Worst Movies of the 1960s

Worst Movies of the
1960s

If you were too stoned to rememgber what movies you watched during the 1960s, you can catch up here. And if you buy these movies at Amazon.com, you'll discover that they're only watchable IF you're on drugs.

Night of Bloody Horror
Year of Release: 1969
Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars
Starring: Gerald McRaney
Director: Joy Houk

A young man (McRaney) who suffers from blackouts may be guilty of committing henious, violent murders. Or is something else afoot?
Grade-schoolers with a cellphone-cam and a backyard treefort would create a more exciting and coherent movie than what the drug-addled, drunk-off-their asses cast and crew of "Night of Bloody Horror" produced. Hell, those grade-schoolers would probably even stage better fight scenes. (The only decent part of the film is the marketing line "Filmed in Violent Vision" and one or two bits of purely unintentional comedy.
Don't bother with "Night of Bloody Horror" because it's bloody horrible and anyone who was involved with making it should be mortally embarrassed that it's available iin multiple different DVD versions. It's films like this that give "cult classics" a bad name, because too many marketeers like to slap the label "cult film" on turds they want to pass off as prunes.

Night Fright
(aka "The Extraterrestrial Nasty")
Year of Release: 1967
Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars
Starring: John Agar
Director: James Sullivan

A strange object crashes to Earth, and soon a mysterious monster is stalking and killing in the woods near a small Southern town. It's up to Sheriff Clint Crawford (Agar) to stop the beast before it claims the lives of too many of the bland characters being portrayed by horrible actors.
"Night Fright" is about 20 minutes worth of third-rate monster movie stretched an additional hour with scenes of aimless driving, aimless wandering in the woods, and pointless "character development" scenes where the cast of truly awful actors get to show how little talent they have. Adding to this is some of the worst dialogue ever written for a movie in the English language, awful editing, and an even worse soundtrack, and you have a movie that even the robots on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" couldn't make entertaining. To finally make the movie completely worthless, the monster is virtually not in the movie at all. (This is sort of blessing in disguise, I suppose, as the monster is almost as goofy looking as its explained origin.)
There is no reason to watch this movie. It's too bad and bloated with padding to even be amusing.

Ring of Terror
Year of Release: 1963
Steve's Rating: 0 of 10 Stars
Starring: George E. Mather, Esther Furst, Norman Ollsted, Lomax Study, and Austin Green
Director: Clark L. Paylow
A dippy graveyard caretaker (Green) relates a deadly dull tale of a medical student (Mather) who experiences the ultimate terror... and offers the viewers the experience of ultimate boredom.
I used to think the 0-rating would be reserved for films that were boring as well as incoherent. I was wrong. "Ring of Terror" has NOTHING to recommend it. From its cast of "college students" (who are being played by actors in their late 30s or early 40s, yet who are talking and acting as though they are in the late teens or early 20s, and thus making the viewer feel deeply embarrassed on their behalf... the lover's lane make-out scene is particuarly painful) to the utter lack of talent shown by anyone in the film's cast or crew, there is simply nothing good here. It's as if a group of actors whose career pinnacle had been roles in those lame public health/educational films from the 50s wrote a script outline on a napkin from the strip-club they were working at, rented a camera, and ad-libbed an atrocity of movie-making.
I've seen better acting at the first rehearsals for high school plays, and I've written better stories on a moment's notice. Don't waste your time with this one.

