I had this discussion at uni quite recently after my accommodation got together and watched Planet Terror. 2 of us REALLY enjoyed it, most others commented that it was "so stupid", "sooooo bad", while still watching it, and when it ended someone said it was "so stupid and bad it's really good fun". Which annoyed me, as well as the other guy who loved it.



It's a really difficult question, particularly if one tries to trust only the tale, not the teller. If we try to create this distance, if we call a film self-aware in its 'badness' it is just our guess. Having said that, I make these judgements about terrible high-budget rom-coms and action films and it's obviously the same thing.



The two writers of Star Trek (2009) also wrote Transformers 2. Star Trek is genuine and enjoyable, Transformers 2 is soulless and disgusting. But they may have written the scripts with the same spirit - For all we know, Transformers 2's script may be intended as a Team America-type SATIRE of the film Michael Bay eventually made of it.



I know full well that Planet Terror is self-aware. But I don't think it knows that it's bad, it knows that it's GOOD. And it is! It's only bad if we choose to abide by the critical rules of good film (Citizen Kane) and bad film (Plan 9). Planet Terror abides by the rules of both, but I like to ignore said rules, it makes viewing an objective experience, something I don't want to take part in. It's not like the film is told incoherently, so what makes it inherently bad before it can become good? (See also - Drag Me To Hell).



See also - Gayni**ers from Outer Space. Incredibly low-budget, and something I may even call 'so bad it's good' were I not always thinking it's made so genuinely, I can imagine the filmmakers taking themselves very seriously. They just know they're making something so many people will see as stupid and infantile. (One COULD see the film as a sly satire of standard blaxploitation and/or sci-fi films).



Bride of Chucky was praised for being 'not just a great horror film, but a GENUINELY great film', which is a shame. Extremist cinema is critically rated on a scale which is a stair lower than 'normal' cinema. We saw it happen with The Dark Knight. Critics started to call it a crime film so as to make their high praise seem valid. You can't deny that it's a comic-book film. Priorities need changing.



City of the Living Dead is a film people might call so bad it's good. It's OTT, the dubbing is camp and melodramatic, the effects are dated. But I stand by it. Yes, the dubbing is camp and melodramatic, but the extravagance makes the doom-laden plot surprisingly effective, and yes, I can see through the effects...but they're still horrible and really good fun. And it wouldn't be OTT if we didn't have Transformers 2-esque Hollywood fodder to compare it to, so I can happily have more...conservative cinema. (It'd be nice if it was GOOD though).



Don't Go In The Woods Alone! is made with the same intentions as so many other cheap horror films, I assume. But, on the other hand, it's terrible. Dull, annoyingly shot, repetitive....just plain awful.



I can't remember what my point was exactly...I got caught up reminiscing about these films.

I think that the issue here is that whereas certain films which are parodies of others, or at least contain elements of parody.It is difficult to know if people deliberately marketed their films as 'bad' because they are ashamed of what they've made and just want to try make back the £8.43 that they spent to make it or because they are genuinely mocking the industry and the pile of turds that Hollywood often tries to pass off as 'movies'.



A similar contrast can be drawn between the wave of European Exploitation films of the 1970's and that most famous of 'Video Naties' 'The Last House On The Left'. Whilst the former were mostly soft-core porn intermixed with some crude Nazi-inspired violence and the latter a film which you yourself Dr K, have called; "Intentionally disturbing... and demonstrably not pornographic"(The Independent,June 2002). Where, as it were, two eggs that were tossed into one basket (at least when it came to the censors).



The original 'Piranha' is a truly terrible film, but it knows it is and can be enjoyed as such. The problem that arises as a result is that in a world where digital cameras are freely available it seems anyone can make their very own 'parody' a word which I fear, is beginning to loose it's meaning.



One last thing... was Nic Cage's 'The Wicker Man' a parody...?

The film that springs to mind is Tommy Wiseau's "The Room". It's the sincerity of how it's trying to be some modern tennessee williams' drama but failing on every level . Like "Plan 9 from outer space" the mind behind it is oblivious to how ridiculous the film is and that is why it's such a funny and enjoyable watch.

Dr K, the most interesting point you raise here is when you state that the reason the Ed Wood movies are so enjoyable is because they've come from the imagination of a man who was trying his best, who really believes he is making good movies. So I ask you, what do you think of the movies of Uwe Boll, a man who is convinced that he's one of the great directors? Alone In The Dark and Postal alone would prove him wrong as they are staggeringly incompetent and unenjoyable, but sadly he's made a career out of this practice. The fact is, if you're a bad filmmaker, you're a bad filmmaker. The difference lies thusly: Boll makes derivative, uninspired exploitation rip-offs and videogame adaptations and Wood made silly sci-fi pictures which look even sillier upon reflection because you can see the little strings on the fake UFO's. We have the beauty of retrospect with Wood, we can laugh at his movies because they're so innocent and spirited. Maybe in a few years Boll will be looked upon as an ahead-of-his-time exploitation genuis (although I doubt this very very much), but for now he's just a vile nitwit. They're both bad filmmakers and they both didn't know it, but that doesn't matter. As always it's the content of a movie that dictates its success (trust the tale and not the teller). So we look upon Wood with fondness and Boll with soul crushing disappointment and hatred. So no, the idea that the filmmakers think their project is good isn't the divide. It's the content of the films. Plan 9 is just so comically inept and harmless it's fun to watch. Alone In The Dark really, really isn't.



If we're going to widen the gaze to Asylum pictures then the debate has a clear ending point. Nobody, unless they are clinically insane, thought they were making a good movie with Aliens vs Hunter. It's one of the worst films i've ever seen, it must have been obvious from scripting to editing. Does the fact that the people behind it weren't trying to make Citizen Kane make it any better? No. It makes it bloody awful. It's all about the content. Their version of Sherlock Holmes, as silly as it was, was actually something approaching a real film. Everyone involved must have known they weren't making a potential masterpiece but the film has a sense of fun and mystery and it's a serviceable slice of escapism which I enjoyed, for all it's country sized flaws.



So yes. A rubbish film is still a rubbish film even if it knows it's rubbish. And do you know why? Because it's rubbish. It matters very little what the filmmaker 'wanted' to do if the result is totally insipid, boring or offensive. I appreciate that the guys and gals in the Troma and Asylum business weren't trying to make Lawrence Of Arabia. But that just makes me sad for a wonderful industry and brings to mind the question "why bother in the first place?"

There are so many bad films that are actually very fun to watch. Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead, for example. The idea of zombie chicken in a fast food is not the material that would make a masterpiece, but it still is hilarious as an idea eventhough the film could be described as "simply interesting". Another example is Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, a film that -among others- involves a talking ice-cream as God and a character called Blind Jimmy Leper. Badly made, poor plot BUT it's rather entertaining. Most cult films are like that.



Knowing you are making a bad film means one thing: you are doing it for the money.



Look at Ed Wood's work. All of his films are bad, but still there is something very special abou them; you can see a vision. Behind the poor performances and the cheesy script lies a vision. That's what seperates the films made by "people who know they are making a bad film" from the films of "people who don't know they are making a bad film". The former want to make money, while the latter just want to see their dreams and ideas on screen, they are artists (bad ones, but still artists). Ofcourse, in art there is no "good" and "bad", there is what you like and what you don't like. Well, as John Cleese had said in an early Monty Python sketch, I don't know much about art but I know what I like. And I like films by people who made them for anything but to get lots of money very fast, knowing they are selling a rotten product. Does the name MICHAEL BAY ring a bell?

I think the best people at making trashy movies that know they are trash are The Asylum, they have made some classic B movie version of popular films.



Personally my favourite is Snakes on a Train which I found hilarious, infact it's better than Snakes on a Plane. Snakes on a Plane was trying to be an homage to a B movie action film and failed because they made too nice a looking film with proper actors, Snakes on a Train however was a ripped off B movie action film.



They have also made such Rip off classics as Transmorphers (Transformers), The day the earth stopped (The day the earth stood still), Alien Vs Hunter (Alien Vs Predator), I am Omega (I am Legend).



While they're films a much lower budget, have a less talented cast and special effects from 20 years ago they do have a charm and style to them. Transmorphers was better directed than Transformers and often the plots are actually better.



You're not going to see one of thses films in a cinema, they are clearly not worth the £10 to go and see one, but I bought Snakes on a Train for £1 in a sale and for an evenings entertainment that's a bargain.

"A Roger Corman movie with a budget!" What?!

Jaws is so much more than that...yes the shark is fun and schlocky at times but what about the excellent script and the truly brilliant acting from Scheider, Shaw, Dreyfuss, Gary and everyone else involved all the way down to Bad Hat Harry! Roger Corman with a budget it is not!

My Brother-in-law absolutely adores Plan Nine from Outer Space it's one of his faves along with Gojirra and it's follow-ups. Personally I don't get it, maybe I don't have a 'fun' side to me and take films too seriously! Mind you I did say that Armageddon was so cheesey and bad that it had something about it. It burnt my eyes but I couldn't stop watching...I'm so ashamed...I mean, it's Michael Bay, MICHAEL BAY for goodness sake, what was I thinking!

How about StarCrash, haven't seen it myself but my husband (cue one of many males that have seen this movie) says it is very bad. It has just been released on dvd and stars Marjoe Gortner, Caroline Munro, The Hoff and Christopher Plummer (what?). I know that it is looked upon fondly, mostly by males (see Nick Setchfield's review in SFX), due to a high "hot looking women" count! Surely they knew how bad this one was when they were making it?

I think that sci fi and horror fans tend to have a sensibility about them that makes them open to watching these kind of "we know it's rubbish" movies, they have a higher tolerance level for c**p! That's why these movies always tend to be in based in these genres.

Having said that I may be the exception to the rule :D

I think in a time where even our blockbusters are remakes of 20 year old movies many of us hold in high regard, self aware movies can be good and bad. Many miss the mark not because they do a good job of looking tacky and cheap but because they genuinely ARE so cheap. It's the originals of the 70s and 80s that I consider to be fun because for their limited budgets and "well scripted" dialogue.



With this in mind, have a look at a movie many people I know have heard about through the internet. BLACK DYNAMITE is coming out soon... I for one am thinking this will be a good 'bad' film.

@moober87

Black Dynamite is a genuinely great film. It's totally self-aware and very well made. One of the funniest films i've seen in years, I can only hope it finds a wide audience.

A simple answer which didn't need the full essays.



They're just bad films. Which are badly made. And a waste of time.

There is a line from the 90s comedy show Drop the dead Donkey that summed up this sort of ironic postmodernism. "knowing something's crap. Doesn't make it any less crap"

It's recently become a big deal in the webosphere because its star/director/writer threatened legal action again an internet video site for doing a video review, so I'm wondering if the good doctor has ever seen Tommy Wiseau's The Room.



It has to be the most quotable of so-bad-they're-good films, to the point that Wiseau has claimed it was always intended as a quirky comedy, instead of the forthright homage to Tennessee Williams he originally meant to make.



I've scoured the internet for any instance of Dr. K reviewing The Room and have found nothing thus far. To paraphrase Wiseau, "YOU ARE TEARING ME APAHRT, KERMODE!"

This is the reason why The Room is one of the great bad films of our time. Or, on a larger budget, The Happening.



"See, the story opens with these mysterious suicides. Nobody knows what's causing them, but it's upsetting all the bees. Then it's revealed that all of the trees in the world are angry at us!"



Bless your deluded heart, Shyamalan.



Say what you want about Roger Corman too, but I do love A Bucket of Blood. Go ahead and burn all of the Troma movies but save the poster art.

Like griffinmill said "The Room" is a genuine example of a movie transcending its failure on every technical level to become something approaching a comedy classic. Why does a movie like this rise above its failures? For me its the enigma of Wiseau, who like Wood seems a true eccentric.



Attempts to deliberately make a bad movie usually fail for one or both reasons.The person responsible is trying to show their "love" for a genre yet only succeed in a bout of self-indulgence (Death Proof?). Or those responsible, like some embarrassing uncle at a family party, are deluded about their own comic talents.



Trying to make a comedy is hard enough, but when the joke is supposed to be "laugh at how bad this is"...if its not funny, its just bad.

@bestdays2

I concur with Drop the Dead Donkey!

I'd like to appear knowledgeable on this subject but I just try and avoid movies like this.

You should give The Asylum's Sherlock Holmes a go Mark.



It's meant to be 'the forgotten Holmes tale' and has Holmes investigating dinosaurs running amok though London, Iron Man and a hot air balloon chasing a flying mechanical dragon shooting flames through the city.



Overall it's definitely worth a watch for how ludicrous it all is.



The best rip-off director is still Bruno Mattei though, who can forget Terminator 2 (an Aliens rip-off) or Robowar (the Predator rip-off starring Reb Brown). Not to mention his more original films like SS Girls and Hell of the Living Dead are perhaps the most entertaining exploitation films I've ever seen.

Wait, did you say you were in a screening watching this? They screen Asylum movies somewhere?



More importantly, who is the man in the corner of the frame before the camera pans up at the beginning of your video?



My mind is blown.

Here's one more: was that special effect in your Inception blog where you spun down the hallway like a cheap Photoshop creation supposed to be an example of postmodern irony or was it just bad?

Cheapo exploitation flicks are guilty pleasures I’m afraid; from Hong Kong kung fu, Blackploitation, badly dubbed spaghetti westerns and euro-thrillers of the 70s, early Van Damn to exploitative horrors.

Yet out of it all have come some films that are held in some regard.



Where else did The Evil Dead series came from if not cheapo exploitation?

Chucky and Bride of Chucky were made by people that knew exactly how far to put their tongue in their cheek.

Corman churned out masses of unforgettable movies but also gave us the Vincent Price/Edgar Allen Poe films and gave many now famous young directors and actors their first chance to make a movie.

As for Easy Rider – I rest my case.



In some countries that cracked down on dissent the cheapo exploitation movie often offered the only medium that could be subversive yet be ignored by the authorities.

There’s documentary about the Philippine cinema of the 70’s - Machete Maidens Unleashed - that makes this very point.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]



I wouldn’t put Rodriguez’s Planet Terror in this class. Rodriguez tried to make a medium budget movie look like a fun cheapo exploitation, and failed dismally.

His forthcoming Machete may be better because it looks like a small budget action movie trying to be better than the budget allows, and may turn out quite well, as his El Mariachi, did because of it.



Cheapo exploitation can just be fun, stick a finger up at mainstream Hollywood but also taps into societies fears, hopes and unconscious better than many Hollywood mainstream movies: from 50’s bikers, 60’s surf Nazis and bikini chicks, 70’s hippies and black power, the cannibal genre, slasher films, Russ Mayer’s movies and so on.



And I have to say if it’s a choice between Mega Piranha and Hollywood’s Disaster Movie (or Piranha 3D for that matter) I’ll take Mega Piranha any day. (The original Piranha wasn’t bad BTW. Good Saturday night stuff at the time, as Carrie was also.)



The Mega Piranha trailer does look as if they know it’s really cheesy madness and are just going for it; Disaster Movie was a soulless attempt to make money by people that simply don’t give a damn about movies.

I think there's a dangerous edge to film makers who make rubbish films, but know they are making rubbish, understanding there will be an audience for it. The problem lies in the fact that just because at some point during the film there is a post modern wink to the audience doesn't mean they are being terribly clever or that the rest of the film isn't unwatchable nonsense.



Take Kevin Smith's fairly poor Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. At one point Ben Affleck’s character questions Jay and Silent Bob about the sort of people that would turn up for a film about two layabout stoner types. He then turns to the camera to show the irony of the statement to the audience. That little trick doesn't stop the rest of the film being a trudging mess of dire celebrity cameos and unfunny penis jokes (and before I'm sneered at for being too highbrow and stuffy, I love a good penis joke. Smith's first film Clerks is the holy grail of the penis joke and I love it dearly).



The difference between Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, a knowingly shoddy comedy that constantly winks at the audience, and one of my all time favourite guilty pleasures Bullet Proof Monk is this: while I'm sure everyone involved in BPM knew they were making a shoddy action/kung fu flick they never let it show so apparently during the film and the actors play it (semi) straight. Therefore I can indulge in BPM’s awfulness without being constantly reminded by the principle cast that they know it's awful as well.



Also, one a side note regarding Ed Wood. I'd just like to point out what is, in my opinion, an even better scene than Ed's proclamation at Plan 9's premier; the scene when Ed Wood - the worst director in the history in cinema - shares a drink and a common affinity with Orson Welles - arguably the best director in cinema’s history. There is something so ridiculous but also something so truthful about two creative types complaining about the pressure from studios destroying their artistic vision. Sheer genius.

I own nearly all of Roger Corman movies on dvd, and yes even the not so good, but the reason Piranha is still a cult favourite is because it was directed by Joe Dante. Dante loved the whole creature features of the 50s and 60s, and incorporated that love throughout all of his movies, which is important because you have to have the love for the whole genre in order to make the parody or the low budget version to work.



Roger Corman always helped nurture a lot of talent who also loved the genre, for example most notably James Cameron, Jonathan Demme, and Nicolas Roeg who did the cinematography to Masque of the Red Death which if you’ve not seen it, is excellent even just for the set design and how it was filmed. These people had passion with what they were making for Corman despite the budget restrictions which worked in Corman‘s favour.



Another thing in Piranha’s favour was that a lot of the effects were by up and coming effects artists, Rob Bottin and Phil Tippett, and Chris Walas who all went on to do big budget special effects.



It is now easy to do cheap knock offs which Asylum are doing, but if you don’t have the love or the passion like the above mentioned then the 'mockbuster' is just basically a limp joke that would be better served as a 1 minute Youtube clip rather than a 90 minute flick.



I think you should do a Kermode life time achievement award for Roger Corman because without him, you wouldn't be the person you are today.

Trash film vs Bad film?

Cheap film vs Poor film?

Parody vs Rip off?

i normally follow the rule that if it looks like it might end up on the SciFi channel it's definitely not worth watching

Woooooah woah.



Cheap film and Poor film, I see your point. Parody and rip-off....a little less so.



But I'd make an argument for trash cinema not quite being the other side of the 'bad film' coin. To describe something as a trash film to me implies its subject matter or characters.



John Waters being a prime example. Female Trouble is a trash film, but not because it's cheap, it is absolutely the subject matter. It's about an increasingly obnoxious girl living around disgustingly intolerant, obnoxious people who use and abuse her so that she comes to believe their propaganda, right up until the end. But it's a REALLY enjoyable watch, and I think Divine was a proper star.



I'll admit though, that the cheapness of the film (the stock, the sound recording etc) makes it what we'd call 'trashy', but it's by no means bad for these reason (in my opinion). It's made by people with their heart and soul entirely in it, giving it their all. At least, that's the impression I get. And I love it.



And besides, we throw trash away, it's forgettable. I certainly don't want t'forget Female Trouble.

Q:Is a rubbish film still a rubbish film if it knows its rubbish? or is it something else.



A: Matter of taste.

This has been going on for decades from 50 B-movies, exploitation, grindhouse and straight to video/DVD.

Now, let's all admit something- WE ARE A BUNCH OF MOVIE NERDS, well I know I am, and I'm proud of that fact. We are aware of films months before their release, we have favourite directors whose work we will return to again and again and we pride ourselves on our extensive movie knowledge.

It's worth remembering that there is a large percentage of the movie buying audience that don't really know much about films and will happily purchase something based on the poster/cover art- these are the people that companies like Asylum are aiming themselves at. I'm sure that there's a fair quotient of people who have bought their version of Sherlock Holmes, assuming it's the same one they've seen advertised on TV- we should pity these people, IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT FOR NOT BEING OBSESSED WITH FILMS (I'm half-joking) but there will always be an audience out there who aren't as fussy as us nerds.



There is amusement to be taken from these rip-off B-pictures, but the films are likely to be terrible. One can usually glean all of the entertainment value out of these movies by watching the trailers, which usually contain all of the films best/worst bits, I've watched the trailers for Human Centipede and Birdemic recently and felt that I'd seen enough there to warrant me never bothering with watching the actual movies.



If a film tries to deliberately 'so bad it's good' then I have no interest in them, It's much more fun when a major studio releases something that's undeniably terrible, despite it being made with the intention of it being something worthy. I saw Catwoman recently and it was, as expected, awful but the thought of the actor's and crew collectively hanging their heads in shame at the sheer mention of the film made it enjoyable. It also acted as a good indicator of 'How not to do it' which is an essential lesson for any wannabe film buff.



I'm not opposed to B-pictures, once in a blue moon they'll throw up something that can genuinely be described as a great film (Death Race 2000 being an obvious example) and many great director's have cut their teeth working on low budget shlock and without the aid of Roger Corman, would Scorsese, Cameron, Dante and other greats be where they are today?



B-movies- Long may they reign in the bargain bins of our hearts.

Michael Leader put it best in his Sight & Sound review of the Asylum's latest effort…



“Some may argue that Mega Piranha is self aware, tongue-in-cheek film-making, but it’s still wasted capital, giving undue attention to those who have no pride in their work, let alone discernible talent.”



...the guys at Asylum have a business model that runs purely on tricking people into buying their product based on what is just about the hit the cinemas. There is no art or parody here just cynicism.

There are two types of film in said category.....

1.I've wasted two hours of my life what a total bummer ....storms off muttering.

2. Ok I've wasted two hours of my life but at least I had some fun.....

The list would be as long as this blog for both catergories quite frankly........

Then we have the joker in the pack 'I've wasted two hours of my life ..Someone's going to pay.....

They normally involve anything from Michael Bay who is to directing what Dr Crippen was to the Hippocratic Oath...

And Anything with Keanu Reeves in...who graduated with honours from 'Ye old Oak Tree' of Acting School....

Dear Dr. Kermode.



Mega Piranha, being a parody of a parody (Piranha) of a blockbuster (Jaws) is similiar to the spirit of movies like: Scary Movie and Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth. In the sense that they are both mainly a parody of a parody (Scream) that is a parody of a number of teen-slashers that the two also satirise.

It really boils down to the reasons behind the film. If the producer and the studio is just cashing in on a current trend or something to fill up the airtime of Movies 24 then it's likely it's going to be a pretty terrible. But the key to making it a cheap but entertaining film which might become a cult classic is that someone either behind or in front of the camera has a real love or passion for the genre of movie their making. Prime example is Tremors a B-Movie tribute which is not only funny and entertaining but written well and was cast well, which unlike some of the sy-fy TV movies means one actor who appeared in Stargate/Star Trek in a couple of episodes and suddenly is carrying a whole movie. When you think about it some of these tv movies have maybe have little money to play with, but it's still likely to be 4 times more then one episode of Doctor Who will cost to make. And I know which one I'd rather watch.

I got a copy of "Over-Sexed Rugsuckers from Mars" as Mark said it's the worst film you'll ever see. At the time, it certainly seemed to most incompetent. Me and the housemates may be having a collective viewing of it sometime.

Interesting debate. In my opinion any film no matter how trashy or self aware, can be brilliantly entertaining as long as it's placed in the right hands. My proof? Around 80% of Bruce Campbell's career.

