dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (09/24/85)
In article <1188@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: >... I have never seen a film (or read a book) that was totally >bad or totally good. I tend to weigh the bad and good elements ... When I saw this I couldn't help but think, "He's probably right about there not being a totally good movie. But there have GOT to be some movies that are totally BAD." I could not recall seeing a movie myself that I would judge as being totally bad, but I figured it might be because I tend to avoid movies whose titles indicate that there might not be one good thing to be said about them. "Return to Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch Wedding" come to mind as movies I avoided because of the title. So I went around and polled some of my colleagues, to see if they could name some movies that were totally bad. The criteria for acceptance were: (1) It must be a movie made for theatres (TV movies don't count; they would probably overload the list). (2) There must not be one single good thing to say about it; if the movies were bad overall, but had one good scene or good direction, or a short clip of good cinematography, it would not qualify as a totally bad movie. There must be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to be said about any part of the movie in order for it to make the list. (3) The film need not be horrible in all respects (i.e., it may be mediocre on some points); but it MAY NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE thing that could be said to have been done well, or even the least bit above mediocre. And it must have at least one thing which is done truly badly. So far the nominations are: Sheena of the Jungle (No plot, bad acting, didn't even show any good skin. Direction mediocre at best.) Silent Night, Deadly Night (This is the only movie that I saw Siskel and Ebert actually get furious at. It was so offensive and bad that many theatres wouldn't show it.) Sword and the Sorcerer (Just plain boring.) Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (A spoof that didn't come off. Had a maudlin ending, and terrible acting.) I haven't seen any of these myself, so I cannot offer an opinion on them. I am just reporting results. Anybody out there have any other nominations? Or perhaps additional criteria that I might have left out? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of RCA Cylix. They may not even reflect my own.)
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (09/25/85)
To put in my two cents worth:
The Gong Show Movie - even worse than you would expect from the
title
and
Star Crash - this was a sci-fi picture with Marjoe Gortner
--
Joel Upchurch
Perkin-Elmer Southern Development Center
2486 Sand Lake Road/ Orlando, Florida 32809/ (305)850-1031
{decvax!ucf-cs, ihnp4!pesnta, vax135!petsd}!peora!joelclif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (09/26/85)
> In article <1188@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > >... I have never seen a film (or read a book) that was totally > >bad or totally good. I tend to weigh the bad and good elements ... > > So I went around and polled some of my colleagues, to see if they could > name some movies that were totally bad. The criteria for acceptance were: > (1) It must be a movie made for theatres (TV movies don't count; > they would probably overload the list). > (2) There must not be one single good thing to say about it; if > the movies were bad overall, but had one good scene or > good direction, or a short clip of good cinematography, > it would not qualify as a totally bad movie. There must > be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to be said about any part > of the movie in order for it to make the list. > (3) The film need not be horrible in all respects (i.e., it may be > mediocre on some points); but it MAY NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE > thing that could be said to have been done well, or > even the least bit above mediocre. And it must have at > least one thing which is done truly badly. > > So far the nominations are: > > Sheena of the Jungle (No plot, bad acting, didn't even show > any good skin. Direction mediocre at best.) > > Silent Night, Deadly Night (This is the only movie that I > saw Siskel and Ebert actually get furious at. It was > so offensive and bad that many theatres wouldn't show it.) > > Sword and the Sorcerer (Just plain boring.) > > Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (A spoof that didn't come off. > Had a maudlin ending, and terrible acting.) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) > > (The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect > those of RCA Cylix. They may not even reflect my own.) I second the nomination of Sheena of the Jungle, but I'd take Sword_and_ the_Sorcerer off the list, good swordplay, and skin (horrible movie otherwise). I liked to nominate Winds of Change. It was an horrible animated flick that came and went in about 2 weeks in 1980 or 1981. The plot?? concerned a series of short stories allegedly about Greek mythology. The animatation was some of the worse I have every seen. (worse than Speed Racer) and stories were unbelievably boring. It is one of only two films I have every walked out on. My other nomination is for Dungeon Master, reviewed about 1 month ago, medicore special effects, attrocious plot, and incrediably wooden acting. Neither, of this movies were so bad that they were good, like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or any off the numerous Teenage Sexplotation flicks shown on Showtime. -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x258) (09/28/85)
