The Jar (1984) User Reviews

yeah it was pretty bad

[u2bme102 · 4/10 · 8 September 2008]

Hello, this is Paul who was in the Jar, and many thanks to those of you who actually saw this movie.

I have to agree, it was one of the worst movies ever made, but because I was in it, I had to give it a 4.

Okay, my acting was horrible, but in my defense, most of the movie was shot in one take. We shot the movie in two stretches of two weeks. If you look closely, you will notice my hair is longer in some scenes than in others. One stretch was shot in the fall, when my hair was longer, and the other stretch was shot in the spring, when my hair was shorter. Then we did some pickup shots later in the summer.

We hardly rehearsed any scenes at all.

All I can say is, we did our best with what we had.

If I remember correctly, the movie was shot on a budget of about $200,000.

Oh - yup, we dubbed all of the dialog. We would shoot from 5 or 6 am until it got dark, then go to the sound studio and dub until 1 or 2 am, then get up and shoot the next day.

The director decided he didn't want the 60 hz signal so he could sync the recorded voices to the film, so he and his assistant ended up cutting little pieces of tape and splicing them together to at least try to make the sound match the movie.

In Bruce's defense (the director) he was a decent photographer. I think he and the script writer had a vision of what they wanted the movie to be. If I remember correctly, they were trying to portray various incidents of inhumanity and how inhumanity could pass from one person to the next.

So if any of you know of sci fi cons where they would like commentary on what some consider to be the worst film ever made, send me an e-mail.

It's bad but not absolutely horrible. I have seen far worse than this.

[decapattack · 3/10 · 1 October 2021]

It's slow paced, most scenes don't get together but there are good shots and I like the overall idea of it. With changes it could be a good movie.

Unbelievably Awful

[ReelCheese · 1/10 · 10 July 2006]

Back when I was a pre-teen thumbing through the horror sections of movie review books, I came across a picture called "The Jar." A sucker for weirdness, I was intrigued by the description of a man who can't rid himself of the terror born by a demonic jar. Sure, the reviewer said the movie was inexcusable, but I didn't care. I had to see this film! For more than a decade, I scouted 99-cent bins and garage sales, hoping it would turn up. Then I found a copy on eBay for $8. Finally, this oddity would be part of my collection.

After just watching - no, enduring - "The Jar", I'm a lot less enthusiastic. As so many reviewers at IMDb have duly noted, the movie is pure, unadulterated crap, and not even in a good way. Sure, there is an instance or two when the sheer gobbledygook generates an unintended laugh, but that's not nearly enough to save it from its fate as one of the all-time worst pictures. This isn't a B-movie; it's a Z-movie.

Despite the cool box cover, depicting a ghoulish little creature ready to pounce out of a jar, the storyline is hopelessly dull. Protagonist Paul (played by Gary Wallace, who hadn't been heard from before this movie and hasn't been heard from since) selflessly brings a creepy old man to his apartment after a car accident. But along for the trip is a mysterious object wrapped in brown paper - the title object, as we soon learn. From the moment the jar is in his apartment, Paul endures a series of horrific visions that rank as some of the most incomprehensible jumble ever filmed. Nothing - not even shattering the jar into a thousand pieces - can shake the curse. Paul seeks out his friendly female neighbor for help, but she morphs into the creepy old man. Then Paul finds a severed head buried in a planter. The end. At least that's what's decipherable. To gain a better understanding of this mess, you'll have to track down writer George Bradley or director Bruce Toscano. Of course you might have a hard time since neither one had been heard from before this movie or has been heard from since.

What else can be said? The acting in "The Jar" is indescribably bad, making the cast of "The Beast of Yucca Flats" look like Oscar nominees. Wallace is particularly awful as he wanders around aimlessly, occasionally letting loose the most unconvincing of screams and outbursts. Special effects? We are literally talking kids-in-the-basement type fare. In one scene, when Paul is cut, you can see where the camera stopped so the fake blood tube could be put into place. Production quality? The visuals are shaky, very poorly lit and at times out of focus. Character's heads cropped out of the frame for no reason. The end credits are virtually impossible to read and have no musical accompaniment. Have you ever seen a movie whose end credits have no sound?