As a few others have mentioned, Tommy Wiseau's The Room is an outstanding example of a terrible yet thoroughly enjoyable film from recent years. What adds to the hilarity is that due to the extent of his ineptness, Wiseau somehow managed to spend over $6 million making it. Suffice to say, it doesn't show.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi Mark I am a big fan Love the rants, especially Little man. Anyway long story short I worked for the Asylum for two films (including Megashark v Giant Octopus) and I think you are giving them far too much credit. they are one of the worst run companies I have ever seen. First of all most of the people who work there, not the heads of production but the Screenwriters, the Ad's, Production designers etc are all USC or UCLA grads who hold themselves up as if they were all Hitchcock, Welles, Scorcese (insert big name respected filmmakers here). They all think they are above this material and are all passionless, narcissistic, sycophants. Who complain how much better they are from everyone else. How they truly loathe and despise the material they are working on and are the 1st to kiss ass to the capos of the company. I have never seen a bunch of self absorbed people in all of my life. I remember once there was a P.A from the Art Department (working for free I might add) who was admonished for taking food at lunch because he didnt wait for the rest of the crew to eat first. He was told to put his plate down and not touch it until everyone else had eaten because apparently in Hollywood P.A'S who work for free are not allowed the right to eat when everyone else is. I only mention this to demonstrate the elitist, pigdog mentality of the company.



Now when I first started working there I was in love with the notion that I was going to joining a fraternity of great camp films such as Frankenhooker, Deathrace 2000, and Plan 9. Those films are great for 2 reasons. Either they are made by people who genuinely believe they are making great films, or B they realize how bad they are and try to have fun with the genre. The reason great camp films exist is because they are uncompromising, they do things in that genre that cant be done in other genres they are exploitative. They present a concept that is considered taboo in the mainstream and try to explore different elements therein. The Asylum does none of that. They are committed to creating the most banal, generic, claptrap that can be sold to the highest possible market possible. Any thought to veering off the well worn path and creating something truly different is totally put to the wayside in order to deliver to its audience the deadest form of entertainment (if it can even be called that) as possible. The heads of the company sit in an office and look at upcoming releases of big budget films (Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, Cloverfield) and try to make a film that will merely capitalize on that success. Talk about riding the coat tails of greater people. Now considering these films often go into production months before any publicity for the aforementioned films is available, they are usually left with no more than a title name or a poster to jump off from.



I once asked the head of the company what the marketing strategy for these films was. And surprise surprise they intended for people to buy or rent their films on accident. Hoping they will confuse their schlock for the real McCoy. Or to sell to the South Asian market who would care less about the difference between Transformers, or Transmorphers. Now look at a film like Mega Shark v Giant Octopus other than title was was so remarkable about that film? Nothing? The direction is piss poor and cheap even by the genres standards. It consists of extreme closeups of actors faces, cut to tedious CGI, cut back to extreme closeup but oh wait now we have a shaky cam. It is dull, turgid film making at its worst. These films do not deserve to sit next to such high art masterpieces such as the early works of Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper and Sam Raimi who created not only one of the best exploitative films ever made but easily the greatest horror comedy ever made in Evil Dead 2. You see there is a passion there, a technique and a genuine sense of novelty that is devoid of all the Asylum pictures. I can't believe megashark has the cult following that it does. I am truly disappointed that these films have a following at all. The reason they do is because no one ever sat them down and showed them what a great B-movie is such as Cannibal Holocaust or Shivers.



Mark please dont give these films any more credit or recognition than they deserve. You know what good films are supposed to be. Hell your favorite picture is the Exorcist! Nothing could give me greater pleasure than to see on your next episode a list of the greatest B films you think were ever made. Thank you.

The problem with the purposefully-bad-cinema is that all the humour is removed. The small enjoyment you get from watching Plan 9 From Outer Space and all the old Ed Wood films is that he is being sincere...and it is so so bad! You are laughing thinking to yourself "I can't believe he thought this was any good, let alone a masterpiece!"



With the self depreciating cinema it's not funny any more because you know that THEY know that it's bad so you simply think "well, what was the point then?"



That's why Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus is even worse than Plan 9 and also why Grindhouse/Planet Terror/Death Proof were absolute crocks of poopie ("Yes Quentin/Robert, we know those old movies were funny, but recreating them ain't.")

I particularly dislike the recent trend of spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS making postmodern ironic winky-winky-isn't-this-awful mockbusters that fondly reference bad movies from the past.



Why waste money on making something that is bad? Even if it's 'so bad it's good' it is still, plainly, bad. Why not make something that is 'so good it's good?' Maybe the people making these films just aren't very good at making films so they wrap everything in a thick layer of postmodironowinks just in case they fail and get criticised for it, at which point they can wink ironically and say 'Ah, but it's meant to be rubbish.' Cowards.



Normally when someone tells me about a film being 'so bad it's good' I don't bother watching it as I'd rather watch something that's actually good; even Plan 9 bored me a bit though it did contain some funny stuff. Recently at a film festival I was presented with a film that finally, to my delight, lived up to the notion of being so terrible that it's enjoyable and that film is 'The Giant Spider Invasion.'



The full production history is available somewhere on the internet but as I understand it the film was originally intended to be a comedy B movie, but written by some guys that really wanted to make something funny. Then at some point the original director dropped out and was replaced by a guy who decided to turn the film into a very serious horror movie.



The result is decidedly hilarious, as the very limited special effects (three tarantulas and a VW beetle covered in carpet) are just not up to delivering the suspension of disbelief needed for effective horror, and the cast seem split between a group of supporting players who believe they're making a comedy and two very serious leads. The director obviously felt that casting middle-aged actors as the romantic leads would bring a gravitas to the picture, but their awkward flirting is just embarrassing.



Like the Ed Wood movies, I don't believe that anyone making this film wanted to make a 'bad movie', but an originally comic script being made by a very serious director actually seems to have an unusual alchemical effect on the film and the end product is funnier and more enjoyable than it may have turned out if it was made entirely as a comedy.



Even if the end result doesn't live up to the original promise, at least Ed Wood and the Giant Spider team were courageous enough to get out there and try to make good movies, and at least we can appreciate them for that.

