreviated like that outside of the Bernard Herrmann website (http://www.bernardherrmann.org/).

One movie that doesn't get talked about much is Roman Polanski's PIRATES.  I'm pretty sure that one lost almost $40 million at the box office.  And let's not forget THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH, which I believe lost more than $90 million.

Pluto Nash was way worse than B n' R, actually nearly every film Eddie Murphy has made in the last 10-15 years could be a better candidate for "worst film", that is, if we're talking profits and losses added into the mix also. I must say, I was bitterly disappointed with Batman Forever (even though I understood it was a nod back to the 60s series) when I went to see it in the cinema after all the good things Tim Burton did to enhance the Batman universe. But, I was even more appalled with Batman & Robin. Saying that though, B n' R now looks like a goddamn masterpiece to me when stack up against the steaming piles of crap currently playing in theaters worldwide....

It is without question one of the worst ever made. But it is thee worst, I think not. That distingtion, at least for me, goes to Freddy Got Fingered. That offended me as a kid and I liked The Tom Green Show back then.

If we're talking the mula gained back, then Zyzzyx Road, since it only made $30 out of it's $2,000,000 budget?

Well, I think you're comparing apples and roast beef here. Yes, it is the lowest box office gross of all time, but that's because it was released in a single theatre with no promotion to satisfy an agreement. The director wanted to release it in Europe before releasing it domestically, and that never happened. Since it was release on one screen with no promotion, I don't know if that counts when compared to widely released movies.

Let's look at some numbers. 

The Budget for Batman and Robin was $140 million. 
It made $107.3 million in North America and $130.9 million internationally bringing it to a toal of $238.2 million at the Box office, (that's not couting the fact that the movie also had merchandising out the whazoo.)

It made $42,872,605 the opening weekend making it the third best opening for that year. 

Considering that they got their money back and then some, I'd hardly consider it the biggest waste ever. 

Because it's ironic, you know, like rain on your wedding day.

I couldn't disagree more. The Adam West series was actually quite clever even if it was campy. B&R along with BF were silly, obnoxious, over the top and if anything an insult to the 60s series, especially directly after the dark gothic universe established by Tim Burton. Kilmer had great potential but was runied with a shocking script, Clooney no matter which way you look at it was a terrible casting choice.

Nah, Batman and Robin isn't the "worst movie ever made"...odds are said movie is too boring, possibly over offensive, over-arty and unmemorable for most to even recall they watched it five minutes later...

Batman and Robin is definitely the 60s Batman series updated for a more modern audience as was Batman Forever which I actually did like on some levels (it doesn't fully succeed though). It was meant to be more fun -- now it doesn't succeed in any respect really but I've definitely seen worse films - heck The Terror is worse just because it'll bore you to tears as is Monster From Green Hell...

I think there is a line Hollywood can't seem to walk when they make a comic book movie.  Its either too goofy or too serious.  Right now we're in the way to friggin serious phase.  (insert stupid Heath Ledger "why so serious joke)  I personally hate The Dark Knight more and more each time I watch it.  I did like Batman Begins because I happen to like origin films.  However, if the latest Christian Bale incarnation lets me down with Bane as a supervillain I'm done with it.

Staying on topic, Batman And Robin I felt was an undoubtedly awful film.  Almost as if they didn't seem to care while making it.  However "worst movie ever made" argument isn't really valid IMHO.  Take a look at Bronx Executioner or The Day Time Ended and get back to me.  At least B n R had some special effects going for it.

You are failing to see my side of the argument by completing missing the point. I brought B&R into this category not just because its a terrible film in itself but because its production costs is hefty. $140 million is a huge budget to work with, none of those films you mentioned have a quarter of the money B&R had which is why its not valid to claim a B-Movie with a budget next to nothing is the "worst film ever made" when the argument doesn't hold water to what I'm trying to say.

Logical comparisons would be films that are critically acclaimed in similar manner with a budget around the same mark.     

Well the producers complained but not a whole lot...from Wikipedia:

Also check on this which is also featured in a thread.  B n R are not on there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box_office_bombs

It's a bad movie. No, not a bad movie... A HORRIBLE movie. No, a STUPID MOVIE!

