Why did a film widely considered one of the worst ever still make millions?

Entertainment · Published 3 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: Released in 2010, the parody film Vampires Suck was savaged by critics and earned a measly 4% on Rotten Tomatoes. Yet, despite being labeled witless and boring, the movie managed to rake in over $80 million worldwide. How does a film that everyone seemingly hates achieve such commercial success?

Directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, Vampires Suck arrived in 2010 as a direct spoof of the Twilight Saga franchise. The plot follows Becca Crane, a teenager who moves to the town of Sporks and falls for Edward Sullen, a vampire who abstains from human blood. The film relies on slapstick humor and pop-culture references, including cameos by figures like Lady Gaga and Tiger Woods. Critics were nearly unanimous in their disdain; Peter Travers of Rolling Stone famously dismissed the entire experience with a four-word review: 'This movie sucks more.'

The film's reception was defined by its overwhelming negativity. On Metacritic, it holds a score of 18 out of 100, indicating overwhelming dislike, while audiences polled by CinemaScore gave it a mediocre C+ grade. Critics like Mark Kermode argued that the parody was fundamentally flawed because the source material, Twilight, was already past its cultural peak. Others, such as Korey Coleman of Spill.com, suggested that the film represented a 'de-evolution' in entertainment, catering to a generation with a shrinking attention span that favors juvenile, rapid-fire gags over coherent storytelling.

Despite this critical drubbing, the film was a financial curiosity. It opened at number one in the United States on August 18, 2010, and ultimately grossed $80,547,866 worldwide by July 2012. Amid the wreckage of the reviews, one performance stood out: newcomer Jenn Proske received praise for her mimicry of Kristen Stewart. Entertainment Weekly noted that Proske captured the 'flustered, hair-tugging angst' of the original character with hilarious precision. The film was eventually recognized at the Golden Raspberry Awards, receiving four nominations, including Worst Picture and Worst Director, cementing its legacy as a commercial success that failed to win over a single soul in the critical establishment.

Ultimately, the film serves as a case study in the disconnect between critical consensus and box office performance. While reviewers cringed at the 'over-done' physical comedy and stale subject matter, the film's ability to draw audiences suggests that the parody format—however poorly executed—still held a specific, if fleeting, appeal for the teenage demographic that fueled the original Twilight phenomenon.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• How a critically reviled parody film managed to turn a massive profit at the box office
• Why a misunderstood 1995 vampire comedy became an unlikely cult classic decades later
• Why a box-office disaster became a beloved cult classic of the Y2K era
• Why a high-budget vampire fantasy failed to launch a planned cinematic franchise
• Why did a major studio produce a film they admitted was terrible?
• Why Maurice Pialat’s Van Gogh ignores the artist’s most famous moments
• How a college slacker's chaotic graduation became a cult comedy box office success
• The rapper who broke barriers and faced a music industry heist
• A cinematic waltz of redemption set within the walls of a luxury hotel
• Is the reality of Vanilla Sky a lucid dream, a hallucination, or something else?
• Why a critically panned 1967 drama became an enduring cult classic of Hollywood camp
• Why a 1971 cult classic about a high-speed car chase became an existential masterpiece.

More in Films · More in Entertainment · Latest · A–Z · All topics