> Sword and the Sorcerer (Just plain boring.) > ..... > Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) WHAT?!?!?! It was a GREAT movie!!!! It was the closest to a real D&D game ANY movie ever got! Just think, where else have you seen a crucified hero pulling the nails he is hanging on out and then going on to swing his sword and kill bed guys ( never mind the holes in his palms, they vanish in the next scene -- healing potion, I guess ). That, silly special effects and the pathetic acting make it one of the best movies I've seen since "Plan 9 From Outer Space"!!!! Also, how could you have missed these gems: "Beast Master" "Blade Master" "Conquest" (Italian Heroic Fantasy trash - I rented it on videotape and couldn't stand watching it for more that 20 min...) "Dungeon Master" ( aren't there TOO many bad movies that mention word "Master" in their title???) "Yor, Hunter From the Future"
akhanna@bbncc5.UUCP (Atul C. Khanna) (09/30/85)
In article <97@intelca.UUCP> clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) writes: >> So I went around and polled some of my colleagues, to see if they could >> name some movies that were totally bad. The criteria for acceptance were: >> (1) It must be a movie made for theatres (TV movies don't count; >> they would probably overload the list). >> (2) There must not be one single good thing to say about it; if >> the movies were bad overall, but had one good scene or >> good direction, or a short clip of good cinematography, >> it would not qualify as a totally bad movie. There must >> be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to be said about any part >> of the movie in order for it to make the list. >> (3) The film need not be horrible in all respects (i.e., it may be >> mediocre on some points); but it MAY NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE >> thing that could be said to have been done well, or >> even the least bit above mediocre. And it must have at >> least one thing which is done truly badly. >> >> So far the nominations are: >> >> Sheena of the Jungle (No plot, bad acting, didn't even show >> any good skin. Direction mediocre at best.) >> >> Silent Night, Deadly Night (This is the only movie that I >> saw Siskel and Ebert actually get furious at. It was >> so offensive and bad that many theatres wouldn't show it.) >> >> Sword and the Sorcerer (Just plain boring.) >> >> Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (A spoof that didn't come off. >> Had a maudlin ending, and terrible acting.) >> I don't think any of these could be much worse than "Insignificance", an attempted comedy dealing with a hypothetical (?) affair between Einstein and Marilyn Monroe. Of course, my opinion is based upon the first fifty minutes only, after which I left. -- Atul C. Khanna The better a pie tastes, the worse it is for you.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/30/85)
In article <314@cylixd.UUCP> dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) writes: >So I went around and polled some of my colleagues, to see if they could >name some movies that were totally bad. The criteria for acceptance were: > (1) It must be a movie made for theatres (TV movies don't count; > they would probably overload the list). > (2) There must not be one single good thing to say about it; if > the movies were bad overall, but had one good scene or > good direction, or a short clip of good cinematography, > it would not qualify as a totally bad movie. There must > be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to be said about any part > of the movie in order for it to make the list. > (3) The film need not be horrible in all respects (i.e., it may be > mediocre on some points); but it MAY NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE > thing that could be said to have been done well, or > even the least bit above mediocre. And it must have at > least one thing which is done truly badly. > >So far the nominations are: > > Sheena of the Jungle (No plot, bad acting, didn't even show > any good skin. Direction mediocre at best.) > Well, I can say one(or maybe two) good things about it. It was filmed on location in East Africa and showed some really beautiful wilderness scenery, and some of the cinematography in the film was actually fairly good(especially in filming the scenery). Ah well, it came *close* to being totally bad. I nominate Supergirl. It was even worse, and showed even less skin. And the special effects were *lousy*. > Silent Night, Deadly Night (This is the only movie that I > saw Siskel and Ebert actually get furious at. It was > so offensive and bad that many theatres wouldn't show it.) > > Sword and the Sorcerer (Just plain boring.) > > Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (A spoof that didn't come off. > Had a maudlin ending, and terrible acting.) > I haven't seen any of these others either. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
lcliffor@bbncca.ARPA (Laura Frank Clifford) (09/30/85)
Would someone care to review "Insignificance" - I've been looking forward to seeing it, namely because I'm a big Nicholas Roeg fan. The Boston Globe gave "Insignificance" four out of four stars.
