19 Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad, Baaaad Films That Prove You Don't Need To Be A Good Movie To Earn Bucket Loads Of $$$

Rating: 11%

Budget: $55,000,000

Box Office: $381,545,846

Even though the film had less hype surrounding it than its equally disappointing predecessor, it managed to become a huge success at the box office. Benefitting from an impressive rollout internationally, including $159m in China, the poorly reviewed erotic film became a bonafide box office hit. 

When it came to a critical response, however, the movie got spanked by reviewers, with one calling it "steamy as a greasy spoon and almost as erotic."

Rating: 6%

Budget: $30,000,000

Box Office: $107,588,225

After a surprisingly strong box office showing for Mall Cop, the second instalment followed in its footsteps. While it wasn't quite as successful as its predecessor, it was far, far worse, and the original was pretty bad too. It was the year after the Sony hack, and somehow Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 was still the studio's highest-grossing movie of the year heading into August...

One fairly accurate description from a critic highlighted the moderately successful cash-grabbing motive, and called it "a cinematic equivalent to the second Cheeky Girls album."

Rating: 6%

Budget: $1,000,000

Box Office: $101,758,490

When the exorcism-themed horror movie came out in the US, there was a strong consensus from fans and critics alike that it was awful. In fact, the studio even attempted to prevent such negative reviews in the UK, by not showing screenings until the day of its release. But, as is the case with genre-lead movies, fans still flooded in to have most likely a disappointing cinema trip. While audiences quickly faded, the movie still was a box office hit. 

One critic hit the nail on the head by simply saying, "It's very, very, very, bad. And not bad in a good way, or so bad it's actually brilliant, or any of that."

Rating: 8%

Budget: $80,000,000

Box Office: $246,984,278

At a time when Adam Sandler was failing at the box office, the Grown Ups movies were his shining light – somehow. Perhaps it was the pull of older audience members wanting to be childish again, with posters of the old yearbook photos of the film's "grown-ups" helping to entice them. Or maybe it was the group of friends still up to their old shenanigans now they were dads that appealed to viewers, but whatever it was, it certainly wasn't the reviews. 

In fact, the movie was so bad that it garnered eight "Razzie" (worst film/performances of the year) nominations, which was more than the perennial contender for "worst movie ever" – Movie 43. 

Rating: 14%

Budget: $60,000,000

Box Office: $253,625,427

This poorly rated movie benefitted from a savvy and aggressive marketing campaign, particularly with a fairly unrivalled run of ads during the Super Bowl which was only a month before its release. With lots of screenings beforehand to generate word-of-mouth publicity, the studio got its rewards with a very impressive opening weekend and a strong performance from then on. 

I guess this shows that good marketing and good timing can thwart real critical response because the movie was described by a fairly large contingent of critics as, well, terrible. One review called it a "mind-sodomisingly mediocre family comedy."

Rating: 5%

Budget: $60,000,000

Box Office: $96,593,018

Christmas movies are rarely huge box office wins, but somehow this terrible one made it into the top 15 highest-grossing festive films of all time... Whether it was the pull of Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis, or just no one had anything better to do in the winter of 2004, this movie that was disregarded by critics and fans alike managed to have a fairly successful box office return.

A critic's review called it: "A mirthless movie as fresh as last year's fruit cake, Christmas with the Kranks is a coarse, garish comedy that promotes conformity."

Rating: 4%

Budget: $20,000,000

Box Office: $80,547,866

It's not easy to pull off a good spoof, but it's also pretty hard to make one as bad as this Twilight-piss-take – especially because making fun of Twilight is something that the internet found to be a fairly simple task. Perhaps its puzzling box office success came from people wanting to laugh at Twilight, but they'd have probably left the cinema thinking that they'd rather have sat through a back-to-back Twilight Saga marathon. 

Here's one critic's take on the movie:

"It's the kind of satire that could be renamed 'parasitire': a movie that tries to siphon off some of the box-office cash with what is effectively a humourless knockoff, a line-by-line, moment-by-moment, mickey-take without jokes – or at least very few."

Rating: 7%

Budget: $30,000,000

Box Office: $77,677,553

Who knows what fans were expecting when they went to the cinema to watch this Jim Carrey psychological thriller, but, if they'd read any reviews, they were probably going to see if a movie could really be that bad. Perhaps fans of more serious Carrey movies, such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or The Truman Show were hoping for another strong performance, but they would have been disappointed. 

All you need to know about this movie can be extrapolated from a few choice quotes in one particular review: "Thrillers like The Number 23 simply shouldn't be made." "Sets should have been burnt. Footage should have been buried. Memories should have been surgically wiped to stop anyone from finding out that this film was ever even an idea. "

Rating: 20%

Budget: $200,000,000

Box Office: $836,303,693

If some believe director Michael Bay to be "critic-proof," then Revenge of the Fallen added more weight to their argument. With huge performances both domestically and worldwide, the release must have thrilled the studio execs, even if it did bore audiences and critics alike. Here's one particularly damning review of the movie: "I found it at once loud and boring, like watching paint dry while getting hit over the head with a frying pan."