And so there it is. Like so many reviewers before me, I have to strongly advise against watching "The Jar." Sure, all of our descriptions of how bad it is may leave you curious. You may feel like you have to see it for yourself. "I like bad movies. I'll be fine," you might be saying in all your infinite wisdom. Listen, I like bad movies as much as the next guy. But when people talk about liking bad movies, they're really talking about "good bad movies." This one's just bad. And unpleasant. And dreadful. You will be a worse person for seeing it. How it ever made it onto the shelves of our video stores against such implausible odds will forever remain a curiosity in silver screen history.

I dare you to try to sit through this film.

[negadoug · 1/10 · 18 August 2008]

"The Jar" is a movie sent from the Heavens---not as a gift---but as a means of testing our humanity and the fabric of our very existences. The word "awful" does not even glance the surface of the ocean of atrocity that is this movie. Often a mediocre production can suffer from a lackluster plot but contain redemption in the form of quality acting, pleasing special effects, a great score, or any combination of the aforementioned. Unfortunately, "The Jar" offers no such redemption. As one watches the film, each passing moment exceeds the viewer's expectation of how irrevocably bad a movie can be; his or her notion of what makes a "terrible film" is completely shattered with every stroke of the second hand. The plot: absolute nonsense with no explanation in sight. The music: subtly pleasing---if you enjoy the sound of an orchestra committing suicide using its own instruments. The acting: sometimes rigid, other times absurdly dramatic, at all times unforgivable. The appearance: completely grainy and dark (not in a mood-setting way, but in a "the camera man is totally incompetent" way) with the actors often way out of frame. The total package: incoherent, psychotic, UNWATCHABLE. The only reason a person should ever view "The Jar" is to gain an understanding of what makes a a movie "good"---which translates to exactly the opposite of everything demonstrated in this picture.

One of the strangest movies I've ever seen.

[Paul T. Monster · 1/10 · 1 March 2000]

The plot involves a hairy guy named Paul who picks up a creepy old man who was injured in a car accident. The old man insists on taking along this jar wrapped in a bag. Paul takes the old man back to his (Paul's) apartment, the old man vanishes and Paul is left with this jar, which contains this little blue monster that looks like one of the Ghoulies. After that, things get weird as Paul hallucinates and/or dreams all this stuff.

I suppose there could be some symbolism in the film, but we know nothing about Paul before the dreams start, and the dreams seem to have no connection to anything that is happening. My theory is that the director or writer or whoever it was that decided to make this movie took all the weird dreams he had had in his life and rolled them into this painful film. None of the dreams are memorable enough to require a visual translation, though, so they're quite boring to watch. This begs the question of why he decided to do it.

This movie has the feel of a really bad student film. Someone attempting to make an "arty" movie.

Another interesting thing about this film is that it was made in Colorado, but appears to be badly dubbed. All the characters have these dull, out-of-place voices that don't seem to match their faces. It reminds me of B-Movies from the '60s like "Manos: The Hands of Fate" and "The Beast of Yucca Flats" that were either recorded without sound or had the sound erased, and then tried to put sound back in in post-production.

I think this is a bad movie, but I'm no expert. There could be some deep meaning to this film that I don't get. Give it a rent and see for yourself.

Below the bottom of the Barrel

[LouBlake · 19 March 2002]

I rented this back in the 1980's, and the bad taste still lingers. Not one redeeming quality. Not worth watching, even for the thrill of a "fun" bad movie.

Let's drop the subject right here...

Pretentious and Mind-Numbing

[JHC3 · 1/10 · 20 October 2002]

I must say I'm a glutton for punishment. I rented "The Jar" simply because I knew nothing about it and it cost a mere ninety-nine cents. The sad fact of the matter is I should have checked imdb.com first. Perhaps had I done this, I could have saved myself the agony. Scratch that...I'll rent almost anything for a dollar without first considering that I'm sacrificing precious time as well.

The film begins with a motorist picking up a bizarre old man after an accident. Instead of taking him to a hospital or to the police, he brings the crazed old coot to his apartment. The man soon disappears, leaving behind a jar containing a hideous demonic thing. It is not long before it begins to grate at the man's sanity, causing hallucinations, mood swings, paranoia, and depression. This ultimately endangers his job, the potential for romance with a new neighbor, and perhaps even his life.

