10 Movies So Bad You Can Actually Study Them

Who doesn’t love a good movie where theactors hit their beats and the climax comes with a sense of closure? However, there’s just something about a bad movie that stays with youfor so much longer.

Whether it’s choppy editing or dialogue that sounds like it was written by a fifth grader, box-office bombs and critical disasters make for valuable lessons in filmmaking, because they tell you exactlywhat not to do.Here’s a list of 10 movies that had so much poor stuff going on that you could actually make a case study on them.

10

‘Batman & Robin’ (1997)

Image via Warner Bros.

Batman & Robinwas supposed to be thefilm of the summer back in 1997. The film has undoubtedly gone down in history, but for all the wrong reasons.Joel Schumacherdirected the DC flick, which served as a sequel to the 1995 hit,Batman Forever. In theory,Batman & Robinhad all the makings of a blockbuster. The story followedGeorge Clooneyas Batman whileChris O’Donnelltook on the role of Robin, as the two went up against a pair of new villains threatening the safety of Gotham City. You haveArnold Schwarzeneggeras the evil Mr. Freeze, who partners up withUma Thurman’s Poison Ivy. Despite a star-studded cast and an ambitious setup, the film completely dropped the ball with its execution. In fact,Batman & Robinis still remembered foradding nipples to the titular superhero’s costume, which was definitely an interesting creative choice since it served no actual purpose.

Overall, though, the film’s aesthetic choices were a far cry from the signature gothic flairTim Burton brought to the franchise with the 1989 blockbuster,Batman.For some reason, Schumacher thought that reimagining Gotham as what can only be described as a neon theme park was a good idea. As dazzling as the environment was, it just made the film feel disconnected from the rest of the installments in the franchise. Overall, it’s evident thatBatman & Robinwas meant to be more kid-friendly andoriented toward selling toys and merch. Whether it was Mr. Freeze’s oversized ice gun to the iconic Batmobile, you could tell that all these elements in the film were first conceived as action figures and playsets, and the script was built around them, which obviously didn’t work out too well.Batman & Robinfeels like one long commercial with childish dialogue and a rushed plot that never lets you connect with any of the characters. The film was a critical disaster, and that led to a long hiatus for theBatmanfranchise before it was finally rebooted byChristopher NolanwithBatman Beginsin 2005.

9

‘Fear’ (1996)

I love a good psychological thriller, butJames Foley’sFearleft me scratching my head. The film was meant to be a teenage version of the 1987 hit,Fatal Attraction.Unfortunately, it couldn’t even touch half the success of theMichael Douglas starrer.Fearfollows Nicole(Reese Witherspoon), who finds herself drawn to a quiet man named David(Mark Wahlberg). However, as they strike up a romance, David turns out to be aviolently dangerous man who will stop at nothing to have Nicole all to himself. Sadly, though, the story never manages to grip you because of Wahlberg’s weak performance. His nice guy routine in the film is so unconvincing that I found myself getting annoyed at Nicole for missing the endless red flags she was surrounded by.Wahlberg’s over-the-top acting,especially during some of the film’s most intense scenes, makes the whole thing laughable, rather than terrifying.

I also hate how the film reduces Witherspoon’s character to the damsel in distress, until the very end when she suddenly decides to spring into action. By that point, though, all sense of realism has gone out of the window, especially with David and his gang of friends outwitting all alarms and security systems to invade Nicole’s home. The sad part is thatFearreally had the potential to address serious themes such as teenage love and the dangers of being in a toxic relationship. Even the roller-coaster sex scene, which was meant to be sensual and titillating, serves as an example of the film’s commitment to style over substance.Fearis a classic case of how a film can fail to hit the mark when character growth and realism are sacrificed for shock value. The thriller has attained cult status today, but that does not take away from how hollow the storytelling is.