I also believe that movies trying to be intentionally bad is never as awful as movies trying to be serious and failing. Hence, "Plan 9". However, it depends on the angle from which the director is coming from. If a filmmaker is indulging his own celluloid fantasies and gleefuly sharing then with rabid fanboys then that's fine. The problem lies with movies that simply have rotten hearts, purely out to cash in. Sure, "Plan 9 From Outer Space" makes us all giggle but isn't that a better reaction than recoiling in horror to Transformers 2? At least Ed Wood's movies carry a certain charm. The charm of a man who put his heart and soul into making the movies he wanted to make. While Michael Bay is like the evil cash-cow of Hollywood. In conclusion, I firmly believe Michael Bay is a worse director than Ed Wood.

40 comments in and no-one's mentioned Troll 2 yet?



For me, Troll 2 and The Room are the two best 'so bad they're entertaining' films ever. I actually don't usually appreciate the idea of 'let's laugh at how bad this film is' because it's often just boring and I'd rather not waste my time, but both these films had me totally mesmerized by their awfulness. And they're both films where I really think the directors (not sure about the cast) thought they were making something really good.



Another example of an awful horror film, The Laughing Dead (the S.P Somtow one, not the other one), I found kind of amusing until a scene partway through where the villain (played by the director) seems to be deliberately camping it up. It's still a pretty amusingly funny film for the rest of it, but that scene really gives away that he knows what he's doing.



Thinking about music for a second, it's often said that it takes a good musician to play well, but an excellent musician to play truly badly. That's maybe true, but I think it's not as funny seeing someone, for example, sing badly on purpose. What's funny is seeing someone who is trying really hard and/or believes they're really good, just failing completely. I guess it's the juxtaposition between how they view themselves and the reality of the situation. I think just like real talent, it's something you can't fake.

The problem with The Asylum is that their films, for the most part, are not fun to watch. I know, because I've reviewed their efforts twice: Transmorphers and Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.

https://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/9350-transmorphers

https://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/23078-mega-shark-vs-giant-octopus



The problem with The Asylum is that their movies are not fun to watch. There are occasional moments that reach the heights of fun schlock (the infamous airplane scene in Mega Shark), but the rest of their movies are crushingly boring. The person above who said Transmorphers is better than the big budget counterpart is being incredibly kind, to say the least - it took me two tries to finish it. The thing is, they can't even get the 'fun' part right. As I point out in my Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus review, it takes 70 mins to get to the titular fight and it only last roughly 5 minutes, with about a minute of CGI footage chopped up and repeated over and over again.



I love a good piece of trashy entertainment, but the work of The Asylum? No, they are not.

This is something I've thought about a lot, being a big fan of films like The Wicker Man remake and Troll 2, but with both of these films you don't really get the impression that they're intentionally bad. However, I can't knock Troma, because they distributed Cannibal: The Musical, which got people to notice Matt Stone and Trey Parker who then went on to make South Park, Orgazmo and Team America.



However, there's something really contrived about intentionally making a bad film, and having seen Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, I generally found that with the exception of a few moments (the shark eating the plane, the shark eating the bridge - both of which were in the trailer), it was pretty tedious.



There certainly are films that are so bad they're good, though, but that doesn't include Mamma Mia.

Oh also, I'm listening to your podcast right now. You're not missing out on anything by not knowing who Jack Johnson is.

A film I plan to check out is The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. It's an affectionate (too affectionate, some say) parody of 50's monster movies. But the few quotes on imdb sound like fun.



Also, Troll 2- that's the movie with the famous on youtube scene:



"They're eating her. And then they're gonna eat me. Oh my Gooooood."



Speaking of youtube, there's also this charming nugget from Mortal Kombat Annihilation:



"Mother! You're alive!"

"Too bad- YOU! Will die!"



Yeah, you can sink a few minutes browsing the tube looking for the Worst Scene/Line Delivery/Whatever ever. Worth a chuckle and skipping the boring surrounding film.

I went to see The Corpse Grinders recently and before the screening the BFI showed an episode of the 80's TV show I think called The Very Strange Picture Show, where an under dressed Jonathan Ross introduced us to the writer/producer/director Ted V Mikels. An extraordinary man. A true believer in his films which have gone on to gross thousands over the years.

I was meant to add: he should at least get a mention when talking about trash parody films.

Please please, somebody tell me they have seen "Trees". Total genius, it is a scene for scene remake of "Jaws" but instead of Cop Brody, Fisherman Quint and Marine Biologist Hooper taking a boat onto the ocean to catch a killer Great White Shark it is Park Ranger Cody, Lumberjack Squint and Botanist Cooper taking a 4x4 into the forest to catch a killer Great White Pine, a must see!!!! "You think you can get that little needle through his bark?" "No, but if I can get close enough I can pump 200cc's of Stump Rot directly into it."

maybe this is and odd request but perhaps i could be recommended a number of good horror movies? i've never really warmed to the genre and i didn't find the exorcist particularly scary (mock me if you want). to date, the only horror movie that has actually frightened me is the first alien picture and parts of inland empire. so what i am asking for (both dear kermode and the users here). give me a top five list of horror movies for a non horror movie fan.

GUSTAF S - The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water, REC, The Omen,

For Gustaf S



Not a top five necessarily, but some great movies.



Evil Dead II

Eyes Without A Face

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Don't Look Now

Bride of Chucky





And The Brood. ANY Cronenberg in fact. Even Fast Company's really enjoyable.

And The Wicker Man.

And Day of the Dead. All 6 Dead movies really. I like Day the most.

And Martyrs.

Audition.

City of the Living Dead.

Altered States.

Hellraiser.

The Blob.

The Last House on the Left.

Wolf Creek.

Don't Go in the Woods Alone!

The Mist.

Strip Nude For Your Killer (which has one of the most unexpected endings ever).

At Midnight I Will Take Your Soul.

Bug.

Re-Animator.

