I took it to mean people felt it wasn't that bad of a movie.  Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Not when we go over to the ratings thread, or when you read the eight negative reviews by top critics on Rotten Tomatoes.

It's interesting that, since being out on DVD for awhile and on sale at nearly every store I visit in my area, there are still only 24 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and it's still rated rotten at 8% positive. 

Besides, a "consensus" means everybody came to a general agreement.  I don't think you have a general agreement when one of us (me) says without equivocation that, to borrow an idea from a different thread, yes, this was torture, of an unintentional cruel variety, being dressed as if to be charming, having good performances, but actually being like a tasty cherry with a worm growing around its pit. 

My experience still is that this was one of the worst cinematic experiences I have ever had.

So much for your consensus.

Well, I don't know if having seen it first had anything to do with it.  For me, when I saw the first fifteen minutes with Campbell Babbitt going through his conundrum about fictionalizing the continuing life of Angela well after her death, I was thinking that this movie isn't all so bad.  And then, from the moment his red Gremlin broke down outside of Concord (what Gremlin was even working by 1986?!) on, it was a constant back and forth between being lulled by the good acting and being yanked out of it by the awful script that kept breeding way too many storylines.  By the end of the movie when the hero masturbator utters "Good!" at the sight of Babbitt and his everlasting Gremlin leaving town, I wanted to say "Good!" that the movie finally ended.

And then for the next week, the ridiculous plot twists and convoluted storytelling, not to mention the theme about illegal sex between adults and minors seeming to be okay (and what about the McMartin School fiasco which happened during this time?), not to mention an utter failure capturing the time period beyond mentioning the upcoming Challenger disaster, just kept churning inside my head.  That's a bad feeling that not even Uwe Boll left in my craw.  It was a different kind of low in bad movie watching for me, which is why I'm hard against it.

I've been wondering if it was because I saw it on the large screen, while you saw it on your home theatre?

It seems we agree the worst scene was Babbitt on the ladder outside of Lucy's window.

I guess that's the problem.  For me, it was a complete mess, a "what-the-hell?" from the moment the reporter comes into town.  However, as you mentioned with I Know Who Killed Me or The Happening, it lacks unintentionally funny scenes.  I don't know if there's a one in the movie.  I feel we're still looking for that kind of film among this year's releases.

The "pedophilia is cool" theme had to compete with the "peeping masturbators make good neighbors" theme, but I feel the "pedophilia is cool" theme won out, especially when Campbell puts the ladder on Lucy's balcony.  That whole Romeo and Juliet thing got really creepy.

Well, based on the little dipitlow has said about why he feels it isn't really all that bad, he's basing it on the acting, particularly Hillary Duff's, but he doesn't say anything about the plot or how it all hangs together.  I've said the acting in this movie is very good a number of times.

However, if you take a crappy script, and all the actors turn in excellent performances, don't you still have a crappy movie?  And doesn't the excellent performances make the movie all the more crappier?  That's my point, and that's why I'd like dipitlow to comment on what he felt about all these crazy, convoluted, contrived and often incomprehensible plotlines in this very bad movie, despite the good performances.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley Oh the controversy of it all. I really hope it's at the video store tomorrow (I've had a busy week, or else I'd be all up ons).

Okay, I want to hear dipitlow.  What did you like about this movie?

Wasn't everything I said was in the movie in the movie?  I know I left a whole bunch out.

And I did say the acting was good.  But the plotline. . . . what line?  There was no line.  It was a plot fracture, into little tiny pieces, held together by a flimsy piece of celluloid.  Maybe that's why they orignally were going to call this Safety Glass?

Ok so I just watched the movie and it really isn't THAT bad! I kind of enjoyed it. And just so you guys know Hilary Duff is actually really good in it. And another thing, the movie didn't get released on DVD so quickly because of it bombing. It was scheduled to be released June 16 in the first place, and it may have a second theatrical run.

If Duff does receive another RAZZIE nod for her role in this, it will make it her 4th. She has completely poor acting, but one shot of her might be the only one that might be coming up.

Please don't forget C Me Dance.

I also include Severed Ways and The Informers among my worst, but those don't have their own boards here.

However, picking on Severed Ways, an inept independent film with no name actors, may not be fair.  However, if I even watch it, I will learn every verse of Monty Python's "Lumberjack Song" so I can entertain myself as I watch the marooned Vikings endlessly chop trees. 

C Me Dance is also an inept independent film with a ridiculous script and no name actors, and that would be true whether it was religious or not.  It also appears to contain a number of unintentional laughs, definitely ensuring its Razzie-ness.

The Informers suffers from all this star talent in supporting roles getting top billing while they and the real stars are engaged in a blah-blah-blah with a ridiculous storyline that destroys an apparently well-regarded book.

But all the problems of combining inept independent filmmakers and a ridiculous script with major stars are present in What Goes Up, and what's more, it contains more stray storylines in just over 2 hours than Scheherazade did when she survived telling stories over 1001 Arabian Nights. 

And all of her storylines were far more satisfying.