Top 10 Worst Movies

To me, there is no scale of the effectiveness of CGI. Either you notice it and it bothers you, or it doesn't bother you. It bothered me. A lot.

That's the scale, it bothered you a lot instead or a little or not at all. -_-

It almost always does, in any movie. I'll tell you the reason why - because it happens at the beginning of the movie, there's a person running in utter terror. You don't know who they are, you don't know what's going on, you don't know whether you're supposed to take it seriously or not... and then you see water where the walls should be, a bad video-game / cartoon graphic in the water-"walls" is chasing a human being who is really scared. These are images that do not match up together. At all. And it undermines any effectiveness that that scene might have. And it's just not a failed scene, it's an aggravating scene. Not an easily forgotten or overlooked one. And it taints a person's opinion of the rest of the movie.

NP, it was a scene that teased at establishing a fairly major plotpoint for the movie, it wasn't meant to reveal a whole lot right off... The pursuer, I'd imagine, was meant to look fantastic (In a fantasy sense of the word, not a "great" sense of the word), and even if not the effect would be very hard to pull of practically and still keep the same sense of the being...

Another thing; because one party is convincingly terrified by what you consider a bad effect, it taints the whole thing? I'd say the direction and portrayal far makes up for any cheapness in the graphic; Just because elements you consider to be tonally different come together doesn't mean they necessarily clash, as I'll touch on more. For now I'll say that acting less terrified of less-realistic effects isn't more appropriate, it's just as disappointing as acting less terrified of better effects.

A plot can be IDEAS-creative all it wants to, but it needs to be a well-executed idea. This movie is not a well-executed idea. And the movie goes back and forth tonally. It's rated-R but wants to switch back and forth between being Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers to Barry Sonnenfeld's Men in Black.

Again, two different tones coming together don't necessarily clash if you ask me; I think Frighteners truly achieved a balance between the horror and comedy, which come together to form their own tone so to speak... There aren't really any intensely bleak moments to the film, nor is there anything that veers off into total slapstick; there are moments in the film that are different in tone but as things change from one mood to the other no one really goes out of character (Why isn't Drag me to hell in your list? It falls into the very traps you mention a LOT more markedly than this film if I say so myself

).

The "humor" in this movie is so childish, I literally began to feel like the director was some retarded schoolkid unable to stop laughing at his best friend farting, even days after the friend farted. The characters are stupid and obnoxious. The dialogue is full of awful one-liners (especially from the nerd and black ghosts!!) - this movie's whole sense of humor is completely dumbed-down.

What are you even talking about here??? Are one-liners and ghosts acting weird really among the worst comedy you've seen? I can imagine not liking it at all, but really having your intelligence insulted to such an extent by a film that never really veers to any screwy extreme is ridiculous, at least to me! When did it feel like the director was "laughing at fart jokes"? As I remember the film they don't really repeat things ad-nauseum and the characters weren't totally unlikeable or anything...

And once you meet that bitch newspaper woman- an oppressive predictability sets in. It sets a pattern of antagonistic characters: the client with the flying babies, Trini Alvarado's boyfriend, the ghost Army Commander, Jeffrey Combs' character; and all of those people are intended to be used in a farce-capacity to basically piss the audience off. They represent, together, the only serious facet to the movie. And their seriousness fucks with the humor. Big-time! This movie can't go back and forth between juvenile humor and harsh characters who drive me crazy. It doesn't mix into an effective whole. Too much of this movie was designed for kids. It's not a smart movie.

Piss the audience off? Just about all the characters you mentioned were a big asset to the film, they didn't piss me off by being antagonistic, in fact they provided a fair bit of entertaining conflict! They were the only serious facet to the movie? I'd say they provided the most original comic-relief! Even with them, everything was taken in a fairly sober, if absurd, way.

Last Edit: Oct 21, 2009 9:49:16 GMT -5 by briggs

Neo-Cons, transform and roll out!

nopersonality
Guest

Top 10 Worst Movies Oct 21, 2009 11:19:27 GMT -5

Quote

Post by nopersonality on Oct 21, 2009 11:19:27 GMT -5

To me, there is no scale of the effectiveness of CGI. Either you notice it and it bothers you, or it doesn't bother you. It bothered me. A lot.

