I agree with you 100%. I "got" the Blair Witch Project fine, it was just a total piece of crap movie. And I am not just saying that because the movie didn't live up to all the hype, I never listen to the hype that surrounds any movie. Sitting through Blair Witch was like watching a bad student film.

Now John, as far as Pulp Fiction, I don't agree with you on that one, I love that movie

I see what you mean, it wasn't a character drivin' film at all. I just loved the way it was not in chronological order, and you had to wait till the last scene to piece it all together. I really liked the cast too, Travolta, Jackson, Rhames, Willis, Roth, I love all those guys. Wasn't Steve Bescemi (sp) great as buddy holly though? Not to mention Christopher Walken's small part, some great people in that movie. I despise Uma Thurman though.

When I said you didn't get it, I didn't mean you didn't understand it, I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to understand it. What I meant is it didn't work on you, I guess.

You didn't think it was scary. I thought it was scarier than most scary movies. The thing with Blair Witch is it doesn't scare you during the movie, it freaks you out when you're laying in bed that night in the dark thinking about the movie. At least that's the way it was with me.

You didn't like the characters. Not much to say about that, you didn't like them. OK. Difference of opinion. What's important is that the actor's performances were very real and unassuming, even if they weren't necessarily likable for everyone.

The main point I was trying to make is that an experimental film like BW doesn't really belong on a post like this because whether or not it's good depends entirely on you. Of course, the same can be said of most films, but truly bad movies are more clear cut. They have technical flaws, story gaps, see-through or stereotypical characters, etc. There is no gray area for taste, THESE are the worst movies ever made, anything else is just your opinion. That's the only distinction I'm trying to make.

Good example: Go to www.capalert.com and you'll see people who judge movies only on content. They claim their sytem is objective, then trash films they don't like and point at their system as proof.

The line between opinion and fact can sometimes be bent, and I make it a point to be clear that if I don't like something, it's just me. I don't like it when people make all-encompassing statements like, "This movie is a piece of garbage." like it was an indisputable fact. Someone worked very hard and it's not fair to trash their work without stipulating that it's just your own opinion.

Sorry to go off on another rant, but I'm really big on respecting others and I liked Blair Witch.

BTW, Evil Dead? What does that have in common with Blair Witch? Certainly not the pseudo-documentary narrative style.

If any of these babblings of mine are unclear, please let me know and I'll try to elaborate in a somewhat organized manner.

Jeez Maher, what's wrong with you? The Blair Twig Project defined a generation! Their own Woodstock! (No I forgot already that was The Iron Giant on the mount)

There was only one scene that I found remotely frightening: when we find out what happened to the "lost" map. Not so much because I'm worried about these yutzes trapped out in the woods with their infinite-life battery packs -- but because the scene encapsulates the one concept (accidental -- nothing serious was on the minds of the people who made it) that nearly strayed into depth: "Hell (really is) other people."

Funny thing, I had almost the same idea ten years ago -- only I couldn't get anyone to go along with it -- seemed too weird, too unlikely (the whole movie done as a camera P.O.V. -- in fairness, I got the idea for doing a horror version from watching the Vietnam picture 84 CHARLIE MOPIC). My version didn't have a witch in it. But it WOULD have had some sense of CATHARSIS.

Now I can never make this one: I REFUSE to be accused of riding the Witch's coattails. Oh well, it wasn't one of my better ones.

Bad monster pictures: I am indulgent of the giant-monster genre in general -- I recently saw a really good print of GAPPA and was surprised how much I liked it, I hated it as a kid -- but it hardly gets any worse than the Japanese LEGEND OF THE DINOSAURS (its video title here), or the Scandinavian REPTILICUS (apparently the European version has EVEN WORSE special effects in it of Reptilicus flying), or (Japanese again) THE X FROM OUTER SPACE (which sports one of the five or six most MONOTONOUS scores in the history of the medium -- you know how David Raksin said of Bernard Herrmann that he'd never met an ostinato he didn't like? Raksin obviously never heard of Taku Izumi.)

I agree with John, I take all views expressed on this message board as opinion. I don't claim to speak for anyone else when I say I didn't like the Blair Witch Project, that is just my opinion. I find it not only unnecessary but also a little annoying when I see all those IMO or IMHO posts, of course its their opinion. We all learn in grade school the difference between opinion and fact.

Just to clear things up, I think the Blair Witch would have been a lot scarier if I wouldn't have known it was fake. I saw the girl on a TV interview before seeing the movie so that kind of takes away the "realism" the film makers were trying to capture.

But, my list:

"Eyes Wide Shut": bring your coffee to stay awake;

"Virus"-Jamie Lee Curtis and no frontal nudity in an R-rated flick! Donald Sutherland takes a gun into his cabin to shoot himself half way through the film and you don't know if it is in the script or if he's trying to find a way out of the movie.

"Waterworld"-all that water and the only line to the bathroom...get the small drink with a large non-buttered, very dry box of popcorn.

"The Island of Dr. Moreau"-take your pick either the Michael York, or the last version. I can't believe I got suckered in twice!

"Austin Powers"-take your pick, Benny Hill on the big screen. What is funny about this?

I wonder if we looked at release dates if we would discover a pattern. Take practically anything released in the past few weeks and next few and we are at the bottom of the barrel.

Has anyone seen ….AND MILLIONS WILL DIE!…..a 1973 ‘farce’ starring Richard Basehart and Leslie Nielsen?

Actually, it’s not really a BAD film…..it is just unintentionally hilarious from beginning to end……an amazing entertainment…..rather like the equally side-splitting BLOOD OF FU MANCHU from 1967.

