worst movie ever

Are you insane? This is a great film.

"Here's to swimmin with bow legged women." Quint

studios and film makers are often under pressure to keep the cost and running time of films down. Yeah, the movie only uses 3 of the short stories, but it does those 3 justice.

Would you rather that the film covered all the book's short stories and rushed through them all?

I think this is a solid film adaption of one of my favorite books. Another version of it could have been better but it's more likely that it could have been worse.

first off, anyone who bases their opinions on what Roger Ebert thinks, or any other critic for that matter, needs to learn to think for themselves. There are many film critics offering their opinions, and even they dont agree with each other. Do you all forget that a major part of Siskel & Ebert was that they disagreed with each other on many films?

I just watched this again the other day, and enjoyed it. While it is not a great masterpiece, Steiger makes the movie, and it is worth watching for his performance alone. And yes, it is fractured, and jumps back and forth, so you have to pay attention. Hmm, what recent movies do this, Pulp Fiction comes to mind.... (and dont start flaming me because of a "comparrison" to a modern day classic).

My main point here is that you have to put the movie in the context of the time it was made. 1969. Movies were far different then, and while there were truly great movies made in the period, many of the conventions of the time are now outdated, making many old movies hard to watch. While I am not part of the ADHD generation, most movies of the time were slow, and dragging. Even great action movies of the time are slow (Bullit is a prime example, great movie, but very slow). And this was not the typical subject matter. Sci-fi was trying to be more than it was, reaching beyond B movie schlock, or at least trying to, as in this case. I have never read the book, as Bradury always seems a bit pretentious to me, but even today movies based on books rarely compare to the book it is based on.

Not that my opinion is any better than anyone else's, but this was an enjoyable movie for me, and if you are a fan of the periods sci-fi, it is worth watching, if for nothing more than to see Steiger's performance.

Worst Movie Ever? hardly. I can think of dozens of others that are far worse, both in story, and in execution (can I add Jim Carey to that "any movie with" list?)

"Worst" is so tired. I would like to hear people say what their cinematic views are before they make this claim, be it a commercial or an independent film. "The Illustrated Man" has it's merits for instance the fine acting of Rod Steiger although I could call out some "acting alert" but I'd let it pass. Films based on a book should be able to stand on it's own and I think this one did. Not for your casual sci-fi film fan. But "worst" movie? Come on.

I wouldn't call it the "worst movie ever" but it did suck. It sucked a lot, actually.

Anyone who thinks this is the worst movie ever has not seen Sand Sharks.

I think when people put 'worst movie ever'' its always hyperbole. I've never taken it literally as some people here do. I found this film extremely boring though and actually far inferior to Ed Wood's oeuvre or the sci fi b movies you mention. They are usually inventive and funny which this film isn't.

I'm angered by the fact that I just allowed myself to spend $2.99 to watch this deeply-flawed foray into the Human Condition on Amazon. I've always been a fan of Bradbury, but the movie just lost me about half of the way through. I love the paradoxical plots of many films but I'll be damned if I could make sense of this one if I viewed it a handful of times.