Rating: 33%

Budget: $250,000,000

Box Office: $1,046,721,266

The fourth film in the franchise benefited from an incredible worldwide release, where fans of the franchise ignored the poor reviews to go to the cinema and make this movie one of the highest-grossing of all time. It's safe to say that the success of prior movies was the key factor in getting viewers out to the big screen, because reviews certainly didn't match the footfall. One critic said it "runs aground on a disjointed plot and a non-stop barrage of noisy action sequences."

Rating: 15%

Budget: $92,000,000

Box Office: $304,654,182

After a rather poor domestic showing, what brought the fifth instalment in the franchise into the black was its worldwide release, where, despite being critically panned, it performed well. Maybe it was the pull of the classic hero that made fans flock to the cinema because it certainly wasn't the promise of an actual good movie. It was described by one critic as “a limp parody."

Rating: 37%

Budget: $125,000,000

Box Office: $485,004,754

A number of factors gave the relaunch of the TMNT franchise a good box-office return. First of all, audiences were somewhat less down on it than critics, with kids particularly fond of the new iteration of the turtles. Also, the nostalgia factor never hurts bringing older audiences in and a strong showing in China helped it bag a nice profit. Critically, however, the response wasn't so strong, with one calling it " a lazy summer popcorn-flick." 

Rating: 21%

Budget: $110,000,000

Box Office: $563,749,323

Pretty much everyone, particularly rival studios, thought this movie was going absolutely nowhere, in fact, a rival studio executive, said about the movie: “If you had told me at the beginning of the summer that this would be one of the biggest surprises, I’d have said you were crazy.”

Well, it turns out that with a touch of nostalgia, the pull of some friendly sitcom live-action voices, and the need for tired parents to distract their kids, a movie can defy pretty awful reviews to become a box-office success. One critic described its purpose fairly well, describing it as "enough noise and neon to distract under eights for an hour and a half."

Rating: 26%

Budget: $175,000,000

Box Office: $746,846,894

What we had here was an exercise in excellent marketing from Warner Bros. Their trickle of teaser that targeted younger audiences who were more bad-review-resistant, particularly with online hype to balance things out, worked wonders at the box office. While reviews may have impacted the fairly swift dip in views, the terribly reviewed film still made a hefty profit, despite being torn apart by critics. 

"The filmmakers forgot the golden rule: a comic book movie is only ever as good as its main villain."

Rating: 29%

Budget: $250,000,000

Box Office: $873,637,528

The prospect, particularly for superhero fans, of these two comic book giants facing off was enough to bring in swathes of fans which gave the movie a huge opening weekend. When the reviews seeped out, it was clear that the film failed to give the fans what they wanted, with one critic saying, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" smothers a potentially powerful story – and some of America's most iconic superheroes – in a grim whirlwind of effects-driven action."

Rating: 9%

Budget: $100,000,000

Box Office: $310,650,585

The success of Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers made a third instalment kind of inevitable, and that pull seemed to have worked, in terms of box-office takings at least. The film itself perfectly reflected a fading series with little or no new ideas left and was awfully reviewed. One critic called it "a tired and tiring comedy from a series that has run out of steam."

Rating: 34%

Budget: $80,000,000

Box Office: $586,764,305

After the surprising success of the first Hangover movie, there was one resounding critic of its sequel: it's practically the same film. While the relatively unique and fun elements of the first one got bums on seats for the sequel, there was nothing unique about Part II, and critics found it incredibly formulaic. 

"The headache has truly set in for the laboured and self-conscious The Hangover Part II. It's more a remake than a sequel"

Rating: 21%

Budget: $75,000,000

Box Office: $443,140,005

The impressive box-office showing must have been earned from the coattails of its somewhat better-received original, because the follow-up movie was a major disappointment, mainly because you couldn't understand anything. One critic was quick to point out this pretty damning flaw, saying: 

"The Squeakquel is astonishingly high-pitched, like 100 helium balloons being let off in your head. A caveat, then: dogs may pick up on subtleties I've missed."

Rating: 39%

Budget: $200,000,000

Box Office: $791,217,826

The film 2012 garnered quite a lot of hype going into it, which may be one reason for its impressive box office takings. What it couldn't really do, however, was deliver on that hype. While some suggested it was at least an "enjoyable" watch, it clearly wasn't anything groundbreaking. As one critic put it: 

"This is a wildly over-the-top anthology of disaster pictures old and new, and Emmerich isn't above recycling other people's ideas."