- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#51
Bad Movies / Re: YOUR Worst Films of the 21...
Last post by Rev. Powell - December 31, 2025, 10:25:01 AMSome of these will probably be some people's favorites, lol. A lot of them are just boring "arty" experiments. From "best" to worst:
Deadball (2011)
The Devil's Rejects (2005)
Eyes of Dread (2023)
MacGruber (2010)
Mother Schmuckers (2021)
Atmo HorroX (2016)
One-Eyed Monster (2008)
The One You Feed (2020)
Caverna (2023)
Used and Borrowed Time (2020)
Odissea della Morte (2018)
Vampire Burt's Serenade (2020)
Verotika (2019) (Glenn Danzig. 1.9 on IMDb!)
Big Money Rustlas (2010) (Insane Clown Posse. Insanely bad. Even ICP fans couldn't pull its rating up to more than 4.0 on IMDb)
Locked In (2023)
Payday (2018) (I appear in this as an extra, so I feel qualified to knock it)
Diary of a Mad Black Woman (2005) (Tyler Perry, ugh)
Alien Paranormal: Bigfoot, UFOs and the Men in Black (2013) (fact-free crapumentary)
The Secret Society for Slow Romance (2022) (nice director, dull movie)
Spider Baby, or The Maddest Story Ever Told (2024) (insulting remake of a classic)
Way Down in Chinatown (2014)
Loren Cass (2006)
A Noisy Delivery (2013) (intentionally irritating)
Bedways (2010) (boring even with explicit sex scenes)
Vixen Highway 2006: It Came from Uranus! (2006) (it's terrible. 1.2 on IMDb. Bonus bad points: it's over 4 hours long!)
Special dishonorable mention: "After Last Season" (2009). It's probably the worst made and worst conceived movie on here. But even though it never really reaches "so-bad-it's-good" levels, it's strangely fascinating in its badness.
Deadball (2011)
The Devil's Rejects (2005)
Eyes of Dread (2023)
MacGruber (2010)
Mother Schmuckers (2021)
Atmo HorroX (2016)
One-Eyed Monster (2008)
The One You Feed (2020)
Caverna (2023)
Used and Borrowed Time (2020)
Odissea della Morte (2018)
Vampire Burt's Serenade (2020)
Verotika (2019) (Glenn Danzig. 1.9 on IMDb!)
Big Money Rustlas (2010) (Insane Clown Posse. Insanely bad. Even ICP fans couldn't pull its rating up to more than 4.0 on IMDb)
Locked In (2023)
Payday (2018) (I appear in this as an extra, so I feel qualified to knock it)
Diary of a Mad Black Woman (2005) (Tyler Perry, ugh)
Alien Paranormal: Bigfoot, UFOs and the Men in Black (2013) (fact-free crapumentary)
The Secret Society for Slow Romance (2022) (nice director, dull movie)
Spider Baby, or The Maddest Story Ever Told (2024) (insulting remake of a classic)
Way Down in Chinatown (2014)
Loren Cass (2006)
A Noisy Delivery (2013) (intentionally irritating)
Bedways (2010) (boring even with explicit sex scenes)
Vixen Highway 2006: It Came from Uranus! (2006) (it's terrible. 1.2 on IMDb. Bonus bad points: it's over 4 hours long!)
Special dishonorable mention: "After Last Season" (2009). It's probably the worst made and worst conceived movie on here. But even though it never really reaches "so-bad-it's-good" levels, it's strangely fascinating in its badness.
#52
Bad Movies / Re: Best Way to Rate Bad Movie...
Last post by Rev. Powell - December 31, 2025, 10:03:37 AMIt is hard. I think "Plan 9" or "The Room" are "must sees" for anyone, but giving them 5/5 like they were "Casablanca" or something just feels wrong. I tend to give the most entertaining bad movies around a 3.5 if I'm recommending for a general audience, with a note that bad movie fans will rate them higher.
