Is it worthwhile to watch bad movies?
Absolutely.
I learned this the day I stumbled across Roger Corman’s catalog. To IMDB reviewers and casual film fans, he’s one of the worst director-producers of all time.
But zoom out, and he might be the most important filmmaker who ever lived. His “bad” movies launched Coppola, Scorsese, Cameron, and Demme. He gave us Little Shop of Horrors, Death Race 2000, and Chopping Mall. And he proved something Hollywood never wants you to know: you don’t need prestige or polish to inspire creativity—you just need to get the film made.
That’s the trick. “Bad” movies often give birth to greatness.
Even better, they’re usually more imaginative than the blockbusters. Why? Because the more money you sink into a project, the less risk you take. Think Disney is going to gamble with Marvel? Not a chance. One wrong move and the fans riot. Just look at the forums when a single casting decision goes sideways.
B movies don’t have that problem. They’re free to do whatever the hell they want because nobody’s watching with folded arms and a billion-dollar spreadsheet. That freedom means wild ideas—films that shoot for the moon.
Do they miss? Constantly. But when they land, it’s glorious—better than anything a safe blockbuster will ever deliver.
You must log in or # to comment.
Ones so bad they are good? Hell yeah.
Love me shit like From Beyond, Trolls 2, KKFOS, pretty much anything from TromaFilm, etc.
Though, there are also movies that are just straight up bad bad. I would say Manos: Hands of Fate is one. The only way that movie is fun, is watching the MST3K riff.
I see your Manos and raise you the Star Wars Holiday Special.
Or just about anything by Uwe Boll
Postal was good.
Another thing to consider is “bad” according to who?
I’ve watched poorly rated movies that I really enjoyed. I’ve watched highly rated movies that I really disliked.
Maybe you’ll only enjoy a specific actor/performance, maybe you’ll only enjoy a certain scene or storyline.
Sometimes it’s worth rolling the dice.
Exactly right. Most of the time when w movie was “bad” it depends on the audience. Especially critic ratings. If I see a new will farrell movie if I just looked at ratings it would say bad, because the critics reviewing it probably watch several movies a day and to them it was tripe and stupid. To me, getting off work exhausted, maybe I want that.
It’s all in who it was made for. The trick is find specific critics who frequently match your style, then start seeing what else they suggest
M. Night Shyamalan’s Trap from last year was a perfect bad movie. Even shoehorning in his aspiring pop star daughter into the movie as herself made it better.
Picking Roger Corman or Ed Wood as examples for ‘bad movies’ is disingenuous. They are known auteurs with limited budgets. Ken Russell almost fits, but he got a LOT of money for Tommy and that was awful – but still worth watching because Russell directed it and it was quite a spectacle.
There are lots of shlocky cheap movies WITH redeeming features that make them worth watching, but then there are the masses of mediocre movies that aren’t trying for anything and add nothing of interest to the hours of available content. You know, the stuff AI will be churning out in the near future.
Actual bad movies are things like: most anything on Lifetime – you know, the ‘scared white woman’ dramas that follow the same strucure and simply change locations and threats, or most Hallmark romances with the same plot yet different cateers for the characters, or most anything Steven Segal made since the turn of the century.
A GOOD bad movie might be The Barbarians. It is bad, but also kinda amusing and really cheap. The plot is predictable, but they obvioulsy had fun making it, and that comes through. The Blackening has its merits.
4 for Texas is bad. Full stop. Yet… if you want to see a bunch of Frank Sinatra/Dean Martin movies, you’d be forced to sit through it for completion.
Death of a Unicorn was just a waste of time.
Funny you bring that up, because I just watched something straight off Lifetime—the kind of “inspirational tearjerker” wine-sipping moms usually swoon over—and it ended up being one of the most fun movies I’ve seen in ages.
On paper, The Secret Path was a hard “avoid” for me. I skipped it for years. But when I finally forced myself to sit through it, I was glad I did.
The wild part? Both IMDb and Letterboxd rate it surprisingly high. Meanwhile, plenty of Roger Corman and Ed Wood flicks don’t come close.
I did say “most” because there are exceptions. As you and the rating indicates, that’d be an exception.
My point is, I went in expecting this to be excruciating—because “Lifetime movie” carries a certain reputation.
If I’d just trusted that assumption and skipped it, I would’ve missed out on one of the most riveting TV movies I’ve ever seen.
sigh. I don’t assume. I check. And my point is that Secret Path (aka Chasing Secrets) is generally regarded as a GOOD movie. In a different conversation, you mentioned that you don’t like to follow critics or general opinions, but for me, a critic I trust is worth heeding and if I can’t find that I fall back to the less precise voice of the people. Certain specific movies get hate-votes for things like an actor’s scandal rather than the film, or an irrelgious item that has the church folk up in arms, but generally – and certainly with exceptions – if a movie rates highly with thousands of votes, it’s ususally alright.
Thing is, I’ve been burned by both critics and “the voice of the people” more times than I can count.
Marvel and DC movies? Most folks eat them up. Me, I can barely sit through them. They’re the poster children for everything broken about modern blockbusters.
Meanwhile, the consensus trashes Asylum movies—but Nazis at the Center of the Earth was a blast. Near-universally panned, yet I had an amazing time with it.
So yes, sometimes the consensus gets it right… except when it doesn’t.
I hear you. I feel the same about overrated Marvel movies. The trick is to find critics that share your tastes, and ideally to find a few who share your tastes for different genres. I think this was easier in the age of print newspapers. You can trust J. Hoberman for serious movies, but not so much for silly ones. If you find yourself agreeing with a review, you might check if they’re on the Rotten Tomatoes critic list to figure out if their other reviews follow your tastes.
Famously Corman taught everyone how to make movies on budget. His alumni always credit him for that.
Ultracringer:
“The Last Stand” with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Forest Whittaker.
[Bad guy gets in a small plane and flies off]
Whittaker ( FBI Agent 1 ): “We can’t let him get away. Get me the locations of every airport and airstrip in a 50 mile radius!”
FBI Agent 2: […grim expression…] “That…could take some doing.”
Me: :blobcatfacepalm2: “You’re the FBI! Use online maps. Call the FAA, for crying out loud!”
@atomicpoet @movies Not all bad movies are that bad.
I like Russ Meyer movies - they are so very dumb with essentially one purpose - hyperbolic breasts.
And then there is Meyer’s (and Ebert’s) grand creation: “Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens” It is really good in its badness.
For anyone looking for some more pulp shlock type movies check out Neil Breen, Uwe Boll, and the movies rifftrax and mystery science theater 3000 use.
For more horror b movies check out Joe Bob Briggs & Darcy, they’ve got the old late night monster movie bumpers and intro talking about behind the scenes industry stuff and low budget movies, they did a tribute to Roger Corman after he died.
@atomicpoet This. Everybody loves the fancy salads, but they can’t forget that all crops need fertilizer to grow. One can never underestimate the impact of well spread manure. Rest his soul. @movies
BadMovieBible on youtube might be up your street, OP
It’s amazing how many unintentional bad movies are in this world; from Roger Corman’s entertaining bad to Nukie & animated Titanic what the hell were they thinking? Bad.
