Worst Horror Film (of all time)

[Baphomette]

Over the years, I've seen a lot of horror based theatrical tragedies including, but not limited to, such gems as Strangeland and Final Destination. However, I nominate the following movie as the worst horror film of all time (in fact, maybe the worst film of all time full stop):

George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead

I've watched it. I can't unwatch it.

[darkglobe]

I haven't seen it yet, so I can't say for sure that I'd agree. (Though I'm up to giving it a shot - if I ever do see it, I'll post about it here!)

As for what is the worst horror film I've seen, there is now way that the above mentioned film could be worse that Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem.

[Baphomette]

If you are up to seeing it, I can only recommend that you don't a.) waste your money on it and b.) have anything better to do, the definition of which can include watching paint dry and/or grass grow. ;D

I haven't seen your vote for worst horror film, so I can't comment on how it compares, but I can tell you what's wrong with DOTD (although after being recently exposed to Zombie's atrocious version of Halloween, I'm not entirely sure that DOTD is the worst).

On second thought, I'd prefer not to poison your mind prior to watching it/them because I would love to have the merits of both explained, primarily because, amongst the general horror viewing public, the positive/negative reviews seem to be split about 50/50. I don't consider myself to be a stupid person, which is why films that treat their audience like they're devoid of the sort of intelligence required to perform simple tasks like tie their own shoelaces and chew their food before swallowing it don't generally appeal to me, but I also have a hard time believing that 50% of horror fans are stupid. On second thought, I don't because I've dealt with a lot of them over the years, but still.

Let's just say that the best comment I've read regarding DOTD was "if you didn't feel as if this film insulted your intelligence, it's obvious that you don't have any". In my opinion, the sentiment applies to Zombie's Halloween, as well. In fact, I think I lost a few brain cells during the screening of that particular gem.

Eh, maybe we've just reached the day and age that subtext in films has become passé - not to mention things like cinematography, dialogue, plot, acting, cohesiveness and cleverness. They're evidently lame as all hell, too.

[darkglobe]

Aug 11, 2008 15:05:56 GMT -5 Baphomette said:

Eh, maybe we've just reached the day and age that subtext in films has become passé - not to mention things like cinematography, dialogue, plot, acting, cohesiveness and cleverness. They're evidently lame as all hell, too.

WARNING: ENTERING THE RANT ZONE

If you are talking about the tendency of modern films to base their worth on making obvious social points along particularly well-defined political outlooks, then I agree, they are doing a poor job of it and the films are suffering!

I recently was reading on another board about people's favorite comedies, and the criteria used by some people wasn't what was the funniest film, but the funniest film that also made particular political points (whatever the politics of the reviewer), which in turn made the film somehow seem to them more "true to life" or "making a larger point about society" and thus of more worth than a funnier comedy built of sight gags, clever wordplay, a fun script, etc. If there wasn't an obvious political dimension, the film was deemed weaker.

These days, there is too much emphasis tied to notions of "realism" and political messages in film. I come from a camp that figures that a film's worth should come from the film itself, and if it does the job it sets out to do... and not various political messages that it is supposed to send. I had a professor who insisted that Raiders of the Lost Ark was all about the Reagan presidency and his foreign policy, with thoughts equating Indy's whipping the native bearer who tried to kill him at the beginning of the movie as a reemergence of the Big Stick policy, and that the shot of the Washington Monument towards the end of the film was supposed to show that Reagan & American's phallus were strong once again after a decade of doubt. It has nothing to do with the film at all - it's just a fellow who was compelled to force his political views into a film review because that is what is expected of critics now. I think, with people going through film school and reading about film theory (or, folks like Romero being told again and again what his zombie movies stand for), they start to cave in, begin to believe the hype, and start turning a weak political subtext into the "text".

In my eyes, a film about a group of monsters living in a haunted castle, and a film single mother trying to pay the bills in Ohio on a low paycheck week to week, are equally fictional - I just made them up. For the heavy minded critic, however, the single mother storyline is more realistic, and thus better morally and politically - it's confronting the world head on, and not trying to be "escapest (even though it is just as @#$%! fictional!). The only worth with the haunted castle story is if they can shoehorn a political belief behind the monsters ("the creatures of Midian represent the nation of XYZ's struggle of freedom again the oppresive ZYX regime"), but even then, the single mother drama would be considered the better film by the snot-nosed critic.

