Worst Film Ever Watched!

Welcome to the Sir Terry Pratchett Forums
Register here for the Sir Terry Pratchett forum and message boards.
Sign up

raisindot

Sergeant-at-Arms
Oct 1, 2009
5,126
2,450
Boston, MA USA
#41
raptornx01 said:
There's nothing that came out in the last 20-30 years that could be considered the worst anything (except maybe worst of the last 20 years :laugh: ). 40's, 50's, and 60's now, that's different. Between Elvira, MST3k, Joe Bob Briggs, random blockbuster rentals, TNT's 100% weird, USA late night and rifftracks, i've seen 1000's of the most horrible creations to come out of hollywood.
I'd say the exact opposite. With nearly every Hollywood movie being either based on comic books or 70s TV shows, or some totally inane CGI-laden blow up fest, low-budget and horribly sadistic slasherfest, inane double-digit IQ "romantic comedy" or idiotic testosterone-driven action flick, I'd say the last 20 years have been the worst in the history of films. At least in the 40s, 50s and 60s you had people like John Ford, Billy Wilder, Sidney Lumet, Hitchcock, William Wyler, Fellini, Kurosawa, Goddard, Truffaut cranking out masterpieces whose quality made up for the thousands of B movies made during this time. Today, the only time you see a movie of good quality is the when Martin Scorcese comes up with a true winner every now and then. :laugh:
 
Nov 15, 2011
3,310
2,650
Aust.
#44
Fargo is brilliant.

I'm gonna say, the movie of my favourite book - The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy. Good cast, pretty good effects. Why, why, why! Why was it so bad?
 
Jan 13, 2012
2,337
2,600
South florida, US
www.youtube.com
#47
raisindot said:
I'd say the exact opposite. With nearly every Hollywood movie being either based on comic books or 70s TV shows, or some totally inane CGI-laden blow up fest, low-budget and horribly sadistic slasherfest, inane double-digit IQ "romantic comedy" or idiotic testosterone-driven action flick, I'd say the last 20 years have been the worst in the history of films. At least in the 40s, 50s and 60s you had people like John Ford, Billy Wilder, Sidney Lumet, Hitchcock, William Wyler, Fellini, Kurosawa, Goddard, Truffaut cranking out masterpieces whose quality made up for the thousands of B movies made during this time. Today, the only time you see a movie of good quality is the when Martin Scorcese comes up with a true winner every now and then. :laugh:
As opposed to nearly every Hollywood movie being based on a play, or musical, spaghetti western, cheap sci-fi, government propoganda films, And today and the last 30 you have Miyazaki, Spielberg, Cameron, Niel Blomkamp, Peter Jackson, Baz lurman, Chris Columbus, John Landis, Jim Henson, Tarentino, Coppola, etc etc.
 

Quatermass

Sergeant-at-Arms
Dec 7, 2010
7,739
2,950
#49
raptornx01 said:
raisindot said:
I'd say the exact opposite. With nearly every Hollywood movie being either based on comic books or 70s TV shows, or some totally inane CGI-laden blow up fest, low-budget and horribly sadistic slasherfest, inane double-digit IQ "romantic comedy" or idiotic testosterone-driven action flick, I'd say the last 20 years have been the worst in the history of films. At least in the 40s, 50s and 60s you had people like John Ford, Billy Wilder, Sidney Lumet, Hitchcock, William Wyler, Fellini, Kurosawa, Goddard, Truffaut cranking out masterpieces whose quality made up for the thousands of B movies made during this time. Today, the only time you see a movie of good quality is the when Martin Scorcese comes up with a true winner every now and then. :laugh:
As opposed to nearly every Hollywood movie being based on a play, or musical, spaghetti western, cheap sci-fi, government propoganda films, And today and the last 30 you have Miyazaki, Spielberg, Cameron, Niel Blomkamp, Peter Jackson, Baz lurman, Chris Columbus, John Landis, Jim Henson, Tarentino, Coppola, etc etc.
Agreed. Modern movies aren't all shit, though I imagine Sturgeon's Revelation applies to both modern and old movies as well as literature. If you don't know what Sturgeon's Revelation is, it states "90% of everything is crap".
 

