The 15 Worst Movies On Amazon Prime Video, Ranked

There are tens of hundreds of movies available on Amazon Prime Video, and, if you’re speaking about such an ample providing of titles, it is statistically inevitable that a number of dozens or tons of of them might be lower than stellar. However what are absolutely the worst motion pictures you’ll be able to cue up on Prime Video proper now?

To reply that query, we have rigorously scoured the streaming service’s U.S. catalog to search out probably the most dreadful, obscene, unwatchable rubbish presently floating about in it. A vanishing few of those are at the very least entertaining for his or her ridiculous trashiness, however, for probably the most half, these are motion pictures that can almost definitely both bore you to dying or ship you right into a shocked, horrified stupor, with that probability growing exponentially as you progress down the rating. Do not say we did not warn you.

We start our stock of Prime Video’s most dreadful choices with “Swim,” a 2021 sharksploitation flick whose predominant — or higher but, solely — declare to historical past lies in being the first-ever Tubi unique movie. As shrug-inspiring as that financial tidbit would possibly sound, it is usually probably the most fascinating factor about “Swim,” a movie that solely actually instructions consideration as an utter failure of a calling card, unable to claim something about its streamer’s model aside from “They make joyless unhealthy horror motion pictures.”

Emphasis on “joyless” — “Swim” hails, in spite of everything, from The Asylum, the notorious direct-to-video manufacturing home that typically manages, as soon as in a blue moon, to supply up some hokey enjoyable with its ludicrously low cost mockbusters. The issue is just not a lot that “Swim” is unhealthy; that is to be anticipated. The issue is that, not like earlier The Asylum hits like the “Sharknado” movies, “Swim” is miserably boring, totally missing in campy gusto or any sense of playfulness about its personal premise (which is not a really unique one to start with — a household is caught in a storm-flooded basement with a killer shark, “Crawl”-style, however with none of “Crawl'”s, nicely, high quality). If you happen to’re searching for entertaining Z-grade shark cinema, there are about 100 higher locations to look.

It is usually mentioned that unhealthy comedies are the worst type of horrible film, in that they can not even supply the pleasure of unintentional humor. Few motion pictures on the market show this conundrum as ably because the annoyingly-titled “The 41-Yr-Outdated Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It,” a 2010 film that places a number of Judd Apatow-produced studio comedies right into a blender, processes them till they seem to be a murky jumble of signifiers, after which scatters them about randomly on display.

If you happen to’ve ever discovered your self questioning what a 2000s Seltzer/Friedberg parody would appear like with the additional advantage of unflattering comparability, look no additional. “The 41-Yr-Outdated…” takes a number of motion pictures that did an excellent job of scoring laughs upon laughs, and “parodies” them so mirthlessly and incompetently (many of the gags include “that one factor from that one film, however shoddier”) that its predominant driving power comes throughout as resentment — as if the filmmakers had been making an attempt to carry down higher comedies as revenge for not with the ability to match their sharpness. Fortunately, they fail even at that.

Does 2020 appear early sufficient to you within the timeline of twenty first century cinema for a “Discovering Nemo” knockoff? No? Properly, the makers of “Discovering Jesus” did not let that cease them. This recent 17-years-later try and money in on the secular recognition of Pixar’s 2003 traditional does, in equity, deviate considerably from “Discovering Nemo” when it comes to storytelling, starting with the truth that it would not have a narrative per se: Its two predominant “characters” simply swim round having conversations about Biblical values, with no battle in sight aside from the implicit risk of damnation.

However the truth that “Discovering Jesus” is so disinterested in imitating “Discovering Nemo,” barring superficial allusions meant to confuse mother and father searching streamer catalogs, arguably makes its visible riffing much more insulting — not least as a result of, the place “Finding Nemo” consisted in a gorgeous magic trick for CGI animation, “Discovering Jesus” could also be one of many ugliest movies of all time. It is onerous to know what it is even doing on the Prime Video menu; its solely redeeming high quality is the occasional comedy gold of watching the fish heroes’ mouths transfer with no connection in any way to the more and more uncanny dialogue. A minimum of “Ratatoing” had the decency of truly popping out in 2007.

