Quote:
Andre Dellamorte:
Stew, I think though that budget becomes a factor in deciding what's truly the worst. Sure Manos: The Hands of Fate is a bad film, but it cost no money, was made by nobodies, and no one would have ever heard of it had it not been for MST3K. While going after famous bad films like Robot Monster or Plan 9 aren't fun because it's obvious of the limitations set on the filmmakers. (Then again Doris Wishman...)
But there is nothing worse than a film that is given repspect for being important or moving yet is actually awful or films that had all the money and time in the world yet still end up being total shit. |
Budget should be considered when talking about if a film is bad or not. But this list is more than that. Its the "5 Worst Films of All Time" That's a pretty drastic list, and I usually avoid these because I think they're always badly done. It becomes a forum for people to rant about hyped flicks that disappointed them rather than the actual worst films.
I agree, budget should be considered, but I think the final product in a lot of ways should either stand or fall on its own. Plenty of low budgeted films, even action or FX films, can be considered good or even great based on their acting and plot/script. I think we should and do make allowances for films that really surpassed their budget in terms of quality. And I think we plenty of times judge more expensive films more harshly based on theirs as well.
One need only peruse the filmographies of Dolph Lundgren, Brian Bosworth, the younger Baldwin brothers, and Casper Van Dien to find way more than 5 films a lot worse than "West Side Story" and "The Phantom Menace".
