Choose the Worst Movie: No Conclusion, Just Opinions!

[jdb1]

Actually, maybe not. He was not amused that Frank Zappa once said (to Steve Allen) that he had written the music for "the worst movie in history", which was a reference to THE WORLD'S GREATEST SINNER, a film that Carey wrote, directed and starred in.

Of course, to put that comment into context, Zappa said it in the late-'50s/early-'60s, so it was before THE SOUND OF MUSIC was filmed.

"Contrarian"? Or simply an idiosynchratic, eccentric GENIUS?

His chafing at Zappa's comment may have had some deeper, personal animosity basis. I can't really imagine someone like Carey revelling in accolades from the mainstream. Just doesn't seem to be his style.

As for your question -- what's the difference? When you hear the music of that different drummer, and spend your life moving against the current, doesn't that make you a contrarian to the conventional?

[charliechaplinfan]

Well this thread's really got going

I forgot my worst film Weekend by Jean Luc Godard. I felt like I was stuck in a parellel universe and couldn't escape and I perservered with it, silly me

[Hollis]

My dear friends Dewey and ChiO,

Not having known who Tim Carey was until I asked you about your avatar (ChiO) a couple of weeks back, he wouldn't have been the needle, let alone the thread! Dewey, I didn't know that they were all from American International either, but thanks for the trivia! I've already learned two things today! How lucky can one guy get? I've never seen "The Sound of Music" its' entirety so I don't know how bad (or good, in all fairness) it actually is. I saw it as a stage production (my first) at the Abbey Playhouse in NE Philly when I was (I guess) about 12 or 13 years old. We had great seats, I developed a huge crush on one of the actresses playing a Von Trapp daughter, and I went home happy. I don't know that the film version could have ever lived up to that overall experience! "Panic in Year Zero" could have or should have been joined on the list by another Ray Milland stinker, "The Man With the X-Ray Eyes." But you have to draw the line somewhere, don't you? Actually, the thread that runs through all the films I mentioned, and probably not coincidentally, is one Mr Frankie Avalon! It pains me to say so given that we're both from Philly, but his performances were so bad that he made Annette Funicello's look like they were Oscar worthy! In the pantheon of great screen couples, I don't quite think he stands shoulder to shoulder with Spencer Tracy, William Powell, Nelson Eddy or even Ozzie Nelson! The only question is, did he make the movies bad or did the movies make him look bad?

As always (for today at least,)

Hollis

[jdb1]

Oh, Oh - mentioning Ray Milland -- it's so hard, 'cause I really think the most sublimely terrible movie I've ever seen was The Thing with Two Heads, starring Milland and Roosevelt Greer as the heads, but it's listed as a 1972 movie. Darn!!

Well, I have to go with what most of you have listed - they are pretty bad. It would take me a long time to mentally sift through all the movies I've ever seen to pick out the "worst" - there are so many turkeys in that group. I will cast a vote now, though, for the movie I think was truly terrible and made me angry (and maybe a little insane, because of its unrelenting awfulness despite how highly it was touted): Last Year at Marienbad.

[klondike]

Aaaargh, Hollis, ye've wounded me grievously, or at least slid a phone-pole sliver into my quick!!
X - The Man with the X-Ray Eyes a stinker? Muchacho, how could you say such a thing?!!
X-TMWTX/RE (as we call it 'round the treehouse), is an Ike-Era treasure, a crunchy, chewy Clark bar of a movie; granted it's no Valley of Gwangi (but then, what is?!), yet I maintain that if you've ever grooved along to Gail Garnet on a scratchy AM radio on your way to the beach, or cracked a sweaty Pabst tallboy while watching a B&W episode of "Dragnet" on a rabbit-ear TV, then dissin' Ray's payin'-the-bills performance in good old X is some kind of cultural treason!

I, umm, gotta go now . . I'm . . startin' to choke-up, just a little . . .

[ChiO]

Hollis said:

"Panic in Year Zero" could have or should have been joined on the list by another Ray Milland stinker, "The Man With the X-Ray Eyes."

Oh, Hollis, my friend, another dagger into my heart. After THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, my favorite '50s sci-fi movie exploring the foibles of Man and the search for something greater is X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES.

Then Judith said:

I really think the most sublimely terrible movie I've ever seen was The Thing with Two Heads, starring Milland and Roosevelt Greer as the heads

I've wanted to see this one for years.

And then Judith said:

I will cast a vote now, though, for the movie I think was truly terrible and made me angry (and maybe a little insane, because of its unrelenting awfulness despite how highly it was touted): Last Year at Marienbad.

I am acutely aware of our disagreement over that movie. Setting that difference of opinion aside, you hit on why I have some difficulty in discussing "Bad", "Baddest" or "Worst" movies. My guess is that we all could come to some consensus over what makes a movie "good" or "great". We may disagree over whether any specific movie has those attributes, but we'd probably agree on what attributes are in play.

We, however, probably wouldn't come to a consensus as to what attributes constitutes "Bad", "Baddest" or "Worst". So awful it's funny? Boring? Makes one angry?

I would contend that a movie that makes one laugh or "angry (and maybe a little insane...)" has, at some level, been successful -- and if successful, then not "Bad."

I'm in the Bad = Boring camp with Dewey. (Right? Help me here.) Take a director who has made some fine films (say, for instance, CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE, THE SET-UP, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, WEST SIDE STORY), add some stars, some music, a big budget, and studio clout, then make it Boring -- that, I contend, is Bad.

And far be it for me to hold any alleged editing of a film based on a Booth Tarkington novel against such a director.

[charliechaplinfan]

Well, I have to go with what most of you have listed - they are pretty bad. It would take me a long time to mentally sift through all the movies I've ever seen to pick out the "worst" - there are so many turkeys in that group. I will cast a vote now, though, for the movie I think was truly terrible and made me angry (and maybe a little insane, because of its unrelenting awfulness despite how highly it was touted): Last Year at Marienbad.

I'm with you there I mentioned it on the first page. It looks so nice and completely fails to deliver.

[srowley75]

Rowley, old chum, you really bowled my over with this inclusion on your list!
I mean, with The Gang's All Here, you've got an opening performance featuring the incomparable Carmen singing "Brazil" (back when it was still a fairly new show-stopper), then we have Eugene Pallette surfing N.Y. nightclubs, Edward Evrett Horton & Charlotte Greenwood getting all maggie& jiggsish with each other, and Benny Goodman warbling through "Paducah".
And good old Busby is arguably just much more Busbylicious here than he ever was anywhere else!

Hi Klondike,

Moira defined what she wanted this way:

I didn't really mean movies that each of us finds, for some reason to be bad, as in hateful and unwatchable. More, movies that are hypnotic and fascinating fun, even when the aesthetic alarm is ringing "baaaaad" in our head as we enjoy it!

And I felt that The Gang's All Here fit that definition. In truth, I think that all the films I listed are "fascinating fun" (yes, even the admittedly lumbering, garish parade float that is Cleopatra, though at 4 hours I thank God almighty for the advent of home video and the fast forward/forward chapter feature).

Having said that, I also believe that all of them bear certain "What on earth were they thinking" aspects as well. As for The Gang's All Here, I think it's a wild Technicolor riot, despite the fact that I had nightmares about giant polka dotted bananas long after it was over.

-Stephen

[Bogie]

Pre-1970 eh?

Duel in the Sun (1946) laughable, overwrought western with huge gay undertones and just downright badly acted for the most part.

Giant (1956) Another overblown soap operatic movie that I don't like at all. The only reason it's remembered as much as it is these days is because James Dean was in it.

[klondike]

Hi Klondike,

Moira defined what she wanted this way:

I didn't really mean movies that each of us finds, for some reason to be bad, as in hateful and unwatchable. More, movies that are hypnotic and fascinating fun, even when the aesthetic alarm is ringing "baaaaad" in our head as we enjoy it!

And I felt that The Gang's All Here fit that definition. In truth, I think that all the films I listed are "fascinating fun" (yes, even the admittedly lumbering, garish parade float that is Cleopatra, though at 4 hours I thank God almighty for the advent of home video and the fast forward/forward chapter feature).

Having said that, I also believe that all of them bear certain "What on earth were they thinking" aspects as well. As for The Gang's All Here, I think it's a wild Technicolor riot, despite the fact that I had nightmares about giant polka dotted bananas long after it was over.

-Stephen

Hey right back, Steve!
Thanks for your clarification; viewed from within those parameters, your choice of this big, merry old Trojan-Hobby-Horse of a lark makes perfect sense, and therefore -
[My best Monte Woolley voice here:]
Your reputation for insight & evaluation, Suh, remains intact!

[Mr. Arkadin]

David and Lisa (1962). Pseudo intellectual crap--and boring to boot. Jamie Sanchez is the only decent thing in the film.

[Hollis]

It's really a shame that one of the qualifications for "worst movie" is that it comes from a major studio. Ed Wood and John Waters are conspicuous by their absence.

Good morning,

Hollis

[Hollis]

Judith,

What gets me is an actor going from a high point of "The Lost Weekend" (and an Oscar) to a low of "The Thing With Two Heads" or 'X: The Man With the X-Ray Eyes." Why do they do it?

As always,

Hollis

P.S. Have a great holiday everyone!

[feaito]

Hi Klondike,

Moira defined what she wanted this way:

I didn't really mean movies that each of us finds, for some reason to be bad, as in hateful and unwatchable. More, movies that are hypnotic and fascinating fun, even when the aesthetic alarm is ringing "baaaaad" in our head as we enjoy it!

-Stephen

You are right Srowley and that definition fits my concept of "guilty pleasures".... like watching everytime it's aired and being "caught" by such obviously contrived, bad films as "Legally Blonde".

I have many guilty pleasures courtesy of American International Pictures too.

[klondike]

What gets me is an actor going from a high point of "The Lost Weekend" (and an Oscar) to a low of "The Thing With Two Heads" or 'X: Thee Man With the X-Ray Eyes." Why do they do it?


Hollis

I imagine it has a great deal to do with roles that are offered or made available to them during those later years; like most of us, Mr. Milland probably had bills to pay, a mortgage to meet, and a refrigerator to re-stock every couple of weeks. Had he been given the opportunity for some of the roles that Hank Fonda or Bob Mitchum or Greg Peck were doing at those times, I doubt he would have seriously considered any of those low-budget gigs (and let us not forget the saddest of all denouements: Errol Flynn in Cuban Rebel Girls ).
And, at least in the case of Man with the X-Ray Eyes, we would all have been the poorer for his "good fortune".