I don't think of films as being just simple entertainment - nothing ever is, really. But there is a world of experience and possibility that can't be summed up in a sound-byte, or a conventional outlook (what you say, there might be more to political discourse or world view other that just democrat-republican-anarchist-feminist-conservative?), and I think that reducing films to following well-worked outlines, or even making them more friendly to be so "decoded" are doing film fans and fans of story a disservice.

Of course, if that's not the problem with Diary, then my bad!

[darkglobe]

... thus, the resounding lack of reply makes me think this isn't what the Harsh Web Mistress B was talking about!

[dante]

i agree with everything you guys have said - Diary was a disappointment on a colossal scale. insulting beyond description. i wanted my time and money back. sadly i got neither.

i shall be very wary of Romero's next movie.
'twas a sad day indeed.....

[Baphomette]

Ah, shit. Sorry. I didn't mean to not reply. My life can just be ..well.. hectic, I guess, and, like as not, I have the sort of attention span that's most generally associated with a hyper kitten. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else, and I almost always end up feeling guilty and apologizing for it. Like now.

You have hit the nail on its proverbial head in regards to a film's subtext morphing into its text, and I think you've also managed to explain why (roughly) 50% of DOTD viewers found it worthy of merit.

One can obviously choose to further one's own political or social agenda with any work of cinematography or literature. A perfect example of that particular phenomenon can be witnessed in the bible beating, religious zealots who continue to preach hatred despite the fact that they were explicitly instructed to love one another. It goes without saying that, more often than not, one sees what one wants to see and can conveniently apply blinders if the intended message doesn't adhere to one's own dogma. In other words, the message conveyed and the message intended are not always one and the same, regardless of how clear that message is.

I honestly don't know whether or not Raiders of the Lost Ark was about the Reagan administration, and much like you, I find that I don't care. If I'm expected, in a capitalist society, to pay for entertainment, that's precisely what I expect. If there's political and/or social commentary within a film, so be it because it can be ignored, dissected or, as noted above, twisted to resemble one's own ideology, but if it doesn't entertain in the process, why not just call it a debate and show it on network television? I'll tell you why. Because it's not a debate. It's the viewpoint of one person being violently shoved down the masses' throats for money. No discussion or creativity included.

I am a fan of Romero's work, and because of that, I've tried to convince myself that DOTD was simply a parody of modern filmography (in essence that, in this day and age, anyone with a camcorder can make a film, despite their more than obvious lack of access to decent actors, props, FX, script, plot, set, subtext, etc., resulting in an inferior product that should never see the light of day, much less the sort of exposure that the internet allows). However, it didn't wash, primarily because it was not entertaining. If anything, it was a brand new form of ludicrous that was so far out of character (considering his other works) that I honestly expected the credits to read "George D. Romero" or some other such nonsense.

The text of the film (notice that I didn't say subtext) was delivered in the most cheesy way possible, via voice over based dialogue, scolding the technologically dependent masses for their ability to adapt to what has become our society. I'll admit that I'm generally apathetic in respect to blogs and other such inventions of the digital age. I accept the fact that what I have to say is not generally all that important. True, it might be important to me, but I have a lot of thoughts that I never express, much less feel obliged to express to strangers simply because I can. What goes on in my mind is ..well.. personal and entering into a pissing contest for popularity is not exactly my cup o' tea (as further illustrated by the fact that I end up apologizing to people for my lengthy absences from the cyberworld). And, more importantly, I realize that my opinions exist whether I decide to share them or not. Sharing them makes them no less valid, mind you, nor does it make them more valid.

In other words, the message was lost on me. I don't know if it was lost in translation or just plain lost. All I know is that regardless of the way I behave, I accept that other people behave differently. If people want to blog or document their lives in some other digitally based way, I say let them. It gives them purpose, and it makes them happy, it makes them feel loved and accepted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I won't get into the dark side of human nature via digital communication because ..well.. web based politics and gossip and pissing contests bore the living crap out of me. Some people thrive on that kind of shit though, so rather than stand in their way, I simply laugh at the absurdity of it all because it comes from a nefarious place, and those who participate in that kind of thing are generally nothing more than sheep who are incapable of having an original thought of their own.

