The Worst Film Ever

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

First, let me say that I had not seen Twilight when I originally rented this back in 2009 (and the only reason I am writing this now is because this atrocity was on chiller last night). I got it out of Redbox and watched it with my brother for an annual movie night.Second, I'm a huge movie watcher. There's rarely a movie I don't like because I can find something to like about it.This is not one of those movies. In fact, can this even be considered a movie?? It's like someone in Britain said, "Hey, this guy is somewhat good looking so we need to make a movie with him in it that's based on a great book. While we're at it, let's throw the scrabble letters against the wall every time we want some dialogue in this 'movie' and that will be what the actors say." If this was the case...mission accomplished.I honestly can't even begin to describe how horrible this movie is. To name the bad things that 1) happened in the movie, 2) how the movie was made, and 3) what the movie is about would be a massive list that I neither have the time nor the patience to write. If you want to know what's the worst part about it - cast wise to the direction, editing, script, etc.- I would answer you, "All of it. Literally." I actually asked my brother if he would turn if off because not only was I bored to near sleep, but I was incredibly confused at the ending. I kept waiting for a real one to come up.Whoever thought this movie was a great idea not only needs to be banned for life from everything media but needs to be told not to base a concept of a movie from his drug - induced, scrabble letter throwing haze.

YES, THERE ARE MASSIVE SPOILERS IN THIS POST.Does it matter? ..... no.No, no, and no. One hour and ten minutes of my life and a dollar and ten cents that I will never get back.Not to say it didn't have a certain... theoretical something. But Barney on a cracker, it was bad! Movie! You are supposed to have a PLOT. Not a series of oft-unintelligible images framed by a well-regarded actor, a pretty older gal and a semi-hot teen heartthrob who is famous for acting intensely disaffected. Or is that disaffectedly intense? Whichever one, he does. For the whole movie.I rented this thinking: hey, young Leo DiCaprio wasn't at all bad when he had leeway to ACT (even before Aviator, in which he was rather awesome). I liked Pattinson as Cedric Digory well enough. I think I'll give the shiny vampire kid a chance.*sob* Oh, I rue the day...To add insult to injury (do those TV lawyers do pro-bono for intellectual bludgeoning?), every time I thought something would HAPPEN... it turned out to either be a 'dream' (ARGH! CHEAT!!) or some never discussed again empty plot point.Except for the suicide. Who then comes back. To... haunt him? Give friendly advice with a mute child from... the bombing??? I JUST watched this dreck an hour ago and I have NO IDEA.Save yourself the agony: it's not the actors faults (probably), the script should have been tossed on the 'interesting but only for a short story' pile, the director should have called in sick (it might have been better! Julian Sands would have been, I'll wager), and the cinematographer... needs to STOP WATCHING MICHAEL BAY FILMS. Not EVERY SCENE that you want to be DRAMATIC needs to be filmed by HAND by a person suffering chronic Jazz Hands Syndrome!! Sorry to get so shouty, but... OK, any movie that starts with the Vienna Spooks Choir "AAAAAHHHH!"ing spookily as the camera pans through spooky trees to a spooky house while using a spookily blue filter (for almost the entire bloody movie) needs to be shot. Erm, never shot. Yes. Never shot.My tuppence.

The film was good, not fantastic but definitely not terrible. The acting was fantastic though, especially Robert Pattinson. It was quite hard to follow the story as it moved around a lot and left things unexplained, but that all adds to suspense. The ending was very confusing though that was the only bit I really didn't like. Overall the movie was watchable and I would watch it again for the sake of Robert Pattinson, maybe the story would be more clear the second time round as I have not read the book. For just over a hour the film is really well done and acted, definitely recommend watching twice before you decide whether you like it or not.I wouldn't say the film was terrible I've seen much much much WORSE!

As a fan of the late prolific Dennis Wheatley who found "The Haunting of Toby Jugg" to be one of his most gripping thrillers, I was confused to find that this tedious mess was supposed to be inspired by that work. What there is of plot is undercut by uncertainty whether Jugg, from whose POV the story is seen, is a reliable narrator or a nutcase. Playing Jugg, Robert Pattinson mostly gives the perfect Goth fashion model note of cool emotionlessness, which presumably serves him well in the hunky teen vampire stories to which he owes his fame. For this story I would have preferred an actor.Just for fun, the script includes a bit of interracial flirting which is perfectly appropriate to the 21st Century and perfectly inappropriate to World War II, during which the story is set. Casting a black woman as nurse in a British countryside rest home was inane altogether considering the era.Don't waste your time. Read the book if you can find it.