Anybody ever see a movie, The Undertaker and His Pals? It was so awful, it was actually pretty good. A campy take on Sweeney Todd.
Anybody ever see a movie, The Undertaker and His Pals? It was so awful, it was actually pretty good. A campy take on Sweeney Todd.
Lou
Looking forward to my day in court.
LOL....Perfect!Originally Posted by Halmyre
Not so bad actually,
Roger Corman : The Terror and Dario Argento : The cat with 9 tails are modern classic b movies and if the rest is equally good (or bad depending on your taste) it's worth the money
I will have to borrow that set from my friend. Sounds like there's some cool stuff there, also some losers but I'm down for anything.
I believe it also said that Vincent Price was in one of the movies but it didn't specify which one.
Carry On My Blood-Ejaculating Son - JKL2000
Yeah those a pretty decent. The only other one on that list I know that I saw is Horror Express and as a kid it scared the ever lovin hell out of me! I remember having nightmares from the bloody eyes for weeks. I think Tele Savales is in that one too? Anyway, I laughed watching it recently, but man that terrifeid me when I was young.
"Who would have thought a whale would be so heavy?" - Moe Sizlak
To me, what makes a movie awful is not, necessarily, bad production but a bad story/script and/or bad execution. But what takes the cake are movies that do have decent production values and yet the premise lacks no redeeming value. So much so that it makes you wish no one had ever invented movies. So my definition of worst movie ever made is one that actively promotes hatred for it.
So while Plan 9... certainly ranks near the top, the lack of production values somehow redeems it.
Thus, my two contenders would have to be...
Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. All you need to know about this movie is the definition of vile: morally despicable; abhorrent; of no worth; disgustingly or utterly bad.
The Human Centipede. This is one where I had a pretty good idea it was going to be bad and I still watched it. Stupid me. Aside from also being vile, the premise lacks internal logic; it's just flat out stupid. I read how the director came up with the story. Had he stuck to his original premise, it could have been a more interesting movie... had he known how to write it. Which I'm betting he didn't. Which is why he came up with the dreck he did. That this movie did well enough to enable sequels just goes to show how fucked up society has become.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
I always bristle at comments like this. People still go on family vacations to see a stadium in Rome that was the site of countless tens of thousands murdered for sport.
We haven't become anything. We still are what we always have been and will continue to be.
Damn, that movie looks to be what you said. Despicable and abhorrent. Or even worse.
Carry On My Blood-Ejaculating Son - JKL2000
It's a movie made by Italian writer and director Pier Paolo Pasolini , one of the most important directors of European modern cinema. It's a hard film but IMO the means to show the atrocities of the Italian fascist regime justifies the end of showing these horrible scenes.
Dieter Moebius : "Art people like things they don’t understand!"
Pasolini's last film (he was murdered shortly after) and not his best, to put it mildly. Now, Teorema - there's a great Pasolini film!
Interviewer of reprobate ne'er-do-well musicians of the long-haired rock n' roll persuasion at: www.velvetthunder.co.uk and former scribe at Classic Rock Society. Only vaguely aware of anything other than music.
*** Join me in the Garden of Delights for 3 hours of tune-spinning... every Saturday at 5pm EST on Deep Nuggets radio! www.deepnuggets.com ***
Actually the film was released after his death. Agreed, not his best film , but with all the controversy of showing physical and moral violence , that the film produced it's still an important film and worth to be seen IMO.
Dieter Moebius : "Art people like things they don’t understand!"
I think that's more about appreciating the architecture that has withstood thousands of years, despite what it was used for.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Except that over half of those movies have as much - if not more - of a connection to National Lampoon than SNL. In fact, many of SNL's cast & writers came from NL, its shows The Lemmings and the Radio Hour, and records: Belushi, Chase, Radner, the Murray bros, Anne Beatts, Michael O'Donoghue, PJ O'Rourke, etc (I just watched the NL documentary a couple weeks ago).
Two of those movies actually had the NL name in their title (Animal House and Vacation). Ivan Reitman, who produced Animal House, was also involved in some of those movies. Harold Ramis and/or Doug Kenney, both NL alumni, wrote or co-wrote many of them, as well; Groundhog Day was solely written & directed by Ramis.
Also, two of those movies' connection to SNL is a bit specious. Steve Martin, who starred in and co-wrote The Jerk, was a frequent guest on SNL but wasn't a member and was already writing for TV and doing stand-up. Billy Crystal was already a star by the time he joined SNL: he starred on Soap, was a stand-up comedian (appearing on a couple of Dean Martin roasts even before Soap), starred in Rabbit Test (the Joan Rivers' movie about the guy who gets pregnant), had a bit part in Spinal Tap, and even had his own TV show (albeit, briefly). All before SNL. Don't forget, he (along with Chris Guest & Martin Short) was only on SNL for one season.
Sure, SNL gave Belushi, Chase, Murray, and Crystal (& Martin to a degree) some drawing power at the box office, but they would have eventually made it without SNL, imo.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
I understand that the movie is intended to be allegory but the problem in this case is that the means is the end, if you know what I mean. I criticized Natural Born Killers for the same reason. Making a movie that negatively critiques something is one thing but then glorifying that very thing undercuts the point of the movie.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
I meant that he was killed shortly after completing it. I agree that it is worth seeing, depending on the viewer of course. I doubt I'll ever watch it again though, it is pretty depraved. But then, I've watched a lot of the films out there that fall under this category. I don't know why... I suppose I just like being affected by a film in one way or another. I'll take a lasting feeling of being shocked or disturbed any day over some mindless popcorn hijinks.
Interviewer of reprobate ne'er-do-well musicians of the long-haired rock n' roll persuasion at: www.velvetthunder.co.uk and former scribe at Classic Rock Society. Only vaguely aware of anything other than music.
*** Join me in the Garden of Delights for 3 hours of tune-spinning... every Saturday at 5pm EST on Deep Nuggets radio! www.deepnuggets.com ***
In the early 80s my brother and I rented a sci-fi/horror flick that was so bad it was funny. Years later, we have been searching for that movie, but we can't remember the name and we only remember portions of the film. I believe one setting is a cabin or camp, similar to Friday The 13th. We recall the ending had the female lead, a blond gal, turning into an alien. Her boyfriend sees this, turns to the camera in disgust and says something like, "Ok, that's it, I'm done." and the movie ends right there. We also remember that there were outtakes/bloopers at the end or during the credits.
Anyone ever see this awful movie with that type of ending?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks