Badmovies.org Forum

I saw "The Seed of Chucky" and absoultly hated it.  Bad story, Bad acting, bad veverything.  However, I like movies such as "Plan 9 from Outer Space" "Wild World of Batwoman" and a lot of the old cult favorites.  Bad stories, bad acting, bad effects.  What's the difference?

One solution I thought of was Unintentional bad vs Intentional bad

Ed Wood thought he was making great films, many of the B-movie makers knew they were maiking B-movies but still seemed to go at it with full force.  For whatever reasons the movie just turned out bad-Unintentionally bad

Other movies like the later Chucky movies, take effort to make themselves look campy.  The know the movie will be bad, so instead of making the movie look good they try to make it campy for campy sake

I'm sure there are other reasons.  When is a movie so bad it's good vs a movie that is so bad it's just not worth watching for any reasons?

Too many times, intentionally bad is done by just thinking a few self-referential bits and in-jokes to excuse an entire movie. 

There's also unintentionally bad versus plain boring. 

A lame monster costume with a visible zipper on the back is far more entertaining than most of the typical horror movies that are carbon copies of the monster movies from the last few eyars on Sci Fi Channel. 

"Bad" movies are  cheesy, cool and fun.  Bad movies are lame and boring.  The "bad" movie is practically a lost art nowadays.  Ed Wood was a genius in a way that he didn't even realize.  It's not easy to make a great "bad" movie.  There are many people nowadays who try to do it on purpose and fail miserably (the only exception I can think of is "Lost Skeleton of Cadavra," which I really like).  Wood did it without even trying!   

Good question.

As a reviewer I try to judge a movie based on it's competence and entertainment value, however the latter is subjective and, when it comes right down to it, what separates "bad" from really bad is mostly a matter of opinion.  Take exploitation movies for example.  Some are unintentionally funny and thus great fun to watch, whereas others were obviously done on the quick solely by people looking to make a quick buck and it shows.  I tend not to like the latter much but are they really bad?

Well Spaced Out (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079937/) I didn't care for despite the fact the producers obviously had access to a theater's prop department.  It's not necessarily a bad movie, just inept from beginning to end.  On the other hand I really enjoyed Space Thing (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0063631/).  A movie's whose props included an unpainted model of the Enterprise and plastic green garbage cans turned upside down used for mess hall chairs!

Space Thing, IMO, had a naïve charm whereas Spaced Out was just lame.  Both are "sci-fi" and while Spaced Out looks technically to have superior production values I'd not recommend it to anyone.  I feel that strongly about it being crap.  Of course that's a personal opinion, just as is the fact I'd recommend Space Thing despite it technically being the inferior picture, production wise.

Then again, to be perfectly honest, there's movies that I don't really have a strong opinion of one way or the other.  Movies like Cinderella 2000 (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0075850/) and Zeta One (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0065243/).  Both are competent B-movie productions but I don't think either is particularly good or bad, they're just sort of there.  Which perhaps says more about the movies than any gushing of candy cane delight or volcanic hatred.

Speaking of gushing candy cane delight have you seen Lifeforce (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0089489/)?  :cheers:

Mancini said that " chucky isn't scary anymore" , christ don that doesnt mean make it so its SUPPOSED to be funny. black humor in the franchise is one thing but intentionally just making the dolls crack jokes and whatnot is lame. they should just put good ol chuck back by himself give him a make-over (pre-frank look), have him not have so much screen time and make him go after a child again. if a new flick took that direction and took itself seriously i think it would be very good actually. they are planning part 6, apprently its already written, lets hope it was better than 5.

Sam Sherman once said of his partner in crime Al Adamson "If you gave Al a bunch of rotton lemons,and asked him what he could do with it,his response was-well,I'll make rotton lemonade!". On a miniscule budget,the great "bad" movie makers would try like hell to make a good movie. Camp for camps sake is just bad,and usually dumb and pretentious.Loved SATAN's CHEERLEADERS,though and am not sure what catagory it fits in...!