Misogyny was the unstated prima materia of quite a lot of 2000s American studio comedy, together with a number of motion pictures that had been well-written and well-directed sufficient to disguise their very own basic reactionarism. However, like a washed-up humorous man killing the temper on dudes’ evening by yelling slurs a bit too eagerly, 2008’s “The Hottie and the Nottie” sank so low as to go away everybody embarrassed.

Simply take a gander on the premise: Generic man Nate (Joel David Moore) travels to California in pursuit of his childhood crush Cristabel (Paris Hilton), who’s fiercely protecting of her finest buddy June (Christine Lakin); Cristabel calls for Nate discover a suitor for June if she’s to go on a date with him. The kicker, and the complete supply of the film’s would-be humor, is that June is supposed to be so ruinously, objectively ugly that males cower in horror on the mere sight of her. Would you imagine it if we advised you that June will get a makeover, and that it saves her from abjection by making her fascinating to males? Watch “The Hottie and the Nottie” for this and different dispiriting non-surprises.

Steven Seagal has made many motion pictures all through his profession, a few which had been watchable. Such is just not the case of the 2016 struggle actioner “Sniper: Particular Ops.” Unrelated to the (additionally unhealthy) “Sniper” movie sequence, this Fred Olen Ray-directed DTV launch stars Seagal as a U.S. Military sniper on a mission to retrieve an American congressman being held hostage by the Taliban.

“Stars” could also be too sturdy a phrase, really: Seagal definitely seems in some scenes all through the movie, and his character is ostensibly the protagonist. However the entire film is edited round the truth that its top-billed star is barely there, infrequently interacting together with his fellow castmates and counting on stunt doubles to switch him in even the only scenes.

Given the customary degree of Seagal’s performing chops (and his popularity as the “biggest jerk” in “SNL” hosting history, per Lorne Michaels), that near-absence would not essentially be a nasty factor — however the movie round him is equally lazy. In a approach, “Sniper: Particular Ops” is an epistemologically fascinating contribution to the canon of post-9/11 struggle cinema: If different movies in that area of interest have been criticized for utilizing technical proficiency to normalize American jingoism, this movie is what it seems like when mentioned proficiency is nowhere to be seen.

“Objectively” talking, “Birdemic: Shock and Terror” might be the worst film on this checklist. It is definitely probably the most technically unaccomplished and unrefined, to the purpose that its mere presence on the Prime Video catalog deserves some fascination. However there is a purpose this 2010 low-budget “The Birds” rip-off grew to become a cult traditional within the years since its launch: It is just too entertaining to thoroughly dismiss as “unhealthy.”

Cobbled collectively by writer-director-producer James Nguyen on a shoestring funds out of sheer love for the craft, “Birdemic” tells the story of a wierd phenomenon through which mutated acid-spewing vultures and eagles begin attacking a small Californian city. Catastrophic filmmaking ensues, full with trashy VFX (someway extra dated-looking than the titular terrors of “The Birds” 47 years earlier) and fixed mishaps in enhancing and audio mixing. It might be the closest the twenty first century has gotten to its personal “Plan 9 from Outer House” — and, if we will not promise a lot in the way in which of blockbuster thrills, we will definitely assure that it’ll make for an entertaining viewing expertise for so-bad-it’s-good connoisseurs.

Of all of the shoddy, hacky money grabs within the interminable wave of Disney-skewering horror of the 2020s (of which you will discover one other, even worse consultant additional down this checklist), it ought to have been significantly not-that-difficult to mine good horror from “Alice in Wonderland.” However, along with being totally amateurish on a scene-to-scene foundation, 2023’s “Alice in Terrorland” can be totally bereft of concepts for learn how to wring scares out of Lewis Carroll’s trippy oeuvre.

To a good higher diploma than another “Disneysploitation” effort, it is a film that simply smacks of wasted chance: There’s a lot you can do with a straight horror tackle Alice’s journey down the rabbit gap, however the film contents itself with simply shrugging and throwing round first-draft ideas like “The Rabbit is a masked dude, apparently,” or “The Walrus is a creepy baby killer, I suppose,” or “This isn’t your grandma’s Mad Hatter.” As for precise scares? Fewer than zero — in that even “impartial” scenes get slowed down within the unintentional hilarity of the over-the-top nu steel video aesthetics.

