the headless yves montant and bad 70s graphics? [/url]
That's the most unfortunate cover of all because (a) it's very bad, as you say, but also (b) it goes to the best film mentioned on this thread so far. (Although Hi Mom, Eureka, and The THing are really great too.)
zedz wrote:Even at a barrel-scraping bargain-basement price I didn't dare buy this. The film looks to be just about as bad as the cover.
What you can't see . . . can kill you!
I think one of those news reports shown in the 'how news scares people for no reason whatsoever' section of Bowling For Columbine had that same tagline!
I gotta admit, the CITY DRAGON cover definitely fits mbalson's criteria of a cover so bad it's funny. I love the shot of the guy with the dopy look on his face while 2 practically naked chicks hang all over him. Why is he looking at the camera and not at them?
cbernard wrote:That's the most unfortunate cover of all because (a) it's very bad, as you say, but also (b) it goes to the best film mentioned on this thread so far. (Although Hi Mom, Eureka, and The THing are really great too.)
In keeping with that sentiment, here's another unfortunate cover for a great movie (and a pretty good all-around DVD, too). It's not as bad as some others in this thread, but it's still potentially off-putting if you don't know how good the movie is. There's just too much going on here. Less would definitely be more.
Whoever designed that doesn't seem to know that "leaves" means "pages," thus the falling maple leaves on the cover. I guess poor Satan needed a hobby to make the thousands of years go by faster and pressing autumn leaves in the pages of books is a good one.
I think we need to distinguish between a bad cover and what appears on its face to be a questionable movie. (I have not see it - perhaps it is a corker...) I mean, how would you propose we make this cover any better? What is the appropriate packaging for "Funky Monkey"?
[/url]
