[petro45acp]

Just looking at the titles in the first 50 posts raises a question. What describes horrible? Box office? B level studio/production company? Not what one would expect from the cast?

Some real favorites in the list so far. Buckaroo Banzai (downloaded an unabridged script), Hudson Hawk (first movie son and I saw in a theater together), water/post/kostner (both are better than “dances-with-wolves-then-fights-evil-cavalry-to-protect-tribe” (which crossed nicely with ferngully to give us avatar!

Point is, critical acclaim or box office are standards for other folks. Entertained for a couple hours = good movie

entertaining...... encino man, S.W.A.T., Zatoichi (the one with dancing), the incredibles......

[montyspython]

Bio-dome, THAT was bad.

[mmichaels1970]

What describes horrible? Box office? B level studio/production company?

My interpretation of the thread was to come up with movies you'd eagerly recommend to a friend, and then be horribly embarrassed that you did so. To the point of possibly avoiding that friend over the next couple of weeks.

[Charles Martel]

Just looking at the titles in the first 50 posts raises a question. What describes horrible? Box office? B level studio/production company? Not what one would expect from the cast?

For me, "horrible" would be a film that's produced and cast as an "A" movie, but turns out to be abysmal. Some examples would be Battlefield: Earth and The Last Action Hero.

Stuff like Plan 9, The Legend of Boggy Creek and Manos: The Hands of Fate may be guilty pleasures, but they're not really horrible. They are what they are, no pretense about 'em. Same goes for deliberate spoofs, such as the old Casino Royale, Hot Shots and Galaxy Quest.

[Oztrich Boy]

Just looking at the titles in the first 50 posts raises a question. What describes horrible? Box office? B level studio/production company? Not what one would expect from the cast?

Point is, critical acclaim or box office are standards for other folks. Entertained for a couple hours = good movie

Too many have been nominated that don't meet the standards of horrible

I wouldn't consider including spoofs like Mars Attacks or Meet the Spartans because we got exactly what the filmmaker intended.

Also out is Ed Wood's oeuvre, as when he was asked when one of his masterpieces would be finished, responded incredulously "You mean there is someone out there waiting to see this?" - his work met his expectations.

Leaves two categories

1. Films which "missed it by that much", but you can;t say why. Taking the genre of retro serial diesel punk, why did Raiders of the Lost Ark have a modest success while Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow not? I don't know, to me both seemed as effective in meeting their makers' intentions, and I am equally happy to watch either on their original terms.

2. Films which failed artistically and were nothing like what was intended (at least I hope not). The Paul Newman classic The Silver Chalice was meant to be a serious epic, not a ludicrous one. Those are for the yuks.