But, I digress. It failed miserably on the realism front, as well. I think you'll have to see it to believe it though. All I can say is that it suggests Romero is totally out of touch with the modern version of reality and/or he's lost his magic altogether. In fact, I think a more appropriate view of reality might've been more apathy and less overreacting to situations that simply didn't seem all that threatening. True, people tend to overreact when their keyboard is in front of them, but that doesn't take much effort. I would've totally accepted it if the kids had rushed off to blog about hearing a strange noise in the woods rather than suddenly found themselves in the grip of sheer, unadulterated, unreasonable terror.

I have no intention of watching it again, but I also recall having the distinct impression that it was a contradiction of itself, thus my desire to believe that it was a parody. One of those "just because it can be documented on film doesn't mean it should be, and I've wasted quite a bit of your life ramming this information down your throat by proving it to you (and making you pay for that proof), you dumb fuck" sort of things. I really dislike being mocked, and Romero's work has never made me feel that way. Savini's remake of NOTLD made me feel that way on a smaller scale, specifically the voice over commentary at the end (because I was evidently too stupid to understand Romero's message in the original film since it didn't contain those word type things, and although it came as a rather large surprise to me, I evidently needed it spelled out). Oh, I could rant about that for hours.

However, not the point. Point is that perhaps 50% of people like to have stuff spelled out for them. Perhaps 50% of people need to be told what to believe. Perhaps 50% of people are the sheep for whom this DOTD was made. Either way, it sucked, and Romero should be ashamed of himself for its lack of value, entertainment and otherwise. Of course, that's just my opinion, and it obviously cannot be used as legal tender or anything.

[dante]

saw something the other day where Romero said he thought Diary was his best work. ever. i was stunned. he really thinks he made a great movie. incredible.
my faith in him is gone forever.
nice post baphomette. nail on head.

[Baphomette]

Oct 16, 2008 11:47:41 GMT -5 dante said:

saw something the other day where Romero said he thought Diary was his best work. ever. i was stunned. he really thinks he made a great movie. incredible.

Maybe he's simply senile?

It is, quite honestly, the only explanation (read: excuse) I have for DOTD at this point. I'll readily admit that I was hoping for a chronological sequel prior to the tragedy that was my first and only viewing (or something that was at least in the vein of a sequel) because I thought that Romero could pull one off cleverly (especially since the zombies were forming something resembling an organized "society" in LOTD), but alas, we get rubbish.

Oh, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I really want to be wrong about this, it sounded to me as if DOTD was merely a portent of rubbish yet to come. To think that it may spawn a sequel or two is nothing short of distressing.

[dante]

a sequel?
oh no....

i just checked imdb and 'tis true.
there is no way i'm paying to watch it - i 'may' wait for a friend to rent the dvd, but i doubt i'll even bother to be honest.

as much as it pains me to say it, i thought the thoroughly dreadful Zombie Diaries (made a year earlier than the romero sh*tfest) was a better movie by virtue only of the fact that it didn't really try and pretend to be anything it wasn't.

apparently this Diary 'sequel' will feature swimming zombies and an island... Zombie Flesh Eaters this will certainly not be. House Of The Dead is probably a closer bet.

what saddens me most about this is that i now look back at the original Holy Trinity (plus LandOTD) as marred and tainted from the Diary experience. it's as if romero got lucky before. it's as if the fans/critics had maybe read more into those original films than was actually intended.
DayOTD will always be one of my very favourite films of all time - no question - but i now feel as if i have to separate it from the others in my mind.

[cobweb]

Yikes. I'm torn between avoiding it because it's so horrible and wanting to see it, for the same reason. It's the nature of our species to be inexplicably drawn to the scene of a tragedy.

Maybe if I just watch bits and fast forward through most of it.

Understanding that I generally don't watch movies that more than one source has said are bad, and therefore probably haven't seen the real winners in this category, from the movies that I have seen; I would have to nominate "Dead Alive" for the worst horror movie ever.