That's the scale, it bothered you a lot

CGI bothers most people I know and have met online as much as it does me. It's impossible to accept or suspend disbelief, even in a fantasy concept, if it looks this bad. We know what it looks like- cartoons, water, and video game graphics. Practical effects take more time to create, more craft to place into a movie, more work on the part of the people who build them, and are always preferable to the lazy use of computers. I don't know anyone who takes films like this as an artform. There's nothing artistic or noble about using computers to do what looks better through the use of practical fx. With practical effect-work, you can actually feel it with your mind. Even if you know it's fake, it has onscreen the same physical weight as any other object (depending on what the filmmakers are doing with the camera to play with the motion of our eyesight / view).

NP, it was a scene that teased at establishing a fairly major plotpoint for the movie, it wasn't meant to reveal a whole lot right off... The pursuer, I'd imagine, was meant to look fantastic (In a fantasy sense of the word, not a "great" sense of the word), and even if not the effect would be very hard to pull of practically and still keep the same sense of the being...

Another thing; because one party is convincingly terrified by what you consider a bad effect, it taints the whole thing? I'd say the direction and portrayal far makes up for any cheapness in the graphic; Just because elements you consider to be tonally different come together doesn't mean they necessarily clash, as I'll touch on more. For now I'll say that acting less terrified of less-realistic effects isn't more appropriate, it's just as disappointing as acting less terrified of better effects.

Briggs, you can cite the director's intentions all you want to. But the effect and the affect are wasted. The entire scene is wasted. You can't take something seriously that looks that fake. At least, I can't. The director meant for the audience to buy it, that the water-wall was even almost like a boogeyman / spiritual force chasing a person in terror. The two images do not match up. It's as simple as that. If the effect doesn't work, the intention fails. No matter how creative people like you get in your defenses.

Not to mention that this was a big Hollywood movie production. They had to money to do better work than this. There's no good reason to defend it. You can disagree all you want to.

Again, two different tones coming together don't necessarily clash if you ask me; I think Frighteners truly achieved a balance between the horror and comedy, which come together to form their own tone so to speak... There aren't really any intensely bleak moments to the film

Can I honestly trust you to give an unbiased opinion on that, though? I'll agree it's not a bleak movie. But the tone shifts into way too serious in all the scenes involving the hospital gun shootings. Both in flashback and when you see the face of the death-ghost / killing force stealing the souls from the bodies. And neither the serious tone nor the silly tone of the movie do this subject matter justice. It's stupid to just breeze by it in any capacity. One of the reasons it isn't bleak is because it's too wooden. I wouldn't complain if it has some life to it. But like everything in this movie, it's weak.

Anyway, when it comes to serial killers in comedy, John Waters was doing killer commentary much better over 2 decades of films before this movie. Frighteners is no Serial Mom. Or, taking into account the spiritual content and mixing periods together - no Lady in White, either.

No, the tones do not go together. They also didn't go together when Touchstone tried for a similar mix of zany and confrontational in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (several elements in that movie don't fit, especially the murder of the cute cartoon shoe). You can't ignore the audience movies are intended for. This movie was clearly made with a childish mind and yet marketed as a horror movie. Though since you brought up Sam Raimi, I don't pretend this kind of thing didn't in fact affect Evil Dead II. I think that's a weak sequel, anyway.

nor is there anything that veers off into total slapstick; there are moments in the film that are different in tone but as things change from one mood to the other no one really goes out of character (Why isn't Drag me to hell in your list? It falls into the very traps you mention a LOT more markedly than this film if I say so myself

).

I don't see one good reason for me to watch Drag Me to Hell. I haven't enjoyed a Sam Raimi film since the original Evil Dead.

And obviously, the reason this movie gets under my skin so much is that it isn't completely slapstick. But the attitude behind the film is slapstick. The director isn't taking the making of the movie seriously. It's sloppy. Peter Jackson can't make up his mind. And frankly, with his previous splatter films Bad Taste and Dead Alive, he used up all his quality-control. All his tact. All his craft with mixing humor and horror together. Frighteners is another Meet the Feebles in his canon. Both are sloppy, half-assed in terms of story/character, and tonally fucked up.