Nosferatu (if you can get to a showing with live music it's really worthwhile).

Ratman. (Also has a fantastic ending. And diabolical dubbing).

@Gustaf S

You couldn't go far wrong with

1. Night of the Living Dead (1968) classic Romero with a low budget that makes it more scary.

2. Rosemary's Baby (1968) Mia Farrow are her most paranoid (or is she?).

3. Parents (1989) Directed by Bob Balaban of Close Encounters fame and starring a very creepy Randy Quaid. This is an odd little movie satirising the 50s but with very dark undertones. It's not incredibly well known but I saw it in the local arthouse cinema when it was released and thoroughly enjoyed it. Give it a whirl, it's very different!

4. Hellraiser (1987) Written and directed by Clive Barker and based on his novella The Hellbound Heart. There is some incredible design work in this movie that has given us some classic horror images. I watched it again recently and although it seemed a little bit dated at times (a bit 80s) the overall effect is still disturbing. The whole concept of the cenobites is quite unique and scary. But the scariest character has to be Julia as we learn just what she is capable of. Listen out for the feeding sound effects which are truly gross!

5. An American Werewolf in London (1981) Still the best werewolf flick out there and the transformation sequence has still never been beaten. great use of music, great acting, great effects...go see it now!



Of course there are plenty more good'uns out there, these are a mere taster of all the wonderful movies you could watch. Of course there's Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Thing, The Ring.....etc etc etc.

And t'follow on from MargeGunderson, Hellraiser is fantastic. And it's absolutely worth reading The Hellbound Heart, the first chapter (which is incredibly brief in the film) is stunning.



And your bowels will quake at the mention of Jesus weeping.

MARK, MARK!

apologies for not being relevant to this discussion, but here:



https://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-already-dying?skyline=true&s=i

or here:

https://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/rise-and-fall-3d-19407



is a lovely graph showing the declining revenues of 3d films!



btw we loved Toy story 3 in 2d with the kids this weekend!

@Gustaf S:



Well, first of all, any Lynch film you haven't seen yet. Plus any Cronenberg film you haven't seen yet, but especially The Brood and Dead Ringers for your particular request.



Otherwise, here's a handful that might be of some interest:



Les Diaboliques

Frailty

The Reflecting Skin

Jacob's Ladder

Long Weekend

The Haunting

Tale of Two Sisters

Dead of Night

Kwaidan

The Vanishing

The Signal

Hour of the Wolf

Black Christmas

Twitch of the Death Nerve

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Repulsion

The Innocents

Er, and it goes without saying that those are all the original titles. Please don't go watch the American remake of The Vanishing and get mad at me for recommending it.



Also, Santa Sangre and Jan Svankmajer's Alice might be of some interest.

Gustaf S - For real gut wrenching, bowel clenching horror check out Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. It's possibly the blackest, bleakest, most disturbing movie I've ever seen but it's also a bit of a tear jerker. Very strange.

Deliberately making a rubbish movie is probably harder than making a "normal" movie badly. Making deliberately bad movies dulls the effect of a genuine bad movie as you cannot, or are not expected to, tell whether the makers were being serious or not. The case and point is without doubt Tommy Wiseau's "The Room". I defy any of these "engineered" movie makers to top that one!

It's a shame that every possible corner/aspect of the movie market is covered in an attempt to make more and more money. This bottom feeding attitude takes the fun out of movies that are genuinely bad. Is nothing sacred?

I feel the discussion of bad movies wouldn't be complete without the mention of the comedy series Garth Merenghi's Darkplace, 6 side splitting episodes about a failed fictional supernatural television series that was made during the 1980s.



The show fully illustrates all the things that make these low budget stinkers such as bad scripts, terrible acting, extras missing their cues, terrible special effects, mic booms coming into shot and a director/star that is so arrogant and blinded by his own self importance that he believes he has created a master piece.



I highly recommend it to anyone who has not seen it.



I have witnessed some truly terrible films in my time, the first that comes to mind is a bargain bucket horror called Sleepstalker. This is a truly terrible film but I could not help but laugh at how bad it was, my friends who I was watching it with were also on the floor in stitches.

From this experience and experiences like it I conclude that some of these stinkers do serve a purpose, they evoke a positive reaction, ok its not necessarily the reaction all of them were after but comparing my experience of sleepstalker to Transformers 2 which just managed to make me feel depressed and dirty.



@Gustaf S



Evil Dead 2 is a must!

Dawn Of The Dead (original) by far the creepiest zombie movie.

Eraserhead is like watching someones nightmare projected on a screen.

Videodrome is a very strange very creepy movie with some nice mutation fx.



Not one of my all time favorite horror movies but it is very good and still well worth a watch, Antichrist. I watched it with my girlfriend who will sit through just about anything without batting an eyelid yet somehow she was deeply disturbed by the film and spent most of it with a cushion pressed into her face. So if you want scares and shocks this may just be the one for you. Happy viewing.

The Asylum's worst effort, however, has to be 'Transmorphers'. I watched it hoping for some knock-about parody of the overblown 'Tranformers' series. The problem is, and it is the problem with many mockbusters, that after coming up with the initial idea, it seems that very little effort actually goes into making the movie. It's not just that it is, by necessity, a bit cheap-looking. It's badly , makes no sense, badly casted, badly acted, badly directed, and badly produced. There was then a Transmorphers sequel that managed to lower the bar even further. I don't mind a bit of cheeky fun at the expense of the increasingly-rediculous summer blockbusters, but make SOME effort, please.

@stephen glass



I totally agree with you comment about planet terror not knowing its bad because it thinks its good but planet Terror gets a pass from me because I still think of it as a poor comedy. Its more of a failed spoof than a bad movie.



Death Proof on the other hand is a guy trying to make a good bad movie and making bad bad movie and thinking it’s good. Tarantino is Ed Wood squared.

Darkplace is a great example of a deliberately badly made show that is actually funny, but I think it works more on the level of parody and nostalgia than a lot of other 'deliberately bad' films do. Also, in a sort of perverse way, recreating some of the old 70s/80s video styles and idiosyncracies I thought was actually quite impressive and probably required people who had a lot of specialist technical knowledge. Like I was saying above about how it takes a great musician to play truly badly, I think it took a lot of attention to detail, background knowledge, and technical expertise to deliberately make something as so-bad-it's-funny as Darkplace.

Larry Cohen is another director whos film on the surface seem rubbish but are quite good Films like

The Stuff 1985

Q The Winged Serpent 1982

God Told Me to 1977

The Ambulance 1990

All feel like rip offs of better known movies ,but Cohen has enough savvy to make these films entertaining ,im a huge fan of his work

This inlcudes Return to Salems Lot with Sam Fuller as a Vampire Hunter.



I also love Irwin Allens later po faced an very bad disaster movies

When Time Ran Out 1980

Beyond the Posidon Adventure 1979

and the classic 1978 The Swarm afilm which is deadly serious yet deadly stupid

Different subject.



Possession (1981) has been passed 18 uncut by the BBFC, and will be released on the on 25th October 2010!!!

@ Stuart Yates



I believe Possession was already passed uncut back in 1999; it was released on VHS and Kermode introduced it on Film Four (I still have a recording of it). It's just never been given a DVD release for some reason. Until now! Seriously though, this is AMAZING NEWS! The DVD is already listed on Amazon as a pre-release and I literally can't wait until October.



Now, if only someone in the UK would release more of Zulawski's work; specifically The Most Important Thing is Love, L'amour braque, La femme publique and Fidelity.

When I bought the 'Hell Comes To Frogtown' from my local Oxfam I knew that when I put that video into the machine I wasn't going to be treated to a classic piece of cinema, but that didn't stop me from buying it - I was sold on the title alone.



That title told me that at least this film hadn't undergone the horrors of the test screening and the focus group, that it wasn't a cynical soulless piece of high budget mediocrity designed to appeal to the bovine masses, that its final cut wasn't going to be dictated by the whims of the execs at the studio, and that this film wasn't going to have it's title or casting decided by what a group of marketing bods thought was most appealing to a particular demographic.



The fact that films like Hell Comes To Frogtown and thousands of others like it exist should be cherished. Because for all the inferior, tacky, offensive and outrageous things that trash cinema represents, it also represents creative freedom, the disregard of the consequences of failure and the ability to tell your story the way you want to tell it, no matter how ridiculous or egregious, and as film lovers we should all be thankful for that.

Aaarghh! Why isn't there an edit function on these blogs?

A good example of a modern 'Ed Wood' is Frank Miller and his live action version of the Spirit. It obvious that Miller is not a great film maker but what is more obvious is his love for the comics on which the film is based and perhaps more importantly there creator Will Eisner with whom he shared a personal and professional relationship.

As someone who has a love for the comics it's Millers desire to remain respectful, faithful and loyal to the source material that makes the Spirit an enjoyable if flawed folly.

Getting more real-world serious Mark.



Your thoughts on the cutting of funds to the UK Film Council please.



Did the UK Film Council do good - Bend it Like Beckham, Gosford Park, Fish Tank etc - or bad - Sex Lives of the Potato Men?



Who invests now? What is the state of the British Film Industry?



We have serious talent. Writers, directors, technicians and especially actors (Cain, Mirren, Dench, Craig etc.)



But have we an industry, and how rosy is its future?

Crank

cheers for all the tips! i'm a ''big'' cronenberg and lynch, didn't know some of there movies where considered as horror. i haven't seen any of the early cronenberg (pre videodrome) and i haven't seen eraserhead.



i've basically made a list of what i think i will like to see and repulsion, bug, hellraiser, the first nightmare on elm street and the devils seems to be the movies that would fit my taste the most!

later i will try and see all the george romeros ''of the dead'' films.



once again, thanks for all the tips, i'm not a movie idiot, i just don't ''get'' horror. hopefully this help to fill that gap...

jesus, i just saw all my spelling errors, sorry. i am not an illiterate and you have my sincere apology if anyone is offended.

Whilst we're on the subject of incredibly bad films...why don't you check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNCLAMuwcQE, worst trailer of all time. Thought you would appreciate this Dr. K.

RIP Mr Depps career!

Well, at least they've stopped beating around the bush and started directly begging the audience for money. It's like one of those public access commercials where the nice white man and lady ask you to please send money to starving children in Africa so they can reward you with a commemorative certificate, except in this version Bruckheimer wants you to send money to a drunken pirate so the pair of them can urinate on your face.



I kind of wish Pirates 4 were directed by Michael Bay, actually. At least the explosions in the trailer would distract me from the ennui.

@liquidcow



Good call on Darkplace! Highly highly recommended.

Class of Nuke 'Em High (1986)

Ya can't bottle and sell what makes truly hilariously bad movies good. 'McBain' with Christopher Walken, a film where he shoots a fighter jet pilot flying nearby from the cockpit of a Cessna with a handgun whilst wearing a straight face... could be parodied today, but what would be the point. Its sad that while parodies of parodies thrive... no one can make genuinely awful/awesome movies in the vain of McBain anymore... or TV shows like TJ Hooker.

I liked; Joe's Apartment https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116707/ and Coneheads https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106598/ . They are what some people would call trash and I have been criticised for liking them.



The idea of a mock-buster is not entirely unknown to me. Some of them are too insulting to be good which is why they are successful for a "limited time only". Does that make sense?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

For the lovers of the cash in genre, as well as a whole load of knowingly and unknowingly aweful films, I suggest a subscritpion to a certain cable company that has remained untouched (is that cryptic enough?)



Their pay per view film service contains some of the worst cash ins possible. Things I would never have seen had I not had a subscription :) some of which I have even finished watching.

@Gustaf S



A few that I like



Children of the Corn

Event Horizon

Stephen Kings IT (more mini series than film)

The Shining

Return of the Living Dead (I know more comedy than horror "Send more brains")