Blood without a plot is like butter without bread. It tastes good, but it leaves you empty. Then Dead Alive comes along and floods the screen with not just blood, but pus and all manner of bodily fluids too. I like to think that I have strong stomach, but this film made me a tad ill.

I will grant it one positive merit: The upside-down lawnmower zombie-chopping scene. That was nifty. ;D

[darkglobe]

Well, there was the matter that George Romero had a stroke or some other serious illness right before making Diary, so it might be that he was too exhausted to fight to make it his film the right way. And, considering all the budget woes he's had, it may be that he's just given in to capitulating to other's ideas of what his films mean.

It sounds like he was trying to use a horror film to criticize horror fandom though, which seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. But I'm not surprised in a way; there is a real loathing of the genre among people who love it. I'm on another horror board where the die hard people who love the genre, many for over 40 years, basically believe that the best films are the so-called important ones, and that most if not nearly all horror films are not "important" because they aren't real (as opposed to Kramer Vs. Kramer, which really happened :. That's crazy talkin', and it's like if you don't think they are important or worthy, why be interested?

Maybe it's the same problem in academic circles as in religion - in the old days, people had a personal relationship with whatever they thought was spiritual truths, now most folks have to go to official mediators to be told what to think. And with critics/filmmakers/academics, they are there to tell the masses who are too stupid to understand what to think. If you can't figure out a message in an entertainment for yourself, then something went wrong, and if you are flat-out telling it to begin with, it's no longer a story, it's a Thomas Paine broadside.

I have to admit though, my interest is peaked in it. Having just watched the original Dawn and Day recently, I'd like to see where Diary stands with the others.

And I put a downpayment on a bridge in Brooklyn with your opinion legal tender at a variable rate... that's not a bad deal, is it???

[Baphomette]

@ dante: I completely agree with your observation about Zombie Diaries. Granted, it was atrocious for more reasons than one, but the originality of the plot rated it quite a few extra bonus points in my book. It's just too bad they didn't wrap a better made film around it.

And I'm a very, very rabid original Day of the Dead fan, too. In fact, it's my favorite zombie flick. ;D

@ cobweb: If you do watch it, be sure to let me know if it beats Dead Alive for the worst horror flick award. You can't fast forward though. That's cheating. You can, however, fall asleep, slip into a boredom induced coma and/or make it your mission to smash the DVD with a blunt object a few thousand times halfway through viewing. It's always good to have an escape plan.

@ darkglobe: 'Tis a fabulous deal, indeed. ;D I honestly don't know what Romero was trying to accomplish with Diary unless he actually does feel that the bulk of his fans (perhaps, as you've said, horror fans in general) are as dumb as a stump. At least you've seen his best zombie flick now, so you're adequately prepared to see his worst. Well, his worst so far, anyway.

I will be curious to know what conclusion you draw from it when you watch it though, primarily because it's difficult for me to believe that it doesn't have at least one merit. Sadly, I didn't manage to identify it, but I'm hoping that someone can. And by someone, I mean someone who doesn't think that 'it rawks hxc' is actually a thought provoking review or genuine analysis, which seemed to be the consensus amongst many who adored it.

[dante]

Here's something on the sequel from George
www.schlockaroundtheclock.com/?p=31

why am i even bothering to look this stuff up?

hehe Baphomette, just out of curiosity, did you watch the DayOTD2 2005 'rehash' Contagium or something? - thinly veiled as a tangent sequel to the Dawn remake but it seemed more closely related to the dreadful Resident Evil movies. Then there was the equally nauseating full blown 2008 DayOTD remake - like there needed to be one......
Terrible. Both of them.

They reminded me of Return Of The Living Dead 4.
1 GENIUS. LEGENDARY EPIC GENIUS.
2 Lightning doesn't strike twice, but hey i found enough in it to keep me amused throughout. The zombies in the jeep kill me everytime.
3 Actually pretty cool in uncut form - lots of claret. Pretty original story i guess.
4 Let us never speak of this again.
5 Getting back to the fun of the original - i thought i'd hate it, i didn't.

zombies, huh?
when they work they really work well.
when they suck they threaten to sink the whole genre.