The Projector #22: The Waning of the Worst (Patreon)

by Keith Phipps

Newton’s Third Law doesn’t apply to movies. For every great movie there doesn’t have to be a terrible movie, or vice versa. But it’s long been a standard practice for year-ending (and decade-ending) considerations to provide choices for the worst movies of the year alongside picks for the best. But in the past few years I’ve sensed a tide turning against worst-of lists, and I’m not sure why. Here’s a typical tweet about the subject from horror movie writer Michelle Swope that encapsulates the feeling I’ve seen a lot: "I'm fine with the fact that people don't like the same movies, but Worst Movies of the Year lists have never been cool.”

Of course, some have never liked them, like our own Genevieve Koski, who says, “I don’t like them, never really did, though admittedly they could be a good source of humor in the hands of the right writers. But when there are just so many viewing options available, I’m much more interested in reading about what’s worth my time than reading someone poking fun at a film I’m never going to watch. I think there’s maybe something to be said in favor of highlighting ‘so bad it’s good’ movies, but I honestly rarely seek those out anymore either.”

As for me, I did like them, but I’m not sure why my own feelings have started to shift along with the movie criticism-consuming culture as a whole. But maybe they’re related. I used to tuck into worst-of lists like I was settling into four-course meal. I also used to seek out so-bad-they’re-good movies with regularity, but I’ve kind of come around to Genevieve’s perspective: Who has the time anymore? (This might also be the function of no longer being 17 with nothing but time on my hands.)

Beyond that, there’s a kind of ugliness to many of the lists. Swope points to a particular take from an historically fine critic with a history of using worst-of lists to take shots at perceived white elephants and generally well-liked films. While some worst-of lists are thoughtful and well-considered, many just keep shooting at the same fish in the same barrel. (And don't get me started on the Razzies, always the biggest barrel-shooting event of the movie year.)

There’s also this: I don’t think as many memorably bad — or even memorably off — films make it into mainstream release anymore. Where once roamed misbegotten beasts like The Garbage Pail Kids Movie and Master of Disguise you’ll now find a lot of mediocrities squished into semi-acceptable shape by studios with too much to lose. The Kitchen was one of the worst movies I saw this year in part because it was so obviously patched together in an emergency fix-up job. But it was still patched together. Mostly it bored me. By contrast, Serenity might not be a good movie, but at least it’s a bad movie with its own lunatic integrity, and I didn’t regret a moment watching it. Sometimes bad is its own kind of good.

How about you? Do worst-of lists give you pleasure? Do you still have a taste for so-bad-they’re-good movies? The comments section is open.

Meanwhile, here are some so-good-they’re-good articles to peruse: 

What’s the best order in which to watch the Star Wars movies? Wait. Before you answer, read Matt Singer’s thoughts at ScreenCrush. 

Who’s that inside the Mandalorian’s armor? Sometimes it’s Pedro Pascal. But sometimes it’s John Wayne’s grandson Brendan Wayne, who talked to Vulture about bringing the masked bounty hunter to life.

What 1998 movie has now become a huge, unexpected hit in China? If you guessed Giuseppe Tournatore’s The Legend of 1900 for some reason, you’d be right. But why? Post Magazine has the story. 

It’s Sondheim season at the movies all of sudden. How come? Vulture’s Kyle Turner investigates.

The dominance of comic book movie have turned losers into winners. For Medium, Alex Pappademas considers the implications.

1979 produced, one, two, three versions of the Dracula story. Keith Phipps considers them all and looks for their influence in later films for Fangoria.