How could you dislike The Dead Hate The Living..it waqs a great film untill the dodgy CG at the end

i thought it was shit too ... couldnt stand any of it..




still the worst movie made of all time is :

A Night to Dismember..

Horror:Feardotsucmynuttsack

Genral:the 6th day even though i love the govenator

I liked the Sixth Day but tought it was poor repliqua of Total Recall.

'They' and 'Darkness Falls' for me since they basically looked like the same crappy horror movie. Completely interchangeable. As for worst movie ever, once again I would like to apologize to the makers of 'Grease 2' for saying that nothing could ever replace it on my list. 'Napoleon Dynamite' had me wishing to once more see Adrian Zmed dancing around a motorcycle singing his umpteenth song about how "cool" he is.
CK

The Basketball Diaries rocks. And DiCaprio carries it. I certainly understand why some can't stand the guy. But he isn't exactly talentless.

That's funny, Grease 2 always tops my list of worst movies ever as well...lol.....just horrible. I don't know what I would consider the worst horror film. I'll have to think about that.

I would like to add Boogeyman in that category.

I never saw it, but I'll take your word on it. There seems to have been a rash of movies that all looked the same and were ineffective. I know there's at least one more that fits in, but I can't even remember what it was. 'Fear Dot Com' maybe ? I wonder if it would be possible to edit them all together ad somehow make one watchable, scary film. Probably not.
CK

napoleon dynamite is on my top 5 list of funniest films of all time ..

here are some of the worst "HORROR" movies ive ever seen,

bones, the greenskeeper, drive in, shocker, jigsaw, hatchetman, junior, any fucking scarecrow movie, return of the living dead 3, trick or treat, house of the dead( as a horror film it was awful, but i think of it as an action movie), bleed, sick, killjoy, killjoy 2, most of the short films from fangorias "blood drive", alone in the dark, boogyman, dragonfly, white noise, darkness, and redneck zombie.

agree or not, just say so, dont try to preach me the movie as being great(not to all of you but i hate that shit)

Disagree on Scarecrows (well lit, nice gore), RLD3 (we'll put this down to temporary insanity), Trick or Treat (can't whack a film with backwards messaging and dead rock stars) and The Bogeyman (always underrated, nice atmosphere and gore setpieces).

i dont care about your opinion, i just dont like them.

Help!

That's kinda funny. I have very little patience with scarecrow m00vies, myself. I don't know why, but something about scary scarecrows really bugs me. And if they're somersaulting acrobatic scarecrows, that's even worse!

I did like the shovel-wielding scarecrow in "Curse of the Blue Lights," because he acted like a zombie, spewed yellow goo, and seemed totally out of control homicidal. PLUS it was just a quick scene, a minute or less, and it didn't go over my Scarecrow Tolerance Threshold.

Any horror flick that has those plastic raindeer on the roof.
Actually ANY movie with plastic raindeer on the roof(shudder)

I love that movie, I am not even sure why exactly, but it has always been one of my favorite '80s horror films......silly as it is...:p

I agree I liked Trick or Treat....one of the worst movies I've ever seen was Halloween 3....it might have been a better movie if it wasn't associated with the other Halloween movie's......

The title of a movies shouldn't influence your opinion of the movie. It's not the title you watch. It's a movie. Halloween ripped off a couple of films but I enjoyed it. I thought it was really dark and I liked the fact that kids die gruesome ways, on or off screen.

I don't think it is that great of a movie, but I do think it is better than most people give it credit for. The original idea was that each film would take place on Halloween, but not necessarily be a Michael Myers film, right (or am I remembering wrong)?

Well....after two awsome movies titled Halloween and Halloween2, with Michael Meyers...I think everyone would assume he would be in the third movie....I guess(call me crazy) because IT'S TITLED HALLOWEEN 3.....it had nothing what-so-ever to do with the Halloween francise.....except the name....

The whole theme for Halloween (the orginal) was that Michael Meyers, the younger brother, went crazy and killed his sister with a butcher knife.....Part 1 and 2 followed along with this plot.......

Then comes part 3.......nothing at all to do with the orginal plot....except it being halloween....

Then here comes 5 more Halloween movies (sequelsl) all about Michael Meyers tracking down his relatives...to what¿......to kill them.....:)

*Sighs* My point was that I had heard that Carpenter originally meant for the sequels to not necessarily have anything to do with Myers.....just a story that happens to take place on Halloween. Which means that the third one actually fit into what Carpenter meant to do from the beginning. But people couldn't accept that, because they want to beat a dead horse. That's my theory anyway....:D

So they were supposed to movies that were unique with the only thing in common being Halloween.....not Michael Myers.