Sin, You Sinners!
Year of Release: 1964
Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars
Starring June Colburne, Dian Lloyd, Derek Murcott, and Gloria Nazarow
Directed by: Joseph Sarno and Anthony Farrar
An aging stripper (Colburne) keeps her youthful looks (sort-of) and energy thanks to a voodoo amulet and enchantments powered by a moon goddess. Between shows, she does tells fortunes and brews love potions with a method that involves putting her daughter (Lloyd) through magically-induced orgasms until she passes out. Unfortunately, she's something of a bitch, and she is cruel and dominating to her daughter (the whole orgasms until she faints thing is just a tip o' the iceberg), her latest disposable boyfriend (Murcott, and other strippers. Not unexpectedly, one of these wrong parties get their hands on her amulet...
"Sin, You Sinners!" has an interesting couple ideas at its heart; something really nifty could have been done with the voodoo stripper charm angle. Too bad it was made by filmmakers with absolutely no talent--were the sets so small that EVERY scene had to be a two-shot or a close-up? Or maybe the "sets" were just one single tiny room where some furniture got rearranged?--and the cast of actors only slightly better. The script was written by one of the director, and he's as talented a writer as he is a movie-maker.
For all of its badness, the movie did hold my attention--sort of; I was on the phone for part of the film, watching and talking at the same time. The character of the daughter is actually quite sympathetic, and I was curious to see how things would turn out for her. (They pretty much went as expected... nothing was surprising in this film... except maybe the whole magic orgasm potion brewing scene.)
I'm not surprised that reportedly any versions on the market are made from one single, remaining damaged print of this film. Some movies aren't really worth preserving, and I think "Sin, You Sinners" is one of them. (That said, I can see the potential for an excellent remake from the folks at Shock-O-Rama and/or Seduction Cinema.) -- (Aside: The $5 DVD version I picked up had a bonus feature on it... "Dance Hall Racket" starring and written by Lenny Bruce. I may review that, if I can manage to get through it. It's WORSE than "Sin, You Sinners" and Bruce must have been a better comedian than a dramatic actor or writer, or I can't imagine why he's remembered at all today.)

The Undertaker and His Pals
Year of Release: 1966
Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars
Starring: Rad Fulton, Ray Dannis, Warrene Ott, Marty Friedman, and Sally Frei
Director: T.L.P. Swicegood
A crooked undertaker (Dannis) and his psychopatic greasy-spoon-owning friends (Ott and Friedman) drum up business by invading the homes of beautiful young women and murdering them. The cooks take parts of bodies and serve them in the restraunt, while the undertaker overcharges the families for buring the remaining remains. It's a great scheme, until they target the secretary of private eye Jim Glass (Fulton) and twin sex-pots Thursday and Friday (Frei).
Writing that summary is about all the time I intend to spend on this movie. I almost feel apologetic that I made you read it. You've probably never heard of or seen this miserable failure at making a black comedy, and I encourage you to keep it that way.
To say this movie is crap is an insult to fertilizer. The One Tomato rating is very generous, and it's based solely on the fact that the film does have a couple of good gags... but they are the sort of gags that a 12 year old would think up scribbling in his notebook while bored in class.

To "Reviews and Stuff by Steve Miller" • To "The Domain of Fun & Games"

