Before the awards season hits, 2025 has already brought us some iconic films like “Sinners,” “Sorry, Baby,” and “On Becoming a Guinea Fowl.” However, the year hasn’t been without its share of cinematic disasters, which have quickly become jokes on the internet. If you’re curious about the worst movies of 2025, look no further than Letterboxd’s collection of the lowest-rated films this year. Letterboxd has gained immense popularity over the years, serving as a hub for film enthusiasts of all kinds. With its passionate user base, it’s an excellent place to find hidden gems or notorious flops.

The 12 lowest-rated films of 2025 on Letterboxd (as of now) present a bizarre array of titles that have earned quite a notorious reputation. Some are examples of how commercial motives can ruin low-budget horror films. Others are failed franchise continuations or tedious revivals of once-famous stars. Despite the reasons for their poor reception by the Letterboxd community, these films have at least sparked some entertaining and occasionally insightful reviews. Moreover, these flops make it easier to appreciate this year’s hits like “Eephus” and “April.”

It’s almost hard to recall now, but Amy Schumer’s debut feature, “Trainwreck,” received glowing reviews back in 2015. Fast forward to 2025, and her new movie, “Kinda Pregnant,” a Happy Madison production released on Netflix, has faced a torrent of criticism from both critics and audiences, including negative feedback from Letterboxd users. The main issue cited was the scarcity of humor in what was supposed to be a comedy. Without comedic relief, flaws like poor editing and weak emotional moments were glaring.

The film also faced backlash for attempting a dark comedy narrative about a woman pretending to be pregnant while using conventional visual and storytelling methods. Character arcs and plots that might have suited a dark comedy style fell flat in this execution. Even the ensemble cast failed to make any significant impact, highlighting the movie’s failure on several levels. The lukewarm response to Schumer’s earlier film, “Snatched,” in 2017 would have been preferable to the harsh criticism “Kinda Pregnant” received on Letterboxd and other platforms.

On December 4, 2024, Luigi Mangione allegedly killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Just 74 days later, HBO Max and Discovery+ released “Who Is Luigi Mangione?” directed by Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz. With such a rapid turnaround, the documentary merely rehashed well-known headlines. Unsurprisingly, Letterboxd users weren’t impressed and heavily criticized this apparent cash grab.

Examining the top reviews on the site, some half-star ratings stemmed from users taking issue with the documentary’s portrayal of Thompson. However, more prevalent were criticisms of its poor filmmaking and awkward attempts to highlight the darkness in Mangione’s life before December 2024. The use of artificial intelligence to simulate Mangione’s voice further compounded the criticism of the documentary’s overall lackluster quality.

“Who is Luigi Mangione?” attempted to be a ripped-from-the-headlines crime documentary that viewers couldn’t turn away from. Per its deluge of poor Letterboxd reviews, it’s clear this mission wasn’t even remotely accomplished.

Ever since the original “Toy Story” became such a hit, animation studios (including “Toy Story” creator Pixar) have constantly returned to the well of anthropomorphizing inanimate objects or abstract concepts to create new, lucrative features. Done right, such as with “Inside Out,” it gives your movie an immediate “hook” rooted in the everyday lives of moviegoers. More often than not, though, such titles end up being parodies of themselves, so much so that they eventually inspired the lewd 2016 comedy “Sausage Party.”

“Sneaks,” one of the worst “Toy Story” clones to date, follows a pair of mismatched sneakers, Ty (Anthony Mackie) and J.B. (Martin Lawrence), as they navigate New York City while trying and get the former shoe home to his owner. Letterboxd users who left reviews that didn’t just consist of sneaker-based puns were largely obsessed with how poor the animation was, as well as Lawrence’s utterly lifeless voice-over performance. Further negative reviews centered on the excessive amount of product placement in something aimed at children, as well as baffling character design choices for figures like a group of high heels.

No matter how deep you delve into the pit of “Sneaks” Letterboxd reviews, there are no defenders in sight. This deeply cynical enterprise, with a story mimicking “Toy Story” and an animation style echoing “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” was so bad that it left nothing but a trail of aghast responses in its wake. Letterboxd users made it clear: leave “Sneaks” in its packaging.