8

‘Battlefield Earth’ (2000)

Kelly Preston as Chirk, looking flirtatiously at Terl, played by John Travolta, in 'Battlefield Earth' — Kelly Preston as Chirk, looking flirtatiously at Terl, played by John Travolta, in ‘Battlefield Earth’

Battlefield Earth is a 2000 American sci-fi film directed by Roger Christian. With its unintentionally hilarious dialogue and bizarre camera angles, though, the film comes off as a spoof of the genre rather than a serious space drama. I don’t know where to start with this one, because it genuinely has been theworst film in John Travolta’s career. The story is adapted from Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard’s novel of the same name and follows Jonnie Goodboy Tyler(Barry Pepper), who is captured by the alien race Psychlos. Travolta’s Terl serves as security chief for the Psychlos, who have been mining planet Earth for the past 1,000 years. If you’re already failing to keep up with the story, don’t worry, because you definitely aren’t alone.Battlefield Earth is a case study in what a film looks like when thedirector, writers, and actors are all on a completely different page.

I don’t know why Christian wanted the film to beshot purely in Dutch angles, because after a point, all these shots were making me nauseous. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the production design was all over the place, and every set felt like it existed on a different planet altogether. Not to mention the film’s weird blue and green color grading. Travolta’s overly dramatic performance as Terl could have been fun if the rest of the film leaned into camp. However, the fact that themovie takes itself completely seriously only amplifies how ridiculous it really is. The characters are one-dimensional and barely go through any development, and the plot holes are endless because I still don’t understand how Jonnie went from having no exposure to technology to teaching a group of humans to pilot fighter jets within a few days. All in all,Battlefield Earth is a masterclass in what not to do while making a film.

7

‘The Room’ (2003)

Tommy Wiseau as Johnny sitting on the roof in 'The Room' (2003) — Tommy Wiseau as Johnny sitting on the roof in ‘The Room’ (2003)

The Roomis written, directed, and produced byTommy Wiseau, who also stars as the film’s protagonist, so we’re already off to a bad start here. The story is set in San Francisco and follows Wiseau as Johnny, a banker whose life turns upside down when his fiancée Lisa(Juliette Danielle) begins a love affair with his best friend, Mark(Greg Sestero). The plot of the film sets it up to be astory about love, betrayal, and heartbreak, but as simple as it could have been,The Roomtakes a bizarre turn like no other. For starters, I just can’t ignore how so many of the film’s scenes are shot against green screens, most of the dialogue sounds dubbed and out of sync, and thesame clips are reused multiple times for entirely different scenes. If that doesn’t show you how poor the execution of the film is, let’s talk about all the subplots the story introduces but doesn’t really bother seeing through to the end.

We have Lisa’s mom’s breast cancer, which ismentioned once and never brought up again.As if that’s not enough, the film also includes a bit where a drug dealer shows up to harass Denny(Philip Haldiman)for a bit before completely vanishing, as well as a completely unintroduced friend of Johnny’s walking in on Lisa and Mark sleeping together out of nowhere. Every scene inThe Roomcould belong to a different movie, and you’d never know because that’s how disjointed the writing is. The editing feels rushed, and you really never know what’s coming next because of how unpredictable the pacing is. However, the worst part of the film was Wiseau’s performance as Johnny. His dialogue delivery makes me feel likehe has never actually spoken to a human because of how unnatural he sounds. The Room has gone down as one of those rare movies that are so bad, they’re almost fun to watch. The funniest part is that Wiseau really tried to make a deep, emotional drama, but ended up giving us one of the greatest accidental comedies of all time.

6

‘Cats’ (2019)

Catswas supposed to be a magical, big-screen adaptation ofAndrew Lloyd Webber’s iconic stage musical. Unfortunately, the film was anything but that.Tom Hooper’s take onCatstakes a very simple yet meaningful plot and makes it so convoluted that youget tired of watching the filmafter a while. The story follows an abandoned cat named Victoria(Francesca Hayward),who is adopted by a tribe called the Jellicles. Every year, the tribe’s leader, Old Deuteronomy(Judi Dench) picks one cat to travel to the Heaviside Layer and start a new life. To earn the ticket, every cat has to step forward and sing about who they are. Now, on stage, the whole thing is exciting as you watch the characters breaking out into song, and feel the dancers’ energy. On film, though, the whole thing turns into amind-numbing loop of one song after the other.