An ungodly abomination of film! Worst movie ever? No! Not even close!

I've seen much worse movies! I'll take Batman and Robin over "MAC & ME" any day!

   I think if you're a huge Batman fan this movie would hurt to watch.  However, as a casual fan of the Dark Knight I wouldn't say it's the worst movie ever. It's a stinker to be sure. The attempt at camping it up ala the Adam West years was pretty dismal. It wasn't as smart as the Adam West version and seemed more to be mocking it rather than paying homage to it. On the other hand it had Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone so the Eye Candy factor alone moves it light years ahead of anything like Manos, Pod People, The Creeping Terror or The Beast of Yucca Flats.

Box office statistics are all well and good, but I'm leaning towards the cost of production and what drastic impression its since left over long after the final set of figures had been finalized. I mean B&R was so terrible that the studio had no choice but to reboot it from scratch, not to mention the slack it gets from media outlets and the general public since its release in 97. Hence the giant waste of time and money, and in my mind from a financial view point making it the "worst movie ever made" not visually or in terms of storytelling (even though its pretty bad), but purely from a cash flow prospective. 

But I suppose there are many ways of arguing/analyzing its position whilst that be financially or otherwise like for example: the list of 'bomb records' you presented.

Much like any artform I guess the artistic value is in the eye of the beholder in any movie.  That would make it hard to determine of if the money was wasted or not.  Someone may look at an abstract painting and think its worth one million and I wouldn't pay 5 bucks for it.

In this case B n R may not have any value to you and I but perhaps somoene else will like it.  I bet if I put it on for my 5 year old he'd dig it.  You have to figure if WB didn't spend the money on this film they would have blown it on some other subpar film that probably wouldn't have grossed anything. 

I think we've all pretty much hammered home the fact that it's a poor movie. Everyone has chipped in with their opinions and we've covered the main points such as; the acting, the budget, the comparisons to the other big screens Batman flicks. Robocop, you asked the question: "Batman & Robin - The worst movie 'ever made' ?" Why ask, when from everything you've posted it seems you are unhappy with all the replies you have gotten? I know you're looking at it from the point of large budget = poor quality content, but there's hundreds of films we could name (and we've named a few) that could be analysed in the same manner. When all is said and done, it comes down to a matter of taste. One persons trash is anothers treasure regardless of value.

Now, lets stop taking this so damn seriously!  :smile:

Batman and Robin has a plot that makes (at least somewhat) sense. 
The ending doesn't come out of nowhere and the movie doesn't just STOP.
The actors have personality.
They can actually act and aren't just reading cue cards being held off camera. 
It actually HAS special effects and costumes that look like what they're supposed to be.
There are little to no HUGE plot holes or lapses in continuity. 
They have actual sets that aren't made of cardboard or look run down (except when they're supposed to.)
They actually use different camera angles.
The can afford extras in scenes that need them. 
It didn't end anybody's career.
The movie made back it's budget.

Considering I can think of tons of movies this does not apply to, I feel safe in saying it's not the worst movie ever made. 

It's not that I'm unhappy with the replies, in fact I welcome them because more people equals more discussion. The only posts I've had queries with is one that didn't quite understand my POV on the subject, so I followed that up with a more detailed response, and the other was strictly opinionated about B&R being a 'decent update' on the old Adam West TV show by which I couldn't disagree more with. Although like I said their are multiple ways to assess its imprint on the film world, and your post Circus Circus wraps it up in a nut shell. Well said.   

I saw Batman and Robin years back. Some good action, some good laughs. I'm on the fence with this one

I, for one, DO think it was a bad movie. As a hardcore Batman disciple, it was a disappointment. BUT, I definitely agree that it felt very much like the Adam West series in a way. It seems to me that Tim Burton's take on the character was more influenced by the character's crime, pulp, and horror roots, whereas Schumacher took more of his cues from the Adam West television series and the Comics Code-era version of the character. I don't think that this alone makes Batman & Robin a bad movie (nor do I think it's budget, however exorbitant, is an invitation to disdain either). Mostly, I think the plot was just plain iffy, the acting uneven (if ONLY there had been MORE JOHN GLOVER, he was fantastic), and the story structure rickety and weak. I also felt that many of the characters, such as Bane and Alfred, were just utterly wasted (ironically, the only character I thought was given any engaging sort of depth was the pun-spouting Arnie-played Mr. Freeze, despite how bad his costume looks and how much of a pop culture punchline this iteration of the character has become).