Movies that I have personally disliked include…..LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992)…..not a badly made film by any means, and I realize many people have a high regard for this movie…..but to me, it was a sanitised and politically-correct view of history…..the photography was great though. The 1936 Randolph Scott version will always be close to my heart.

Oh, and INCOGNITO. Nice locations……but I found this film to be incredibly inept and tame……especially the story, the script and the acting…..only the interesting ‘art forgery’ backdrop to the movie kept me watching it. Another annoying thing….Ian Holm….a favourite actor of mine…..popped up for one scene at the beginning of the film…..and the rest of movie was dominated by the cardboard Jason Patric.

A 1967 sub-Hammer horror movie THE BLOOD BEAST TERROR I remember as being particularly shoddy. It had Peter Cushing…..but the movie was another feeble Hammer clone. Poor old Cushing also turned up in the fascinatingly awful INCENSE FOR THE DAMNED (1970).

THE BOYS IN BLUE was a catastrophic attempt to turn British television ???!COMICS!??? Cannon and Ball into movie stars……I think Hinge and Bracket would have fared better.

1996’s BROKEN ARROW was just too silly for words.

CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD from 1981 starred Christopher George. Some of these American-set Italian/Spanish horrors are pretty good, or at least entertaining in a daft way….like THE BEYOND….but this rip-off of every other rip-off was just plain boring.

1977’s EAST OF ELEPHANT ROCK was a ghastly British colonial drama set in 1948 Malaysia…..it was terrible….but funny. John Hurt was the ROMANTIC lead…..enough said.

I was disappointed with the spoofs YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974) and MARS ATTACKS!…..personally I found the original material that these movies were intending to spoof to be far funnier, wittier and simply better. Then again, I know these movies have their fans…..it’s just my personal opinion.

Oh, and he's a rotten composer, too. The evil mirror of the other director who synth-scores his own stuff (only more competently), John Carpenter.

Particular Hall of Shame Award goes to the maddening, incomprehensible LIEBESTRAUM (well, it wasn't exactly incomprehensible, it was just insanely pretentious).

Anything written by Joseph Minion, who basically writes the same script over and over again, just cloaking it in a different genre. His characters are as mindlessly obsessive as worker ants, only with an individuality that is less force of will, than force of muddled symbol the writer is imposing on them. Examples include MOTORAMA, JULIA & JULIA, and the excruciating VAMPIRE'S KISS (slightly redeemed by Nicolas Cage's amusingly crazy performance, which he has given MANY times since). Exception: AFTER HOURS, redeemed by Martin Scorsese's direction.

That’s very big of you.

BATMAN FOREVER had its moments,
a lot worse it could be.
But the thing I hated most,
was their portrayal of ME!!!!

It pleases me, however obscurely, to see that soundtrack fans are no more interchangeable than other types of fan.

J. Peter - Bless you. At least I know I'm not the only one that hated this movie. Doesn't anyone find it unusual that THIS and not MYSTERY MEN was the breadwinner for Universal?

Joe - Sure the film had problems, but surely its stars [Teri(YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN)Garr, Jeffrey(FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF)Jones and Jon(SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE)Lovitz] can't be faulted.

dantoris - long? You ain't seen nothing yet!

lind - GUARDING TESS?! How dare you!

DANIEL2 - Since you're a member now, I have to rip into you. You hated YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN?! If this is supposed to be a joke, you must write for "MAD TV". It is impossible to hate this charming and hilarious film. And MARS ATTACKS! can be seen as a latter version of an Irwin Allen disaster movie, only it's intentionally funny.

I didn’t say I hated YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and MARS ATTACKS!, I merely found them disappointing considering the comedic opportunities that the filmmakers missed.

Anyway, this is what Roger Ebert had to say about MARS ATTACKS!

“First he made ``Ed Wood,'' a tribute to the man fondly recalled as the worst movie director of all time. Now Tim Burton seems to have made a tribute to Wood's work. ``Mars Attacks!'' has the look and feel of a schlocky 1950s science-fiction movie, and if it's not as bad as a Wood film, that's not a plus: A movie like this should be a lot better, or a lot worse. ``Mars Attacks!'' plays like one of those '50s movies that are *not* remembered as cult classics…….Watching Nicholson deliver his televised fireside chat with the nation about the impending saucer attack, I wondered, why is this supposed to be funny? Burton has made a common mistake: He assumes it is funny simply to *be doing* a parody…….Ed Wood himself could have told us what's wrong with this movie: The makers felt superior to the material. To be funny, even schlock has to believe in itself. Go to a video store and look for ``Infra-Man'' or ``Invasion of the Bee Girls,'' and you will find movies that lack stars and big budgets and fancy special effects, but are funny and fun in a way that Burton's megaproduction never really understands.”

That pretty much sums up my opinion of MARS ATTACKS!

As for YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, well, all I can say is it is very difficult to parody an original (1939’s SON OF FRANKENSTEIN) that poked fun at itself anyway. Brilliant performances, top filmmaking talent, originality, innovation, and invention made the first three Universal Frankenstein movies groundbreaking and classic cinematic experiences. And, Bride and Son in particular, were full of deft comedic touches, self-parody and black humour. Brooks’ YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN wasn’t terrible, I just found it disappointing; it being less witty, funny and fascinating than the movies it was attempting to parody. I mean, how could ANYONE outdo Atwill’s one-armed police chief for surreal humour?

The great and prolific British actor Lionel Atwill, here seen playing Dr Xavier alongside Fay Wray in the 1932 classic DOCTOR X.