confused
Having watched most of the movies that didn't make the cut, and considering that they were, by and large, worse then the ones that did, and none of them come close to being the worst I have seen, I have to conclude that "worst" means different things to different people.
Take Eyes wide shut as an example. Beautifully made and lit, includes Nicole Kidman's arse and various other bits of tasty totty, but a completly meaningless storyline. So bad, I walked out of the cinema before the end. Worst ever? Not even a contender. How about the Postman? Kevin Costner at his self important best? Drivil certainly, but worse then Waterworld or Dances with Wolves? Perhaps, but not by very much.
How many have sat through Eraserhead and only realised that nothing was actually going to happen when the credits rolled up? (Thats the David Lynch one, not the Swarchenegger one).
Bad remakes of bad movies? Rollerball, DeathRace2000, Fame, Posidon, Taxi, Get Carter all have to be considered. All are brutal, but worst ever?
Bad sequals? Jaws2, Back to the Future 2, too easy (see what I did there? 2, too? forget about it?)
Bad Franchises? Fast & Furious, Matrix, Planet of the Apes, National Lampoon, Dumb and ...
I think this competition should start again, but this time with a debate about what makes a movie bad. I am now off to root out my copy of "Wombleing Free!". The true life retelling of the famous storey of the Wombles of Wimbledon Common.