Nowadays, I can't mention Schumacher's name around my fellow Batgeeks without getting hissed at, but I feel like the man gets a bad wrap just based on this movie (and Batman Forever, which I actually DO NOT feel is a bad movie AT ALL... vastly different from previous installments, frequently hokey, and not AS GOOD, but STILL GOOD). I mean, he's proven himself to be a fine director with many of his other films (Flatliners, The Lost Boys, Falling Down, Phone Booth, Blood Creek), and it's a shame that so often when his name comes up his entire career seems to get summed up as "nipples on the batsuit."

In truth, despite the fact that I feel Schumacher's Batman films are inferior to Burton's, I still think, whether good or bad, you CAN'T deny that they have a certain visual insanity to them that is just incredibly dynamic. If the Adam West series (which I adore) was defined by titled camera angles, bright colors, and cardboard sets, then Schumacher's film can definitely be seen as a direction extension of that. The sets are more grand and bombastic, but possibly even faker. The colors are brighter, and often available in fluorescent glowing neon. And the camera angles are more extreme. I absolutely LOVE the LOOK of Schumacher's Batman movies (nipples notwithstanding). You cannot deny that this man had a VISION, even if it's not one you may share.

Colorful, chaotic camp or corrosive Crayola crap, either way I can say this... it's a helluva lot better than what Nolan's self-important and contrived approach is doing to the series. I swear, the only movie of that guy's I liked was The Prestige (and that's just out of my fixation on Victorian stage magic and my appetite for steampunk-type imagery).

For the record, I for one did prefer Kilmer over Clooney, personally.



By the way, Robocop, I disagree with your assertion that the studio had "no choice" after Batman & Robin but "to reboot from scratch." There's always a choice, and I, for one, would have much rather seen Schumacher's proposed "darker" film (Batman Triumphant, with Scarecrow and Harley Quinn as the main villains) or the also proposed DarKnight (with Scarecrow and Man-Bat) than what we eventually ended up with (or the similarly proposed Year One or Batman Beyond films, ...as much as I like both the Year Once comics and the Batman Beyond TV show, I have to say "no thanks"). Honestly, I feel the decision to "reboot" the series has had more long-standing negative effects on the modern film industry than the critical/artistic "failure" of Batman & Rob ever did. The series very well could have kept going. It did fine at the box office, even if "not on the scale the studio was hoping for." So? Dial back your expectation, and your budget, for the next one, and focus on making a smaller, better sequel. You don't HAVE to reboot. Fact is, Batman will ALWAYS draw crowds. He will ALWAYS make money. You make a Batman movie, and people WILL pay to see it, and you WILL make a profit. By choosing to reboot, however, the studio communicated that it would rather say "nevermind, that never happened, let's try this again" than soldier on. Nowadays, we have reboots getting announced before the franchises in question have even been inactive for the blink of a eye. Look at Spiderman. 1 and 2 were both very well-received, while 3 was criticially mauled. One bad sequel, and bada bing, bada boom, we're already on the path to a shiny new reboot. You can't place the blame squarely on the Batman franchise reboot for the "reboot first, ask questions later" mentality currently in vogue in Hollywood (The Hulk movies were significant exacerbaters as well), but it, and the success of Batman Begins (which I attribute more towards the franchise's dormancy than the film's quality... though it was significantly bettter than The Dark Knight), did, I think, play a large role in getting us to where we are now (a place, I must point out, I am NOT fond of).

Furthermore, I'm sure there's been movies made with larger budgets and more negative impact than Batman & Robin. I don't have the research to back that up, but I also don't really feel like wading through mountains of budget numbers and then debating a film's impact (despite the fact that seems to be exactly what I did in my previous paragraph), which is really not something you can definitively state anyway. Ultimately, no matter how many film experts and opinionated cineastes declare a particular film to have positive or negative impact, it's still not a fact, just an opinion (no matter how much evidence is used to support or refute said opinion).



