Bizarre Movie Costumes That Left Us Scratching Our Heads

If Hollywood existed in a multiverse, the Academy Award for Best Costume Design would not have gone to "Black Panther" or "Titanic." In that Bizarro World scenario, the costumers for "Green Lantern" and "Catwoman" took home Oscars for their astonishingly awful designs. Of course, costume design, like any art form, is a subject up for debate, and even the aforementioned real-world Oscar winners have their detractors. The same goes for movies with terrible costumes: even the gorilla-suit-and-diving-helmet combo in "Robot Monster" has its admirers.

The following is a list (with plot spoilers) of movie costumes that achieve a higher plane of weirdness for a variety of factors. Strange construction, unusual fabrics and colors, and clothes that seem inappropriate for their characters all helped earn these costumes a place on this list. The films here range from cult classics to major studio blockbusters, proving that weird costumes aren't the sole property of "bad" movies. Even the biggest stars get the most bizarre costumes.

Much has been made about the fact that some women's costumes in science fiction seem to be more sexualized than appropriate for outer space (see Princess Leia's "slave girl" outfit in "Return of the Jedi"). However, Sean Connery's costume for the 1974 dystopian feature "Zardoz" more than matches those infamous wardrobe choices in terms of leaving little to the imagination. As Zed, a gun-toting "Brutal" in the year 2293, the 44-year-old Connery wears a red loincloth, red bandoliers, and sturdy thigh-high boots. And that's about it.

Director John Boorman's then-wife, Christel Cruise Boorman, designed the costumes, which according to the credits, were made by La Tabard Boutique in Dublin. Connery's costume has earned a lot of quizzical reactions over the years, but it does accomplish one particular goal: the actor was looking for roles that would be worlds apart from James Bond, and Zed's wrestler fetish garb definitely fits that bill.

Though David Lynch's "Dune" takes its brickbats for convoluted storytelling and subpar special effects, there's no question that its costumes are one of its high points. Standouts include the militaristic uniforms of House Atreides and the Padishah Emperor and the biomechanical corset for Kenneth MacMillan's Baron Harkonnen. Not all of the costumes required for "Dune" were as exceptional, with the most glaring example being the jaw-dropping winged codpiece worn by Sting's Feyd Rautha.

In a featurette for the 2006 extended DVD edition of the film, Oscar-nominated costume designer Bob Ringwood explained that Sting was originally intended to appear nude in the scene. But the studio balked at the decision, which required Ringwood to craft an appropriate cover-up for the musician-turned-actor the night before the scene was shot. "We made this little winged G-string thing, so it was ready for him the next morning," said Ringwood, whose other credits include Tim Burton's "Batman" and "AI: Artificial Intelligence."

Writer and director Walter Hill took Sol Yurick's 1965 novel "The Warriors" and supercharged its story of warring New York City gangs with elements of comic book fantasy, Greek legend, and even Shakespearean tragedy. As a result, the gangs become mythological figures — or more accurately, superheroes, complete with costumes that boldly underscore their gang's outlook and attitude. Costume designer Bobbie Mannix ("Supernatural") took Hill's cues and applied them to the more than 20 gangs featured in the film.

Many of her designs have become iconic, like the leather-tribal wear sported by the Warriors themselves, the frightening glam-corpse look of the Baseball Furies, or the Gramercy Riffs, who rock solid-colored robes before changing to all-black ensembles after the death of their leader, Cyrus. Not so for others, like the Jones Street Boys, whose striped ensembles suggest angry waiters at a sports bar. The most ridiculous get-up belongs to the Hi-Hats, who for reasons known only to themselves, are dressed like very angry mimes.

The future looks very weird in the 1980 rock fantasy musical "The Apple," which has topped many "worst movie ever" lists. The premise is ridiculous: a pair of music hopefuls (Catherine Mary Stewart and George Gilmour) are seduced by a pop impresario (Vladek Sheybal) who uses their songs to take over the world. Music by George S. Clinton and choreography by "So You Think You Can Dance" producer Nigel Lythgoe ups the silliness, but it's the costumes that really lend "The Apple" its chitzy polish.

The costumes by Ingrid Zore take the glitz-is-better aesthetic of '80s futuristic projects like "Flash Gordon" and amplify the camp factor exponentially. There is a lot of metalwork (skullcaps and steel bras aplenty) fused with silver lame jumpsuits and broad-shouldered tunics with exaggerated collars. The vibe might be described as Business Attire: 1999 — and an alarming amount of pyramid-shaped bindis and hot pants. The future hadn't looked this tacky since such hopelessly misogynistic '50s sci-fi like "Cat Women of the Women."

