Okay, here are two that are absolutely risible:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121974/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0127917/
Both are so bad, they are actually worth seeking out to laugh at, they both show up on TV in the UK occasionally.
Re: Crimson Tide. Yup, I know some people like it, but I thought it was awful. Even though I like the subject material of the movie, I just can't bring myself to watch it again. It's almost as bad as U-571, which, bad as it is, at least has the virtue of a dramatic conclusion. Disregarding the numerous technical errors and bloopers in Crimson Tide, many of which are legendary in their ineptitude and equal in stature to those seen in U-571, CT doesn't stand up in many other ways either...
For one, it breaks one of the golden rules of dramatic structure with its main storyline; i.e. one is supposed to build the story and characters in the first act, place them in some sort of situation which appears difficult to resolve in the second act, and then provide an engaging and surprising resolution to the dramatic problems in the third act. This is the typical structure of almost all drama, and this has been so from right back to ancient times, with Greek tragedies. Accidentally continuing the tragic theme, Crimson Tide falls at the last hurdle in respect of its dramatic structure, where a taught climax, with nuclear missiles about to be launched simply fizzles out, with no action sequence at the end to defuse the dramatic build. For an action movie, this is bordering on criminal. Talk about going out with a whimper. A situation which is made even worse by the 'pally' ending of two characters who were at daggers drawn ten minutes beforehand, if that isn't 'cheesy', I don't know what is.
Were this not the only issue, it could probably be enjoyed to a point, but sadly, the plot which sets up this supposedly dramatic tempo, is transparently full of holes, with Gene Hackman's character wilfully refusing to verify a presumed launch protocol by means of a very simple check which would not alter the tactical situation in any way, shape or form. To believe that an experienced submarine commander would not do such a thing stretches credibility to breaking point, and given that the dramatic conflict between Hackman and Denzil Washington hinges solely on the clash over this matter, it makes it skate on the thinnest of scripting ice possible. Moreso in view of the fact that the clash between the commander and the XO has been done to death in sub movies, and always more believably.
Where it could have differed, was in the tension that would have been created by focussing on the racial background differences of the Captain and the XO, given that Hackman's age would have placed him in the US Navy when segregation was still extant in the US, and to touch on his attitudes toward a black officer, given that he is clearly an 'old school officer' and belligerent to boot, would have made for a much more dramatic, believable, and intelligent movie. An attempt to inject something of this nature is made during one scene, with the discussion about Carl Von Clausewitz, but it withers on the vine and is not properly explored, and neither is the exposition which it attempts to set up.
Then we have the scripting flow. Crimson Tide famously made it through editing with two scenes scripted by Quentin Tarantino, who was 'flavour of the month' at the time it was made. These scenes stick out like a sore thumb in the movie and are completely at odds with the rest of the script in both pacing and flow. They would have been okay had the rest of the movie been scripted in that way, but as it stands, they almost come over like a commercial break, being that far removed from the rest of the movie's tone that it beggars belief. Even if you are unaware of which two scenes these are, if you watch the movie and take a guess, I'm certain you'll be spot on.
There's a lot more I could say about the film which is bad, but at this point, you get the idea of where I'm coming from.
Chock