Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki "The film you​ are about to see, ( sic ) is a depiction of an actual event​, well documented in the annals of the paranormal" - I should have gone with my instinct, and immediately​ switched off the film when I read that statement. This " film " (and​ I use that word in the loosest sense) begins with a three minutes-long title scene, accompanied by a horrendous piano ballad by the filmmakers' own real life band, leading into an eight minutes-long conversation. Eight minutes of stationary, over-the- shoulder photography, meandering, nearly stream-of- consciousness conversation, barely audible in the crummy audio, with these two men babbling, name-dropping their band, eventually about a bizarre, boring experience one of them, Steve, had, as he obviously stutters his lines a couple of times. The audio is so garbled that much of it is unintelligible, but we do know they used lighting equipment, because it is clearly visible on the right centre of the frame, largely blowing out the shot. After so very slowly setting up the paper- thin plot in this over-the-shoulder prologue, the film lapses into flashback for some reason, as we're told the story of Steve, his half brother and his wife, and their friend driving. When asked what did he use for money, Steve responds, " Chocolate milk, and batteries. " What?From 16 minutes on, they drive. We see them driving underneath a bridge, looking out the window at passing landscapes, passing ships on the river, one girl reads an Edgar Allan Poe story in its entirety, while literary critic Steve criticises it, then critiques their food and beer. Breathtaking. From 23 minutes to 29 minutes, a triangular blotch appears at the bottom centre of the frame. At 26 minutes, the quartet get out and argue, and it's difficult to take them seriously when Steve is obviously smiling and trying not to laugh. Characters interrupt each other, frames abruptly cut out, probably to avoid the awful dialogue. Back in the camper, for more driving.At 29 minutes, they allegedly hit someone, off camera. If they couldn't get an actor to play the character they hit, why didn't they just take this scene out? It doesn't go anywhere, or lead to anything, so why is this scene even here? At 30 minutes, back in the van for more driving, and awful piano balladry. At 33 minutes, the camper breaks down. Good! No more driving. Day changes to night, and back and forth, many times, as they try to figure what to do. A real exchange of dialogue in this scene: Chris" " Don't tell me you're taking a coffee break? " to which Steve responds: " Nope, a beer break, and not even a beer break. " Again, what? At 38 minutes, one girl begins having a one-sided conversation with a spirit ( I think. ) Footage here is so dark, I'm not sure even what the bloody hell we're looking at here. Tree limbs? Why don't we see, or more importantly hear, who she is speaking to? She convinced two of her three friends ( Steve was likely too drunk or too disinterested to show up to film this scene, so he is represented in voice over narration ) to hold a seance to speak to the spirits. Unfortunately, the spirits answer them. At 40 minutes, the seance begins. We then catch a glimpse of the rare and elusive * flashback-within-a- flashback * , as the Civil War reenactment footage begins, and the piano balladry begins yet again. The actors' real life band performs seemingly endlessly ( " How manyyy mooooore? " ) Were they trying for an anti-war message here? I lost track of how long this putridity goes on for, but the seance, and Civil War reenactment footage, continues until 63 minutes. Apparently, a Civil War captain lost his head, and needs their help to get it back, and bury it with his body, so he can at last rest in peace. The three of them ( again, Steve isn't in this scene, except for his voice over narration) dig up his skull, which is obviously plastic, and bury it with the rest of his plastic body.I wish I could say I'm making that up, but I'm not. That's your plot right there. Film concludes with an epilogue, and the stationary, over-the-shoulder photography, meandering, nearly stream-of- consciousness conversation, barely audible in the crummy audio, with these two men babbling, and the visible lighting equipment blowing out a lot of the frame return, before the piano muzak, again performed by the filmmakers' own real life band, returns yet again for the closing credits. This film seems merely an excuse to showcase their music, and name drop their no-name band. Every single scene is just filler material. Nothing that happens sets up anything that happens later, and there isn't even any sex or nudity, no violence, there's not even a single bit of profanity, but yet this is supposedly " Rated R ". The cinematography is so faint and blurry, the " actors " ( again, used only in the loosest sense of the word ) look like spectral holograms drifting in the breeze. Speaking​ of breeze, the flickering, slightly wavy image looks like this entire film is being projected onto a sheet hung on the wall, and then filmed by someone else, using the lowest quality camera equipment possible, and microphone which sounds like it was in the cellar, while the actors were upstairs, and edited using child- proof scissors and duct tape. Furthermore, this was obviously filmed sometime in the 70s, judging by their hair, and clothing, and not released until quite some time later.Although, I must admit, a documentary about the making of this movie might be funny

WakenPayne Monster A-Go Go is worse in my opinion mainly because it doesn't even have a narrative.I came across this movie when others compared to the movie above. I just had to see what people had to say about it here. It is described in such a way to appeal to any cinematic masochist. The one thought that came to my mind was "After watching Monster A-Go Go I thought every movie I saw afterwards was watchable, shall I test that?". After watching this I might be right.The basic plot is that Random guy 1 asks Random guy 2 if he wants to go on a road trip while drinking in a basement... Sorry - Bar. Then he explains why he doesn't want to go by explaining a road trip with his brother and 2 girls - one of which can see dead people and finds ghosts of a confederate army.Now, in a horror movie there always seems to be a sense of danger. That's why the audience is on the edge of their seat in suspense or turning away in disgust at the latest gore-fest. In here the only sense of danger for anyone involved (in the movie or otherwise) is you from falling asleep.Then there's the ghosts themselves. Whoever thought having someone who sounds like he has smoked an entire tobacco harvest and have him put pauses in between every word is not a good idea.Then there's the other aspect of the movie - the technical aspect. Like Monster A-Go Go the director here seems to think night shots of complete blackness seems to be a good idea. I'm not even going to explain why this is a problem.Then the director seems to rip a page out of Hal P Warren's book. There are many shots to indicate that the people are driving, and driving, and driving, and driving GET ON WITH IT!!!!! If you want more descriptions of scenes that if you cut out you wouldn't miss anything there's about 10 minutes of confederate war reenactments with country music over the top of it. The only reason why I think this was kept was because this is the best part (which is really depressing once you see it).The Acting is next. Most of the actors look and sound like they're reading off of cue cards (or the script itself). They're not the worst I have ever seen but they're still crap.Then there's the sound editing. Usually I didn't think making the dialogue audible would be such a hard task but it happens here. Thankfully (...or not?) you do get used to it and able to understand most of what is going on (Give me translators for the ghost and I'll be fine).The one thing that boggles my mind is why this was never on MST3K. I can see The bots tearing this movie to shreds with all the dignity it doesn't have. Given the concept it could've been decent if not entirely original. It could be worth a watch for those who think "Manos is the worst movie ever made" or cinematic masochists, but this movie should remain unknown.

Cinnamental This isn't just bad. It's terrible. The acting. The script. The plot. The production value. If you think Manos is the worst movie ever, watch this pile of dung and then tell me what you think. If I ever wanted to fall asleep within 10 minutes (or less), I'll put on this movie. I can't watch it alone because it might put me into a coma. Watch it with a friend. The worst flick ever made shouldn't be "enjoyed" alone. I've watched it 4 times, and that's quite a feat. The plot is razor thin. There's a 7 minute scene of an RV. No spoiler there, because the delicate plot points aren't revealed. There are no delicate plot points. Watch this and "Orgy of the Dead" as an awful movie double feature.

zardoz12 It's sad when I have to use a quote from "Pod People" to describe a film, but in this case it's horribly true (no pun intended.) Tony Malinowski (the director and "Chris Starke") made this movie to fit some Civil War re-enactment footage he had shot God-knows-when, but only the Almighty can tell us WHY he did it. I'm guessing a quick buck on the Southern drive-in circuit. Certainly you have the glimmerings of a semi-decent '70s horror flick; a group of young people drive into desolate woods to check out a bit of property willed to one of them, their van breaks down, the "psychic" member of the group has "forbodings" but leads a seance, then ghosts emerge from the treeline. At this point (SPOILERS COMING!), you would expect an attack, or a chase, or a possession scene. NONE of that happens; instead the group feels sorry for the ghosts, and helps them complete a task "they swore beyond the grave to do." Nobody gets killed, though the protagonist is freaked out by the "psychic" chick he tried to pick up on the way to the woods. And did I mention that all of this is a flashback told by "Starke" to a member of his unseen rock band while sitting in the fakest basement bar ever? I mean, it doesn't even have a bartender!Besides the rock bottom script and stolid non-acting, what really hurts "Night of Horror" are the endless technical glitches. In short, they would have been better off shooting it without sound and in monochrome. The vocal track sometimes buzzes, while the film itself looks like it was shot without the right filters, and every shot is either blindingly overlit or excruciatingly underlit, though at some points you can tell that parts were lit using auto headlights. And then there's that semi-triangular patch of gunk in the bottom center of the screen. Not even Ed Wood's people would shoot 7 minutes of footage with a lens that filthy! In short just avoid this, because it just isn't worth riffing.