Congratulations, “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” and “Star Trek: Nemesis” — you’re no longer the critical nadir of “Star Trek” cinema. The Paramount+ original movie, “Star Trek: Section 31,” focusing on the famous Starfleet black ops division, sees “Star Trek: Discovery’s” Philippa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) join Section 31 for a mission that unites her with some ragtag fighters. The resulting adventure did not get high marks from Letterboxd users, to put it gently, though a tiny portion of the exceedingly negative buzz could be chalked up to die-hard Trekkies mad about any slight tweak to the franchise’s lore or aesthetic.

Infinitely more common, though, were scathing reviews lamenting how the feature was so poorly written and detached from the cerebral-oriented joys of classic “Star Trek” material. Replacing those contemplative and hopeful vibes was a slew of quippy action scenes that many users claimed came off as an inferior take on similar sequences in “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Notable screenwriter/director Brian Duffield perfectly summarized the baffling writing choices in “Section 31” by observing in his Letterboxd entry that it was the “first ‘Star Trek’ movie to end on a yo mama joke.”

Other reviews on the site were aghast at the project’s toxic political undertones as well as its other minor shortcomings, like shoddy costuming and poor production design choices. There was no corner of “Star Trek: Section 31” spared from blistering Letterboxd responses.

Even the biggest movie stars inevitably work in duds, a sentiment that holds as true for Salman Khan, a revered figure in Indian cinema, as it does for Leonardo DiCaprio or Humphrey Bogart. For Khan, the nadir of his career arguably came with his 2025 action endeavor, “Sikandar,” from director A.R. Murugadoss. Khan played the film’s titular lead, a man who upends the societal status quo by speaking out for the “little guy,” a crusade that inevitably includes lots and lots of punching.

Letterboxd users were not impressed with anything “Sikandar” offered, particularly in the hypocrisy of the film supposedly championing marginalized rights while grossly reinforcing patriarchal norms. Further criticism was leveled at the horribly realized fight scenes (particularly their dismal editing) as well as the hokiness of Khan constantly espousing monologues on important social issues. Many reviews also claimed that Murugadoss phoned it in as a director, thanks to how limply supposedly critical scenes were shot, while others lamented that major actors were wasted on absolutely empty supporting roles.

Judging by these Letterboxd responses, there’s no one way to despise “Sikandar.” Binding these varying dismissals, though, was a consensus that this was a truly atrocious motion picture. How did an esteemed silver screen legend like Salman Khan end up in this trash?

It’s bad enough that “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey” spawned the Twisted Childhood Universe; now, these knock-offs of public domain children’s media characters have their own Z-grade pastiches. “Piglet” isn’t a spin-off of “Blood and Honey” — it’s just a standalone feature from the screenwriter of “Mary Had a Little Lamb” and “Snake Hotel” in which a birthday party camping trip for a bunch of twenty-somethings goes horribly awry when they encounter the bloodthirsty Piglet. This lazy stab at “shocking” cinema earned a shrug from Letterboxd denizens, many of whom expressed dismay at the film somehow coming off as more amateurish than the reviled “Blood and Honey,” while others were agog at how lazily assembled this motion picture was.

Most common in this sea of negative reviews is a refrain of people wondering why “Piglet” couldn’t have had more anarchic fun in its bones. If you’re going to turn a cute Hundred Acre Wood critter into Art the Clown, why not use that as a springboard to a story full of subversive vigor? Instead, Letterboxd responses made it clear that every aspect of “Piglet” had been phoned in by the film’s creative team. There was so little offered up by this feature that some negative reviews simply fixated on bizarre, tiny shortcomings, like the lengthy amount of time one character urinates at the start of the film. Just imagine the more vividly alive Letterboxd reviews “Piglet” could’ve inspired if it had gone full-ham with its central premise.