What are you even talking about here??? Are one-liners and ghosts acting weird really among the worst comedy you've seen? I can imagine not liking it at all, but really having your intelligence insulted to such an extent by a film that never really veers to any screwy extreme is ridiculous, at least to me! When did it feel like the director was "laughing at fart jokes"? As I remember the film they don't really repeat things ad-nauseum and the characters weren't totally unlikeable or anything...

Their whole existence is justified by nothing but the one-liners that come out of their mouths. That's it. And they're really bad one-liners at that. Not to mention, when you realize the film never matures or changes gears in terms of intelligence - it's impossible to ignore the first impressions the characters gave you. You're never allowed to get beyond them. To take the contrary position you're taking, you're basically telling me this was a funny movie. That the one-liners were clever. That the stereotypes were amusing and not stupid, tired, and old. That the joking around never affected the more serious moments in the action. It affected every single one.

As for my reference to "fart jokes," I'm talking about the maturity level of Peter Jackson. The humor in this film is oppressively and overbearingly obnoxious and childish.

Piss the audience off? Just about all the characters you mentioned were a big asset to the film, they didn't piss me off by being antagonistic, in fact they provided a fair bit of entertaining conflict!

If you found this entertaining conflict, you must really have loved Men in Black. I hated it. It's not enough for me for actors to play extreme stereotypes (whether they are heroes, villains, or in-between) and just be over-the-top. I need more. And Jackson gave us more in Bad Taste and Dead Alive. He gave us a lot of very adult moments, atmosphere that made me actually feel creeped out a few times, and characters that even if they weren't serious were not neglected by really, really bad jokes and gags. These things mixed together to form a whole that didn't make me feel like I was being insulted.

When Peter Jackson starts pandering to a dumber kind of audience, he loses all control of himself. And I've always been in favor of filmmakers who keep control, even in their wackier movies. Like Joe Dante. Or Tim Burton (even though Ed Wood bored the living snot out of me).

Last Edit: Oct 21, 2009 11:23:21 GMT -5 by nopersonality

briggs
Senior Member

Posts: 337

Top 10 Worst Movies Oct 21, 2009 12:44:20 GMT -5

Quote

Post by briggs on Oct 21, 2009 12:44:20 GMT -5

CGI bothers most people I know and have met online as much as it does me. It's impossible to accept or suspend disbelief, even in a fantasy concept, if it looks this bad. We know what it looks like- cartoons, water, and video game graphics. Practical effects take more time to create, more craft to place into a movie, more work on the part of the people who build them, and are always preferable to the lazy use of computers. I don't know anyone who takes films like this as an artform. There's nothing artistic or noble about using computers to do what looks better through the use of practical fx. With practical effect-work, you can actually feel it with your mind. Even if you know it's fake, it has onscreen the same physical weight as any other object (depending on what the filmmakers are doing with the camera to play with the motion of our eyesight / view).

I pretty much agree with you here, though I've learned to tolerate a good amount of the stuff. To me, there are indeed differing levels of how much CGI doesn't get in the way and how much goes to hurt a film; for it's plot I found the effects in this film were acceptable.

Briggs, you can cite the director's intentions all you want to. But the effect and the affect are wasted. The entire scene is wasted. You can't take something seriously that looks that fake. At least, I can't. The director meant for the audience to buy it, that the water-wall was even almost like a boogeyman / spiritual force chasing a person in terror. The two images do not match up. It's as simple as that. If the effect doesn't work, the intention fails. No matter how creative people like you get in your defenses.

I can see how you don't like the effect (Though I maintain that I could), but it seemed to me as though you were saying the human element actually made the scene worse, and that doesn't sit right with me. Though I can see how one would find the effects bad, I think the acting in the beginning did a whole lot to make the action seem genuine (As a matter of fact I think the majority of the performances have at least a degree of realism to them), and someone, be it the actors or the one directing them, should have some credit for that.

Not to mention that this was a big Hollywood movie production. They had to money to do better work than this. There's no good reason to defend it. You can disagree all you want to.

I can say that sometimes skilled crewmen make bad decisions which make things turn out substandard, which doesn't make their product instantly awful. I can't really judge opinion but I think this, even if you don't like the product, is an odd choice for least-favorite films

Can I honestly trust you to give an unbiased opinion on that, though? I'll agree it's not a bleak movie. But the tone shifts into way too serious in all the scenes involving the hospital gun shootings. Both in flashback and when you see the face of the death-ghost / killing force stealing the souls from the bodies. And neither the serious tone nor the silly tone of the movie do this subject matter justice. It's stupid to just breeze by it in any capacity. One of the reasons it isn't bleak is because it's too wooden. I wouldn't complain if it has some life to it. But like everything in this movie, it's weak.

This is where I imagine our opinions on this movie differ the most; I found the flashbacks of the hospital shootings were about the outright darkest the film got, and they were usually fairly short segments between some more odd and animated moments; I honestly have to say that I found the film rather full of life.

I can understand not feeling the subject matter was dealt with well enough, I had the same feeling with Untraceable (Slightly mixed-up thriller instead of commentary on Internet-mentality), but from the beginning I didn't expect much on the subject of life after death and all; I was basically expecting horror-comedy and the subject was just an added-bonus. Still, as I said I can see where you're coming from on this point, I'd be disappointed too if my expectations were different.

No, the tones do not go together. They also didn't go together when Touchstone tried for a similar mix of zany and confrontational in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (several elements in that movie don't fit, especially the murder of the cute cartoon shoe). You can't ignore the audience movies are intended for. This movie was clearly made with a childish mind and yet marketed as a horror movie. Though since you brought up Sam Raimi, I don't pretend this kind of thing didn't in fact affect Evil Dead II. I think that's a weak sequel, anyway.

It's a matter of taste then I suppose, I'm a fan of Roger Rabbit too and I think the juxtaposition can be well-done if done right.

I don't see one good reason for me to watch Drag Me to Hell. I haven't enjoyed a Sam Raimi film since the original Evil Dead.

Best thing he's done IMO.

And obviously, the reason this movie gets under my skin so much is that it isn't completely slapstick. But the attitude behind the film is slapstick. The director isn't taking the making of the movie seriously. It's sloppy. Peter Jackson can't make up his mind. And frankly, with his previous splatter films Bad Taste and Dead Alive, he used up all his quality-control. All his tact. All his craft with mixing humor and horror together. Frighteners is another Meet the Feebles in his canon. Both are sloppy, half-assed in terms of story/character, and tonally fucked up.

I can understand this as well, I don't share the feeling in this case but I've had it before (One such occasion would be with Freddy vs. Jason >.> )

Their whole existence is justified by nothing but the one-liners that come out of their mouths. That's it. And they're really bad one-liners at that. Not to mention, when you realize the film never matures or changes gears in terms of intelligence - it's impossible to ignore the first impressions the characters gave you. You're never allowed to get beyond them. To take the contrary position you're taking, you're basically telling me this was a funny movie. That the one-liners were clever. That the stereotypes were amusing and not stupid, tired, and old. That the joking around never affected the more serious moments in the action. It affected every single one.

Yes, I'm saying I found the one-liners funny, the stereotypes amusing, and the humor not hugely affecting the action; it's not as though the same ghosts were doing the same things in every scene or being as ubiquitously cutesy as the comic relief in a modern animated film. The ghosts were interesting, if underdeveloped plot elements. They weren't amazing, but they didn't screw things up; they served their purpose in the film and got satisfying send-offs (Except the cowboy, whose last scenes somehow didn't make it to the final cut)

As for my reference to "fart jokes," I'm talking about the maturity level of Peter Jackson. The humor in this film is oppressively and overbearingly obnoxious and childish.

And my reference to your reference was utter disagreement with that sentiment, dumb or not, this film's humor isn't the equivalent of fart gags.

If you found this entertaining conflict, you must really have loved Men in Black. I hated it. It's not enough for me for actors to play extreme stereotypes (whether they are heroes, villains, or in-between) and just be over-the-top. I need more. And Jackson gave us more in Bad Taste and Dead Alive. He gave us a lot of very adult moments, atmosphere that made me actually feel creeped out a few times, and characters that even if they weren't serious were not neglected by really, really bad jokes and gags. These things mixed together to form a whole that didn't make me feel like I was being insulted.

I liked Men in Black, and it can get to me when the studio sends a Jim Carrey or Robin Williams to make one character over the top in every other scene... This gave you a good variety of the type in small doses (With the admitted but still not invasive exception of Combs's character). I like the human element as well, but I don't find it totally necessary to my enjoyment; in my opinion static characters can be very entertaining, especially when they're playing off a fairly dynamic one (Michael J. Fox's character did develop an acceptable amount)

When Peter Jackson starts pandering to a dumber kind of audience, he loses all control of himself. And I've always been in favor of filmmakers who keep control, even in their wackier movies. Like Joe Dante. Or Tim Burton (even though Ed Wood bored the living snot out of me).

