Originally Posted by Body Boy
But I may need someone to clarify what they mean by worst of the worst.
This is a good point. I mean, there's stuff out there that was shot on video (and I don't mean digital, I mean actual videoTAPE) probably for less than a thousand dollars. I had to review some of these films for this site back in '01 and '02, and it was a chore to try to come up with some kind of redeeming value for these movies (contrary to what some of you might believe, I don't immediately try to hate everything I see).
And that was 10 years ago! In the time since, I'd imagine that a million more of these movies show up, what with digital cameras so accessible to everyone now.
Do these qualify as "worst of the worst"? Or are we looking for decently budgeted films that actually did get a theatrical run however brief? There's many different levels to bad cinema....