"The Jar" is little more than a forum for a load of disjointed, barely related, surreal visions. The overall effect is to bore the viewer to tears. Decent acting? Continuity? Look elsewhere for these elements. They are absent from this film. Any reasonable person will grant that "The Jar" was hampered by a low budget. However, budget cannot be an excuse for a film this bad, certainly the worst I've seen in 2002.

Horrible...

[whammy666 · 1/10 · 23 May 2006]

I am a HUGE fan of B-Movies so when I rented this I was looking for a cheesy no budget movie, hopefully about a killer jar or some crazy liquid in a jar that killed like the blob, that is how the cover looked. This is a boring, boring movie, and the acting does not help at all. The acting is bad, the picture quality is bad, the special effects are bad, this normally adds to a good movie but this was horrible. I can not really even tell you what this movie was about because it was so weird...I have seen other movies where a man goes slowly insane, which I guess is what this was about, but those movies were done well and this was...welll...not. Do not see this for the bad quality of the film, do not see this for any reason, unless you really want to torture yourself. That is all I have to say for THE JAR.

Decent if you have something else to do when it's on.

[moycon · 5/10 · 3 August 2004]

It's true. This flick isn't as bad as some of the reviews suggest as long as you have something else to do during the lulls. Needless to say there are plenty of lulls. I recalled watching this movie back about 16 years ago and was not impressed with it at all at that time. My first impression after all these years is that this was a student film someone managed to sell to a studio. The film is extremely low budget and not terribly exciting. However there are some decently freaky dream sequences that you might find worth watching if you like low budget horror flicks (like me) and the whole thought of this old man leaving a pickled punk in a dudes apartment where it takes over the man mind is at the least creepy. I suggest watching this movie while cleaning the house or surfing the net.... Every 20 minutes or so when something interesting happens you can stop what you're doing and watch for a minute or two.

If you were able to sit through movies like... Drive In Massacre Ghost Riders Garden Of The Dead The Cremators You wont have a problem opening The Jar.

Ghastly, wretched, horrible, accursed, vile, inane, ...

[xtonybueno · 1/10 · 6 February 2000]

... and those are probably the nicest adjectives I can think to describe this flick. One of the most boring movies I have ever seen. And believe me, I've seen some dull pictures in my time. NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, RENT THIS MOVIE. I can appreciate a bad horror film (heck, I even like some Troma movies), but trust me on this. I cannot imagine ANYONE, ANYWHERE finding this enjoyable. On a scale of 1-10, it's a one. Boy, I wish I could rate it lower.

A slow grower

[john4588 · 10/10 · 20 January 2004]

It took me several viewings to get into it but it eventually grew on me. Tracking down and talking to the director, Bruce Toscano, helped too. It takes inspiration from Fellini and Argento and shows a mans descent into madness. The music works very well for the bizarre nature of the film. It is sad to know that the film was severely truncated by the distributor as well. Also the distributor cut away much of the picture to make it fit the TV and the correct version is lost. There is a lot of surreal imagery here. The acting leaves a bit to be desired but in a way, adds to the strangeness of the film. Hopefully somehow one day the film will pick up the cult audience it deserves and a DVD release with director's commentary will occur.

mother of God...

[raziel11102001 · 1/10 · 7 June 2006]

As you may have gathered from the other reviews, this film blows... and not just hard, like Gail force winds blows. This movie could blow "...a golf ball through a garden hose." (FMJ: Kubrick) Sadly, as much as I despised it, misery loves company. So my friends and I have made it a life goal to ruin as many people's lives with this atrocity as possible. I had rented it so many times that I felt I was giving the creators too much money for this crap-on-tape. So I bought it. It is so terrible, in every way. Mother of God... But don't take MY word for it, see it for yourself. But if you decide to do so, please make sure to remove all objects from your vicinity that you could potentially forcibly insert into your vision holes.

~Murdoc

The Jar: Odd Visions of my teenage...

