I know a lot of you are young and to be forgiven for not yet testing the true depths of movie badness. A really bad movie has to be bad in all areas: acting, script, lighting, editing, story line, art direction, costumes and sound. It helps if it features bad acting from otherwise decent actors. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you
Nightfall, a film adaptation (and I only use the term because I can't think of one that actually applies) of the classic eponymous science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov. Link on IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095738/.
It features ravens pecking out the eyes of living people. It features weird editing jumps that make no sense. The script is tedious, the acting wooden, the lighting muddy, and the soundtrack indescribably bad. Really, really awful. I wrote this review in IMDB in 1999:
"I actually paid money to see this in its mercifully brief theatrical release in 1988. The (tiny) audience had fun ad libbing dialogue that was much better than that provided the hapless actors. The film is bad in so many ways that it is difficult to pick out the worst element. Was it the art direction? The acting? The dialogue? The cinematography? The costumes? The plot? The editing? The music? In the end I think the worst thing is that it will probably insure that no decent film will ever be made of Asimov's
Nightfall.
"The good doctor wrote that he had never seen the movie, and that he had nothing to do with it. This probably added a couple of years to Asimov's life.
"I can only say that the other reviewers here at IMDb have been far too generous. This film is worse than you can imagine."