0.5/10Back in the early 2000s I had saved my paper round money to purchase a DVD player with a surround sound system. When I opened the box I saw it came with a few free DVDs which certainly wasn't the norm. One of these films was Train to Hell (1996). From the title of the film and the picture of a big star actor (Grant) on the front I foolishly decided this was worth a watch.Terrible. Just absolutely awful. Words cannot describe how disappointing this film is. I sat through the entire film, start to finish!Even now, nearly 15 years later it still stands out vividly in my memory as the single worst film I've ever seen. The script was bizarre, the dialogue was all over the place, the camera work was often shaky and scenes with mistakes in the delivery and points where Grant mistakenly and nervously peeks into the camera lens were left in the final edit. It was clear from the look in Hugh Grant's eyes that he was uncomfortable with the direction during filming, at certain points he genuinely looks like he is going to be sick with anxiety.I think I burned the DVD after watching it, only to crave it again years later after discussing awful films with friends at uni. I felt I had to watch it again to make sure it wasn't just a dream (nightmare). I never managed to get a hold of another copy.I imagine if I was a lecturer on a cinema course I would make a point of showing all my students this film. It is basically a step by step guide of how to make a genuinely laugh out loud terrible film. I cannot fathom how people were paid to make this. I actually believe I could make a better film myself with a smartphone and a couple of friends; and that is saying something!If you're a film student, this is a must see......

At one point in "Night Train to Venice", Hugh Grant's character suffers from amnesia. It's also what happened to the people who made this film; about two-thirds of the way through, they forgot the story, and wandered off in a different direction; a couple of directions in fact.A journalist, Martin Gimmle (Hugh Grant) travels to Venice by train to deliver a book he has written about Neo-Nazis. Martin is pursued by a gang of Neo-Nazi thugs and a mysterious man, The Stranger (Malcolm McDowell). On the train, Martin has an affair with an actress, Vera (Tahnee Welch) who is travelling to Venice with her daughter. After a number of incidents, the protagonists end up in Venice for the finale.Unfortunately, nearly every plot strand in the film is blurred with extraneous bits of business or simply left unresolved.It's hard to see how Hugh Grant got caught up in this. Maybe he thought a paid holiday to Venice would do him good. He gives it his best shot and brings his usual charm to the table, but the script, such as it is, gives him little chance to be convincing. Drop dead gorgeous Tahnee Welch was never the most animated of actresses and there are scenes here that leave her stranded. The excerpt from "Romeo and Juliet" is painful to watch; she wouldn't have been given a part in a high school production of the Bard's play based on this. However a good director could have coaxed a performance out of her, but more often than not, she lands flat on her back in bed with Hugh on top of her.Malcolm McDowell was more experienced than Hugh and Tahnee and no doubt could recognise a turkey being basted a mile off. His performance is almost as though he was only able to spare half a day for the shoot, and did a whole bunch of looks to camera so they could be cut in later where needed. Unfortunately it's the same look, and it's as though he was trying to pass a kidney stone.But having Malcolm McDowell on board explains one thing; it seems to have inspired director Carlo U. Quinterio to have the Neo-Nazi punks act like Alex's Droogs from "A Clockwork Orange". Old Carlo seems the sort of guy who could latch onto something like that. Could "Night Train to Venice" have worked? Sure. After all, the basic story isn't that different to "North By Northwest". However, instead of simplifying the story and working with the actors to get the most out of their performances, the filmmakers were distracted by everything from carnival masks to pigeons flying across the facades of the palazzos in Venice. Badness is in the eye of the beholder, but when a movie, which obviously had a reasonable budget, major stars and interesting locations turns out to be this incoherent, then it's a strong contender for the worst movie of all time.

This 'film' gets 1/10 but that is me being generous. I forced myself to continue watching this pile of crap as I have never seen a film this bad in my life. Like witnessing a car crash, you know you should look away but the horror of it keeps you transfixed.If you have not had the misfortune to watch it yet then save yourself 80 minutes and don't bother (80 minutes - I must be getting delirious, no sane person will continue after 20 minutes!). If you have watched it then I suggest a remedy of Shawshank Redemption, Godfather II, Blazing Saddles, Blues Brothers, or whatever your favourites are to remind yourself that there is a lot of talent out there.Finally, anyone involved in this film ought to disavow it and apologise profusely. Also, I applaud those who have contributed positive reviews for having a delightful sense of irony.

for some reason this film keeps being put on TV opposite late night infomercials. however, it's not any more entertaining than they are. u can sleep to it though and even listen to CDs while its on and u won't miss a thing. not sure if this could have been safely released theatrically without bomb threats against the projectionist. someone should probably confiscate all copies of this baloney and do atomic testing near them. its possible this film causes cancer.It also begs the question: why there isn't a "zero" rating on this site? I'm wondering if the director really knows how bad this is and whether he was able to be paid for it. Maybe the director's name really is alan smithee.. or maybe it should be.