By Sam Adams | Criticwire April 9, 2014 at 1:20PM
The Telegraph has a fascinating story about Richard Driscoll's "Eldorado," which it credibly calls "the worst film ever made."
"Eldorado," you see, is weapons-grade awful. By turns toe-curling and wholly baffling, this is 116 minutes of laughable prosthetics, shifting sets and appalling CGI. But while it never troubled the box office or the Academy upon its short-lived release, the story of how the film was made, and how it landed its director in jail, could be a film in itself.
But even the worst movie -- say, one that transparently plagiarizes "The Blues Brothers" and appears to have been part of a scheme to defraud the British government of $2.3 million -- deserves its day in court. So let's see what the critics have said.
Actually, it's not quite so simple, since according to writer M.J. Simpson, who seems to be the leading expert on the U.K.'s own Ed Wood, Driscoll has a habit of suing writers who write bad things about his movies. And since it was never released in theaters, most mainstream critics never got the assignment to see it. But a few intrepid bloggers, apparently incurable genre obsessives or connoisseurs of the truly awful, have taken the trouble, and come to the following conclusions.
E. Blackadder, Influx Magazine
This is a train wreck of a movie that's all over the place more than any film I've ever seen and I’ve seen thousands of films so I know precisely what I’m talking about when it comes to these types of "movies." Imagine what a kid with a limited knowledge of film-making and casting would do if they were given a lot of money and told to do whatever they liked. Well, this is the end result of just such a test.
If you've read the heavyweight cast list, you'll never understand how such a paceless, plotless and meandering dud ever came into existence, especially if you agree with me it's more like what Tenacious D would have shot with some over-aged fans for a film school project, after having OD'ed on cheap skunk and bad pizza.
Sure, for your average film, two hours isn’t much. But for this incomprehensible, mind-melting mish-mash of "The Blues Brothers," "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," "Reservoir Dogs," "Heaven Can Wait," "Kung Fu," "Blazing Saddles" and every other staple under the sun, it’s downright perverse.
Failed to become a mix of a parody, musical and a tribute to the Blues Brothers. With a story that doesn’t make much sense, crazy characters and some laughable special effects (intentionally made, I assume), the film just becomes really boring after an hour or so.
IMDb user dipsy-lee54 is also among the lucky, observing "This film was basically used as a form of torture on me, clockwork orange style.. and it worked. I have never witnessed something this awful before in my life." (Due to the movie having its title changed to "Highway to Hell," Dipsy Lee had the unfortunate and possibly unique experience of seeing it twice.) And on Amazon, J. Abrams says: "Deluded, technically incompetent drivel and meandering crud are possibly the best things that an be said about it as a movie."
So, how long until someone reclaims it as a cult classic?