#53
Good Movies / Re: YOUR Top 2X Films of the 2...
Last post by zombie no.one - December 31, 2025, 09:31:58 AMQuote from: Rev. Powell on December 30, 2025, 02:31:19 PMSome of you guys are way too generous with your 10/10s, lol.
bob's list there contains films he's also posted as being his 1/10 ratings on the 'Worst movies since 2000' thread on the bad movies board
#54
Bad Movies / Re: YOUR Worst Films of the 21...
Last post by M.10rda - December 31, 2025, 09:13:42 AMWell, here's my argument for it:
Yes, it has some self-awareness and a sense of humor. There are laughs and some fun kills.
However, that self-awareness manifests as a distinct approach from most of the other entries (excepting VI/LIVES and possibly GOES TO HELL). Most of the F13 films are pure stalk'n'slash, with the victims failing to rally and fight back until the last few minutes at best. In JASON X, there's an entire crew that (eventually) gets proactive about dealing with Jason, which makes it more like an ALIEN flick, and therefore more dramatic and fun (for me).
That crew is also a little more colorful than other F13 ensembles. I actually remember a handful of the characters after two dozen years - I can't say that about any other F13 cast.
And I quite clearly remember Melyssa Ade as Janessa - the b!tc#y bad girl on the crew who makes it to near the end. (I mean, I remember the character name and the actress' name, even though I've seen her in nothing since - I remember the mean girl "Melissa" from NEW BLOOD but I have no idea who played her.) Janessa's a riot.
And... David Cronenberg! Do any other F13 movies have Cronenberg? Nope.
Yes, it has some self-awareness and a sense of humor. There are laughs and some fun kills.
However, that self-awareness manifests as a distinct approach from most of the other entries (excepting VI/LIVES and possibly GOES TO HELL). Most of the F13 films are pure stalk'n'slash, with the victims failing to rally and fight back until the last few minutes at best. In JASON X, there's an entire crew that (eventually) gets proactive about dealing with Jason, which makes it more like an ALIEN flick, and therefore more dramatic and fun (for me).
That crew is also a little more colorful than other F13 ensembles. I actually remember a handful of the characters after two dozen years - I can't say that about any other F13 cast.
And I quite clearly remember Melyssa Ade as Janessa - the b!tc#y bad girl on the crew who makes it to near the end. (I mean, I remember the character name and the actress' name, even though I've seen her in nothing since - I remember the mean girl "Melissa" from NEW BLOOD but I have no idea who played her.) Janessa's a riot.
And... David Cronenberg! Do any other F13 movies have Cronenberg? Nope.
#55
Movie Reviews / Re: Mutant Reviewers From Hell
Last post by Sitting Duck - December 31, 2025, 08:15:29 AMIt's been a while since I've posted any links to the reviews and features I've pounded out. So over the next few weeks I'll be playing catch-up. First, a roundtable on movies we like from directors we don't.
https://mutantreviewersmovies.com/2024/07/20/mutant-roundtable-whats-a-good-movie-from-a-creator-you-otherwise-dislike/
https://mutantreviewersmovies.com/2024/07/20/mutant-roundtable-whats-a-good-movie-from-a-creator-you-otherwise-dislike/
#56
Bad Movies / Best Way to Rate Bad Movies (A...
Last post by claws - December 31, 2025, 08:06:18 AM5 (Perfect)
4.5 (Excellent)
4 (Great)
3.5 (Very Good)
3 (Good)
2.5 (Flawed but Worthy)
2 (Fair)
1.5 (Barely Sufficient)
1 (Poor)
.5 (Very Poor)
Rating "so-bad-it's-good" movies is the ultimate cinematic paradox. If you give The Room a 1/5, you're technically correct about the craft, but you're ignoring the fact that it's more memorable than 90% of "average" movies. If you give it a 5/5, you're suggesting it's a masterpiece of filmmaking.
