Worst Films of All Time

"This is bullshit!" (an actual quote that accurately describes everything about this movie as well!)

Meet the Spartans is a film I wanted to avoid and at the end of the day should have avoided. After the creators of the appalling Date Movie and Epic Movie announced yet another spoof...I was almost in tears. Just spare a thought about the money the duo of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have wasted while making these fruitless, futile spoof movies! That could have been enough to fund a few small movies, or altogether could have funded one bigger movie. There's a few potentially decent films we will never see!

In the spoof movie world, there are funny spoofs...and there are Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer spoofs. The former may not produce brilliant results, however they are at least entertaining enough due to the high levels of hilarity that emerge in multiple scenes. The latter...well, you'll be hard-pressed to find the slightest urge to laugh. I have no idea why the talentless duo continues to produce elaborate hack jobs that waste money, time and potential talent. (In this case I'm looking at you, Diedrich Bader. Shame on you for agreeing to star in this mess!)

Meet the Spartans is about as funny as being sexually violated by a horribly disfigured elephant and about as painful. I must give props to the two guys for making the standard for their comedies lower and lower...Date Movie being their best (this is an astoundingly faint praise), Epic Movie resulting in worse results, and Meet the Spartans not only resultant in their worst effort, but possibly the worst film of all time! This is the cinematic equivalent of receiving a very painful enema! How bad are we talking? Well, when I watched the movie I felt sick to the stomach and had to possess a vomit bucket on stand-by. This is a teenager who is saying this...a member of the supposed target audience! Meet the Spartans relies on childish, puerile humour consisting of sometimes insensitive cracks about society and juvenile sex/potty jokes.

I heard reports of people in the cinema yelling out "This is crap!" and other such things. Normally I abhor those who yell stuff in the cinema...but this is an exception. Who am I to quibble? This film is pure crap! It needed to be said.

The film is ostensibly a simple spoof of the hit 2007 film 300. Okay, so the idea of spoofing a highly stylised film adaptation of a graphic novel may seem like a decent idea. There's plenty of material for a raft of clever gags, right? Wrong! The screenwriters only incorporate the obvious and predictable laughs. The pacing is always affected by a scene turning into something from American Idol, Deal or No Deal, Dancing With The Stars, and America's Next Top Model (some of which have been slightly modified to suit the setting). What does this do? It saps all the tension and fast pacing that was set up...instead adding an extra 5 minutes to the already minuscule running time. The film also takes a stab at several other recent movies and even video games! It's all incredibly mindless and pointless! But is it funny? Absolutely not!

Just when you think they've run out of ideas, they decide to spoof Stomp the Yard and have a dancing competition. Then when you've come to the conclusion that things can't get any worse...a competition consisting of people exchanging 'Yo Mamma' jokes! Interestingly enough, they managed to choose the jokes that aren't funny. Yes, it's that bad! But wait...there's even more! You'd think they've run out of ideas, right? It seems they haven't as they incorporate several instances of blatant product placement and commercials. Just like the added TV shows, it slows the pacing and makes the audience even more bored. Worse has yet to come - soldiers walk around the battlefield carrying blue screens to use digital effects to give the impression of a menacing army. In all fairness, I think the filmmakers couldn't find many extras who were willing to be part of the production. If I was offered money to be an extra I wouldn't do it! It'd taint my image, and even if my name was omitted from the credits I would be mentally scarred from so much as stepping onto the set!

In the midst of this cinematic chaos emerges a cast that you feel forced to pity. Carmen Electra's performance always seems to repeatedly reinstate the message to the audience of "I can't act...but I'll always take a role if you want big breasts and zero acting talent!" Sean Maguire never looks committed or convincing. They are supported by a cast that are all standard for the genre. Did they really need the pay-check to suffer through this mess?!

Meet the Spartans only supplied one single line of funny dialogue. But it came in the first minute of the film's running time...thankfully the entire movie only went for about 68 minutes (still too long). I was still forced to sit through over an hour of poorly written gags and a terribly executed screenplay! Then, just when you think the film is finally over, the credit roll is accompanied by the cast singing and dancing followed by a montage of deleted scenes. Ever heard of DVD extras, guys?! This just adds insult to injury!

I'll keep it short, sweet and simple: do not let curiosity get the better of you! There is a line, and Meet the Spartans crossed it. If you ever watch the movie please make sure there is no food in your stomach as it will be explosively hurled in disgust. The movie lacks humour and an entertainment value. The constant stream of parodies are merely based around recent movies and TV programs, and continue to question the viewer's decision to ultimately watch the movie! I can't recall a recent movie I've seen that is worse than this turd on film! In a few years when the potency of the pop culture references have disappeared there won't even be a scrap of laughter to be found. I will never watch this movie again in whole or part, not even if I was paid. Afterwards I felt violated and raped. It gets worse...the same duo are making another spoof film. R.I.P modern cinema!

"I can fix that." (It would have been nice if Ice Cube was referring to the screenplay...unfortunately he's not)

Unfortunately, as long as Hollywood sees a profit in them they will continue to roll out these types of appalling, strictly by-the-numbers children's flicks. When it comes to this genre quality is never the concern. It's the money. They hire the cheapest cast and crew they can and supply a reasonably small budget. Filtering little money into the film means that they'll easily return a large profit at the box office, even more easily returning its original budget.


This inevitable sequel to the inexcusably dismal 2005 film Are We There Yet? is just as bad as its predecessor, if not even worse. Ice Cube continues to dig a bigger hole for the corpse of his career by starring in films like these.


After the events of the first film we once again follow Nick Persons (Cube) who is now married to Suzanne (Long) and is now the stepfather of Suzanne's kids. The four of them are living in Nick's small condo that can barely accommodate them all. After Suzanne falls pregnant they soon decide that a bigger house is necessary to support the growing family. While looking for a house they meet wacky realtor/contractor/building inspector/policeman Chuck (McGinley) who convinces Nick to buy a big luxurious house that he can barely afford. Predictably, trouble strikes in the form of termites, dry rot, loss of electricity, falling through floors, and so on.


This then begins the film's journey down into the world of conventional storytelling that we've seen before as things go from bad to worse. It's a bunch of unfunny slapstick gags strung together as a sequel to an already appalling movie.


All the gags and pratfalls are easily predictable several minutes before they occur. I mean who would have predicted that Ice Cube would begin falling through collapsing walls and floors...? Aside from that it's also predictable that he will get struck by lightning, fall from ladders and get attacked by a cavalcade of different animals. And then of course the trademark cherry on top: Suzanne begins to go into labour at an awkward and inconvenient moment.


What's more - it's a credited remake of the 1948 movie Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (complete with an RKO logo at the beginning). But Ice Cube is no Cary Grant. The film is even more tragic by its references to several other (better quality) movies like Jaws and The Birds.


Just like its predecessor, Ice Cube's performance is somewhat questionable. The kids have further lost their appeal because now they're not young. Now they are older annoying snots who are even more irritating. I couldn't believe someone like John C. McGinley agreed to appear in this film. The man can be funny when given good material. Unfortunately there are no clever lines of dialogue for him to work with.


Are We Done Yet? is almost a rehash of the original with a house being wrecked as opposed to an expensive car. The film is phenomenally bad, notoriously unfunny, and pitches a more valuable question to the viewing audience: are we done with this series yet? One of the poorest films of 2007!

The filmmakers must have been on some kind of drug to think producing this pile of rubbish was a bright idea. When I heard the title it sounded like a take on the Adam & Eve story which captured my interest. Then when I read the synopsis I was proved wrong, but still found this an interesting premise for a movie. Upon viewing it...I detract everything I previously thought about it.

The film was dull, clichéd, horrible and almost painful to watch. Not much of a plot, really, just a group of teenagers go to a camp-ground, they're warned about murders that occurred there a few months ago (Surprised?), they start partying and then a murderer starts killing all the teens.

Now, back up, anyone think this sounds like Friday The 13th 200: Jason Gets A Makeover or something? God, the cinematography was hopeless and the acting was pathetic.

Each actor sounded contrived and appalling; breathing absolutely nothing into an already lifeless script. Needless to say the script was one of the worst piles of rubbish to get the green light in a very long time.

I appreciate the fact that it's probably meant to be B-grade and shoddy...but this is just plain inexcusable not to mention highly demoralising. Lots of unnecessary violence, profanity and filthy dialogue are all that make up the script. And none of the lines sounded natural at all, especially when the actors spewed all their lines out on camera in such an artificial way.

It must take a director really devoid of any talent to get involved with this crap. I can't waste anymore of my time warning you, but if you must watch this film I suggest you watch it with a heap of mates while accompanied by nibblies, pizza and fizzy drinks as you will enjoy ripping it off. Adam & Evil is nothing more than a film to watch plainly for the prospect of having a good laugh at how dreadful it is.

"From 1969 to 1973, the Hewitt family murdered thirty-three people across the state of Texas. To this day, it is universally considered the most notorious and brutally sadistic killing spree in the annals of American history: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre."

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is an additional inept Hollywood gore fest that endeavours to misrepresent itself as a terrifying horror flick. After all ideas for sequels have come and gone, Hollywood studios then move onto the prequels. The philosophy behind this prequel was ostensibly to inform the audience of the back-story of "Leatherface" (Bryniarski) who is the central serial killer in the series. Clearly, the motivation was to reveal why the cannibalistic family become the way they end up...what pushed them over the line? First of all, I must rip into the concept. Tobe Hooper's 1974 original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was absolutely petrifying because of the inability to understand the characters and their origins. Therefore with no palpable motivations, the characters are frightening. Thus revealing the genesis erases all mystery surrounding Leatherface and his family, and no longer do they possess a scary screen presence.

The second fatal flaw in the screenplay is not even fulfilling the concept! The first five minutes show Leatherface's birth, and then all of a sudden the central character is an adult chopping up meat just like he was in the predecessors. Cue the brainless, incompetently-minded characters travelling through Leatherface's region...prompt the rest of the sadistic family who are suddenly cannibals eating people, and the stage is set for a pointless rehash of the original films with a different slate of characters. This time, though, you can predict how it will end. We know the events that will unfold a few years later, thus these characters can't tell the tale to the authorities and uncover the mystery. Hence the villains won't get their comeuppance (there's no vengeance at all), and the audience are exposed to endless scenes of mindless torture.

I've basically described the film's plot, but I will elaborate further: Thomas Hewitt - a.k.a Leatherface - is born in a slaughterhouse in Texas and is abandoned in a dumpster. He is adopted into a family, and he grows up to become a worker at the same slaughterhouse. Then the slaughterhouse is closed down, with workers left unemployed. Many of the local inhabitants desert the area. The Hewitt family stays put, but are on the verge of starvation. Leatherface's deranged step-father executes the local sheriff, assumes his identity and begins running the town his cruel way. Two young couples then venture into the region and become hopelessly stranded. The Hewitt family wait...with an enormous assortment of torture tools on hand.

It's impossible to point out all the flaws evident in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. The main flaw is its nature of nothing but a mindless gore fest. The film has no problem with moving from one unnerving torture scene to the next, with blood and guts spurting all over the place: showing more inventive methods to kill a human. I know, I know - I'm supposed to praise the low-budget affair for creating an authentic atmosphere with realistic gore, blah, blah, blah! The impressive gore effects aren't a redeeming feature. As a matter of fact, there are no redeeming features at all! With all the misogynistic scenes depicting horrible torture and rape of girls, I wanted to walk out of my viewing area and keep on walking.