And I agree with this, though I still say Frighteners was a solid film on his part; I personally don't see it outright pandering to idiots and I do see him staying in control.

Neo-Cons, transform and roll out!

nopersonality
Guest

Top 10 Worst Movies Oct 24, 2009 9:47:38 GMT -5

Quote

Post by nopersonality on Oct 24, 2009 9:47:38 GMT -5

I can see how you don't like the effect (Though I maintain that I could), but it seemed to me as though you were saying the human element actually made the scene worse, and that doesn't sit right with me. Though I can see how one would find the effects bad, I think the acting in the beginning did a whole lot to make the action seem genuine (As a matter of fact I think the majority of the performances have at least a degree of realism to them), and someone, be it the actors or the one directing them, should have some credit for that.

You seem to be trying to turn this back to before my last reply. I was hoping I made myself pretty clear: the audience is meant to buy that this image works - a human being chased by what amounts to a mass of water in incredibly fake-looking walls. You know this, I know this. But we can't be expected to buy it if both the walls and the "boogeyman" look like water. The attempt to blend these together in several camera shots (processed in post-production) failed. It's silly, it doesn't work. It's a failure. So... why should, as you say, "someone have some credit for that"? Credit for failing? I hardly think that's what you mean, but that's exactly what I'm giving them (the filmmakers). Credit for failing. You seem to think giving them credit for trying is enough to excuse the poor use of computerized effects in the movie. Almost everyone who makes a movie tries to make it well, but as we all know- they don't all succeed. Credit for trying? I don't think so.

I can say that sometimes skilled crewmen make bad decisions which make things turn out substandard, which doesn't make their product instantly awful. I can't really judge opinion but I think this, even if you don't like the product, is an odd choice for least-favorite films.

Here comes another "You Seem," briggs: You seem confused. Let me put it to you this way: this was an extraordinarily awful way to begin a movie. Any movie. But, it never got any better than that first scene. In fact, it only got worse. When the ghost-friends showed up. When Jeffrey Combs showed up. The scenes with the nasty newspaper woman. The scenes with the army commander. Any/every scene with any one-liner, at all. The attempts at heart are buried under the shitty jokes and stupid sense of humor, then- action scenes with bad gags, more jokes there, and more CGI... Then, it's 2 hours long. There are, as a matter of fact, only two good things I can say for the movie: 1) you feel good once it's over (probably because it's over), 2) Dee Wallace (once she dropped the stupid victim-act) became one of my favorite movie villainnesses. This of course was achieved by way of her crazy facial expressions and physical performance, and that she seems to know how to handle a shotgun. That impressed me. That, alone, impressed me.

This is where I imagine our opinions on this movie differ the most; I found the flashbacks of the hospital shootings were about the outright darkest the film got, and they were usually fairly short segments between some more odd and animated moments; I honestly have to say that I found the film rather full of life.

Look at it in the context of Hollywood big-budget sci-fi / fantasy / action films at this time in film history. They were getting louder, more expensive (even stuff that bombed: Hook and Last Action Hero), and a lot more obnoxious = more jokes, less substance. Will Smith films were the #1 offenders. Men in Black and Independence Day. The 80's were over and there just weren't anymore Ghostbusters' or The Never Ending Story's. The genre became all flash. So of course you found Frighteners full of life. They have to keep it going loud and fast, or else people lose attention. But that's all it was. Loud and fast. You're telling me you didn't get tired of that. But, after 1995's one-two-three-four punch of Jumanji, Casper, Toy Story, and The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers movie... not to mention Space Jam which came out the same year as this film... I should think it's obvious to anyone that there were too many loud and fast "full of life" movies coming out. After "ID4," I'd had enough! I haven't recovered since, as a matter of fact. I did go to Charlie's Angels, and that was the last loud movie I'm bothering to see. That's right, I've skipped it all: X-Men (and sequels), Spiderman (and sequels), Lord of the Rings (and sequels), Pirates of the Carribean (and sequels), Harry Potter-everything (and sequels), Star Trek, G.I. Joe, Transformers (and sequels), Night at the Museum (and sequels), all M. Night Shamylan movies, The Day After Tomorrow, Cloverfield, Crank (and sequels), Transporter (and sequels), anything Borne, anything with "Race" or "Rush" or "Fast / Furious" or "Storm" in the title, any of the new Rambo or Rocky or Indiana Jones or James Bond movies...