The trouble with those intentionally campy movies is that they're trying to be comedies, but genuinely funny movies are about the rarest thing on Earth.  I'd say maybe 1 in 50 attempts actually succeeds.  The unintentionally "bad" movies are on an entirely different level of humor.  There's just something about someone trying their very best to do a good job but failing miserably that actually is genuinely funny.  Having said that, there are the rare exceptions, usually when an experienced low budget film maker decides to have some fun.  I think Jim Wynorsky had a few of these, like Chopping Mall and Slumber Party Massacre 2 - Nighty Nightmare.  But nowadays he seems to have quit trying and is just churning out crap to make money. 

The other problem is this recent trend in film making where these no-talent hack first-time nobodies assume they're "above" the low budget genre, they think they're freakin' geniuses, and so they try to "poke fun" at the genre and predictably turn out the worst crap imaginable.  It's very pretentious of them, but that's to be expected considering the size of their ego.  I guess there's a market for this junk, especially since these days people will laugh at just about any damned thing at all. 

Still, there are a lot of people honestly trying to make the best movies possible, but having only enough money to buy a used Chevy Chevette.  Most of their efforts are dismal failures (just like they've always been), but there are the occasional gems.  And there is a smattering of okay stuff, worth adding to your DVD collection even though it's not great, but watchable.

I think the same can be said about spoofs.  And I don't mean the teen comedies masquerading as spoofs Hollywood has been churning out in recent years in a effort to cash in on their own movies, I mean genuine spoofs.

they are planning part 6, apprently its already written, lets hope it was better than 5.


Atmittedly I wasnt as offended by seed of chucky as most people were, but I can see where you're coming from. On one of the dvd extras, jennifer tilly mentions that don was in the middle of writing the next one during the filming of seed, its to be called something along the lines of "chucky goes hawaiian", which pretty much tells you what direction theyre going in.

Maybe they should reclassify things like this?

Boring, sleep inducing bad movies - the absolute worst kind of movie. (Monster From Green Hell probably qualifies here).

Funny Bad Movies - any bad movie capable of giving you some entertainment value via laughter on a continuous basis, unintentional or not. These are likely the films we most treasure in these parts and those which tend to get a lot of slimes in reviews. (Starcrash is one for me).

Low Budget Movies Only Bad because of limitations (some may even feel these movies are actually good): I feel Teenage Caveman qualifies here. Likely a whole lot of Corman's directorial output does too.

Big Budget Mindlessly Bad Eye Candy Films: Those films that have no real substance other than the eye candy FX they offer the audience. Amrageddon qualifies here.

Offensive Bad Movies. Movies that require the utmost in bad taste for one to enjoy or rely entirely on sex, violence, nudity or shock exploitation to get people watching and don't concern themselves in the least with story.  Stuff like having women parade around nekkid for no good reason.

So O.K. I could go one forever. Let's just say if you feel it's bad, it's a bad movie. However  I think the Funny Bad Movies will get the preferential treatment in these parts.

I don't mind intentionally bad movies if they're well. I actually really enjoyed Seed of Chucky. Things as simple as bringing in John Waters really made me excited. A great great great intentionally bad movie is "The Lost Skeleton of Cadvera". I mean you can't really complain about intentionally bad cinema when most of us on this message board probably have fair stock of Troma Movies at home.

I liked BRIDE of CHUCKY,simply for the fact is that it was ...dare I say it...GOOD! It had all the elements of good exploitation(blood,messydeath, sex, lame jokes) and was a lotta fun. Crap like SNAKES on a PLANE...which I just saw...is...I dunno....I think it's trying to be a spoof of AIRPORT films of the 70's...but those movies were(dare I say it) BETTER and more entertaining,even though they were big budget B's themselves.In fact I thought AIRPORT 75 was the best of the series...)

Just throwing my pasta against the wall.  If any sticks, great.

I've always used the term "crap" for films that are sub-par but fun or entertaining. "Crap" is the term most of us use when we let our friends ride in our car and we have to move our "crap" so they can sit down.  "Crap" is stuff that makes our lives more our own, and that is how I view all the worthless films that have had me on the floor or wishing I knew someone else who enjoyed the same "crap" so I could share it.

"Sh*t" is the term I use for films I'd happily leave under a pile of leaves in the woods or steaming in some cafe that gave me awful service. "Sh*t" is dismissive, something we find unacceptable and of no value. "Throw that sh*t away."  "Get rid of that sh*t."
Unless you're talking about drugs, then "sh*t" has a different connotation, but that is something for another board, I think.

Long live crap!