Bottom 100? Really?
This is terrible, but it isn't THAT terrible.share
Yes, it's that terrible.share
Nope, it isn't. It's great fun, a total hoot. Sheer cheese factor alone makes it better than the bottom one hundred list. A grandpa in a yellow cardigan is gonna save the world...or at least that one location! :p I've seen films that were ten times worse on MST3K. Monster A Go Go, Manos, Red Zone Cuba, The Creeping Terror...here's hoping every one of those cinematic abominations is on the bottom one hundred. Not to mention the fact that Parts the Clonus Horror was at number 1 last week, and that movie is (unintentionally) freaking hilarious! I can think of many movies WAY worse than that one. I don't get it.share
Its stupid people that look up old movies with enarly 600 votes and starts 1ing them. For what reasomn i dont know but its very obvious.share
To quote Crow T. Robot (if I can correctly recall), "The only rational response to this film is pure, unmitigated hate."
Yes, other IMDb Bottom 100 inhabitants like "Monster A Go-Go" and "Manos - The Hands of Fate" are worse on just about every other level; however, "Agent for H.A.R.M." does NOT have the excuse (like those two films, and many other Bottom 100 rankers) of being a micro-budgeted, independently-produced, amateur production.
"Agent for H.A.R.M." was produced and released by A MAJOR FREAKING MOVIE STUDIO (Universal), with name stars (granted, not BIG names), a normally competent director (Gerd Oswald - he did some of the better 'Outer Limits' and 'Star Trek' episodes, for example) and other decent technical talent. It has ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for being such a complete and reprehensible piece of cinematic s**t.
Don't get me wrong: I love movies that are so bad they're good, and the MST3K episode that mocks this film is spot-on with every jibe and well-deserved insult. But ask yourself: would you actually want to sit through "Agent for H.A.R.M." WITHOUT the help of Mike and the 'bots?
Tom Servo: "Mike, do you have Kevorkian's number?"
Mike: "Got it on speed-dial. Will that do?"
I tend to agree. Agent for H.A.R.M. had some decent talent both in front of and behind the camera (not great, but definitely a cut above Hal P. Warren in both areas). Even for a film originally intended as a TV pilot (IIRC?), it had the potential to be quite a bit better than it turned out, IMHO.share
Just had to respond to this two years later. I was watching the MST3K-version and looked it up on IMDB simultaneously. I kid you not, the second I read your recollection of the Crow quote, the same line came out of his (it's?) mouth. Creepy. The word you were looking for was "unbridled" btw :)share
It happened to me too. Different quote.share
If anything plays on that show that mocks old films (MST3k -I think it's called) the movies always end up at the bottom at IMDB. Alot of people know zip about cinema history, all they know is what the see on the show. And to rate a film that is constantly mocked throughout it, well you could make any film seem like crap. For me, the bottom of the barrel is low productions values and boring film. I know 30's and 40's best and some of the independents studios from the 30's and even PRC in the 40's made some very very low entertainment value films. You have to remember most people don't know film history, they only know what they are told. Ie "This is junk because it's on our show" Presumably after watching the episode they run to their computers and rate the film 1 out of 10.share
This happen with most films that get the MST3K treatment. The fans believe that it MUST suck because it was riffed, and give exceptionally low scores.share