Tobe Hooper's original film wasn't a gore fest. There was barely any gore at all! It was scary because of what you didn't see. Of course, modern movie-goers apparently search for endless amounts of blood and gore. If it's present in action movies I usually devour the violence as it's realistic and in an intriguing context. In the context of torture it's just stupid. The film is also plagued with stupid characters and villains that are stereotyped as having the superhuman ability to pop up anywhere at any time whenever things have potential to look up for the protagonists. The film has zero scares. Instead of suspense and terror, we have lots of blood flow with an equal amount of guts. Speaking in terms of successful relentless horror flicks, something like Wolf Creek does better. Even though that's largely a relentlessly gory affair it has more skill and class. This is crap! Stupid, pretentious, tasteless crap!

"Those are sharks on steroids!"

The tagline for Dark Waters reads "No Air. No Time. No Escape." For the safety and well-being of all audiences worldwide, it would be a sublime marketing choice to add another two words onto the tagline: "No Good!" Dark Waters is dreadfully below average, even by customary standards of direct-to-DVD features. By the look of the film, it seems every cent of the budget went into creating an interesting DVD cover: it displays a few very realistic looking sharks looming underneath an oil rig. We know it's a direct-to-DVD feature and won't be a masterpiece, but you'll think that at least it'll be worth a shot, right? After watching 90 minutes of this garbage, I'm beginning to think the front cover was images from a David Attenborough documentary!

Those familiar with the résumé of director Phillip Roth know what they're in for. Remember Boa a.k.a. New Alcatraz? Credit must be granted for director Roth, as Dark Waters is far worse than his previous movies by incredible margins: Z-Grade special effects, hideous set design, no motivation...heck even the locations appear dull due to the disjointed nature of Roth's lens. Before reading any further, be warned that I have nothing positive to say about this movie so prepare for an exhaustingly long review diving into everything wrong with this shark action tosh!

The plot is a poor excuse to showcase a few poorly executed moments of shark mayhem. Basically, an Oil Transfer Station in the Gulf of Mexico is attacked by large Great White Sharks. The owner of the station, Allister Summerville (Gray), has no idea what happened and feels the need to investigate. Enter aspiring marine biologist Dane Quatrell (Lamas) and his assistant Robin Turner (Mackinnon). The two are drugged by Summerville who plans to hire the hi-tech submarine owned by the couple.

So imagine this situation: an underwater research station, a few highly intelligent sharks, and a few people to become shark food. What's that I hear you think? You're absolutely correct...this is the sub-par low-budget equivalent of Renny Harlin's Deep Blue Sea. The CGI effects in Harlin's picture were terrible enough, but at least there were practical sharks for higher realism. Deep Waters is all CGI...almost every shot. As a result nothing looks remotely believable. It looks like the graphics of a video game from 10 years ago! Even the opening shots are enough to leave a bad taste in the mind of the audience. After the first few minutes I was bored to tears, and I couldn't even laugh at the shark attacks because they're that bad. We can't even see sharks eating people due to the poor filmmaking!

The script had potential...I must grant them that. But that's not in the dialogue, the concept or the situations. The potentiality was purely in the use of hi-tech sharks, of which have 10 minutes of allocated screen-time. Half of that shows the sharks being mobile! So this is a 90-minute shark flick, with barely 10 minutes for the sharks. What's in the other 80 minutes? Laughable drama, incompetent action scenes, atrocious acting and clichéd situations! There are countless clichés that surface within each minute: marines who can't shoot straight, inexperienced civilians who can miraculously stay alive and shoot competently, loose air vents for a convenient escape, sharks never attacking a protagonist...the list goes on!

The plot is filled with plot holes aplenty, to the point that it's a slice of Swiss cheese in comparison. There are also script irregularities, factual errors that are impossible to overlook, and even logical flaws to boot. On top of this, Roth's usage of the camera is ugly. The central fault, though, is how impossible the task remains to categorise the film. The first scene is horror, then it's a drama, then it's a tense drama, then it becomes action before returning to horror/thriller before throwing it all together for the film's climax. The worst part is that there is no intensity. Even the editing is bad! Flashbacks are unnecessary, and there's fast cutting during the attacks that frequently employ close-ups. These looks so bad that it's not even worth a laugh! Dark Waters should sink into dark waters...forever.

"Fear is what protects you from the things you don't believe in." (Please note that this quote was only included as an example of the dreadful screenwriting. Each line is as corny as this very quote)

Alright it can be that bad! Alone in the Dark is bluntly a fruitless, steaming pile from Uwe Boll that is hardly watchable, much less memorable.

Usually I can look at a recently produced film and say that it looks good because it's well made, or it might have nice production design; but with this mess I felt that nothing looked good on-screen - quite honestly it's all tremendously ugly! It looks like someone gave an untrained monkey a camera!

Boll is pathetic when he's placed behind a camera, and what's worse is that every person who worked on the movie did an abysmal job. The opening few minutes did nothing to engage me; it's nothing more than stupid violence and unnecessary uses of slo-mo that Boll seems to think "looks cool". The entire duration of the movie keeps becoming more and more painful, stupendous and painful to watch.

Alone in the Dark is basically about a paranormal investigator (Slater) who discovers some strange things that then leads to some creatures getting set loose and many people getting killed.

There are several things that stood out after viewing the film. First of all, the dreadful acting. Christian Slater could not act to save his life. I guess that's what happens when a wooden actor works with a terrible director. But the film's lowest point was casting Tara Reid in the part of a scientist. I don't have any clue why she was even placed anywhere near this film. She does not look anything like a scientist or anyone of any intelligence for that matter.

And I could not believe how shocking the unnecessary sex scene was. It was out of place and put in there just for the sake of a sex scene. Sometimes I wonder not only if Boll has no clue about how to make a movie, but I also wondered if Boll has ever even seen a film.

The directing was appalling, contrived and incompetent. Cinematography was another of the film's low points. Seeing bullets leaving a gun in slow motion is completely unnecessary and used to poor effect. The CGI used in the film for the creatures is AWFUL! The creatures looked bleak, dull and unrealistic. I honestly thought the CGI had to be some kind of joke. One must wonder how Boll got an enormous amount of cash to make the movie and still come up with dreadful CGI and such a steaming pile of horse manure for a movie!

Alone in the Dark is highly stupid, illogical and a complete disgrace to the video game. This film ain't worth your time, so leave it alone and never even consider watching it or you'll probably suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome for the rest of your life!

"You look like Mt. Pepto Bismol erupted."

Baby Geniuses is every bit as terrible as the critics made it out to be, and then some. Admittedly this film has some feeble potential, but the idea of talking babies has been toyed with so recurrently that it's growing old. It's apparent that the filmmakers simply wanted to make a guilty pleasure with a few laughs for the kids and adults. The kids might find some entertainment here. As for anyone over the age of 5...you'd have better luck finding a three-legged ballerina than finding anyone remotely interesting in this putrid mess of a movie!


Basically there are a bunch of babies being held for scientific experiments. Two scientists (Turner, Lloyd) who manage the world's leading manufacturer of baby products secretly plan to crack the code of baby talk. Then one troublesome young child named Sly (played by all of the Fitzgerald triplets) escapes from the facility and runs into his twin Whit (played by the same bunch of triplets) with whom he has a telepathic bond. Then some massive mix up occurs when guards from the scientific facility accidentally capture Whit who's mistaken for Sly, and Sly is mistaken for Whit and taken home by Whit's mother.


Apart from some preposterous other sub-plots that emerge, there is nothing else holding the film together. It's a string of stupid, notoriously unfunny childish lines of dialogue that some people actually regard as funny. Now that's a shock! No laughs, hideously embarrassing acting, bad storyline and no redeeming features at all. Whoever decided to green-light this project deserves to be kicked out of the industry forever! Think about it...they spent of millions of dollars financing this film. With that money they could have done two or three low budget movies that could have been decent. That's two or three movies we will never see. If crap like this is being created in Hollywood I wonder what stuff they must be rejecting... I don't think any possible film projects that have been rejected could possibly be worse than this.


Everyone on the cast should be ashamed of themselves. With names like Christopher Lloyd and Kathleen Turner one would expect something that is at least entertaining. Instead we have dreadful acting with even poorer source material. I can't believe how bad this so called "comedy" (I believe the film is incorrectly placed in the genre of comedy) turned out to be. The script is so terrible...I cannot even conceive a word to describe it. Directing is usually uneven and awkward. I don't recall any scenes that are memorable. Each and every second is instantly forgettable. In a sense this is a good thing. I'd rather forget I ever saw this movie.


Baby Geniuses marks one of Hollywood's lowest points. The whole film is the furthest thing from entertainment. Every aspect of the filmmaking falls flat. Script, directing, performances...they act as repulsive faeces in a grotty toilet. The screenwriter must've been a 1-year-old baby...and not a genius.

"We need you. They will not fight with us."

For lack of a better word, 10,000 BC is genuine crap: a primitive, braindead, overblown, boring, glaringly stupid, distractingly historically inaccurate production that proves to be an exorbitant waste of both time and money.

Director Roland Emmerich is not an unfamiliar face to movie audiences. He's remembered for his previous crowd-pleasing epics including Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow and several others. The man is unable to think small. In fact, I don't think the word is even in his vocabulary. Even worse, I don't think he's even heard of the word "quality" when it comes to filmmaking. He usually makes light-hearted features with the intention of basking in the glory of box office profits. To date, people frequently regard his worst movie as Godzilla. This is understandable considering the disastrous outcome of that blockbuster. 10,000 BC easily dethrones Godzilla as Emmerich's worst movie. Where Godzilla was at least mildly entertaining in its scope and scale of action, 10,000 BC has nothing to even remotely interest an audience.
We never expected a masterpiece, of course, but we at least expected a lavish spectacle featuring impressive visual effects and a sense of escapism. We never expected a mind-bendingly lacklustre effort that provokes more questions than answers, and forever appears to be reaching for a specific MPAA rating as opposed to crafting a complete movie experience.

The plot, if it can even be called as such, concerns some tribe of cavemen in the year 10,000 B.C. The opening narration sets up the story as being about "destiny, myth and legend". He probably should have introduced the story as being about science fiction and pure fantasy, because that's exactly what we're given. Anyway, the protagonist (I think he's the protagonist. Just like every other character in the film he's poorly distinguished and has no discernable personality. I think he's the main character because he's just given the most screen-time) is a guy named D'Leh (Strait). For some reason he's "destined" to marry some girl named Evolet (Belle). We're never told why they're in love, and why they're meant to be together...apparently it's just convoluted mumbo jumbo concerning fate. After D'Leh's tribe is attacked by a horde of so-called "demons", D'Leh now tries to accomplish two things: remove the strain of his father's so-called cowardice, and rescue Evolet from those who kidnapped her. Cue plenty of boring dialogue, remove the small evidence of a plot, introduce a few beasts, set up a few action scenes...and this is the result.

The script feels like it was written by a room of fourth-graders. Either that, or director Emmerich was desperate for ideas so he stole a few stories from local kids. The problem is, one wishes that the story was penned by children much younger...because then at least we'd have characters battling T-Rexes. It'd be preposterous, but no more absurd than what we already have.

