Sometimes I write my thoughts down.

Last night I watched Van Helsing. It was a huge pile of high-camp silliness, and I loved it. It got me thinking, though - what makes the difference between an enjoyably shit film and just an irredeemably shit film? VH is very flashy and full of ridiculously overdone special effects, and I guess is also helped by having a plot that resembles a Roman road and a background that everyone already knows. Some friends & myself once saw "Anaconda" at the cinema after a few pints. This is getting towards the realm of true shiteness, with a rubbish and illogical plot and dire special effects, along with the usual hammy acting and awkward dialogue. But we were pissed, so none of that mattered. It was just great fun - hence why I remember such an otherwise forgettable film. But the worst film I have ever seen, by quite some margin, was Manos: The Hands Of Fate, which featured in an episode of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. MST is a show that rejoices in bad films, but even its die-hard fans agreed that Manos was in a class of its own. (MST's fans, I mean. If Manos has any devotees I will eat ALL the hats.) It had no budget, but even allowing for that, everything about it was bad. The first 45mins were entertaining in an Anaconda-like way, but by the end we were praying heartfeltedly (is this a word? If not, it really should be) for it to stop.