That is not the usually excruciating 2013 Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer parody of “The Starvation Video games,” thoughts you. That is the opposite one — there’s one other one. And it is someway even worse. “The Hungover Video games” pushes the standard bad-spoof method that has come to dominate IMDb’s worst movies list — both Referencing Issues or Referencing Issues However With Naughty Stuff Thrown In, rinse, repeat — to the purpose of mind-numbing absurdity.

The film’s central thought alone — half-assedly crossing the plot of “The Starvation Video games” with a equally limp parody of “The Hangover” — is so mindless as to genuinely increase the likelihood that the entire thing was reverse-engineered from the title pun. Who was asking for a parody of “The Hangover” in 2014? Then once more, given what the writers do with then-recent titles like “Ted” and “Django Unchained,” maybe urgency was irrelevant to the inevitable failure of the entire enterprise. The entire ethos is simply getting viewers to go “Hey, it is that factor from that film!” time and again; the filmmakers may simply as nicely have gone all the way in which again to Abbott and Costello and it would not have appeared unusual.

Twelve years on from the horrid spectacle of its waltz into being, one of the simplest ways to explain “Film 43” could be as a vulgar show of energy. Positive, the 2013 multi-director anthology comedy definitely proved that its producers may, if that’s the case inclined, faucet any variety of busy A-listers for probably the most puerile and demeaning skits conceivable. Good for them. What “Film 43” did not show is that its makers may harness the star energy at hand to make mentioned skits really humorous.

To their credit score, Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Halle Berry, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Anna Faris, Kieran Culkin, Uma Thurman, Bobby Cannavale, Patrick Warburton, Stephen Service provider, Kristen Bell, Liev Schreiber (…) largely appear to be having enjoyable letting unfastened and leaning into the crudeness of the gags, which contain all the things from coprophilia to incest to ethnic cosmetic surgery to a person with testicles hanging from his neck (?). However a film with that a lot wild stuff occurring should not be so totally boring (and surprisingly non-scandalous) to observe. It continuously feels as if we’re presupposed to be impressed that the movie is having that actor do or say that factor — however, extending that idea to its logical conclusion, it means the joke’s on us for watching.

At this level on the checklist, assume that the distinction between placements is infinitesimal. There is not a lot of a useful criterion that can be utilized to separate out totally different levels of bottomless badness. 2012’s “Sir Billi,” as an illustration, is just about a platonically terrible film — boring, grating, horribly-crafted in each respect, aesthetically nightmarish, and unattainable to observe with out questioning the life selections that led one to this second. But it surely’s not as actively infuriating as different motion pictures additional down this rating, so it is going at #6. Yay?

If you happen to’ve heard of — or, God make it easier to, really seen — “Foodfight,” broadly considered one of the worst movies ever, you will have an thought of the type of essential cinematic failure at hand. “Sir Billi” is a equally hideous-looking what-were-they-thinking-fest of uncanny CGI designs and disturbingly salacious gags shoved awkwardly right into a nominal household comedy context, telling the story of a veterinarian within the Scottish Highlands who embarks on a James Bond-inspired journey to avoid wasting a beaver from a authorities banishment of beavers to Norway (we’re not making any of this up). Someway, the movie can be notable because the final function of Sean Connery’s profession. Additionally, Alan Cumming voices a queer-coded goat. Why is that this on Prime Video?

In the identical approach that every one fashionable philosophy is not directly citing Hegel and all pop divas are drawing from Grace Jones, when individuals discuss how terrible online game movie variations are typically, they’re all, consciously or not, referring again to the collective trauma that befell avid gamers the world over upon the discharge of Uwe Boll’s “Alone within the Darkish.”

In equity, the 2005 movie deviates so utterly from the eponymous survival horror sport sequence that it barely counts as an “adaptation” in any respect, save for a handful of character names. However that is a part of why it is so maddening. In reality, movie’s paranormal investigation plot is so messy and incoherent that it feels much less like Bowe mishandling a beloved property and extra like him mishandling cinema itself, seemingly not fairly conscious of what story he is presupposed to be telling. However after all, the world’s worst movie director would not let that — or his utter, full, irredeemable absence of any filmmaking expertise or technical competence — cease him from carrying the film by way of to the end line. The top result’s a movie that technically exists, however solely barely.

