All I can say is that the bar for bad movies must be pretty high.
JAMAICA INN is a weak Hitchcock movie even by the standards of his more primitive period of the 1920s and 1930s, but I don't think it's a bad movie. It lacks much suspense due to having more camp than needed, but the camp is at least fun to watch in the form of Charles Laughton as the greedy, lecherous villain (as he once said, the Code could never censor the gleam in his eye) and his colorful assortment of thugs. Maureen O'Hara has spunk as the heroine and Robert Newton is an interesting choice for a lawful good hero, but they share no chemistry and constantly get overshadowed by the bad guys.
However, even if the movie lacks menace and suspense, it did keep me entertained. I was never frustrated or bored.
JAMAICA INN is a weak Hitchcock movie even by the standards of his more primitive period of the 1920s and 1930s, but I don't think it's a bad movie. It lacks much suspense due to having more camp than needed, but the camp is at least fun to watch in the form of Charles Laughton as the greedy, lecherous villain (as he once said, the Code could never censor the gleam in his eye) and his colorful assortment of thugs. Maureen O'Hara has spunk as the heroine and Robert Newton is an interesting choice for a lawful good hero, but they share no chemistry and constantly get overshadowed by the bad guys.
However, even if the movie lacks menace and suspense, it did keep me entertained. I was never frustrated or bored.