[pyromanticways · 16 January 2008]

Many people seem to hate this movie... well, I love it! Caught occasionally on Telecapri (a regional, Italian TV station that used to show a lot of b-horrors 10 or 15 years ago), this strange film obsessed me for years, becoming a sort of legend: even talking to my friends, it looked like I was the only one who had seen "The Jar"! The strange images of this obscure flick had become part of my fantasy. Last year, I subscribed to an internet horror fans' forum and opened a post there, in which I described all the scenes of this movie, I had been recalling for years; there where other people in Italy who knew it! Obviously, they hated it too; but I finally got that film's title! I bought it on VHS on Amazon, despite the reviews found on this site. Yes, the dubbing was terrible (but it couldn't be worse than the usual Italian dubbing this sort of films get), the editing approximate and the story confusing; but all these elements, helped creating the odd atmosphere that this strange film surely has. Hallucinations, suspension between dream and reality, mystery, non-sense (I admit the candy store scene's a "WTF!?" candidate), isolation, terror and probably some inadvertent qualities too! I consider it as a bad dream: incoherent, maybe incomplete (according to another user's comment, "The Jar" was heavily cut for distribution's reasons), but fascinating and leaving my mind full of inspiration and weird memories. I still like it after all these years and I think it's not worse than many other B (or Z-grade) films that attempted to obtain a 'cult' position after years.

-Dario-

Good for one thing, and one thing only

[deadcatsdontpurr · 1/10 · 2 February 2006]

I rented this movie for a little thing me and some friends do every other weekend called "B-Movie Night". Basically, the goal is to find the worst movie you can find and put it up against another person's find. This particular movie won me the title of "Survivor of the B-Movies". While I was looking for a bad movie I saw a movie with no cover art simply called "The Jar". So I grabbed it. This movie was so weird, so stupid, so badly acted, and so long that the choice was clear... I had found the worst B-Movie ever. The plot made no sense, the effects were crap, and the budget was hilariously low. I still cant believe I watched the damn thing. So, unless you plan on hosting your own "B-Movie Night" and totally blowing the lid off bad movies, please, don't waste your time with this movie... my friends and I have already done that for you.

• Josh

It blows... (the lid off of terror)

[conanneutron · 1/10 · 9 June 2004]

Easily the worst movie I've ever seen, do not even watch it as a joke, or to see how bad it can be, trust me, it's horrible. The acting, the "special effects", everything... I hope all copies are eventually destroyed.

The tag line is "The Jar - it blows the lid off of terror" I'd shorten it to just... "it blows."

I can't put this anymore clearly, this movie is atrocious, and not even in a "how can any movie be this bad? I've got to see it for myself and see what I'm missing." kind of way.

No, don't do that. piece of crap... walk away. awful.

A Pain

[framptonhollis · 1/10 · 4 October 2015]

I saw the stupid movie. At first, I was just bored, but then this boredom just became anger. I'm tired now. It was one of the longest 80 minutes of my entire life, and, as much as I hate to use this word, it is the most pretentious movie that I've ever seen.

The symbolism is absolutely cringe worthy and it is the worst kind of an experimental film. And I love experimental filmmaking! "Eraserhead" is one of my top 20 favorite films of all time, and this movie feels like an attempt at making an experimental horror film just like that one, but, while "Eraserhead" has very interesting symbolism and ways to interpret it, as well as being interesting throughout, this just comes across as being UGH!!!!!!!!

Overall, this isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but that's just giving it too much credit.

boring/10

unusual ( <-- understatement )

[herbfolks · 3/10 · 8 November 2013]

First impression: This movie must be the result of unscrupulous individuals pretending to be film makers for the purpose of bilking investors.

Then again, that impression was formed during an early scene: The main character was seated in the female character's apartment; they were alone, and she was off-camera, about to serve him coffee. Because the acting and effects were so awful, when the older man's face appeared in the mirror above the table, I thought it must have been a mistake.

Of course a later scene proved me wrong on that point, but if I'd been right I would have included in my comments, "25.15: Cameo by Alan Smithee?" ... Oh well. The thought amused me, anyway. Always a fan of obscure cultural references. But I digress.

Yes, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and yet - bad movie fan that I am - I truly enjoyed it. I wasn't feeling well and had to go back several times to start again where I'd fallen asleep; it's a slog in some places, and the effects are truly terrible, but I know I'll enjoy watching it again from start to finish once I'm feeling better.

Clearly a love-it-or-hate-it movie; I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but I wouldn't discourage anyone from viewing it either.

Hard to say...

[suprchunk · 2/10 · 8 August 2023]

WOW! I had thought I wrote a review on this years ago, but I don't seem to see it. Which is surprising as this movie was watched in a club of other movie enthusiasts that try and outdo each other. I'm assuming you know that this movie won the Worst Movie competition. -handedly.

It is hard to say which was worse, the acting or the filming. The actors did try, but then again trying doesn't equate to doing.

The story is very lost and the plot seems like it is trying to escape getting pinned down.

The jar contents are barely even mentioned, just there. It keeps showing it, but does little to explain it. The acting does not help in trying to convey what is actually happening.

The actual plot makes less sense and seems impossible to leap from what we see to what we are supposed to see.

If you want to win a competition on showing the worst movie ever made, good luck finding a copy.

pretty cool really

[lordcorneliusplum · 8/10 · 27 July 2017]

If this was in black and white and made 20 years earlier it would perhaps be seen to approach the cult genius of films like Carnival of Souls or Daughter of Horror.

The bad acting and general amateurism seem to add to the nightmare quality of the film (and the washed out VHS quality print i saw helped too).

I know I'm perverse, but i enjoy these sort of outsider creations way more than the latest blockbuster - its almost like you have to decide to allow them to be what they are, rather than expecting them to conform to more conventional cinematic standards.

a pure disaster

[zitty04 · 3 April 2004]

Ths Jar, released in 1984, follows the day to day life of Paul as his life changes for the eerie after picking up a creepy old hitchiker. The old man vanishes but not before he leaves a mysterious object in a paper bag,hence-the jar. Paul then starts to experience strange illusions, one of which has his bath tub fill up with blood in which we get to witness some really cheap camera-trickish special effects. Paul then meets a new female neighbor, who seems to take an instant interest in dating him, despite the fact that she barely knows him and that he acts extremely quiet and creepy. This film is a complete mess from start to finish.There are so many meaningless points of this film-a part when we watch from the outside as Paul goes into a candy store and buys candy, we do not see him inside, but watch the door for 30 seconds.Its as though the filmmakers were just to lazy to get permission to shoot a scene inside.The female lead is a character that contributes absolutely nothing to this movie.All we know about her is that she has an attraction for schizophrenic single white males and bad movie roles(this movie). The acting is worse than "cue card reading" acting, the characters are shallow and out of place, the camera work is so much off its pathetic, and the special effects look like something out of a bargain bin.I do not recommend this film. This movie makes the countless slashers with masked killers look like masterpieces.

I laughed, I screamed, I hated this movie

[icarus48-1 · 20 April 2003]

Spoilers below. THIS MOVIE FILTH! I honestly hope they were kidding when they took the premis of this movie and adapted it into a film. The main character mainly wanders around turning his lights on and off, and drinking water. When he isnt doing that he is either abusing a woman who loves him because carring rocking chairs has left her in a state of life debt to him for eternity, OR having the most boring and poorly lit halucinations ever. There are things in this movie I just don't understand. Like the seen where we witness three minutes of our hero (Read: inept hairy fool) walking down a street. He finally arives at his destination (See's Cookie shop) we then wait outside for him to buy I cookie. I wish I were joking. Then he eats the cookie and walks away. The Plastic figurine under blue lighting is never thwarted by cookies, the main characters have no passion for cookies, the heart of a woman is not won with cookies, THIS SCENE IS USELESS!!! Much like every other scene in the movie. Also, the ending of our main man's life, involves randomly walking up to a potted plant, feeling a leaf on it, then digging in its dirt. Then a face is uncovered and there is a poorly lit orange spot to the side of it. Our main character screams and is never seen or heard from again...right. In the next scene his body is gone, so I am left to ponder my meaning in life. This movie is artsy film making gone horribly wrong. And as a note to its producers, real artists use light (and get the subject in the frame). They also do at least SOME sound before post production.