Given how many “Fear Street” books R.L. Stine penned, it was doubtful that the “Fear Street” movies would be confined exclusively to the three installments released on Netflix in 2021, and sure enough, four years later, audiences got to return to this freaky location with “Fear Street: Prom Queen.” Original director Leigh Janiak was replaced by filmmaker Matt Palmer, while the setting shifted to the year 1988. As the title implies, this installment follows a bunch of high school prom queen candidates, including Lori (India Fowler), as they’re gradually murdered by some masked psychopath.

The original “Fear Street” features were not universally beloved, but they were cult favorites with a devoted fanbase, and all three movies had the equivalent critical reception of “Get Out” compared to the abysmal Letterboxd reviews that greeted “Prom Queen.” Audiences were insulted by how generic “Prom Queen’s” screenplay was, as well as the dearth of LGBTQ+ representation compared to the central relationship of the original “Fear Street” trilogy. Further criticisms centered on anguish over how the actors didn’t convincingly register as being from the ’80s, as well as the excessive deployment of famous pop tunes from the era of “Don’t Stop Believin’.”

If horror geeks are looking for directions to some good 2025 horror cinema, the Letterboxd reviews make it clear they should steer far away from “Fear Street: Prom Queen.”

If you thought Richard Dreyfuss going on an offensive screed before a “Jaws” screening in 2024 was his most embarrassing moment of the decade, then you’re not aware of his role in the shark thriller “Into the Deep.” 50 years after “Jaws” first hit theaters, Dreyfuss headlined this obvious attempt to ride the cultural wave of Steven Spielberg’s saltwater classic. This feature follows a bunch of innocent divers and pirates colliding on open waters, where they’re all outmatched by a nearby great white shark. In flashback sequences divorced from all the shark carnage, Dreyfus plays Seamus, the grandfather of protagonist Cassidy (Scout Taylor-Compton).

Most Letterboxd reviews for “Into the Deep” read like confessionals, as these users freely admit that they’re addicts for shark movies who will gobble up any film that has one of these creatures on its posters. But even for devotees to the world of “47 Meters Down” and “The Shallows,” “Into the Deep” couldn’t cut the mustard. The greatest recurring critiques of this project centered on the terrible visual effects used for the sharks, as well as how awkwardly detached Dreyfuss was from the rest of the movie.

The utter hollowness and lack of ambition in “Into the Deep” registered as downright insulting to these souls, especially considering their expertise in what makes up a quality shark movie. A far cry from “Jaws,” Richard Dreyfuss showing up in “Into the Deep” is just one of this boondoggle’s many cringeworthy qualities.

Allegedly, love “means never having to say you’re sorry.” Presumably, that doesn’t extend to director Shauna Gautam or anyone else involved in the romantic drama “Nadaaniyan,” all of whom have a lot to apologize for when it comes to this feature’s artistic transgressions. This lovesick yarn is a classic tale of romance between different economic classes; wealthy Pia (Khushi Kapoor) hires middle-class everyman Arjun (Ibrahim Ali Khan) to be her pretend boyfriend. As they’re fake smooching and holding hands, well, “can I make it any more obvious” that they eventually fall in love?

Nobody on Letterboxd was crushing on “Nadaaniyan’s” trite approach to cinematic romance. Most egregious to the site’s users were the unacceptable lead performances by Kapoor and Khan. Romance movies live and die by how absorbing their protagonists are, and with such atrocious acting, “Nadaaniyan” was doomed from the start. Also lambasted was the motion picture’s hysterically off-base approach to class politics as well as the lack of depth given to Pia. A romantic drama seemingly made on an assembly line, “Nadaaniyan’s” ceaseless Letterboxd criticism was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to its online skewering, which extended to India-centric news sites.

Poor Popeye. As if Genndy Tartakovsky’s exciting-sounding Popeye movie never getting realized wasn’t bad enough, the beloved cartoon character also had to suffer the indignity of getting dragged into 2025’s “Popeye’s Revenge.” Yet another low-budget British horror film that contorts a public domain children’s property into a slasher feature, much like “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey” and other films of its ilk, “Popeye’s Revenge” was greeted with absolutely withering Letterboxd reviews.