We feel most cheated at the lack of ambition. The director's previous movies weren't masterpieces; however they were adequately entertaining at least. With this film, the action scenes fail to be eye-popping, the special effects look mediocre at best, and there's never any intensity to keep one on riveted. The concluding battle amidst pyramids is also far from captivating. It never serves any purpose...but apparently this is an action movie so a final action sequence just had to be necessary. Because the filmmakers were aiming for a watered down rating to attract the biggest box office gross possible, everything fails in this final battle. With lack of blood or gore, we're watching as people lightly hit someone else and they die. Or even worse, an arrow that has barely broken the skin proves lethal. The lack of blood acts a microcosm for everything that's wrong with this film. With the sanitised violence, everything else is dumbed down into horrific stereotypes. The climactic battle is perhaps the worst mass action scene in current film history. Not plainly due to its lunacy (that does play a rather large part), but because there's never a sense of conflict or even a build-up to it. Everything just...happens, hopeful to come off as an extravagant event. It's just blasé and unimaginative.

So all we have in terms of action apart from this pyramid battle and a mammoth battle is giant chickens and a sabre-toothed tiger. The giant chicken attacks could have been brutal and graphic, instead we see poorly orchestrated action and we cannot make out what's going on for the most part due to low light and poorly designed locations. And as for the tiger...nothing happens. It's a cameo where the main character becomes a feline whisperer. It doesn't attack the protagonist. Why? Become D'Leh saved the tiger's life, and the tiger remembers this event.

This big turkey also commits a cardinal sin of boring the audience. If they weren't going to introduce epic battles with rampaging dinosaurs, Emmerich could have at least thrown us a frickin' bone! It never happens. Also, the cast deliver deadpan performances. They remain solemn and serious...never any smile, never a sense of humour to be uncovered. But the worst has yet to come...the main characters speak perfect English the whole time while the enemies speak sinister gibberish with subtitles. Both the English dialogue and the grunting dialogue is poorly written and cheesy. Also, every character has perfect 21st century dental. Even some of the protagonists have dreadlocks. Maybe this unspecified land eventually became Jamaica...

Overall, 10,000 BC deserves all the panning it took. This is the worst big budget movie in recent memory. You'll be laughing at the funny climax where people lightly hit each other, resulting in immediate death. It looks so fake and staged, in fact, that in its already terrible context I can imagine a warrior hitting someone and saying "Sorry, old chap, was that a little too hard?" Hey, at least then the film could have had an intentionally comedic undertone to it.
The film never gives its audience any reward for the lead-up. It's not entertaining at all, to the point that every scene and every frame is excruciatingly boring. I had to pause the film multiple times to refill my coffee as I was falling asleep. Even then, the caffeine levels weren't sufficient. On the other hand the film doesn't have any historical insight either. What are we left with? Dull, monotonous, appalling and drastically un-entertaining epic fluff that proves to be as primitive as a cave painting. Everything is missing - an entertainment value, a sense of excitement, and even the punctuation for "B.C."

"If good men do nothing, that is evil enough."

Street Fighter is a woeful film adaptation of the popular Capcom arcade game. I'm sure there are many fans (or nerds, more precisely) who expected very good results...but what was released was far from good.

I don't think words can describe what a complete and spectacular disaster this film turned out to be.

First and foremost...the plot was utterly useless. It was an even worse excuse for Van Damme to execute fight moves that look incredibly fake and downright stupid!

And why was the film so tame?! Whose idea was it to water down all the violence?! As a result the film feels tremendously bad, tame, childish and corny beyond belief! And then of course the script...was dismal. Attempts at humour made the already painful experience exceedingly worse. And I didn't know it was possible for this film to be any worse.

The one-liners made me gasp in embarrassment. And of course the wooden Belgian made the lines sound even worse. But what made Van Damme worse than ever is the tame violence and the horrible script. Some of his movies were pathetically entertaining because they showcased awesome action...but the fight scenes didn't even look impressive. Instead they're underwhelming and childish.

And you just need to see Kylie Minogue in the cast to further cement our every fear. Her lines sounded so contrived and unnatural. There is not enough room to criticise all things that are wrong with this movie.

The poor excuse for a plot basically follows Colonel William F. Guile (Van Damme) who is in the middle of a war against some evil dictator who couldn't look sinister even if he's pitted against Kermit the Frog! Guile and his team of soldiers (including many who are scaringly good at martial arts for grunts) must go and free some hostages who are being held for ransom.

Many have looked upon Street Fighter as the worst movie ever made. This title sounds rather accurate. The entire film is childish, embarrassingly corny and even extremely boring. Why couldn't the character kill the screenwriters instead?!?!

"I know who killed me." (That's an actual quote...wow the filmmakers are trying to relate a quote back to the title...who would've thought. And I know who killed me: the filmmakers. For making this painful garbage!)

I Know Who Killed Me is officially career suicide for Lindsay Lohan: an actress who seemed to have a promising future as an actress after films like Mean Girls and Freaky Friday. The most unfortunate fact is that Lindsay desired to be taken more seriously as an actress by starring in a serious movie. Like most working actors/actresses, there comes a time to aim for an Oscar moment. Little did young Lindsay realise that this was the time for the Razzie committee to review her work. Lindsay became the honoured recipient of several Razzies: she tied with herself for Worst Actress, and she won Worst Screen Couple (once again shared with herself).

During 2007, audiences witnessed several inhumanely appalling horror flicks including Captivity, Hostel: Part II and even The Hills Have Eyes Part II. However, Lindsay's flick managed to rightfully beat the competition for the Razzie award of "Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie". Needless to say, I watched this film with shockingly depleted expectations. I knew that I was going to see a fairly poor flick...I just wasn't aware it would hold a convincing place on my 'Worst of 2007' list. Why is the film so appalling? Well, where to start...Lindsay's acting is dismal, director has no sense of style, the screenplay moves from one pointless scene to the next, it contains atrociously written dialogue, it's poorly made, and the film is also highly boring. I had to press the 'pause' button every few minutes to refill my coffee because I was falling asleep!

The plot essentially borrows from most commercial torture/horror porn witnessed over the past few years. We have elements of Saw and Hostel with a script that also mirrors police detective tales. This could have worked if done correctly. However, the film represents a Z-Grade version of all aforementioned elements. The horror scenes aren't even effective! Instead we have gore...lots of gore...nothing else.

Basically, Aubrey Fleming (Lohan) is a promising young teenage girl living off her parents' wealth. The idyllic small town in which she lives is soon rocked when a teenage girl is abducted and sadistically murdered. Soon Aubrey is abducted by (who we believe is) the same bloke. This is where the film goes from bad to worse. Flaws in logic begin surfacing multiple times every minute. I mean, they have one dead girl and a missing girl, yet the entire police force and even the FBI are called in to investigate! Talk about overkill. I mean, shouldn't they have dangerous fugitives or illustrious serial killers to catch? If not flaws in logic, it's things we simply find hilarious. An example? Well, the town sheriff resembles Santa Claus. So as Sheriff Claus makes his suspect list (and checks it twice) we also have unnecessary, tasteless scenes of pole dancing and nudity that make no sense at all. Oh, and there's a random gardener who decides to stroke a stick suggestively in order to impress Lindsay's character. No, I am not making this up. And of course, when the killer abducts Lindsay, her friends find a blue rose in her car. How did it get in there? Due to the futility of every other scene, imagine this: Lindsay asks the killer if she can quickly put something in her car, to which the killer responds "Oh yeah, sure. We'll do this torture and abduction thingy when you're ready". I can imagine that scene actually happening. Can't you?

Lindsay Lohan's acting is bottom of the barrel. 80% of the reasons why this film is so appalling are due to Lohan and her (*ahem*) so-called "acting". Every line she delivers is contrived, unrealistic or plain dreadful. At times she's meant to be screaming because of the unbearable torture. It doesn't sound like she's in pain. It's almost like she's moaning in pleasure...I'll leave that up to your imagination. To make matters worse, her pole dancing even looks incredibly trite! Lindsay spent time "researching" her character by spending time with real strippers and pole dancers. Whoa, you mean Lindsay wasn't doing this career already? Poor Julia Ormond...she looks like she's making an effort, possibly a few Oscar moments, but she wound up getting a Razzie award nomination.

The director and writer can't be let off too easily. Director Chris Sivertson has less talent than a film student. His uses of colour motifs simply do not work. Okay, so red signifies one character and blue signifies the other. Sure, we get it. But is it necessary? Nope. Not at all. And at the beginning there's a neon sign with a bulb darkening for the right arm and leg. Seems like the director wanted some foreshadowing in an attempt to look clever...but is he clever? The answer still remains an emphatic NO! Every scene in this movie is poorly written and its execution is distressingly weak. The result is boredom from the first 5 minutes. Highlights from these first few minutes: a few shots of Lindsay being a stripper (with no talent at all to show for), some blood dripping down her pole as she slides down (even blood dripping from where she never even touched...it's like witnessing the annual sap flow of the Stripper Pole Forest), and there's a few moments for Lindsay to read a story. Her writing is god-awful, and yet the class look so entranced and fascinated. On top of this, talk about a painful stereotype: Lindsay is wearing glasses in an attempt to look smart! Take the hint, Lindsay: if you wear glasses it doesn't mean you look smart. And you're starring in this film...so you're not smart at all!

The screenwriter should be banned from writing anything else in his career. The story is far from interesting and so cliché-ridden it's almost hard to comprehend! The whole concept is based on the myth of 'stigmatic twins'. Sound interesting? Didn't think so...because it's not! This film cannot be counted as a horror flick either. Aside from a few moments of gore that showcase decent prosthetics, there isn't a shock or fright in view until the finale when we've already lost interest. In between the torture of Aubrey and the rescue of Aubrey, there is a whole lot of nothing except for Lindsay showing the world her attempt to act like the daughter of a crack whore.

I Know Who Killed Me is a boring mess that fails to frighten, fails to entertain and has little to no redeeming value. After the first few minutes I found myself indescribably bored. The director has no sense of style at all. The result is a succession of pointless scenes with no abiding content. Heck, nothing seems vital except for the abduction and rescue. I wish this was a short film, because the filmmakers surely killed me with this film. At one stage the characters describe a serial killer who kills people in the cinema. If people were in the cinema watching this movie, it'd be a truly welcome favour. That scene is more irony than this film can handle.

"Tonight's forecast...a freeze is coming!"

Remember when Tim Burton reinvented Batman for the big screen? Remember how incredibly faithful, dark and extravagantly awesome that film was? Burton then made Batman Returns and that film was a stellar effort. Unfortunately, the reigns were then handed to director Joel Schumacher to carry the franchise. Batman Forever at least had some of the Batman charm, which is understandable because Burton stayed on as a producer. But when the time came for a fourth instalment in the Batman series, Burton had moved on to bigger and better projects. So when Batman & Robin entered production, already several more things were amiss. For starters, the studio were demanding something more cartoonish...a film that would justify tonnes of toys, meaning more money to feed their greedy souls.