To translate this into your specific star rating scale, here are three effective ways to approach it:
1. The "Entertainment Value" Pivot
In this method, you ignore the technical failure and rate the movie solely on how well it achieves the goal of entertaining the audience. Under this logic, a movie like The Room is a 5/5 (Perfect). Why? Because while it fails at drama, it succeeds perfectly as a surreal comedy.
The Logic: If a movie's "badness" is so consistent and unique that it provides a 5-star experience, it deserves a 5-star rating.
The Caveat: You must clarify that the rating is for the experience, not the execution.
2. The "Flawed but Worthy" Anchor (2.5)
Your scale has a perfect middle ground: 2.5 (Flawed but Worthy). This is often where "so-bad-it's-good" movies live for critics who want to remain intellectually honest.
How to use it: You acknowledge the technical "Poor" (1.0) quality but add "points" for the sheer joy it brings.
The Logic: It balances the objective failures with the subjective enjoyment, landing it right in the middle. It's "worthy" of your time, despite being "flawed."
3. The "Dual-Rating" System (The Best for Clarity)
If you want to be transparent with your audience, the most effective way is to use a slash rating. This acknowledges both the craft and the "brilliance of the badness."
Movie / Technical Score / "Enjoyment" Score / Final Verdict
The Room / .5 (Very Poor) / 5 (Perfect) / The "Golden Turkey"
Birdemic / .5 (Very Poor) / 4 (Great) / Essential Badness
Transformers 5 / 1.5 (Barely Sufficient) / 1 (Poor) / Just Boring-Bad
How to use your specific scale for The Room
If you had to pick a single number from your list, I would suggest 3.5 (Very Good).
Why 3.5? > On your scale, 3.5 is "Very Good." While The Room is technically "Very Poor" (.5), the cultural impact, the unintentional humor, and the sheer audacity of Johnny Wiseau's vision elevate it. It is a "Very Good" use of two hours, even if it's a "Very Poor" example of screenwriting.
The "Boring-Bad" vs. "Fun-Bad" Distinction
When rating, always ask yourself: "Is this movie bad because it's incompetent, or bad because it's boring?"
Boring-Bad: 0.5 Stars. (Think of a generic, low-budget action movie where nothing happens).
Fun-Bad: 3.0 - 5.0 Stars. (Think of The Room or Troll 2).
The "brilliance" of the badness usually comes from sincerity. Tommy Wiseau was trying to make a masterpiece; that sincerity is what makes it a 5-star "bad" movie.
The "So-Bad-It's-Good" Verdict Scale
5.0 / Perfect / The Golden Turkey / A religious experience of incompetence.
4.5 / Excellent / Masterpiece of Mess / Almost perfect chaos; only a few "slow" parts.
4.0 / Great / Essential Badness / A required text for any cult movie fan.
3.5 / Very Good / Group-Watch Gold / Perfect for a party with friends and drinks.
3.0 / Good / Solidly Surreal / Weird enough to be fun, but lacks "legend" status.
2.5 / Flawed but Worthy / Cult Potential / It has 2 or 3 scenes you'll remember forever.
2.0 / Fair / Mildly Amusing / You'll chuckle at a bad wig, but check your watch.
1.5 / Barely Sufficient / Accidental Comedy / Only funny if you're really trying to find it.
1.0 / Poor / Just Boring-Bad / The worst sin: it's incompetent and dull.
0.5 / Very Poor / Cinematic Purgatory / No joy. Just pain. Avoid at all costs.
4.5 (Excellent)
4 (Great)
3.5 (Very Good)
3 (Good)
2.5 (Flawed but Worthy)
2 (Fair)
1.5 (Barely Sufficient)
1 (Poor)
.5 (Very Poor)
Rating "so-bad-it's-good" movies is the ultimate cinematic paradox. If you give The Room a 1/5, you're technically correct about the craft, but you're ignoring the fact that it's more memorable than 90% of "average" movies. If you give it a 5/5, you're suggesting it's a masterpiece of filmmaking.
To translate this into your specific star rating scale, here are three effective ways to approach it:
1. The "Entertainment Value" Pivot
In this method, you ignore the technical failure and rate the movie solely on how well it achieves the goal of entertaining the audience. Under this logic, a movie like The Room is a 5/5 (Perfect). Why? Because while it fails at drama, it succeeds perfectly as a surreal comedy.
The Logic: If a movie's "badness" is so consistent and unique that it provides a 5-star experience, it deserves a 5-star rating.
The Caveat: You must clarify that the rating is for the experience, not the execution.
2. The "Flawed but Worthy" Anchor (2.5)
Your scale has a perfect middle ground: 2.5 (Flawed but Worthy). This is often where "so-bad-it's-good" movies live for critics who want to remain intellectually honest.
How to use it: You acknowledge the technical "Poor" (1.0) quality but add "points" for the sheer joy it brings.
The Logic: It balances the objective failures with the subjective enjoyment, landing it right in the middle. It's "worthy" of your time, despite being "flawed."
3. The "Dual-Rating" System (The Best for Clarity)
If you want to be transparent with your audience, the most effective way is to use a slash rating. This acknowledges both the craft and the "brilliance of the badness."
Movie / Technical Score / "Enjoyment" Score / Final Verdict
The Room / .5 (Very Poor) / 5 (Perfect) / The "Golden Turkey"
Birdemic / .5 (Very Poor) / 4 (Great) / Essential Badness
Transformers 5 / 1.5 (Barely Sufficient) / 1 (Poor) / Just Boring-Bad
How to use your specific scale for The Room
If you had to pick a single number from your list, I would suggest 3.5 (Very Good).
Why 3.5? > On your scale, 3.5 is "Very Good." While The Room is technically "Very Poor" (.5), the cultural impact, the unintentional humor, and the sheer audacity of Johnny Wiseau's vision elevate it. It is a "Very Good" use of two hours, even if it's a "Very Poor" example of screenwriting.
The "Boring-Bad" vs. "Fun-Bad" Distinction
When rating, always ask yourself: "Is this movie bad because it's incompetent, or bad because it's boring?"
Boring-Bad: 0.5 Stars. (Think of a generic, low-budget action movie where nothing happens).
Fun-Bad: 3.0 - 5.0 Stars. (Think of The Room or Troll 2).
The "brilliance" of the badness usually comes from sincerity. Tommy Wiseau was trying to make a masterpiece; that sincerity is what makes it a 5-star "bad" movie.
The "So-Bad-It's-Good" Verdict Scale
5.0 / Perfect / The Golden Turkey / A religious experience of incompetence.
4.5 / Excellent / Masterpiece of Mess / Almost perfect chaos; only a few "slow" parts.
4.0 / Great / Essential Badness / A required text for any cult movie fan.
3.5 / Very Good / Group-Watch Gold / Perfect for a party with friends and drinks.
3.0 / Good / Solidly Surreal / Weird enough to be fun, but lacks "legend" status.
2.5 / Flawed but Worthy / Cult Potential / It has 2 or 3 scenes you'll remember forever.
2.0 / Fair / Mildly Amusing / You'll chuckle at a bad wig, but check your watch.
1.5 / Barely Sufficient / Accidental Comedy / Only funny if you're really trying to find it.
1.0 / Poor / Just Boring-Bad / The worst sin: it's incompetent and dull.
0.5 / Very Poor / Cinematic Purgatory / No joy. Just pain. Avoid at all costs.
#57
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by FatFreddysCat - December 31, 2025, 06:46:05 AM"Nightmare Beach" (aka "Welcome to Spring Break," 1989)
Spring break festivities in a small Florida town are threatened by a motorcycle-riding psycho killer in this bizarre Italian/American blend of '80s sex comedy and giallo/slasher thriller. It literally feels like two different movies stapled together. Given the setting, there's lots of T&A and the cast includes some familiar B-movie faces like John Saxon and Lance Le Gault. It's junk, but it's watchable junk.