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

Night of Bloody Horror Year of Release: 1969 Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars Starring: Gerald McRaney Director: Joy Houk A young man (McRaney) who suffers from blackouts may be guilty of committing henious, violent murders. Or is something else afoot? Grade-schoolers with a cellphone-cam and a backyard treefort would create a more exciting and coherent movie than what the drug-addled, drunk-off-their asses cast and crew of "Night of Bloody Horror" produced. Hell, those grade-schoolers would probably even stage better fight scenes. (The only decent part of the film is the marketing line "Filmed in Violent Vision" and one or two bits of purely unintentional comedy. Don't bother with "Night of Bloody Horror" because it's bloody horrible and anyone who was involved with making it should be mortally embarrassed that it's available iin multiple different DVD versions. It's films like this that give "cult classics" a bad name, because too many marketeers like to slap the label "cult film" on turds they want to pass off as prunes.
Night Fright (aka "The Extraterrestrial Nasty") Year of Release: 1967 Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars Starring: John Agar Director: James Sullivan A strange object crashes to Earth, and soon a mysterious monster is stalking and killing in the woods near a small Southern town. It's up to Sheriff Clint Crawford (Agar) to stop the beast before it claims the lives of too many of the bland characters being portrayed by horrible actors. "Night Fright" is about 20 minutes worth of third-rate monster movie stretched an additional hour with scenes of aimless driving, aimless wandering in the woods, and pointless "character development" scenes where the cast of truly awful actors get to show how little talent they have. Adding to this is some of the worst dialogue ever written for a movie in the English language, awful editing, and an even worse soundtrack, and you have a movie that even the robots on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" couldn't make entertaining. To finally make the movie completely worthless, the monster is virtually not in the movie at all. (This is sort of blessing in disguise, I suppose, as the monster is almost as goofy looking as its explained origin.) There is no reason to watch this movie. It's too bad and bloated with padding to even be amusing.
Ring of Terror Year of Release: 1963 Steve's Rating: 0 of 10 Stars Starring: George E. Mather, Esther Furst, Norman Ollsted, Lomax Study, and Austin Green Director: Clark L. Paylow A dippy graveyard caretaker (Green) relates a deadly dull tale of a medical student (Mather) who experiences the ultimate terror... and offers the viewers the experience of ultimate boredom. I used to think the 0-rating would be reserved for films that were boring as well as incoherent. I was wrong. "Ring of Terror" has NOTHING to recommend it. From its cast of "college students" (who are being played by actors in their late 30s or early 40s, yet who are talking and acting as though they are in the late teens or early 20s, and thus making the viewer feel deeply embarrassed on their behalf... the lover's lane make-out scene is particuarly painful) to the utter lack of talent shown by anyone in the film's cast or crew, there is simply nothing good here. It's as if a group of actors whose career pinnacle had been roles in those lame public health/educational films from the 50s wrote a script outline on a napkin from the strip-club they were working at, rented a camera, and ad-libbed an atrocity of movie-making. I've seen better acting at the first rehearsals for high school plays, and I've written better stories on a moment's notice. Don't waste your time with this one.
Sin, You Sinners! Year of Release: 1964 Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars Starring June Colburne, Dian Lloyd, Derek Murcott, and Gloria Nazarow Directed by: Joseph Sarno and Anthony Farrar An aging stripper (Colburne) keeps her youthful looks (sort-of) and energy thanks to a voodoo amulet and enchantments powered by a moon goddess. Between shows, she does tells fortunes and brews love potions with a method that involves putting her daughter (Lloyd) through magically-induced orgasms until she passes out. Unfortunately, she's something of a bitch, and she is cruel and dominating to her daughter (the whole orgasms until she faints thing is just a tip o' the iceberg), her latest disposable boyfriend (Murcott, and other strippers. Not unexpectedly, one of these wrong parties get their hands on her amulet... "Sin, You Sinners!" has an interesting couple ideas at its heart; something really nifty could have been done with the voodoo stripper charm angle. Too bad it was made by filmmakers with absolutely no talent--were the sets so small that EVERY scene had to be a two-shot or a close-up? Or maybe the "sets" were just one single tiny room where some furniture got rearranged?--and the cast of actors only slightly better. The script was written by one of the director, and he's as talented a writer as he is a movie-maker. For all of its badness, the movie did hold my attention--sort of; I was on the phone for part of the film, watching and talking at the same time. The character of the daughter is actually quite sympathetic, and I was curious to see how things would turn out for her. (They pretty much went as expected... nothing was surprising in this film... except maybe the whole magic orgasm potion brewing scene.) I'm not surprised that reportedly any versions on the market are made from one single, remaining damaged print of this film. Some movies aren't really worth preserving, and I think "Sin, You Sinners" is one of them. (That said, I can see the potential for an excellent remake from the folks at Shock-O-Rama and/or Seduction Cinema.) -- (Aside: The $5 DVD version I picked up had a bonus feature on it... "Dance Hall Racket" starring and written by Lenny Bruce. I may review that, if I can manage to get through it. It's WORSE than "Sin, You Sinners" and Bruce must have been a better comedian than a dramatic actor or writer, or I can't imagine why he's remembered at all today.)
The Undertaker and His Pals Year of Release: 1966 Steve's Rating: 1 of 10 Stars Starring: Rad Fulton, Ray Dannis, Warrene Ott, Marty Friedman, and Sally Frei Director: T.L.P. Swicegood A crooked undertaker (Dannis) and his psychopatic greasy-spoon-owning friends (Ott and Friedman) drum up business by invading the homes of beautiful young women and murdering them. The cooks take parts of bodies and serve them in the restraunt, while the undertaker overcharges the families for buring the remaining remains. It's a great scheme, until they target the secretary of private eye Jim Glass (Fulton) and twin sex-pots Thursday and Friday (Frei). Writing that summary is about all the time I intend to spend on this movie. I almost feel apologetic that I made you read it. You've probably never heard of or seen this miserable failure at making a black comedy, and I encourage you to keep it that way. To say this movie is crap is an insult to fertilizer. The One Tomato rating is very generous, and it's based solely on the fact that the film does have a couple of good gags... but they are the sort of gags that a 12 year old would think up scribbling in his notebook while bored in class.