Also, Darksider, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about superhero movies being "way too serious" nowadays. I'm glad to hear someone with the same stance as myself on that particular point.

Reboots are not always ideal or even essential in the case of the examples you provided (Spider-Man and Hulk) but I disagree with Batman. In order to restore some respectability back into this franchise I stick with the argument that they had no choice but to reboot the franchise and in turn: start a fresh. If for instance they went down the road of a sequel or prequel or spin off  or whatever to B&R the new film in the hypothetical franchise would already be at a significant disadvantage by being tied down to the previous two before it, I am of course talking about the campy Schumacher films. Now sure they might not have done too bad at the box office, but fans everywhere were typically outraged with the treatment Batman was given with Schumacher at the helm  & the studio forcing him to go back to the campy style of the 60s TV show (and if anything making a mockery of it rather then updating it), everyone knows Batman deserves more respect then that.

Now I know Schumacher wanted to make the dark & psychological films that he was never allowed to do because the studio wanted to market Batman as more of a family film to sell merchandise such as toys etc. However despite his intentions if he had access to creative control I think the worse thing they could have done was give him a stab at his vision despite how gritty and serious it might have been. It doesn't matter if he was apart of a sequel to his own creation in B&R, or a reboot of the series, the fact of the matter is the torch needed to be passed to somebody else and that director was Christopher Nolan. Now sure opinions are divided on his spin of Batman (I didn't like Batman Begins too much TBH) but I did enjoy The Dark Knight and many consider it to be the best Batman film to date. The success it made reflects that, which I'm assuming without looking at specific statistics is 10 times more then any Batman flick before it (including Burton's).

Anyway what it comes down is there was no choice in the matter, you couldn't have seen Schumacher's proposed "darker" films without the damage he was responsible for inflected before hand. It was impossible and a 1 in a 10000 chance of ever happening. So unless hypothetically everybody was fine with the corny, comedic approach then a 'reboot' was a must which as a reuslt payed divide ends.   



 

It isn't the worst movie ever, but it's the worst of the Batman movies. I can't stand George Clooney. I wish they could just CGI him out of "From Dusk 'til Dawn" an otherwise great movie.

Believe me, there are MANY, MANY worse movies.  Honestly, I thought that Uma Thurmann was quite fetching as Poison Ivy. 

Trust me - try sitting through BUNNYMAN, just to name ONE of my recent viewings, and you will find B&R positively entertaining afterwards!! LOL

Its bad.

Its aimed too much at chidren and not anyone else. Its like they (Warner Bros) tried to go for 60's fun but failed.

Batman Returns was a bit of a dissapointmen for WB and when Forever took more at the box office, they just assumed that it was because of the lighter tone. So they went even lighter...

My personal dissapointment was Poison Ivy. I just don't see whats so great about Uma Thurman. And what was with her strange hair in that flick?

Cleopatra (1963) is known for the biggest flop in film history...



The problem with Batman and Robin is the intent of the film to make a campy 1960's Batman movie while using the crapy 1990 clothing with new actors. I personally didnt like it but a real Batman fan of the campy 1960's show explained to be how cool the Batman and Robin film was and why most people didnt get it.

Personally, I never cared for the Batman comics, 60's Batman, 90's Batman, recent Batman, or the Batman cartoons (though the original at least had Jack Nicholson).
But that's just me. :P

Yeah I personally think that Batman & Robin isn't completely terrible. It's pretty clear that they were going for a campy, 60s vibe. Even down to the bizarre villain stunt-casting of Arnold as Freeze. The terrible puns, the bat credit card. One of the best references in the film is Poison Ivy's dance with the gorilla costume on, a reference to Josef von Sternberg's Blonde Venus, a notoriously excessive and campy film.

Not that I'm saying Batman & Robin is a classic or anything, but I think it's rap as the "worst movie ever" is fairly undeserved. I would say that even Batman Forever is worse. Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face is one of the worst casting choices made in a comic book movie.

I still consider it the worst thing I ever saw, even before it got it's notorious "Worst movie ever" status. But I can see someone not sharing that opinion.

