Stargames

Everyone acts in a very weird manner in this film from the way they talk, walk, gestures, are all either fake or self conscious. Some thins are just explainable in terms of how someone could act in that fashion and think it is ok. I think anyone off the street could act better. The sad thing is the best actor was Tony Curtis and he was very strange in real life. I cannot imagine anyone over the age of 6 or that might enjoy this movie. Even then it might be difficult. This puts it out of the whole family category.

There must be something good to say about a family-effort film project....in this case, it apparently involves the Clark clan and some marginally-talented homies....so, we can only hope it was meant for audiences under the age of seven. Anyone older will immediately pick up on the amazingly cheesy effects, performances---sadly including Tony Curtis', who must have owed somebody a big favor---and atrociously bad scripting and dialogue. (Count how many times the parents yell, "BRIAN!", even when he's right in front of them.) However, all this makes for a fabulous riff session, and you won't even need RiffTrax. You'll have plenty of your own material, especially when "Happy" shows up---it's this flick's only Clowning achievement.

There is nothing that can save this film from contender for worst movie. The acting is cringeworthy, the costumes and 'special' effects are laughable. It's hard to think what was going on in the minds of its creators, maybe they were playing a joke on us.

It makes b-Movies like like Hollywood blockbusters. I'm not entirely sure that forced watching could be used as punishment.

How bad can Sci-Fi movies get?

Just watch "Stargames" and then ask yourself if you've ever seen one that's worse. I'd be willing to bet the answer is: No.

Veteran film director Greydon Clark went out with a bang or more like a fizzle, with this wretchedly awful Sci-Fi dud and sadly he felt the need to include/shame his sons at the same time - a real family affair. Having seen it twice I can say that Stargames is an atrocious movie in virtually every aspect: the acting, editing, dialog, special effects, costumes, music, etc, from top to bottom this is as bad as it gets. And believe it or not Tony Curtis was roped into this horrible mess somehow or another - but at least he's the king in this movie. Did he need the money THAT badly or was he just bored and needed something to occupy his time with??? Also it must be stated that this movie is loaded with some of the worst/cheapest looking CGI effects ever seen. Stargames is the epitome of a slipshod, amateur production and as a result the movie comes loaded with many illogical situations, which in no small way is due to the cast and crews sheer incompetence. However it must be said, that do to their bumbling ways, Greydon and company can, on occasion, create some wonderfully awkward/badly acted moments of unintentional humor. And as you watch in stunned silence you'll no doubt be be asking yourself "how much worse can this get?" and on that point Stargames excels, because it keeps getting worse and worse all the way to the end. And not to forget "Happy" the clown (Who? You'll see.), whose known far and wide for his sunny disposition and spot-on comic timing - yes this movie has something for everyone.

The film is set around the premise of a young prince who escapes the evil clutches "Lugos", the most pathetic depiction of an intergalactic, power mad, space villain you'll ever see. Oh yeah, the 12 year-old prince clumsily makes his get-away in his mommies space ship (I kid you not) and remains on the run from Lugos from there on. The majority of the movie however takes place out in the woods (it's cheaper that way), where Greydon Clarks sons face a variety of obstacles - one of which is diabetes, which sadly is the most menacing enemy in the movie. Yep, it's that lame. In fact this movie is so lame, that people are able to evade laser beams - by merely stepping aside. So much for light traveling at 186,000 miles per second! The costumes are comically second-rate, especially the goofy looking helmets with the triangular visors and the "laser guns" seen in this movie, are literally nothing more than clear plastic tubing. With there being so much to criticize, it's hard to say exactly what part of this movie is the worst, but if I had to pin-point it, I'd say it's the script and the dialog that's contained therein; which is loaded to the hilt with ridiculous pseudo-scientific jargon, that was obviously made-up on the spot. I guess when you yammer on about non-existent technology you can say anything. One things for sure, fans of "Hard Science" will find this movie utterly detestable, because as with most Sci-Fi films (even the good ones), physics don't seem to matter. Even SYFY's feature films ("Sharknado" "Lavalantula"... you get the idea) are better than this.

In conclusion, Stargames is truly one of the most pathetic Sci-Fi movies of all-time and it goes without saying that it's a definite bottom of the barrel entry for the genre. However and to end things on a positive note: If you enjoy bad movies than this one's absolutely not to be missed!

. . . but certainly in the top two. As a movie aficionado and frustrated film maker, I long for the talent that would allow me to shoot just one minute of film good enough to be considered art. I'm sure Graydon Clark has a similar aspiration for himself. Just as I do not rate movies with a 10 (there is no such thing as a perfect film) I also am loath to rate a movie with a 1, which is also a measure of perfection but at the wrong end of the spectrum. Stargames brushes awfulness perfection but doesn't quite make it. It is chock full of truly atrocious moments, from inexplicable actions to the creepiest clown I have seen anywhere. Ever. While this movie is one of the worst ever, it yielded a RiffTrax gem. It is truly a RiffTrax masterpiece and that alone justifies the existence of this turkey.