Many of these dismissive reactions used “Popeye’s Revenge” as a launchpad for criticisms of the larger trend of cash grabs exploiting public domain licensing laws. Specifically, reviewers bemoaned how lazily assembled and deficient in craftsmanship films like these are. In Letterboxd users’ minds, “Revenge” and other similar titles are designed to be thumbnails on streaming platforms, not fully fleshed-out features, so it’s no wonder that these reviewers had time for grander pontifications given how empty “Popeye’s Revenge” was. Other takedowns of the movie observed that it offered truly nothing memorable in terms of violence or surface-level titillation.

With “Popeye’s Revenge” failing to reach the bare minimum of low-grade slasher films, it was inevitable that Letterboxd skewerings drifted to critiquing the larger cultural trends that spawned this type of eyesore. Further specific negative reviews of “Revenge,” though, highlighted how bizarre it was that this horror production didn’t utilize supporting elements specific to “Popeye” lore. Beyond the title character, it was lazily detached from the property it was supposedly “based on.” Forget Olive Oyl; somebody save Popeye.

Bad boys are often just irresistible. So, too, are good trashy romance movies. Terrible examples of this subgenre, though, are incredibly easy to dismiss. Take “Bad Influence,” for example; this 2025 Spanish feature directed by Chloé Wallace draws from source material taken directly from Wattpad. Eros Douglas (Alberto Olmo) is the film’s requisite naughty guy, an ex-con who finds work as the bodyguard for wealthy girl Reese Russell (Elea Rochera). The more time they spend together, the more they find their connection deepening.

Unfortunately, what works as trashy Wattpad reading, where the reader can imagine the story looking like anything, isn’t as much fun when it’s been translated to a feature film offering a distinctively objective visual representation of shoddy writing. Letterboxd users simply refused to fall under “Bad Influence’s” spell. Criticisms about the film centered on the inexplicable and creepy detail that Renee was only 17 while Eros was 22, the script’s tremendously poor screenwriting decisions, and the subpar visual effects used to realize one rain-heavy sequence.

The toxicity of Eros, particularly his physically aggressive nature towards Reese, came under fire from the site’s users, as well as its use of the corniest phrases with a total straight face in dramatic sequences. There’s an infamously dismal track record associated with movies based on Wattpad content, but even in this pantheon of cinematic tragedies, “Bad Influence” was especially hated by Letterboxd users. This movie was one bad boy nobody was swooning over.

Sylvester Stallone has always had critically-drubbed movies in his filmography. However, even the most lambasted “Rambo” sequels or even “Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot” got splashy theatrical releases. In the last decade, though, Stallone has constantly slummed it in cheap, direct-to-video action fare, much of it coming from Grindstone Entertainment Group. 2025’s “Alarum” is the latest Stallone/Grindstone collaboration, though the “Rocky” leading man isn’t this film’s central player. Instead, it focuses on spies Joe (Scott Eastwood) and Lara (Willa Fitzgerald), whose quiet vacation is brutally interrupted by older spies (including Stallone’s Agent Chester) who think this duo has joined Alarum, a team of bad spies.

Even with genuinely respected actors like Fitzgerald and Mike Colter in its cast, “Alarum” earned its position as Letterboxd’s worst-reviewed movie of 2025 to date by scoring absolutely blistering diary entries from users. Many of these reviewers were downright insulted by how rigid and lazily assembled “Alarum” was, particularly when it came to Stallone and Eastwood’s phoned-in performances. The lack of anything remotely fun in the action sequences also came under constant fire, along with the incoherent lighting choices on display throughout the proceedings.

It’s one thing to make an inadequate movie in the vein of Neil Breen’s directorial efforts, where a lot of obvious effort and tangible ambition have simply gone haywire in execution. It’s another to deliver something like “Alarum,” which Letterboxd’s community has deemed entirely lacking in personality or passion. Such a lifeless embarrassment marks a new nadir for Stallone in his lengthy career.