Am I honestly the only person who feels like we've (America) culturally hit a brick wall with these goddamn super-action movies? Every 4 days, there's a new "high-impact" film that promises to be the most exciting thing you've ever seen. The reason it bothers me is: all of them are filled with awful jokes (you know because: the trailers are filled with awful jokes and puns). All of them designed to make you feel better about being manipulated into seeing movies just they're fast and loud and lots of things might be crushed or blown-up. That used to appeal to me as a child. I'm not a kid anymore. As an adult, I find Frighteners childish in every regard.

And my reference to your reference was utter disagreement with that sentiment, dumb or not, this film's humor isn't the equivalent of fart gags.

In terms of how intelligent they are, there's not a hell of lot of difference. The level of maturity is equally as low here as it is in most mainstream "fart joke" comedies. We can't say just because the cast is pretty talented here that their maturity makes up for Peter Jackson's immaturity (see: Meet the Feebles, I think you'll understand why I'm taking him to task so much here, there is a precedence).

I liked Men in Black, and it can get to me when the studio sends a Jim Carrey or Robin Williams to make one character over the top in every other scene...

By now, this might seem like a guilty-pleasure admittance: but I liked most of Jim Carrey's 90's output. The Truman Show and The Mask, especially, since we're talking about fantasy / sci-fi / action films, were excellent films. And were infinitely more tolerable than Will Smith's hypocritical, egomaniacal, "I look good"-doing everything, and I'm a great role model for kids statements in the media. His ego tainted the whole film, then CGI and awful jokes sealed the deal: it's a garbagefest. And you have to like Will Smith to like that movie. However, did he really earn that public likability? He wore the most stylish suits and sunglasses, carried trendy CGI tools and guns, and spat his obnoxious and geeky ladies-man routine throughout Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Made in America. And when you phase him out, you know how much the CGI creations loom over that movie. CGI really almost never looks good. It's hard to say the movie's good just because of Tommy Lee Jones. Because, once you pretend the CGI and Will Smith don't exist- all you have left is him, Linda Fiorentino (The Last Seduction, who's clearly slumming in this film), and Rip Torn (The Larry Sanders Show).

As for Robin Williams, god he can be annoying sometimes. His biggest problem is his ability to have a complete emotional breakdown in a family film. Wee bit deadly-serious for something like Mrs. Doubtfire. One minute, he's dancing on the table to "Jump Around," the next he looks like he was just shot. Not every family film should be as dire as Kindergarten Cop and Turner and Hooch.

This gave you a good variety of the type in small doses (With the admitted but still not invasive exception of Combs's character).

I don't know. I should, by all accounts, say "the movie was so fucked up to begin with, how could Combs' have made it worse?" But... I did feel like he raped me. I have never been as angry with a movie character in my whole life as I was with him. And in the grand scheme, it's not fair of me to hate characters like the "documentary crew" in The Blair Witch Project for something as trivial as swearing...when Combs' nazi-inspector guy just plain raped me. Oh, and Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes) did this kind of character much better (and funnier) in the "Reluctant Vampire" episode of Tales from the Crypt. We only need one villain with the intensity of Jake Busey in this movie. A guy playing an inspector (no matter how highly-regarded within the horror genre he is) shouldn't be more intense than the serial murderers establishing the film's bodycount are!!

I like the human element as well, but I don't find it totally necessary to my enjoyment; in my opinion static characters can be very entertaining, especially when they're playing off a fairly dynamic one (Michael J. Fox's character did develop an acceptable amount).

You know, you're making it look like you take this movie more seriously than the filmmakers did / meant it to be taken. There's no scholarly theories and philosophies that apply to this movie. It's trash. Plain and simple. You think it's entertaining trash. I say- it's a travesty on cinema as a whole. Yeah; that bad. It's not made of anything that has any class whatsoever. Although, actors like Julianna McCarthy and John Astin do treat it with more respect than the filmmakers treated the audience.