I do not like it, to me it was sort of obvious there was no love for the source material.  It wasn't BAD, just sort of phoned in by someone who didn't much care or like it.
-Ed

Sure it's awful but you know it felt more like Batman to me than Nolan's films....

I'm going to jump in here.

I won't touch the "worst movie ever made" argument, because even the worst Batman movie is better than a lot of movies out there. There are movies out there that will make you want to kill yourself in their awfulness. Batman and Robin may be bad, but it's just ordinary bad, not despair for the hope of humanity bad like some movies get to.

Here's the thing about Batman, he's been around so long that his characterization has changed drastically. My favorite Batman is the one that is generally accepted today. Batman is the man who can do anything. He is the pinnacle of human perfection, and a man who is tormented into fighting a one-man fight for justice for everybody.

Here's the best thing about Batman, in my favorite version. He's trained for years to be the best fighter, but he's also always the smartest guy in the room. And he's a pragmatist. There's no reason to try and figure out the Joker's latest convoluted death trap when you can just punch the Joker in the head.

I love the Christopher Nolan films. I think they're the best version of this Batman I've seen.

It does amuse me that the Tim Burton films are held in such high regard, and that the later Schumacher films are so reviled. Not to burst anybody's bubble, but the Burton films are not very good. Go back and watch them and count the number of times Batman just stands around and gets shot.

There isn't that much difference between Burton's Batman and Schumacher's. Don't get me wrong, they're both execrable, but Tim Burton should not be remembered for his Batman movies. They're bad versions of Batman.

(If you think I'm being to harsh, I loved Tim Burton's Batman when it first came out. I thought it was really cool.)

Hahahaha....you haven't seen ANYTHING.
There is a whole dimension of foulness in movies that you don't know of.

And let's not forget HEAVEN'S GATE

Always remember: There is a reason for Riffing. It's audience revenge.
"You made me suffer STARFIGHTERS! Prepare to die!"

No, no.  The biggest flop is Delgo.  That film cost $40 million to make and only made $694,782.  Ouch.

Here are what I consider to be the worst films of all time. By that I mean there is nothing of value in any of them to any person of any age. Of course, the list is compromised of only movies that I have seen.

The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961)
Monster A Go-Go (1965)
Caligula (1979)
North (1994)
Baby Geniuses (1999)
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
Gigli (2003)
Epic Movie (2007)
Disaster Movie (2008)

I kind of like this one, though it's obviously not for everyone.  It's weird and hypnotic, and Coleman Francis' accidentally poetic narration is something else.  "Flag on the moon..."


I still want to see this one, I'm not ready to write it off just yet.

Other than that I have no argument with your choices.  But "value in any of them to any person of any age" is obviously not literally true. 

What? You 't get the brilliance of The Beast of Yucca Flats?  :bluesad: Hmm maybe I'm the only one....

You're not alone.

I got to see the premiere of Batman & Robin. In the same year, I also got to see the premiere of Judge Dredd*.

After that pairing, I took the hint and stopped entering competitions where I could go to movie premieres.

Although the last time I watched Batman Forever (and when this film first came out I had found it ok), I really found Jim Carrey's overacting over irritating to the point where I now view it as being worse than B&R.

*Not that I considered Stallone's Dredd to be terrible, just kind of meh. Disappointing, but not awful.

It;s hardly the worst movie ever made.  These days, I don't know if I'd even call it the worst superhero movie ever made. Some of the later X-Men movies are worse.  I also feel bad for Joel Schumacher, and all the hate he got afterwards. I admit I gave out my fair share of criticisms, but apparently a lot of changes where studio mandated.   

Batman & Robin has some cool FX; for it to be the worst film of all time every aspect would have to be terrible.

Bucky Larson is the worst movie of all time

I would vote for the last Harley Quinn movie, but I actually liked how bad that movie was. Captain Marvel (2019) would probably get the nod from me instead; I didn't find a single part of that movie enjoyable.

I actually liked Batman And Robin: my worst film of all time is Kubrick's The Shining.

For those talking about financial flops, what about FOODFIGHT!? Now there's a crazy story.