Movies That Earned The Absolute Worst Ratings On Metacritic

Metacritic has garnered a large enough sample pool to be quite reliable. Taste in entertainment is always subjective, but gather a whole bunch of reviews over the years, and a consensus begins to materialize. But scrolling all the way to the last pages of Metacritic reveals a gathering of atrocities. You may be surprised at some of the movies that wind up at the bottom of that list. In fact, some feature actors and creators we all know and love.

At times, it can be entertaining to indulge in the worst that cinema has to offer. Occasionally, poor filmmaking can perform a miraculous 180 and spin back around to ironic enjoyment. Of course, there are some terrible films that just pure dreck and not worth your time. So, we'll save you the trouble of rolling those cursed dice and provide a quick synopsis of films that are best left in the dustbin of cinematic history. What lies ahead are movies that have managed to earn the absolute worst ratings possible on Metacritic.

There was a good amount of buzz around the release of Miss March. The film was made by Trevor Moore and Zach Cregger, members of the highly popular sketch troupe the Whitest Kids U' Know. We were all excited to take a trip down absurdity lane with some of our favorite goofballs and laugh our butts off. The story involves a kid named Eugene (Cregger) preparing for an eventful prom night with the love of his life when he gets in an accident and falls into a coma. When he wakes up four years later, he discovers that his dream girl is now a Playboy playmate. He sets off on a quest to win her back along with his immature pal, Tucker (Moore). 

The only impressive aspect of Miss March is how its creators managed to receive a $6 million budget. The movie failed to make a profit and ended TWKYK's time in Hollywood before it even began. Unlike some other movies at the bottom of the Metacritic list, you'll find yourself staying to see how the journey pans out, but you'll be disappointed with how you spent your time when the credits roll. You'll watch Miss March – with its 7 on Metacritic — all the way to the end for the same reason you can't look away from a car crash.

The moment we viewed the trailer for this film, we were amazed as to how it was ever created. Released in 2008, The Hottie & The Nottie featured Paris Hilton at the peak of her Hollywood clout. She used this clout to produce one of the most unwatchable romantic comedies in history, a movie with a Metascore of 7.

The story centers around a hottie (guess who) that requires our leading fella, Nate (DodgeBall's Joel David Moore), to find someone for her hideously ugly friend (Christine Lakin) before they date. Paris Hilton is unbearably one-dimensional as "the Hottie" — smirking her way through emotionless conversation — while "the Nottie" is an over-the-top, pustule-encrusted disaster that doesn't even accidentally evoke humor.

You may have already guessed the ending at this point. Yep! "The Nottie" gets a miraculous makeover that makes her less ugly, and Nate winds up with her, instead. If you are looking for cliche slow-motion shots and acting that will make you feel pain, this is the movie for you. Philip French at The Guardian described this film best when he said, "There is nothing to commend this disastrous film and not even a herd of wild horses, each laden with a Gucci saddlebag packed with doubloons, could induce me to see it again."

On paper, the idea of unruly talking babies sounds like an adorable adventure. But filmmakers in the late '90s reached for the sun and got burned. Not only do all the jokes feel written by toddlers, but the animation surrounding Baby Geniuses forces you to focus on its inadequacies more than any type of story structure. Which is bold to say because there isn't much of a story to muck up. Despite turning a profit in theaters, critics gave Baby Geniuses a thorough lashing with a Metascore of 6. This can best be summed up by Tim Brayton at Alternate Ending, who wrote, "Aesthetically and morally, I can hardly name a more viscerally repugnant family film from the 1990s."

Kathleen Turner and Christopher Lloyd star as scientists who believe that babies are born with a vast amount of universal knowledge — a knowledge that's lost once the babies begin speaking human languages. Until that knowledge is lost, babies can communicate in their own complex language. Turner and Lloyd seek to decipher this language when one of their prized infants escapes. The whole ordeal sounds charming until you watch the toddlers dancing around in tuxedos and karate-chopping their way across rooftops. Portraying babies as anything but the adorable little humans they are is a farce that belongs in a bad horror film.