zuker@cxsea.UUCP (Hunter Zuker) (09/30/85)
Bad movie nominee: The Ninja Mission (-4 all the way)
shuju@videovax.UUCP (Shuju Burgess) (09/30/85)
> > In article <1188@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > > >... I have never seen a film (or read a book) that was totally > > >bad or totally good. I tend to weigh the bad and good elements ... How about 'Hercules'? This is the all-time favorite of mine for bad-movie- nomination. I am ashamed to say that it was my selection for the evening, and to this day, my spouse will not let me forget it (it's been 2 years...)! Shu-Ju
knf@druxo.UUCP (FricklasK) (10/10/85)
Anyone else see "Frat House", the parody/rip off of Animal House? '`'` Ken '`'`
knf@druxo.UUCP (FricklasK) (10/10/85)
>How about 'Hercules'? This is the all-time favorite of mine for bad-movie- >nomination. I am ashamed to say that it was my selection for the evening, >and to this day, my spouse will not let me forget it (it's been 2 years...)! > >Shu-Ju I agree. This is BAD heroic epic combined with <get this> sci-fi special effects that look pretty similar in quality to the spaceship hanging from a rope on an episode of 'Saturday Night Live'. A minus 5 on a scale of -4 to 4. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. '`'` Ken '`'`
boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN) (10/10/85)
> From: gymble!dday > IT CONQUERED THE WORLD (it didn't really; also may have the > distinction of being the worst movie > ever *remade* into an even worse movie; I > think the remake was called ZONTAR, THE > THING FROM VENUS.) Agreed. The only runner up for that distinction is THE SHE CREATURE, which was remade as the even worse CREATURE OF DESTRUCTION. > ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES -- I'll probably get flamed for this > because I've seen some expressions of enthusiasm for it on the > net, but any true conneisseur (sp?) of bad science fiction will > recognize it as an extremely weak attempt to satirize same. It > simply fails to recognize that you can't satirize something which > is already in the realm of self-parody. A definite must-miss. Well, I won't flame, but I won't agree, either. One reviewer said of it, "When a movie deliberately sets out to be bad, can you really blame it if it succeeds?" I like KILLER TOMATOES, and I think it successfully parodies bad science fiction movies. But, I agree that it is, in itself, a bad movie as it is poorly produced. It also doesn't hold up to repeated viewing. What makes it a successful parody in my mind is the ideas that it came up with. Anyways, there are some scenes that redeem the movie. The Japanese scientist with the overdubbed dialogue; the Ultimate Commercial ("This is Jesus Christ for Technotronics..."); and other assorted bits. I still go into chuckles when I think of the radio commercial for the record "Dead Beats", featuring Buddy Holly, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, etc. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (10/10/85)
I offer a word of caution when nominating movies for the totally bad list. A boring movie does not make it totally bad. Poor acting does not make it totally bad. Poor special effects does not make it totally bad. Bad story does not make it totally bad. No plot does not make it totally bad. It's the combination of all these factors that matters. Several movies on the list are less than five years old; caution, it's very easy to bad mouth a movie because you don't like it. DEAL OF THE CENTURY, HURCULEASE (SP?), and SHEENA do not belong on the list. The REALLY bad movies were made during the 50's and 60's. Another movie that I would like to nominate is POOR WHITE TRASH. The title is self descriptive.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/12/85)
