- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#61
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.
#62
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/
#63
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.
#64
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!
#65
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.
#66
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.
#67
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Memes n' stuff of the day
Last post by LilCerberus - December 30, 2025, 11:31:42 PM
#68
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by indianasmith - December 30, 2025, 11:22:22 PMTHE ANACONDA (2025) Took my daughters and son-in-law to see this movie tonight and laughed harder than I have at any movie in a long time. Jack Black and Paul Rudd absolutely carry this far-fetched tale of amateur filmmakers battling a giant snake in the Amazon delta as they try to remake the 90's classic. Not a lot of scares but a ton of laughs! 5/5
#69
Bad Movies / Re: YOUR Worst Films of the 21...
Last post by indianasmith - December 30, 2025, 11:18:44 PMLet's see . . . in no certain order;
1. TOILET ZOMBIE BABY STRIKES BACK
2. TERRIFYING T-REX
3. FAMILY PROPERTY: BACKWOODS HILLBILLY MASSACRE
4. NOAH'S SHARK
5. SKY SHARKS
6. THE BLOOD SHED
7. JEBEDIAH'S AXE
8. EBBINGTON
9. SCARLET FRY'S JUNK FOOD HORROR FEST
10. SKYLINE
1. TOILET ZOMBIE BABY STRIKES BACK
2. TERRIFYING T-REX
3. FAMILY PROPERTY: BACKWOODS HILLBILLY MASSACRE
4. NOAH'S SHARK
5. SKY SHARKS
6. THE BLOOD SHED
7. JEBEDIAH'S AXE
8. EBBINGTON
9. SCARLET FRY'S JUNK FOOD HORROR FEST
10. SKYLINE
#70
Bad Movies / Re: YOUR Worst Films of the 21...
Last post by claws - December 30, 2025, 09:05:44 PM1. Alone in the Dark (2005)
A chaotic script and incoherent action scenes bury any potential the game adaptation might have had.
2. Hellraiser: Revelations (2011)
A rushed, low‑budget production that feels like a placeholder rather than a real Hellraiser film.
3. Feardotcom (2002)
Its muddled plot and murky visuals make the central mystery nearly impossible to care about.
4. The Fog (2005)
A lifeless remake that strips away the atmosphere and tension that made the original memorable.
5. Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
A gimmicky reality‑TV premise undermines the franchise's tone and turns Michael Myers into a punchline.
6. The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008)
A teen‑horror setup with no scares, no stakes, and an ending that feels unearned.
7. Prom Night (2008)
A bloodless, tension‑free slasher that feels more like a CW drama than a horror film.
8. Zombie Strippers! (2008)
Its campy premise wears thin quickly, leaving only repetitive jokes and cheap shock value.
9. Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)
A confused meta‑sequel that abandons the original's strengths for messy psychological chaos.
10. One Missed Call (2008)
A bland remake that replaces J‑horror dread with generic jump scares and flat performances.
11. The Devil Inside (2012)
An infamous non‑ending and found‑footage clichés sink what little tension the film builds.
12. Boogeyman (2005)
A concept with potential is wasted on CGI‑heavy scares and a paper‑thin story.
13. A Sound of Thunder (2005)
Laughably bad CGI and a clunky script derail its time‑travel premise.
14. The Gallows (2015)
A found‑footage slog with unlikable characters and a twist that doesn't justify the journey.
15. Ultraviolet (2006)
Style overwhelms substance in a visually noisy but narratively hollow sci‑fi action film.
16. The Grudge (2019)
A grim, disjointed reboot that mistakes misery for atmosphere and never builds real tension.
17. Jason X (2001)
A knowingly silly entry that leans so hard into camp it loses any sense of horror.
18. Skyline (2010)
Cool creature designs can't save a story that feels like a first draft stretched to feature length.
19. Skinwalkers (2006)
A werewolf movie with weak effects and a plot that never finds momentum.
20. The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006)
A sequel in name only, recycling the premise without emotional weight or originality.
21. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)
Dark, muddy cinematography and thin characters make the iconic monsters nearly impossible to enjoy.
22. Captivity (2007)
A torture‑porn entry that mistakes cruelty for suspense and never develops its characters.
23. Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)
A tired sequel that adds little to the mythology and delivers few memorable scares.
24. The Return (2005)
A slow, unfocused supernatural thriller that never builds to anything meaningful.
25. Lost Souls (2000)
A dreary, sluggish possession film that confuses moodiness with actual storytelling.
A chaotic script and incoherent action scenes bury any potential the game adaptation might have had.
2. Hellraiser: Revelations (2011)
A rushed, low‑budget production that feels like a placeholder rather than a real Hellraiser film.
3. Feardotcom (2002)
Its muddled plot and murky visuals make the central mystery nearly impossible to care about.
4. The Fog (2005)
A lifeless remake that strips away the atmosphere and tension that made the original memorable.
5. Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
A gimmicky reality‑TV premise undermines the franchise's tone and turns Michael Myers into a punchline.
6. The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008)
A teen‑horror setup with no scares, no stakes, and an ending that feels unearned.
7. Prom Night (2008)
A bloodless, tension‑free slasher that feels more like a CW drama than a horror film.
8. Zombie Strippers! (2008)
Its campy premise wears thin quickly, leaving only repetitive jokes and cheap shock value.
9. Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)
A confused meta‑sequel that abandons the original's strengths for messy psychological chaos.
10. One Missed Call (2008)
A bland remake that replaces J‑horror dread with generic jump scares and flat performances.
11. The Devil Inside (2012)
An infamous non‑ending and found‑footage clichés sink what little tension the film builds.
12. Boogeyman (2005)
A concept with potential is wasted on CGI‑heavy scares and a paper‑thin story.
13. A Sound of Thunder (2005)
Laughably bad CGI and a clunky script derail its time‑travel premise.
14. The Gallows (2015)
A found‑footage slog with unlikable characters and a twist that doesn't justify the journey.
15. Ultraviolet (2006)
Style overwhelms substance in a visually noisy but narratively hollow sci‑fi action film.
16. The Grudge (2019)
A grim, disjointed reboot that mistakes misery for atmosphere and never builds real tension.
17. Jason X (2001)
A knowingly silly entry that leans so hard into camp it loses any sense of horror.
18. Skyline (2010)
Cool creature designs can't save a story that feels like a first draft stretched to feature length.
19. Skinwalkers (2006)
A werewolf movie with weak effects and a plot that never finds momentum.
20. The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006)
A sequel in name only, recycling the premise without emotional weight or originality.
21. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)
Dark, muddy cinematography and thin characters make the iconic monsters nearly impossible to enjoy.
22. Captivity (2007)
A torture‑porn entry that mistakes cruelty for suspense and never develops its characters.
23. Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)
A tired sequel that adds little to the mythology and delivers few memorable scares.
24. The Return (2005)
A slow, unfocused supernatural thriller that never builds to anything meaningful.
25. Lost Souls (2000)
A dreary, sluggish possession film that confuses moodiness with actual storytelling.