There’s no denying that the film features an impressive ensemble cast which includesRebel Wilson, Jason Derulo, James Corden,andTaylor Swiftamong others, but you barely have the time to get invested in their stories before another character takes over the narrative. The biggest problem, though, is how the cats look. For some reason, Hooper decided to give the actors digital furand hyper-realistic cat bodies, while still retaining their human faces. The sizes and proportions of the cats are so unsettling that they take away from the actual story and prove thatslapping CGI on things isn’t always a good idea. All in all,Catsovercomplicated things by trying to replicate what worked on stage while ignoring the actual basics of filmmaking. The musical is a classic example of what happens when you set out to tell a story without a clear vision.

5

‘Troll 2’ (1990)

I love old horror movies, butTroll 2is one that even the most dedicated fans of the genre will not be able to sit through. At the same time, though, watching this one is a rite of passage for anyone who loves bad films. The funniest thing aboutTroll 2is thatit doesn’t actually feature any trolls,which is what makes it the holy grail of terrible cinema. The story follows the Waits family, who do a house-swap vacation in the farm town of Nilbog, which is actually goblin spelled backwards. However, the youngest child of the family, Joshua(Michael Stephenson),keeps seeing the ghost of his dead grandfather who warns him that the locals are actually vegetarian goblins who want to turn them into plants by feeding them poisoned food. That’s the end of all common sense in the story, because soon enough, you have teenagers turning into trees, characters eating bologna sandwiches that maketheir bodies will toxic for the goblins.

The biggest problem withTroll 2was that the film was helmed by an Italian crew that was attempting to make an American tale in a language they weren’t very fluent in. When you consider that, the film’s weird dialogue and pacing, along with the cast’s terrible acting suddenly start to make sense. You can tell that the film was produced on a micro-budget because themasks, makeup and props look flimsy and unconvincing. Not to mention the looping, synth-loaded soundtrack that makes everything feel ten times funnier. The producers’ decision to market the film as a sequel to the 1986 horror comedyTrolldespite having absolutely no connection to it was also a total branding fail that only adds to the hilarity of it all.Despite all that, though,Troll 2is a classic example of how a total misfire can still be unforgettable, even if it is for all the wrong reasons.

4

‘The Last Airbender’ (2010)

There’s no denying thatM. Night Shyamalanis one of the most iconic filmmakers of recent times, but he’s also the most polarizing.The Last Airbenderis one of Shyamalan’s most criticized works, and I don’t blame the viewers for feeling like the live-action adaptation did not do justice to Nickelodeon’s original animated series. The film is based onAvatar: The Last AirbenderSeason 1, but the fact that it tries tocram an entire season’s worth of plots into 100 minutesis just a disservice. My biggest issue with the film was that it came out about two years after the animated series came to an end, which was way too early for a re-telling, even if it was done through a different medium. The tone and dialogue of the film fall flat and can’t hold a candle to the depth the characters had in the original show.

The act of bending the elements feels like a huge task and doesn’t really translate that well in live-action, given the film’s CGI constraints. What I really hate, though, is that Katara’s(Nicola Peltz)narration acts as areplacement for major scenes like the development of her and Aang’s(Noah Ringer)relationship as well as the history of the four nations. The film also received a lot of flak forwhitewashing several characters including Katara and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone)who were originally inspired by Inuit and East Asian cultures. Simply put,The Last Airbenderwas way weaker than its source material, and completely misrepresented everything that made the series so special. Netflix’s live-action adaptation ofAvatar: The Last Airbender,on the other hand, has remained faithful to the original series, which has contributed to its positive reception among the fans, which only proves my point about Shyamalan’s version.