In article <3098@hplabsb.UUCP> bl@hplabsb.UUCP writes: >I offer a word of caution when nominating movies for the totally bad list. >A boring movie does not make it totally bad. Poor acting does not make it >totally bad. Poor special effects does not make it totally bad. Bad story >does not make it totally bad. No plot does not make it totally bad. It's >the combination of all these factors that matters. Several movies on the >list are less than five years old; caution, it's very easy to bad mouth >a movie because you don't like it. DEAL OF THE CENTURY, HURCULEASE (SP?), >and SHEENA do not belong on the list. Au contraire, Pierre, you've described SHEENA to a Tee. (1) The only non-boring parts occur when you are laughing at how bad it is. (2) Poor acting? Tanya Roberts acts? Could have fooled me. (3) Poor special effects? During the "Attack of Killer Flamingoes" we see these people in a helocopter being beaten by what is obviously a flamingo head brandished as a club by a man behind the camera. (4) Bad story? Why do they always have to wait for a land rover to roll up so that they can perform their ancient healing ritual? (5) No Plot? Well, it does seem to have something vaguely resembling a plot, but only in the form of something to drag the actors around. There's no way you can accuse it of making any sense at all. I had a lot of fun watching SHEENA; but it's undeniably a Bad Movie. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday." - M. Fox
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (10/16/85)
In article <3098@hplabsb.UUCP> bl@hplabsb.UUCP writes: >I offer a word of caution when nominating movies for the totally bad list. >A boring movie does not make it totally bad. Poor acting does not make it >totally bad. Poor special effects does not make it totally bad. Bad story >does not make it totally bad. No plot does not make it totally bad. It's >the combination of all these factors that matters. Several movies on the >list are less than five years old; caution, it's very easy to bad mouth >a movie because you don't like it... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Very well said, bl@hplabsb.UUCP! For the record, and in case some have gotten in on this discussion late, let me post the four rules by which a movie is judged a Totally Bad Movie. Look over the lists and see if you can find films that violate one or more of these criteria. (1) Must be a movie made for theatres (no TV movies or home videos). (2) There must not be ONE SINGLE GOOD THING to be said about it. One good clip or scene or aspect (such as direction, acting, cinematography, or even editing) disqualifies a film from the Totally Bad Movie list. (3) The film may be mediocre on some points, but it must not be above mediocre in ANY aspect or in ANY scene. And it must have at least one thing that was done BADLY. (4) The film must be offensive and a waste of time to anyone who watches it. It must not be funny or amusing in any way; even its badness must not be funny. It must be a total ripoff and a waste of time. Note that "Plan 9" and "The Creeping Terror" unintentionally violate rule #4, in that they are so bad they are good. "Felicity" and "A Certain Sacrifice," on the other hand, qualify as Totally Bad Movies in that they are bad without being amusingly so. They are total ripoffs. Now that you have the rules all in one place, please feel free to hack away at the list. It is getting out of hand. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (The views expressed herein are the exclusive property of Dave Kirby. Any person, living or dead, found with the same or similar opinions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law.)
wersan@daemen.UUCP (John Slasher Wersan III) (10/18/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR POPCORN ***
I vote for:
"Mr. Mikes Mondo Video"
This was originaly intended for T.V. (In place of Saturday Night)
but the censors would not allow it. So they released it to the
theaters. TOTALY ROTTEN. The only good part was the end, because
that ment you were done with this crap (sorry ladies).
--
John Wersan
UUCP : {decvax,dual,watmath,rocksanne,rocksvax}!sunybcs!daemen!wersan
"Any statements made are not mine, this computer has me mistaken
for someone else, of lower intelligence."
"The doctor said I had dain bramage...