Of the many reasons why fans and critics took issue with the version of the Joker seen in 2016's "Suicide Squad," the costume seems to rank highly on the list of complaints. In an attempt to move the Joker away from his Clown Prince of Crime look, director David Ayer and costume designer Judianna Makovksy tricked him out in "dangerous" outfits: lame jackets, ruffled shirts, tuxedo pants, and leather coats. Instead of projecting his supervillain identity, the costume suggested more of a Las Vegas club kid aesthetic. Adding to the look (or complicating it) were numerous tattoos, including "Damaged" inked in flowing script across the Joker's torso.

Different, for sure. But Joker-esque? Not at all, judging by the mixed reaction from fans and critics alike. Even Ayer himself seems unhappy with the end result; in 2023, he took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to state that he regretted the Joker's tattoos. "Not every idea is a good idea," he wrote.

The inclusion of Tarsem Singh's "Immortals" in this list doesn't mean that the film's costumes are not high-quality creations. Designer Eiko Ishioka is an Oscar winner whose remarkable creations are among the highlights of such films as "Bram Stoker's Dracula." Her work in "The Immortals" is striking, with some designs approaching works of art. But in other cases, Ishioka's designs transform a magical costume design into a bizarre flight of fancy.

Case in point: the crown worn by Isabel Lucas's Athena. It highlights both the goddess's divinity and warrior status. But the crown is almost twice the size of Lucas's head and its spindly points hew uncomfortably to parody. The same goes for the claw-shaped helmet worn by Mickey Rourke's King Hyperion. It's sleek and dangerous, but totally impractical (imagine falling face forward while wearing it). In these and other examples, the balance between amazing and absurd is too extreme and takes you out of the experience when it should pull you in.

Fans have been scratching their heads about David Bowie's costume in "Labyrinth" since its release in 1985. Were his trousers supposed to be so... occupied? And in a movie for kids? The answer to both questions is apparently, yes. In a 2016 interview with Empire magazine, Brian Froud, who served as conceptual artist for the Jim Henson feature, said that Bowie's codpiece was not only deliberate, but also was part of the story's main theme.

"We're not looking at reality, we're inside this girl's head," said Froud, referencing Jennifer Connelly's Sarah. "He's an amalgam of the inner fantasies of this girl. Everyone always talks about Bowie's perv pants, but there was a reason for it all!" For the record, not everyone involved with "Labyrinth" was on board with the pants. Henson's son, Brian Henson, said in 2015 that the studio was very concerned about the codpiece after seeing dailies. "The calls came back very quickly: 'You're absolutely nuts if you think David Bowie is going to keep wearing that thing,'" said Henson. "So, it then got smaller and smaller during the movie."

It is one thing to take an iconic look from a television series and completely revamp it, but it is something else altogether to replace that costume design with a new wardrobe that is not only unflattering, but also impractical as actual garb. But such is the case with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," which traded the original series' monochromatic tunics and black slacks for one-piece suits with the shoes attached to the legs of the pants (which suggests a bathroom nightmare). The new uniforms were also presented in colors more appropriate for upholstery in midsize sedans of the period. Never has so much taupe and periwinkle gotten so much screen time.

Costume designer Robert Fletcher, who designed the Starfleet uniforms for the '79 film, ditched them in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and employed double-knit burgundy ensembles designed to emulate 19th-century naval uniforms. Fletcher kept them in play for five additional films before capping the look with "Star Trek: Generations."

If the killer android in "M3GAN" is a doll designed to befriend lonely children, why does she dress like a malevolent mod? M3GAN may sport big eyes and a sympathetic voice, but her outfit screams "mean girl with a limitless clothes budget." How else would one describe her signature babydoll dress, white stockings and black Mary Janes, and the silk scarf tied in a carnivorous-looking bow? Her sartorial choice when killing bully Brandon raises even more eyebrows: a black cloak with gold buttons and a fur collar and black gloves.

The choices were deliberate, according to designer Daniel Cruden. "There's something about the combination [of her clothes] that just isn't quite right," he told Bazaar. All of her costumes were chosen with the intent to unnerve the viewer: Cruden said that he picked silk sateen for its "unforgiving" quality, and neutral colors to stand apart from other dolls' typically bright outfits. "You can't help but look at it and feel creeped out," he said.

Nipples. That one word sums up the criticism lobbied at the suits worn by Batman (George Clooney), Robin (Chris O'Donnell), and, to a lesser extent, Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) in 1997's "Batman & Robin." The suits were designed by sculptor Jose Fernandez, who also conceived Val Kilmer's Batsuit in "Batman Forever." That particular iteration also has nipples, albeit of a more subtle variety, which was inspired by director Joel Schumacher's desire to steer clear of Tim Burton's Batman. Schumacher provided Fernandez with images of anatomically correct Greco-Roman statues as inspiration, which resulted in suits that were sleeker and less tank-like... but also ones that featured nipples. Thanks to this odd inclusion in the costumes, the wardrobe sported by the heroes in "Batman & Robin" is often ranked among the most laughable super-suits ever conceived.

In an interview with MEL magazine, Fernandez said that he was initially opposed to the Bat-nipples, but added them at Schumacher's reported insistence. Still, when he saw them at the premiere, he was not thrilled. "I was thinking to myself, 'This is not good,'" Fernandez said. That echoes the response of almost everyone who has laid eyes on them in the past three decades.

Though perhaps best known only to Golden Age Hollywood fans, the 1933 film "Christopher Strong" has a place in motion picture history for two reasons: it gave Katharine Hepburn her second film role and featured the actress in a form-fitting outfit that resembled a silver moth, complete with a cape that forms two enormous wings and a skullcap with antennae. The outfit was designed by Oscar winner Walter Plunkett, who also created iconic costumes for films like "Gone with the Wind."

There is a concrete reason why Hepburn wears a moth costume: Hepburn's character is an aviatrix who hopes to break a world altitude record in her plane, which is dubbed the "Silver Moth." But it's still a jaw-dropping outfit and delivered without fanfare by Hepburn and her castmates, who seem perfectly okay with the get-up. To the then-26-year-old Hepburn's credit, she not only pulls off the costume, but also manages to make moths look appealing.

In between his stints as a four-time NBA champion and his current gigs as a commercial pitchman and reality show host, Shaquille O'Neal had a brief run as an affable hero in kid-friendly movies. It didn't quite pay off: "Kazaam" was a minor flop, but its follow-up, 1997's "Steel," was an out-and-out disaster. Shaq's supersuit didn't help.

Based on the DC Comics character of the same name, "Steel" starred O'Neal as weapons designer John Henry Irons, who used his technological know-how to create a high-tech suit of armor in order to fight gang leader Judd Nelson. The DC Comics suit is a gleaming outfit that covers Irons' entire body, but the movie suit, created by Oscar-winning special makeup effects artist Greg Cannom (under time constraints, according to director Kenneth Johnson), resembles what it undoubtedly is: armor made from dull-matte fiberglass or latex. The worst part of the "Steel" suit is its clunky helmet, which resembles the hat worn by Dumb Donald from "Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids."

Costume designer Ngila Dickson was tasked with a considerable challenge on the 2011 "Green Lantern" feature. To dress Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan's alter ego, the Oscar winner had to create his iconic uniform using CGI instead of traditional costume materials. "We were literally doing like what you would sculpt in a studio, but we were doing it with a computer," she told Entertainment Weekly.

As a technological achievement, the suit in "Green Lantern" is an impressive feat. But it also looks like a blurry, glitter-streaked leotard and not flexible armor fueled by Jordan's own life force. For Reynolds, the motion capture suit was not a pleasant experience. "It's brutal doing a film where you're wearing a motion capture suit for the whole time," he said. 

Let's not forget that Reynolds already made his dislike of the suit known in the first "Deadpool" film, in which Wade Wilson begs the techs at the mutant gene laboratory to keep him out of a supersuit that was green... or animated.

The changes wrought upon Superman by producer Jon Peters in his aborted attempt to make "Superman Lives" in the 1990s have been detailed numerous times, most notably in the documentary "The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened?" Among the alterations: Peters' Superman, who would have been played by Nicolas Cage, can't fly, fights a giant spider, and trades his traditional red-and-blue suit for a metallic outfit known as the Eradicator (seen here in footage from a costume test for the film) which revives him after he is dispatched by Doomsday.

Eradicator is an established DC character, a sentient Kryptonian device that joined other Superman-affiliated characters like Steel to fight in Superman's absence. The Eradicator suit, too, turned up in several storylines as a special device to help the Last Son of Krypton regain his powers through solar energy. All might have been fine for longtime DC fans, but other viewers may have been baffled by the idea of a suit fashioned from a robot that saved Superman's life.