Worst Sci-Fi movie of all time

Some of the really bad movies can atleast point to a complete lack of resources. Manos was filmed on about $20,000 using local actors and a camera that could only take 30 second shots, the end result: gibberish.

But movies like Battlefield Earth and Waterworld are the real bombs for me. They had all the resources they needed but there just didn't seem to be anyone able to say hold on this isn't working.

Highlander 2? If your tag line is There can be only one. Think really, really hard about whether it needs a sequel.... and then go back and think again.

And speaking of sequels Chonicles of Riddick probably doesn't deserve the title of worst ever but it's case of a decent first movie followed by a dreadful sequel (IMO). Ok so sequels probably shouldn't count or this thread is going to get huge... Matrix anyone?

I agree that the He-man movie was shocking. Apparently Cyborg is actually the He-Man 2 script rewritten after the original movie killed any interest in a sequel.

I watched a direct to video movie recently, I think it was Night Skies but maybe I'm wrong with that (2 couples travelling in a campervan, seeing lights and aliens?) that was horrible and I sat through way to much of it.
But movies like Battlefield Earth and Waterworld are the real bombs for me. They had all the resources they needed but there just didn't seem to be anyone able to say hold on this isn't working.

In the case of Battlefield Earth - the fact that it was from a story by L. Ron. Hubbard and championed by a Scientologist (Travolta) probably had more to do with the lack of brakes on this big budget disaster than anything else.;)

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of fine movies done on a shoestring. No amount of money is any kind of substitute for sheer incompetence:)
i remember one video i picked up for a couple of pounds called Stormtroopers, about engineered troopers and it was truly aweful, filmed entirely on a hollywood back plot straight after the A-team, the dialogue was cringingly bad and i managed 40 minutes before turning it off.

i then lent it to my best mate and told him he had to watch it all the way through cos the twist at the end was amazing, and he watched it all then phoned me and swore down the phone while i laughed at him.:)
of course there's lots of goofy old Sci-fi that the MST3-K people covered. The ones I think are the worst are the ones where I was really expecting more. The first that comes to mind is Star Trek: Nemesis, the other data that spoke like a goofy little kid. . . and Picard wasn't bald when he was younger! The tv episode where Q went to visit young picard found him with a full head of hair. . . Plus it was just bad. I mean I would expect a bad movie from the Kirk crew but not the real Star Trek crew.

The other bid disappointment was Species. I didn't think Forest Whitiker and Ben Kingsly would steer me wrong. . . oi oi oi
Either of the Matrix sequels. Utter rubbish - and predictable rubbish, which is worse.:(

Apart from that, possibly Alien: Resurrection. I want to like it, I really do. It's directed by Jeunet, it's got Sigourney and Ron Perlman and Gary Dourdan from CSI in it. But it's got Winona Ryder and a rubbish new alien. And for this I hate it.
I agree on the theater version, the ending was incredibly disappointing. However, the director's cut, whose ending actually made sense, is my number one movie in any genre ever.

I think The Abyss is a good example of the fact that most movies are made (or broken) not through the lens of a camera, but in the editing suite. The original theatre release was indeed a dreadful conclusion (I believe cut this way to allow a running time to suit the suits - pun intended)

But what a difference a pair of virtual scissors can make:)
I notice a lot of the films mentioned are movies that I would consider not for everyone. They require more of the viewer than just mindless watching. 2001 was that way and so was This Island Earth as was Dune. Dune required that you read the book first to understand it. There was just too much story for 2 hours and 20 minutes. But if you had read the book you saw a lot of love for the story. Sequels generally don't need to be made if there's not a real story to tell. If Hollywood had made Dune based on a single book there would have been a sequel called Dune II-Revenge of the Worms. One of the movies that was mentioned that really fit into a worst category was Night of the Lepus. It was made in the "radiation grows giant critters era" and they picked the worst animal ever for a monster. The scene of the herd of charging giant Bunny Rabbits is truely pathetic. Spiders and insects are scary when blown up and huge but rabbits eat grass and they still appear cuddley even if six feet long.
I would have to give a serious vote to "Robot Monster" as one of the worst of all time. No plot. No sets (really). No acting to speak of. Space ships with sparkler exhaust trails held on stiff wires by hands which could actually be seen. The monster was a gorilla suit with a fishbowl on its head. Pretty funny to start with, but then after the first ten minutes.................
Got to put two words in for Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation - and they are "utter bilge...."
Controversially I'd be tempted to go for Star Wars... Mainly because it spawned the prequels and a large amount of utter crap that I've had to endure at the movies (or on the telly) since.

But I love the original so much that I would find it a hard position to stick to.

Other than that I struggle with bad SF. Most so-called SF movies are not what I would term SF anyway; I enjoy some SF movies because they are bad...

In terms of disappointment: AI, Sunshine, Aliens V Predator, Alien Resurrection spring immediately to mind.

Similar threads