3

‘Samurai Cop’ (1991)

Joe Marshall aiming his katana at someone in Samurai Cop

Samurai Copis a film I’d really like to erase from my memory. This straight-to-video action flick is directed byAmir Shervanand starsMatt HannonandMark Frazeras LAPD detectives trying to take down a crime syndicate, whileRobert Z’Darplays their rival, Yamashita. Simply put, this movie is a hot mess. It’s so evident that thebudget for this film was non-existent, which is why everything happens in broad daylight. The voices constantly feel off and you can tell that most of the film’s scenes were shot and re-dubbed by an amateur. The film’s glaring technical errors also include limited props that keepreappearing in different hands, poorly choreographed action sequences, and sped-up car chases among others.

I’ll admit that the plot isn’t too bad, but everything else is so ridiculous that you can’t even focus on the story. The editing is choppy,color tones don’t match between shots and characters blurt out exposition in every other scene. Not to mention Hannon showing up in a super obvious wig during certain scenes.Samurai Copis yet another accidental comedy that has attained cult status in Hollywood because it’s the perfect movie to watch in if you just want a good laugh. What’s shocking, though, is that the film actually spawned a 2015 sequeltitled, which is just as terrible as the original.

2

‘Birdemic: Shock and Terror’ (2010)

Various CGI birds attack a city in 'Birdemic: Shock and Terror'. — Various CGI birds attack a city in ‘Birdemic: Shock and Terror’.

Birdemic: Shock and Terroris a strange take onAlfred Hitchcock’sThe Birds(1963) but it’s nowhere near as coherent. The film starsAlan BaghandWhitney Mooreand starts off as a romance beforesuddenly turning into a story about a bird-apocalypse. I could barely get through the wooden acting and before you know it, a bunch of low-quality CGI birds start hovering around, spitting acid and imploding. There is absolutely no buildup to this point,which makes you feel like you’re watching a completely different movie.

I thought the acting would improve once the horror element of the film was turned up, but theacting remained consistently flatthroughout and the dialogue felt like it was written by a robot. I understand that the film is a natural-horror, but its messaging about environmental preservation comes across as preachy and so on the nose that it fails to hit home. On the more technical side, the sound cuts in and out, shots don’t match and theclimax feels like a corporate presentation. I have no idea howBirdemicwas picked up for not one, but two sequels, but it also shows the film’s weird staying power.

1

‘Madame Web’ (2024)

Cassandra Webb (Dakota Johnson) surrounded by three girls in the street in Madame Web. — Cassandra Webb (Dakota Johnson) surrounded by three girls in Madame Web.

Madame Webtried to be a grounded, female-led origin story in Sony’sSpider-ManUniverse, but ended up being a total disaster. The film follows Cassandra Webb(Dakota Johnson), a paramedic who suddenly starts seeing flashes of the future and uses her newfound ability to save three teenagers from Ezekiel Sims(Tahar Rahim). The premise is pretty promising, but the biggest issue with this movie is the writing. You have characters going onmonologues to explain every single thing instead of just letting scenes play out. Cassie’s visions also keep undoing any kind of danger, so nothing ever escalates and the stakes just don’t feel high. Of course, the fact that the film attempts to ride on the success of theSpider-Manfranchise while the web-slinging superhero is nowhere to be found. That makes the whole thing feeldisjointed from the rest of the story.

Coming back to the plot, Ezekiel is unimpressive as a villain withpaper-thin motives and a really weak screen presence. The action choreography is terrible, with jittery close-ups and Dutch angles that make it really confusing to understand where or how the characters are operating. Cassie’s future flashes also look and sound too much like the present, so it’s a little hard to distinguish between her visions and reality at times. My biggest issue withMadame Web,though, is the obvious brand placements that really make it difficult for the film to ever feel like an immersive experience.Johan Söderqvist’s score has to be my favorite part of the superhero flick, but even that can’t make up forJohnson’s campy actingand the film’s blatant lack of direction.