"Nightmare City" (1980)
A radioactive spill turns city dwellers into burn-scarred, blood sucking mutations. A TV reporter (Hugo Stiglitz) and his wife attempt to get to safety before the city is completely overrun.
This totally ridiculous Spanish/Italian "Dawn of the Dead" knock-off is one of my favorite cheesy Euro-horror movies. It doesn't make a lick of sense but it's tons of action packed, gory fun!
Spring break festivities in a small Florida town are threatened by a motorcycle-riding psycho killer in this bizarre Italian/American blend of '80s sex comedy and giallo/slasher thriller. It literally feels like two different movies stapled together. Given the setting, there's lots of T&A and the cast includes some familiar B-movie faces like John Saxon and Lance Le Gault. It's junk, but it's watchable junk.
"Nightmare City" (1980)
A radioactive spill turns city dwellers into burn-scarred, blood sucking mutations. A TV reporter (Hugo Stiglitz) and his wife attempt to get to safety before the city is completely overrun.
This totally ridiculous Spanish/Italian "Dawn of the Dead" knock-off is one of my favorite cheesy Euro-horror movies. It doesn't make a lick of sense but it's tons of action packed, gory fun!
#58
Bad Movies / Re: YOUR Worst Films of the 21...
Last post by claws - December 31, 2025, 03:52:30 AMQuote from: M.10rda on December 31, 2025, 12:22:26 AM(...And JASON X, which I enjoyed.)
The online discourse around Jason X remains a total mystery. If you listen to the fans, 'everybody' loves it—yet it's nowhere to be found on 'Best of Horror' lists, and the ratings have been abysmal since day one.
Even after 25 years, I don't think its supporters have truly made their case. Is it a camp masterpiece, or is it actually a good film? Or do people only claim to like it to be contrarian? Personally, I could never get into it. Even as someone who is usually easy to please, 'Jason in Space' remains a total toilet clogger.
#59
Bad Movies / Re: YOUR Worst Films of the 21...
Last post by M.10rda - December 31, 2025, 12:22:26 AMThat's a real Rogues Gallery right there, Claws... some terrible bad films from the 00s! (...And JASON X, which I enjoyed.)
Okay, I'll nominate another one that's a little distinct from that crew and really sticks with me after 23 years: Stephen Daldry's THE HOURS (2002). I still remember that agonizing 2.5 "hours" in the movie theater all too clearly. Nicole Kidman won an Oscar - she and her fake nose are decent. Everything else about it - Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, Jeff Daniels, et al; the script, the direction, the cinematography, and especially the editing - are stultifying, mortifying, justifiably career-ending. (I don't know that Jeff Daniels ever made another movie, actually.) I could say I've seen daytime soap operas that are more sincere, authentic, and compelling - but the truth is I've never watched an episode of a daytime soap that caused agonizing boredom and discomfort like this movie did. On top of all that, THE HOURS inadvertently accomplishes more profound gay defamation than any Estus Pirkle telethon ever could.
Okay, I'll nominate another one that's a little distinct from that crew and really sticks with me after 23 years: Stephen Daldry's THE HOURS (2002). I still remember that agonizing 2.5 "hours" in the movie theater all too clearly. Nicole Kidman won an Oscar - she and her fake nose are decent. Everything else about it - Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, Jeff Daniels, et al; the script, the direction, the cinematography, and especially the editing - are stultifying, mortifying, justifiably career-ending. (I don't know that Jeff Daniels ever made another movie, actually.) I could say I've seen daytime soap operas that are more sincere, authentic, and compelling - but the truth is I've never watched an episode of a daytime soap that caused agonizing boredom and discomfort like this movie did. On top of all that, THE HOURS inadvertently accomplishes more profound gay defamation than any Estus Pirkle telethon ever could.
#60
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Memes n' stuff of the day
Last post by LilCerberus - December 30, 2025, 11:31:42 PM