The Philosophy of “Worst” Films: Brett Goldstein and the Evolution of Critical Taste

Comedian and actor Brett Goldstein, best known for his role as Roy Kent in Ted Lasso, frequently explores the subjective nature of cinema on his podcast, Films to Be Buried With. While the show often asks guests to identify the “worst” movie they have ever seen, the discourse frequently shifts toward the realization that even critically panned projects often hold aesthetic or personal value. This ongoing conversation highlights a broader trend in modern film criticism: the move away from objective quality toward personal resonance.

Why Film Critics Struggle with the Concept of “Worst”

Defining a “worst” film is notoriously difficult because art is inherently subjective. According to Roger Ebert’s legacy of criticism, a film is not merely a collection of technical failures but an experience that lands differently depending on the viewer’s history and expectations. On Films to Be Buried With, guests often struggle to name a single “worst” film because a project deemed a failure by critics might feature a performance or a visual choice that a viewer finds beautiful or compelling. This challenges the traditional binary of “good” vs. “bad” cinema, suggesting that even a poorly structured film can offer a unique, if unintended, experience.

The Impact of Streaming on Cinematic Perception

The rise of streaming platforms has fundamentally altered how audiences encounter and categorize films. Before the dominance of services like Netflix or MUBI, a “bad” movie might simply disappear from public consciousness after a poor theatrical run. Today, digital archives ensure that nearly every film remains accessible. This accessibility allows for the “so-bad-it’s-good” phenomenon, where audiences actively seek out critically maligned films for communal viewing experiences. As noted in The Guardian’s film coverage, this shift has turned the act of watching a “bad” movie into a social activity, effectively stripping the “worst” label of its power to discourage viewership.

How Personal Taste Overrides Consensus

A film’s reputation is often dictated by box-office performance and critic aggregates like Rotten Tomatoes. However, Goldstein’s podcast highlights that personal history often overrides these metrics. A film might be technically flawed—featuring poor pacing, illogical plot holes, or unconvincing performances—yet still hold immense value for someone who saw it at a formative age. This divergence between critical consensus and individual affection is a recurring theme in the podcast, illustrating that the “worst” film is a fluid label that changes based on the viewer’s own life experiences rather than the film’s objective craftsmanship.

Key Insights into Critical Evaluation

• Subjectivity: There is no industry-standard metric for “worst,” as personal preference often outweighs technical proficiency.
• Cultural Context: Films that were once considered box-office failures often gain cult status through streaming and social media rediscovery.
• The Role of Nostalgia: Many films labeled “bad” by critics are defended by audiences due to deep-seated emotional or nostalgic attachments.

What Happens Next for Film Criticism

As the barrier between high-budget studio releases and independent, experimental, or “low-brow” cinema continues to blur, the traditional role of the critic is evolving. Instead of serving as a gatekeeper of “good taste,” critics are increasingly acting as curators who help audiences find value in a wider spectrum of media. This trend suggests that the future of film discussion will prioritize the “why” of an audience’s reaction over the “what” of a movie’s technical failures. Whether a film is considered a masterpiece or a disaster, its ultimate value is determined by the conversation it generates among viewers.