Ziriath

Constable
Oct 15, 2011
62
2,150
33
Brno, Czech Republic
#50
Star trek TMP (1979)

A very disappointing movie. There were some good parts (transporter failure, main theme) and the FX are not bad, but it was seven hours of Enterprise flying out of the spacedock. Or it seemed to me that way. My favourite characters were reduced to some kind of walking equipment, wearing godawful vomit-colored jumpsuits, walking there like they had a stick shoved up their ass and were stuck in shallow, boring conversations.I am a Trekkie, but it doesn't mean I have to like everything named Star trek. In fact, only movies II and VI I find good.
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
30,841
3,650
Cardiff, Wales
#51
Ziriath said:
Star trek TMP (1979)

A very disappointing movie. There were some good parts (transporter failure, main theme) and the FX are not bad, but it was seven hours of Enterprise flying out of the spacedock. Or it seemed to me that way. My favourite characters were reduced to some kind of walking equipment, wearing godawful vomit-colored jumpsuits, walking there like they had a stick shoved up their ass and were stuck in shallow, boring conversations.I am a Trekkie, but it doesn't mean I have to like everything named Star trek. In fact, only movies II and VI I find good.
I completely agree! I was very disappointed when it came out. Thank goodness for Wrath of Khan! ;)
 

Willem

Sergeant
Jan 11, 2010
1,201
2,600
Weert, The Netherlands
#53
Ziriath said:
Star trek TMP (1979)

A very disappointing movie. There were some good parts (transporter failure, main theme) and the FX are not bad, but it was seven hours of Enterprise flying out of the spacedock. Or it seemed to me that way. My favourite characters were reduced to some kind of walking equipment, wearing godawful vomit-colored jumpsuits, walking there like they had a stick shoved up their ass and were stuck in shallow, boring conversations.I am a Trekkie, but it doesn't mean I have to like everything named Star trek. In fact, only movies II and VI I find good.
Yup, number one is sllllllooooooowwwwwwww. II and VI are awesome, don't care much for the rest either.
 

Dotsie

Sergeant-at-Arms
Jul 28, 2008
9,068
2,850
#55
It was appalling, I agree, but I'm not so much against the rest - except V, which was pretty dreadful.
 

David Brown

Lance-Corporal
Jul 4, 2011
289
2,275
West Sussex
#56
How about Carry on England?

I saw that on late night television a long time ago, but I still can't shake the feeling that it was derivative, unfunny smut with no redeeming features. And "smut" is a politer word than one I could use...
 

The Mad Collector

Sergeant-at-Arms
Sep 1, 2010
9,918
2,850
61
Ironbridge UK
www.bearsonthesquare.com
#58
fids said:
Rat Pfink a Boo Boo

can only be watched while under the influence of strong drink
I've seen it, I always assumed that strong drink at the very least was administered to the cast about halfway through which explains the complete change of plot, acting style (phrase used loosely) and direction at that point.

The trouble with the concept of this thread is that truly awful films often pass out through the other side of awfulness and become compelling by the sheer scale of their terrible nature. Making 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' one of the all time classic movies because it is so unbelievably bad.

I recommend the following as classics of their type all of which were featured in The Worst of Hollywood TV series in 1983 and got me so interested in these terrible films:
Plan 9 from Outer Space
The Creeping Terror
The Wild Women of Wongo
They Saved Hitler's Brain
Mars Needs Women
Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster
The Thing With Two Heads
Eegah
Robot Monster
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - the Christmas edition
 

The Mad Collector

Sergeant-at-Arms
Sep 1, 2010
9,918
2,850
61
Ironbridge UK
www.bearsonthesquare.com
#60
I've seen all of them and have several on DVD :rolleyes:

It's the shower curtain as the spaceship cockpit door that gets me every time with Plan 9 :laugh: oh and the fact that the star Bela Lugosi died after filming less than 3 or 4 minutes so was replaced by an amateur actor who was a lot taller and looked nothing like him who had to keep his cloak over his face throughout the rest of the movie so it wasn't too obvious :rolleyes:

 

User Menu

Newsletter