The word 'overrated' is thrown around a lot on IMDb - usually without justification - but it seems appropriate when discussing this supposedly "so bad it's good", "worst movie ever made" candidate, which for me doesn't live up to the hype.
Sadly this film wasn't as "side-splitting" as I'd been led to believe. In fact it wasn't very funny (or interesting) at all.
Maybe if you were with a large group of people and you were all drunk and/or stoned, then maybe you could derive some cheap laughs at the expense; but really that has nothing to do with the film and a lot to do with the individual experience. A large enough inebriated-audience would probably laugh and joke wildly through Schindler's List if the mood was right; but that doesn't change the objective quality of the film.
I just found this to be a rather dull, below average '50s B-movie. The worst thing about it is the editing; the discontinuity and the use of the same footage three or four times during different parts of the narrative (the shot of the police car driving by the cemetery is used four times; the shot of Lugosi flapping his cape is used twice, etc).
Other than that it was badly plotted and suffered from some rather flat, lacklustre performances from a mostly amateur cast. But at no point would I call it "so bad it's good"; more like "so mediocre it's boring". Or perhaps my generation has been spoiled by the truly awful and endlessly hilarious likes of Ben & Arthur and The Room.
Either way, calling this the "worst movie ever made" is giving it more credit than it deserves.
Sadly this film wasn't as "side-splitting" as I'd been led to believe. In fact it wasn't very funny (or interesting) at all.
Maybe if you were with a large group of people and you were all drunk and/or stoned, then maybe you could derive some cheap laughs at the expense; but really that has nothing to do with the film and a lot to do with the individual experience. A large enough inebriated-audience would probably laugh and joke wildly through Schindler's List if the mood was right; but that doesn't change the objective quality of the film.
I just found this to be a rather dull, below average '50s B-movie. The worst thing about it is the editing; the discontinuity and the use of the same footage three or four times during different parts of the narrative (the shot of the police car driving by the cemetery is used four times; the shot of Lugosi flapping his cape is used twice, etc).
Other than that it was badly plotted and suffered from some rather flat, lacklustre performances from a mostly amateur cast. But at no point would I call it "so bad it's good"; more like "so mediocre it's boring". Or perhaps my generation has been spoiled by the truly awful and endlessly hilarious likes of Ben & Arthur and The Room.
Either way, calling this the "worst movie ever made" is giving it more credit than it deserves.