There are few people who won't gag at the mere mention of this series of films, especially the "grand" finale. The Human Centipede III features the familiar premise of sewing multiple humans together to form a giant centipede. If you're curious as to the details surrounding this procedure, we urge you to please not seek out answers. It's difficult to describe this film — even a summarization of its events is appalling — but we'll try our best.

A warden at a prison subjects his prisoners to horrific torture that includes boiling hot waterboarding, castration, and rape. When all his demented ideas to save money by subduing the prison population fails, the warden opts for a horrific operation that creates a giant human centipede winding around the entire prison yard. 

We're honestly not sure how this film didn't get a lower Metascore than 5. It deserves less. Deirdre Crimmins at Film Thrills summed up everything The Human Centipede III has to offer by stating, "Between the lack of action, predicable relations with the secretary — and only female character — and the absence of any character development past caricature, the film is lackluster. It is void of the atmosphere and mood created in the previous films, and it suffers from this void."

You can call us victims of schadenfreude, but there's a tinge of enjoyment that stems from critic's ability to savagely critique films that deserve the hazing. Strippers is one such movie. Stephen Holden at The New York Times declared, "Jorge Ameer's Strippers belongs to that vast cinematic underbelly of semi-professional made-for-video movies that for reasons known only to God are lucky enough to enjoy a thoroughly undeserved theatrical release. ... Trust me: it's not funny."

Strippers features an executive named Alan who loses his job, his girlfriend, and just about everything else before being savagely beaten to death. There you have it — beginning, middle, and end. While we'd like to paint a more elaborate picture around why Strippers is so bad, it belongs to a truly awful class of film — one in which most critics didn't even waste their time badmouthing it. Instead, they just left it with a 5 on Metacritic.

You might recognize the director of The Singing Forest from another film on this list. Jorge Ameer of Strippers managed to up the ante in terms of awfulness and forced us to ask how the heck this guy keeps getting films made. "To describe this supernatural soap opera as inept and mawkish doesn't really begin to evoke the awfulness of The Singing Forest," writes Stephen Holden of The New York Times. 

The premise itself feels written by a hormonal adolescent goth wallowing in the sadness of love forlorn. The Singing Forest tells the story of a widower named Christopher who falls into an alcohol-induced depression after his wife's death. He becomes obsessed with the idea of reincarnation and begins to believe he's a reincarnated resistance fighter from World War II. He also believes that his daughter's soon-to-be husband is his lover from a past life. A psychic confirms this, and the two develop a romantic relationship that ends in Christopher's daughter giving her father away at the wedding. But wait, there's more. His daughter never existed and was the spirit of Christopher and his wife's miscarriage. Let us reiterate — this thing's Metascore is 1.

United Passions was funded almost entirely by FIFA, as it's about the origins of their organization. However, the group's thematic endeavor was met with scathing reviews from audiences and critics alike. "United Passions is one of the most unwatchable films in recent memory, a dishonest bit of corporate-suite sanitizing that's no good even for laughs," states Daniel M. Gold at The New York Times.

United Passions stars Sam Neill and Tim Roth in uncharacteristically unlikeable roles, as well as Gerard Depardieu, who's far past his prime. The movie managed to earn a Metascore of 1, and we're curious as to where the money went on this production. FIFA coughed up a whopping $29 million to produce this film and wound up making back around $170,000 ... with an American box office pull of $607. No matter how much you like these actors or the sport, it's best to avoid this disastrous film at all cost.

Not to be confused with 2005 Jason Statham action flick, Chaos may tempt you to dig down to the bottom of a bargain store bin and cough up 99 cents for a chance to laugh at how bad it is, but we ask that you fight that urge and spend your money on something more satisfying ... like gas station sushi. 

Chaos is a remake of Wes Craven's The Last House On The Left, and it fails to live up to it in every way possible, resulting in a film with a pathetic Metascore of 1. Most critics who saw the film were so nauseated by watching it that they simply begged audiences to stay away. Roger Ebert opened his review of Chaos with a warning: "Chaos is ugly, nihilistic, and cruel — a film I regret having seen. I urge you to avoid it." Echoing that sentiment was Michael Wilmington at The Chicago Tribune, who declared, "Chaos definitely gave me the worst time I've had at a movie in years — and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but my worst enemies. Even then, I'd flinch."