Worst movie ever made?

[raj]

Oh no, any movie starring a naked Natasha Kinski could never be all that bad!

[raj]

Auuggghhhhhhh!  Flashbacks, no, the horror, the horror.

That's it.  Shudder.  Avoid this at all costs, it has no redeeming qualities, either intentional or non.

Brother Ragnarok wrote:
>
> Urg.  The movie you're talking about is, I believe, Death
> Head Virgin.  It has something to do with voodoo and the
> figurehead of an old boat that comes to life and kills people
> or something to that effect.  And you're right, it's a dull,
> boring pile of crap that could put you to sleep if you had an
> IV caffiene line straight into your heart.
>
> Brother R

[Brother Ragnarok]

If you want to see Nastasia Kinski naked, rent Cat People.  Besides the boobies (giggle), it's actually a good movie.

Brother R

[Evan3]

Let me tell you. There is an old horror one called the Relic. It was sooooooo crazy and sooooooo stupid. Ugh! The monster's origin was terrible too, it was mailed to a museum, alive and ready to kill, no radiation or anything.

As for mainstream movies, another awful movie was that Leo movie Romeo and Juliet. Yuk. How bizzare was that.

Also, dont dare butcher history by calling the Patriot a historical drama. I am a History major. I am touchy about these things.

But nothing as I have said, will be as awful as American Psycho/.

[TC]

I would say that the Relic was a pretty mainsteam horror movie, and a decent one at that.  It was based on an even better book by the same name.   For a movie to be bad for me, it has to be bad in every respect.  At least movies like Planet of the Apes, Pearl Harbor, ect. are technically compentant.  I like my bad movies to scream "This move was made by a bunch of guys who had nothing to do after bowling season was over, so they threw this together"

[Fearless Freep]

But nothing as I have said, will be as awful as American Psycho/.

Oh...puh-leeze.  I'm watching Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn this week.  (Having just survived "Ator, The Fighting Eagle" and "The Blade Master")

[Pancho]

I didn't think it was that good...........

[BryceDavid]

A film can be *really* bad and still be technically competent. Personally, I thinks it's too easy to knock a low budget film that cost $50. If a movie with a $200 million budget that looks 100% competently made but stinks to high heavan because of bad acting or really bad dialogue or really crappy end results, well, I believe can be one of the worst movies ever. Take WILD WILD WEST for example. Absolutely pitiful in every respect but it's still "competent" looking. There are tons of big budget movies from Hollywood these days that make PLAN 9 look like a masterpiece.

[Scott]

Yea, I was very dissappointed when I went to see WILD WILD WEST.

[TC]

Except for the brief glimpse of Salma Hayek's ass.  That was a-ok with me.

[Creepozoid]

No one's mentioned any shamless vehicles for singers or chick flicks. What up wit dat?

[Fearless Freep]

No one's mentioned any shamless vehicles for singers

Of course!  I completely forgot the Jon Mikl Thor vehicle Rock And Roll Nightmare

[Fearless Freep]

A film can be *really* bad and still be technically competent.

Yes, a movie can be compentantly produced and still be 'bad' due to bad acting, story, etc...

A movie can also be fairly good even if's a micro-budget.  The production value may be zilch  (see the wires on the UFO and the zipper on the monster costume?) but it can have an intelligent story and good acting and still be enjoyable to watch if you are willing to look passed the 'I financed this of my parents credit card' look.

I'm usually willing to give that weight in coming up with an opinion about a movie.  I usually ask myself "what are they trying to do?  Is it worth doing? And how close to the mark did they come?"

Look, a slasher flck is just trying to be a slasher flick.  Not a lot of pretension and a fairly low hurdle to clear.  You kinda know what to expect; if they do it well: kudos, if not: well...    This is different from something like "Ishtar" or "Battlefield Earth" where they have the personal and the money to make something good and by all rights they should be able to.   But a compenenly made, professionally produced but stupid movie still doesn't hurt as much as a low budget movie with delusions of granduer, a confusing story and bad acting.

I happen to watch a lot of post-apoc sci fi movies, often involving androids or time travel, or both.  Lot of those out there; some are well done, some are not.  I'm not going to compare "Eliminators" to say "Lion In Winter", but I will compare it to "Equalizer 2000"

[JohnL]

>It has something to do with voodoo and the figurehead of an old boat that comes
>to life and kills people

Stop, you're making me want to see this movie! :)

One of my personal worst is To the Ends of Time. It starts with *FLYING* sailing ships attacking an apparently floating castle, with cannons. The king orders the wizard to come up with the ultimate weapon, so he creates a clock that will cause their enemies to age and die in a matter of days or hours and which, once started, can *NEVER* be stopped. The king is horrified and tells him to destroy it. Well duh! When did you think he was going to make when you asked for the ultimate weapon??? Of course an evil sorceress steals it and turns it on, causing the peaceful kingdom to start aging rapidly, which means the actors start wearing really phony looking old age makeup. A young boy goes on a quest to stop the clock and ends up dying of old age right as he gets there, but as he dies, he drops the ring the princess gave him, into the giant clock. This causes it to be destroyed and everything goes back to the way it was. Hmm, an unstoppable clock that falls apart if you drop a little piece of metal into the giant wooden gears.

Now that I'm remembering it again, I have the urge to gouge my one good eye out with a fork.

[Evan3]

hmmm, Does anyone remember that movie Mr. Mom with Hulk Hogan, I think I reppressed it.