But my friends don't know what 'dat shit is"leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (10/18/85)
>> IT CONQUERED THE WORLD (it didn't really; also may have the >> distinction of being the worst movie >> ever *remade* into an even worse movie; I >> think the remake was called ZONTAR, THE >> THING FROM VENUS.) > >Agreed. The only runner up for that distinction is THE SHE CREATURE, which >was remade as the even worse CREATURE OF DESTRUCTION. > Why, I am surprise at you, Jerry. There is a lot more you should be saying here that you are not. The other pair of equally bad films that were remade into equally worse were INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN remade as THE EYE CREATURES and THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED remade as IN THE YEAR 2889. The four first versions were made by American International Pictures (AIP). They are the people who made a lot of cheap horror (they started showing some quality with their series of Poe films) and beach blanket films in the 50's and 60's. They are still around but have been absorbed by Filmways. Roger Corman was their best known producer. In the 60's they started producing films on the super-cheap to be shown on TV. The branch of AIP that made them was called Azalia. On way to save money was to not write a new script, just having someone spend an evening making changes to an existing script. Hence, the term remake REALLY applies here more than just about any other films ever. Actually, of the originals only SHE CREATURE was really a bad film. Every one of the remakes was a -4 film. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
datanguay@watdaisy.UUCP (David Tanguay) (10/18/85)
There was a 3D movie a few years (4, 5?) back called "Frankenstein". I remember it as the worst movies I've ever seen, but then I haven't seen the 'classics'. Even the 3D effects were terrible. Does anybody remember this movie? David Tanguay
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (10/20/85)
Oh yes, one more film Azalea did, the infamous MARS NEED WOMEN. However, by the new rules I am not sure if Azalea films count, since they were never made to be shown in theaters. They were made to be sold in packages to TV. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (10/20/85)
>There was a 3D movie a few years (4, 5?) back called >"Frankenstein". I remember it as the worst movies I've ever >seen, but then I haven't seen the 'classics'. Even the 3D >effects were terrible. Does anybody remember this movie? Sure I remember. You are talking about the film generally called Andy Warhol's FRANKENSTEIN. I think Warhol must have produced it because it was directed by Paul Morrissey. It was done in 3D and made in 1973, though it was rereleased during the 3D craze a few years ago. When I saw it there was the wrong lense on one of the projectors so the first, third, and fifth reel were in 3D and the second and fourth were in Blurry. The film was actually shot as FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. It was made to be shown with a film called BLOOD FOR DRACULA, which also starred Udo Kier. The most memorable line, Doc Frankenstein has been having is way with a surgically open corpse and says dramatically "To understand life, you must fuck death... in the gall bladder." Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN) (11/01/85)
> From: mtgzz!leeper (Mark Leeper) > Why, I am surprise at you, Jerry. There is a lot more you should be > saying here that you are not. The other pair of equally bad films that > were remade into equally worse were INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN remade > as THE EYE CREATURES and THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED remade as IN THE YEAR > 2889. The four first versions were made by American International > Pictures (AIP). They are the people who made a lot of cheap horror > (they started showing some quality with their series of Poe films) and > beach blanket films in the 50's and 60's. They are still around but > have been absorbed by Filmways. Roger Corman was their best known > producer. In the 60's they started producing films on the super-cheap > to be shown on TV. The branch of AIP that made them was called > Azalia. On way to save money was to not write a new script, just > having someone spend an evening making changes to an existing script. > Hence, the term remake REALLY applies here more than just about any > other films ever. Actually, of the originals only SHE CREATURE was > really a bad film. Every one of the remakes was a -4 film. Gee, do I dare confess that though I have seen THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED (but not since I was a wee lad), I have yet to see the remake? On the other hand, I really should have remembered SAUCER MEN/EYE CREATURES. I hearby hang my head in shame. I shouldn't feel *too* guilty, though, since filmography is only my hobby, and not my business. :-) --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...} !decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA