10 Worst Movie Posters Ever Made

10. Breakfast At Tiffany’s (1961)

Also, it’s very patchy, design-wise. Those little vignettes over on the right look like Microsoft clip-art that Roger McGinnis chucked in when he got bored half way through.

Luke’s ludicrous Thundercats histrionics, not to mention his rippling six-pack, make this look more like the box art for a gratuitously nerdy RPG game.

C-3PO’s expression matches ours. ‘OMFG!’ indeed.

What could improve it: Screenshots. Star Wars is, even now, one of the richest and most ogle-tastic on-screen worlds ever devised. Back then, it was simply mind-blowing.

Even a tiny teaser would’ve been far more alluring than this sub-Games Workshop art fart.[page-break]

8. The Green Mile (1999)

Why it’s bad: Right, so this is a film about... uh... wait, is he a cop or what?

Ok, so it’s an authority figure who, like, looks at things in a slightly wonky way?

Hold on, let’s see if that tiny, myopia-inducing tagline helps us out at all. *squint* No. No, it doesn’t.

What could improve it: Well, Hanks’ spammy mug not having apparently been laminated might’ve reigned in the inherent queasiness a tad.

But something - anything - to give those of us who didn’t read the Stephen King novel a clue about the plot would’ve been nice.

I’m not paying money to watch a plastic park-keeper staring at something (possibly this very poster) in vague bewilderment.

7. Charlie’s Angels (2000)

Why it’s bad: The Angels look like bored extras from a Next catalogue, for one – and what’s the point in featuring them at all if we can’t at least see who they are without reading the names?

Also, whoever decided that orange could be offset nicely with a good slash of livid purple needs dragging back from the ‘70s and given a swift kick in the Jaffas with the Mahogany Clogs of Superior Taste.

What could improve it: It’s pretty much beyond salvation, this one – but they could at least have photocopied in a half-decent flame effect, rather than something that looks more like a macro shot of a particularly loud feather boa.[page-break]

6. Meet The Fockers (2004)

Why it’s bad: It fails to offer even one single reason why we might want to comply with the film title’s pushy demand.

Surely they’re not seriously suggesting that the only remarkable thing about this family – or indeed this film – is the fact that they’ve got a slightly rude name? Oh, wait... that IS it?

What could improve it: A slightly less aggressive application of the ‘positive use of negative space’ theory, for one.

It looks like the greenscreen broke at the start of the photoshoot, and they didn’t have the budget (or, more likely, the enthusiasm for the project) to
reschedule.

5. Don’t Look Now (1973)

Why it’s bad: The most violently unattractive colour scheme imaginable compounds the use of the least realistic-looking bloodstain, the most gormless-looking photo of the stars, and the most irritatingly mismatched fonts available at the time.

It’s like they’re actively trying to discourage you.

What could improve it: Not making it look like you’re about to see A Nightmare On The Antiques Roadshow would be a start.

Failing that, how about a tagline that makes some kind of proper English sense? What warning? Why are we passing it? Why do we care?

Come on, guys! We know it’s only three words, but there are still several legitimate combinations available.[page-break]

4. THX 1138 (1971)

Why it’s bad: ‘The Future is here’? Ok, a contradiction in terms, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that’s their wry point.

So, it’s here, is it? That’s quite exciting, actually... Let’s have a look at it...

Wait, what do you mean we are looking at it? Those grainy photocopied blobs? Meh, I think I’ll stay here, thanks. There’s probably something on telly later...

What could improve it: Choosing better glimpses of the future than what appears to be a sort of robotic gondolier and – Jesus wept! – A MAN DRIVING A WHITE CAR. Are you sure we’re ready for this brave new world, Mr Lucas..?

3. Brick (2005)

Why it’s bad: Ah, the old ‘collect them all’ campaign (see also: Trainspotting).

It’s a nice idea in theory, but not when every single one is as face-tearingly irritating and smug as these.

Ripping out the central figure only really works if the space that’s left tells you something about the character.

Those milky white splodges just look as though the artist got carried away and had some sort of literal design-gasm all over it.

What could improve it: Leaving what looks like it would’ve been a perfectly reasonable promo shot the hell alone.

Dropping the smarmy, nonsensical-until-you’ve-seen-the-film-anyway taglines.

Not crowning the name of the film with what appears to be a crudely drawn cock.[page-break]

2. Wanted (2008)

Why it’s bad: File this one under ‘Photoshop Disasters’.

There’s something distinctly Regan MacNeal about the grotesque and otherworldly angle of Jolie’s limb/head positioning.

Speaking of her limbs, the emaciated forearm makes that comically oversized shooter look like an oil-rig balanced on a toothpick.

What could improve it: One or two slight concessions to realism would edge them a bit nearer to the right track.

And getting rid of James McAvoy wouldn’t hurt – he’s not really bringing much to the party except a couple of relatively feeble guns.

Cowering in the shadow of Jolie’s apocalyptic hand-cannon, he might as well be comin’ atcha with a fly swat.

1. The Hottie And The Nottie (2008)

Why it’s bad: It makes two claims. Only one of them is correct.

What could improve it: Getting Paris Hilton’s KFC bargain-bucket ladybumps the hell out of our faces as a matter of urgency.

Use a black marker, or go the Brick route and physically rip her out – we really don’t care. Just do it.

Then shred the leftover remnants, soak them in wallpaper paste and fashion us a rudimentary dagger with which to jab frantically at our tremulous eye-jellies until they’re utterly incapable of alighting on such bleak horrors ever again.

Mark Powell

Liked This? Then see: