Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!cylixd!dave
From: dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Totally Bad Movies
Message-ID: <314@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 12:57:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: cylixd.314
Posted: Tue Sep 24 12:57:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 03:29:31 EDT
References: <2868@ut-sally.UUCP> <1188@mtgzz.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 51

In article <1188@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes:
>... I have never seen a film (or read a book) that was totally
>bad or totally good.  I tend to weigh the bad and good elements ...

When I saw this I couldn't help but think, "He's probably right about
there not being a totally good movie. But there have GOT to be some
movies that are totally BAD." I could not recall seeing a movie myself
that I would judge as being totally bad, but I figured it might be
because I tend to avoid movies whose titles indicate that there might
not be one good thing to be said about them. "Return to Gilligan's
Island" and "The Brady Bunch Wedding" come to mind as movies I avoided
because of the title.
So I went around and polled some of my colleagues, to see if they could
name some movies that were totally bad. The criteria for acceptance were:
	(1) It must be a movie made for theatres (TV movies don't count;
		they would probably overload the list).
	(2) There must not be one single good thing to say about it; if
		the movies were bad overall, but had one good scene or
		good direction, or a short clip of good cinematography,
		it would not qualify as a totally bad movie. There must
		be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to be said about any part
		of the movie in order for it to make the list.
	(3) The film need not be horrible in all respects (i.e., it may be
		mediocre on some points); but it MAY NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE
		thing that could be said to have been done well, or
		even the least bit above mediocre. And it must have at
		least one thing which is done truly badly.

So far the nominations are:

	Sheena of the Jungle (No plot, bad acting, didn't even show
		any good skin. Direction mediocre at best.)
	
	Silent Night, Deadly Night (This is the only movie that I
		saw Siskel and Ebert actually get furious at. It was
		so offensive and bad that many theatres wouldn't show it.)

	Sword and the Sorcerer (Just plain boring.)

	Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (A spoof that didn't come off.
		Had a maudlin ending, and terrible acting.)

I haven't seen any of these myself, so I cannot offer an opinion on them.
I am just reporting results. Anybody out there have any other nominations?
Or perhaps additional criteria that I might have left out?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kirby    ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)

(The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect 
those of RCA Cylix. They may not even reflect my own.)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com