But again, I might be remembering wrong. I was trying to find out from someone that knew. Anyone?

I know what you did last summer

Sort of like an anthology. Heard the same thing also, probably in a DVD extra.

dont look now.....totally shit film!!!!!

ghost ship by far

Worst Movie
 

The worst movie that had to ever been made woudl be The Matrixand anything else with Keana Reeves in it

worst movie
 

You are so right when you ahev a good movie like Halloween or Friday 13. there shouldnt be any others. after the first 2 then it seems like same old stuff from then on not as scary becuse you know what is gonna happen

Re: worst movie
 

I do admit to liking many of the sequels. But in general they are unnecessary. Halloween was a great film that didn't need any sequels at all in my opinion (even if I did happen to enjoy the first few) and the sequels just took away some of the impact of the first film. Same with A Nightmare On Elm Street. Freddy was terrifying to me in the first film, then slowly turned into a joke. But the people keep paying to see the sequels, so I guess that is what the people want.

Hehehe.....yeah, I watch 'em dammit....I can't help it, anything horror....lol....I am obviously part of the problem and not the solution.;)

I don't think people look forward to sequels... they want good sequels.

Re: Re: Re: worst movie
 

Hey!!!:mad: I just caught this little comment...completely untrue....:mad: :p

I know several people that are sitting on ready for sequels to movies that haven't had a good sequel in years, if ever. I mean do we really need another Halloween film (I'm sorry the last one was just outright ridiculous) or yet another Friday the 13th sequel? But I realize that a lot of people have fun with them, even though they are tired, in my opinion. But I am just hard to please these days...lol.

...do you mean "Don't Look Now" (1973) ?......not even close to become....... Worst. Movie. Ever.

What exactly was so shitty about Don't Look Now.
I assume, of course, that you are refering to the one by Roeg.

The worst movies that i have seen have to be: some shit movie "Dracula 3000" that movie sucked. Also "Fear.com" was a ridiculous movie. And "Halloween 3" I was watching the marathon and when the 3rd came on I expected to see someting refering to Michale Myers, but it turned out to be about... manipulated masks. I was dissapointed.

bah - all i see are people mentioning mainstream films ....
there isnt one yet that holds a candle to 'the worst horror ever made'

you guys should try off roading into the world of cheap ass backyard trash if you want to see a bad movie ..

There really is no 'worst' movie because all movies took time to make so they are all good to someone. But the movie that I was most dissappointed in was "Land Of The Dead". It contradicted itself in so many ways and it was just horrible.

1) In "Dawn Of The Dead" the zombies could move at very fast speeds, but in "Land" they moved like they were retarded or something. They moved slow, which is crazy. You can't have zombies that can run like deer and then have them move slow in the next movie. Like I said it contradicts itself.

2) It never even explained in any way WHY this one zombie suddenly became smart. I mean why this zombie out of all of them?

3) The zombies in "Dawn" were killers, and then all of a sudden in "Land" well, they are just 'looking for a place to go'. That didn't make any sense. Why didn't they just kill everybody like on "Dawn".

4) Why on earth were they mesmerized by 'sky floweres' (fireworks)? What did that have to do with anything and why did they not bother explaining or at least giving a hint to why the fireworks entertained them?

Thats just my opininon, but I feel that I have made a few points clear on this, and I feel I have explained myself well as to why it was a major dissappointment.

contradicted itself in what way ? :confused:

you do know that you're talking about two different movies, right ? you must also surely know that the dawn of the dead you saw was a REMAKE, and as such does not fit into romero's original trilogy. in snyder's "dawn", the zombies run, which romero himself says is not zombie like at all.

i suggest you rent the dead trilogy : night of the living dead, dawn of the dead ( originals not remakes ) and day of the dead, and then watch land of the dead again. even though i haven't seen it yet, i'm sure it will all make much more sense.

you can't compare the dawn of the dead remake to land of the dead. land of the dead fits into romero's logic and evolution of HIS zombies whereas the remake of DOTD is just that... a remake. it has nothing to do with LOTD. so that you be confused with other aspects of the film i can understand. but not what you stated above in points 1,2,3.

1 more week to go until it comes out here. i'll get back to you.