Ten Worst Movies

You may think that I cover some bad movies. But I haven't talked about really bad movies. Here is my list of the ten worst movies I've ever seen from a disability perspective.

There will be some spoilers, but who would want to watch any of these movies anyway?

10.

Kind of surprised that this made my list, but there is one big problem. In the book, Tom Robinson's left arm ends at his elbow because it got caught in a cotton gin. In the movie, he has two full-length arms but he "can't use one" because it got caught in a cotton gin. This is "cripping up" and insulting to the novel. Other than that, the movie isn't too bad.

9.

 The case involved a supposed witness who walked slowly due to a stroke. Juror 8 brought into question whether he could have reached the door to see the boy run down the stairs in 15 seconds. The jurors stage it with a floor plan and pretend to move as slowly as the witness. This is invalidating the witness's experience. Still, this movie isn't too bad. There is some subtle commentary on prejudice, but the ableism in the movie overshadows it.

8.

 This started out as a decent story about the stigma around disfigurement. But then they go ahead and ruin it when the Beast turns into an attractive human at the end. This implies that disfigurement is inherently bad and true love can save it.

This is unrelated, but I hated how this version cut out the homosexual subplot from the Emma Watson version.

7.

The title is an ableist slur. The plot is even more problematic. Norman Bates reacts to the suggestion of institutionalizing his mother with horror, insinuating that being mentally ill is morally wrong. With the twist, we learn that Norman Bates has a split personality. This is problematic because if even one person with a disability in media is a villain, that means every person with that disability is a villain. Shyamalan continued this trend with Split, but comparing Shyamalan and Hitchcock is problematic.

The Bates Motel also had inaccessible showers. Problematic!

6.

The first red flag was the feeding device. These devices are actually useful for people with disabilities, and using them as a comedy sketch to attack capitalism is problematic. Capitalism structurally oppresses people with disabilities, so I don't understand why Chaplin would ignore this and use it for laughs. It's not like he has ever used any dark subject for comedy  to make social commentary in any other movie.

The movie gets worse when he goes to psychiatric ward for comedy. Not funny!

5.

Not sure where to start. The entire plot is a metaphor for mental illness and makes it seem whimsical. The characters Dorothy meets along the way are all representations of disabilities. Implying that going on the "yellow brick road" will cure them is insulting to people with disabilities. It gets worse when the "medicine" is a fraud and they had it in them all along perpetuates the myth that invisible disability are fake.

4.

I used to really like this movie and thought it portrayed a serious issue well. But then I learned that Linda Blair was never possessed by a demon. I think that Hollywood should start casting actors and actresses who have been possessed by demons to portrays characters possessed by demons. It's appropriation to do otherwise. Also, people who have been possessed by demons are severely underrepresented. Why not cast them in movies about demonic possession?

3. TIE

I can't think of a specific reason, but I had to put these here to continue the joke.

2.

The titular shining is an obvious metaphor for mental illness. the line "You think 'maybe' he should be taken to a doctor" stigmatizes seeking help for mental illnesses.

The narrative uses addiction to alcohol to construct its villain. Alcohol addiction already has stigma- no need to add more.

1.

Torgo walks with a limp and is the pawn of the main villain. This is ableist in two ways; making the person with the disability evil and weak. that is one of the few flaws in the movie, but it is enough to make it the worst movie I have ever seen.