And then of course, we have renowned bad actor Arnold Schwarzenegger receiving top billing as the villain of the film. It's understandable if someone like Jack Nicholson is billed first due to his reputation as an amazing actor...but come on! Why would you seriously want to enthusiastically flaunt someone like Schwarzenegger as your film's primary acting talent? WHY?! And then there's the factor regarding the actors. George Clooney had been selected as the new Batman. Seriously? Okay...already the film sounds disastrous and it's truly a reflection of the disaster that was to follow. Batman & Robin reduces the franchise to the level of camp exhibited in the 60s TV series with Adam West. Except even that is an insult to Adam West! As a 6-year-old I remember giving this film a thumbs up. Kids may find something of value here. On the other hand, if you're pushing 9-10 and beyond...be afraid! Be very afraid. Before I get started with everything wrong with this movie, beware that this review will be tiresomely lengthy. I guess one must give kudos to the production team for a film potentially bad enough to warrant the longest review ever written.

I defy you to find a single positive review for this movie. They don't exist! Audiences have voted this as the worst comic book film of all time! And that's even with Howard the Duck in consideration! Batman & Robin is loud, dumb, and an embarrassment to the entire franchise. It even shames the medium of film just because it's preserved on it! Here's the thing: the film has absolutely no plot to it. Instead it's a string of incoherent, glamorous action scenes that usually don't make any sense at all.

The opening sequence is enough to set this up. First we're shown the Warner Bros. logo...all frozen in ice. Already, we know that trouble is to follow. Then we move to the opening titles that are loud and colourful. That's a simple sign that the movie to follow will be nothing superior to those standards. Then after the credits, we're shown a montage of Batman (Clooney) and Robin (O'Donnell) suiting up. We get pointless extreme close-ups of different body parts being covered in armour. The first thing that will stick out is the nipples on the Batsuit! NIPPLES?! Are you serious?! But the worse has yet to follow: a completely out-of-place, futile few shots depicting both of their rear ends being covered in armour! Oh, but wait, then following scene gets better. The first few line deliveries are enough to make you puke! As the Batmobile enters the frame, Robin eagerly remarks "I want a car!" before saying "Chicks dig the car". Do I really need to point out everything that's wrong with those few lines of dialogue? Then things get even better...Batman ever so embarrassingly remarks "This is why Superman works alone". Oh my God! And we're not even 5 minutes into the movie!!

Already we've established that the film's internal logic has been defied, that the screenwriter can't handle any interesting dialogue, and that we've submerged below the corniness of the Adam West TV show! (At least they knew they were just making comedy genius and nothing serious) Soon enough, we're introduced to the personal situation that the protagonists must overcome. Alfred (Gough) has a spell of a fictitious Movie Illness that causes his lips to quiver, his eyelids to flutter, and forces him to lean against a wall to keep from collapsing. Either that, or the filmmakers were filming a reaction shot of the actor during the movie's premiere. Here we are, not 5 minutes into the film and already I've pointed out countless instances of why the film is bad.

Now I'll attempt the impossible: outlining the plot... It seems Mr. Freeze (Schwarzenegger) is forced by fate to walk around in a clunky aluminium suit. He then develops a poorly conceived plan to avenge his wife's illness by scheming to freeze the city. Great...now how will that accomplish anything? Sounds to me like Mr. Freeze got rather pissed off and ergo is throwing a tantrum. It's the same effect as kicking and screaming, except on a wider scale. Couldn't he just settle with a bit of sobbing and maybe killing a few nearby bunnies with his father's shotgun? If only that were so, because then the world would never have to witness this flick. Anyway, continuing the "two villains per flick" rule, we are introduced to Poison Ivy (Thurman) who wants to kill Batman of course. In addition to the crime fighting duo of Batman and Robin (as if that pair weren't painful enough), cue Batgirl (Silverstone) to reel in a mainstream female audience. What do you have as a result? There's practically no story to the film: it's merely a succession of flashy set pieces (most of them irrelevant to anything coming before or after them) that generate about as much intensity as a circus sideshow.

George Clooney is appalling as the title character. Maybe he makes a semi-charming Bruce Wayne...but he's an appalling Batman. There's no dark voice and no effort to hide his true identity. By the time this is clear, we're already burying our face in our hands...and completely embarrassed to be watching the film. Arnold Schwarzenegger has never been an actor. He's grabbed guns, shot people, seen blood spurt in fascinating ways and made his pay-checks in the 80s from doing just this while delivering trite dialogue. The screenwriter (who can't do anything comedic...but would you believe he wrote A Beautiful Mind?!) for this film gives Arnie one-liners that could make a rhinoceros tremble with embarrassment. Sometimes his costume looks mildly cool (pun intended), but it's clearly exaggerated for toy purposes. Chris O'Donnell is young and too enthusiastic. His character is dreadfully written. Uma Thurman can't do much for the material. This is simply a consequence of bad screenwriting. Alicia Silverstone looks perplexed in amidst the cast. Michael Gough frequently looks embarrassed to be participating in this garbage. The poor guy used to be such a good version of Alfred...now he's an old man saying stupid dialogue.

Overall, words have yet to be invented to describe how dreadful Batman & Robin truly is. To be fair, the warning signs were present: a screenwriter who can't write comedy, a director who can't create comedy and a cast who can never achieve their desired emotions. Every sequence of this film is dreadful...corny dialogue, obvious wirework, no intensity, special effects that even look atrocious, and the camera can't be held still. The final insult and the final nail in the coffin was the film's final moments...when Batgirl, Batman and Robin run towards the camera with their capes flying before the credits begin to roll. Not to mention one of the final lines (delivered by Michael Gough) that further solidify this film as pure crap. Gough says "We're going to need a bigger Batcave". Actually, I think they need a better creative team. I remember watching this as a 6-year-old, and I was concerned with I saw a dog being frozen. If a dog getting frozen is the only thing I cared about, then surely the filmmakers have done something mortally incorrect.

"I love a happy ending! Hahaha!" (An actual quote from the film. Although in this case I wouldn't mind any ending...as long as it's over!)

Pointless family movies are another disease in Hollywood. Every year without failure the studios continue to roll out standard by-the-numbers family movies that are clichéd beyond all belief. Why do the studios do this? Simple - because they don't cost much to make and they are capable of pulling in stacks of money from the younger audience.


Are We There Yet? is yet another indescribably appalling mess of a family movie in the vein of those aforementioned clichéd family flicks. The only difference is that this film is one of the worst I have experienced in a long time, and it's a film that I wish had never come to fruition.


Nick Persons (Cube) is a swinging bachelor who meets divorced attractive single mother Suzanne (Long). As Suzanne leaves on a business trip, her ex-husband cancels his plans to take care of the kids...and Nick volunteers to take them. From there the film sinks into the world of clichés, predictability and just plain unoriginality as Nick takes the kids in his new car to Vancouver to meet with Suzanne. The two kids have never liked any of the men her mum has dated in the past...and of course try everything they're capable of to make the trip a nightmare for Nick.


It's typical black comedy we've seen millions of times before as things get destroyed and begin going from bad to worse (not to mention the complete implausibility of a deer turning into Mohammad Ali and beating the crap out of Ice Cube).


Are We There Yet? is the typical American family film strictly for the kids - i.e. corny lines, cheesy, happy ending, predictable, impossible events just for the sake of getting a giggle out of a child...gee, I could go on all day. I think it goes without saying that the acting, directing, screenwriting - basically the all round filmmaking is typical for the genre.


Ice Cube has done some good work in the past. I haven't seen any excellent work from him and I don't expect him to. But hell, he has got to make some good career moves. Anaconda, xXx: The Next Level and now this pile of manure. The two young performers playing the kids are both annoying little snots. We're not supposed to like them and hence have motivation to empathise with Ice Cube's situation. However it's a little hard to do this when it's really clear that the only reason Ice Cube's character is doing this is to get into the good books of a pretty woman. And this is supposed to be a film for the kids?


The ending was the final insult, and the last nail in the coffin. It's the same movie we've seen billions of times before with a different title slapped on it. Ice Cube...your career is over and all previous respect I had for you is gone.

"Ahhhh!" (This is said many times when someone is eatem. This is one of the limited quotes I can remember. Proves how lazy the screenwriter was)

I am completely aware that Arachnid was only made to be a fluffy entertainment piece showcasing a giant spider eating people. Despite this, I found the movie to be the furthest thing from a decent slice of entertainment.

Instead I was fed this stupid, cheesy, barely memorable poppycock that could be beaten by a student film! I can't honestly believe that this film was marketed as being an addition to the horror genre because I didn't find anything remotely scary about this horrible mess other than the terrifying thought that people actually gave money to filmmakers to get this thing made.

The story of the film is basically about a group of people who are terrorised by some giant mutated spider. Well...how impressive is that? This is a plot that has been reused for a countless number of monster movies, most of which score as much better quality than this rubbish.

One of principal things that stuck out for me here was the terrible screenplay and the bad actors involved. It's truly painful how conventional and by-the-book all the characters are. There must be a book for screenwriters to turn to for ideas on what characters to include. Spider expert who is an easy target? Check. Big-breasted girl for show? Check. Dumb characters to get knocked off first? Check. Smart character that swoops in and saves the day? Check. A few tough-looking soldiers to die in triumphant, heroic ways? Check. From the first few scenes we can comfortably predict which characters are going to die, and in which order.

The script is filled with cheesy, dull dialogue. And none of the actors appear to make an effort. The special effects were cheesy and laughable. The animation honestly looks like a group of students made a dodgy clay model. They aren't even slightly impressive. If you want the special effects to look just marginally striking then you'll need to get drunk - fast! All this film has to show for is a bit of gore and a spider killing people in predictable ways.

What I also picked up is that when the spider is shot the bullets comfortably fly off the thing's body with no effect at all. For the final showdown the hero picks up a gun and suddenly the thing is vulnerable!

In the style of Anaconda the film is nothing more than a trip into clichéd territory. I found the film so clichéd it was almost to the point of offence. It will lower your IQ because of how incredibly appalling the film is! Arachnid is a foolish, juvenile, laughable B-Grade horror movie. Despite some action, the film is also incredibly boring. I was watching it with some friends who had fallen asleep half-way through the movie. I wish I could have done the same thing. The film is not at all scary, thrilling or even entertaining. I've seen better quality movies produced on a budget of $5.

All my worst fears were confirmed when I took my seat in the cinema to watch this ineffective, appalling horror film. Prom Night firmly takes the title of the worst film of 2008 so far; this remake of the classic slasher film is every bit as horrible as anticipated. The name-only remake is just about some teenager who is being stalked by some insane psycho who's obsessed with her. On her prom night this psycho turns up and starts killing her friends. So what makes this one so horrible? Gee, where should I start... First of all, the film was toned down to a PG-13 in America so it will be a hit at the box office (Sadly, it currently is). But PG-13 means no gore, no sex, no profanity and tame horror scenes. Instead of gore, we're shown tiny amount of blood spatter that doesn't even look realistic (The blood all over the knife didn't look natural at all). This is a slasher movie. How can a slasher film be considered good when the violence is toned down?! The original also contains drug use and sex. None of that here. The word 'sex' isn't even said. Instead they just hint at it. Top points for realism here! I am a teenager and I know it as a fact that teens use explicit sexual dialogue in everyday life. And no profanity? There's mild use of the word 'shit' but nothing else. Another perfect way to portray teenagers; ex