The killer wears a Mickey Mouse mask. That is it — that is the entire film, and the complete extent of its declare to “subversion” of the Disney iconography. A masks, and a cheap-looking one at that. “The Mouse Entice” would virtually be slightly fascinating as a case examine in the usage of timing as a springboard in direction of cultural notoriety; the one purpose anybody is conscious of it’s the quickness with which it took benefit of “Steamboat Willie” coming into the general public area.

However the film’s sheer, miserable, enervating laziness makes even metatextual appreciation unattainable. It is the blandest, most sophomoric, most hilariously inept attainable model of a standard-issue slasher: A deranged man, a gaggle of buddies trapped in an arcade, et cetera, et cetera. All of it simply prompts a sense of “Why hassle?” If you happen to’re going for affordable attention-calling defilement of the Disney model, why not likely go for it, actually attempt to make one thing scary and messed-up and revolting? That is only a hack job a couple of hack job. You’ve got seen it earlier than, simply not with a Mickey Mouse masks.

The entire debacle of Sia’s less-than-gallant response to critiques of “Music” has handed into the popular culture corridor of infamy at this level, and there is little purpose to re-litigate it 4 years later. You need not learn about any press cycle shenanigans, in spite of everything, to know simply by trying on the torch singer’s 2021 directorial debut that it’s an terrible film. In reality, with or with out foreknowledge, you may be hard-pressed to even handle to sit down by way of it.

Maddie Ziegler stars as Music, the autistic equal of a minstrel present character, who engages in each grossly stereotypical marker of neurodivergence as her neurotypical sister Zu (Kate Hudson) learns from her to be a greater particular person. All of that is advised by way of the world’s most bombastic and twee musical numbers — every very a lot the cinematic equal of a kitschy Sia empowerment anthem taking part in cacophonously over a cursed Instagram reel. “Offensive” and “revolting” do not start to cowl it; “Music” is an outright endurance take a look at.

The Paul brothers made a film, and would not you imagine it, it is unhealthy. 2019’s “Airplane Mode” was co-written by Logan and Jake Paul alongside administrators David Dinetz and Dylan Trussell, and stars Logan (Jake was apparently busy doing no matter it’s that he does) as — what else — a fictionalized model of himself.

Paul, who grew to become notable for parlaying a profitable run as a six-second Vine star into prolonged YouTube content material he by no means had any concepts for learn how to fill, right here ports over the identical unbearable, racy-yet-infantilized humor of that content material to characteristic size, thereby spreading it even thinner. The slapped-together story a couple of disastrous flight from Los Angeles to Sydney, through which Logan should overcome his concern of flying to avoid wasting an influencer-filled airplane from crashing, options roughly zero jokes that can even scan as jokes — not to mention danger being humorous — to anybody whose mind is not rotted by tons of of hours of consumption of Paul’s movies and people of different YouTube upstarts circa 2016. It is Seltzer/Friedberg for subcelebrities.

There are many issues a director can focus on, and Daniel Farrands focuses on desecrating graves. The identical tactful and respectable auteur who — additionally in 2019 — turned real-life tragedy into the nauseatingly exploitative “The Haunting of Sharon Tate” (one of Metacritic’s lowest-rated horror movies) additionally utilized the identical remedy to the 1994 homicide of Nicole Brown Simpson in, nicely, “The Homicide of Nicole Brown Simpson.”

The film’s predominant crime is just not even that it abides by the controversial concept that serial killer Glen Edward Rogers was Simpson’s true assassin. No matter what Farrands and author Michael Arter’s private ideas concerning the O. J. Simpson trial could also be, the issue, right here, is that they flip Nicole’s precise, actual struggling into schlocky house invasion thriller fodder, full with sub-Lifetime manufacturing and aesthetic selections. The truth that Mena Suvari turns in a reasonably respectable efficiency as Simpson solely makes the unrepentant horror present of her dehumanization all of the more durable to abdomen. Unhealthy motion pictures are one factor, however it is a really vile piece of labor.