Is 'Movie 43' the worst movie of all time? $6m Halle Berry film bombs as critics slam ‘biggest waste of talent in cinema history'

Critic Peter Howell of the Toronto Star called it the ‘worst film ever’
Critic Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times said he did not ‘see a redeeming molecule’
‘Movie 43 is not the end of the world. It’s just a $6-million movie where we tried to do something different. Now back off,’ creator Peter Farrelly wrote on Twitter

PUBLISHED: 07:06, 29 January 2013 | UPDATED: 13:20, 29 January 2013

Hollywood filmmaker Peter Farrelly, the mind behind ‘Movie 43’ starring Hugh Jackman, Emma Stone, Halle Berry and other big-name celebrities, is under attack from critics bashing his latest film as the ‘Citizen Kane of awful.’

Harsh reviews are pouring in from professional film connoisseurs and regular crowds alike despite promotional claims that the movie features the biggest roster of stars ‘ever assembled’ in one film.

Due to that star-studded cast, which also includes actors Kate Winslet, Gerard Butler and Richard Gere, many had expected ‘Movie 43’ to be a guaranteed hit.

Scroll down to watch trailer

The reviews are in: Harsh reviews are pouring in from film critics and regular crowds alike bashing 'Movie 43,' which features Halle Berry among its 20 big-name actors

Flop: The $6 million production opened in seventh place this weekend brining in a relatively dismal $5 million in the U.S. and marking one of the worst wide-release openings for many of the actors featured

Instead, the $6 million production opened in seventh place this weekend bringing in a relatively dismal $5 million in the U.S. and marking one of the worst wide-release openings for many of the actors featured.

Critic Peter Howell of the Toronto Star called it the ‘worst film ever’ saying it was the ‘biggest waste of talent in cinema history.’

Critic Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times said he did not ‘see a redeeming molecule’ throughout the film.

Farrelly was quick to defend his work.

‘To the critics: Movie 43 is not the end of the world. It’s just a $6-million movie where we tried to do something different. Now back off,’ he wrote on Twitter.

‘To the critics: You always complain that Hollywood never gives you new stuff, and then when you get it, you flip out. Lighten up,’ he added one minute later.

Poor reception: Actor Chris Kattan attends the premiere of Relativity Media's 'Movie 43' at TCL Chinese Theatre on January 23, 2013 in Hollywood, California

On the defense: 'To the critics: Movie 43 is not the end of the world. It¿s just a $6-million movie where we tried to do something different. Now back off,¿ the film's creator Peter Farrelly wrote on Twitter

The film’s production itself is not only a mix of more than 20 famous faces in front of the camera. It’s also a mishmash of established and semi-established names behind it.

The movie follows 12 distinct story lines, each created by a different director and featuring different actors.

‘How many directors does it take to screw in a star-studded piece of aggressive stupidity and call it a movie? An even dozen, and there is no punch line,’ wrote Sheri Linden of The Los Angeles Times.

The individual plots were then stitched together by an overarching story about three teenagers searching the internet for ‘Movie 43,’ the most banned film in the world.

Those who search the internet for Farrelly’s flop in the real-world will find something vaguely similar.

As of Tuesday morning, ‘Movie 43’ had a favorability rating of 4% on the review site Rotten Tomatoes, putting it below other notable flops including ‘Step Up 2 the Streets,’ ‘Gigli,’ ‘Glitter’ and ‘Chairman of the Board’ starring Carrot Top.

‘Movie 43’ managed to rank above ‘Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star, and ‘Transylmania,’ which both had favorability ratings of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.

According to the one of the film’s own marketing lines ‘you can’t unsee it.’

‘It's as if 'Movie 43' was itself a feature-length f***-you to Hollywood, a movie made simply to show how bad a movie a studio could be induced to make and actors could be persuaded to act in,’ wrote Richard Brody of The New Yorker.