EasyBlog

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

A mediocre talent finds inspiration in an over-the-hill mentor and in doing so makes a nightclub successful. So Xanadu...right? Actually, it's also Chicago, Moulin Rouge and Coyote Ugly. Thanks Troy from Goonies!

Let's face it, gang. Burlesque is about 30 minutes too long and suffers from the typical drag of poorly thought out projects - there's too many subplots and no main plot. While most of them are just meh, one subplot is insufferable - the romance. What's her name Aquafina falls in love with her (seriously gay) roommate/coworker. And their relationship is like watching paint dry, then become acid and fly into your face. It is intolerably uninteresting until it causes you physical pain.

The songs don't fit the theme (they are pop hits, not the cabaret/vaudeville that fits with burlesque dancing). The dancing is pretty bland. The costumes are about as burlesque as a road stop strip joint and they are too few anyways. I can't understand why the signing/dancing movie fan would ever like this. I'd be pissed. It's like Batman Returns - a Batman movie with no Batman.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

When you must put your slowly dieing career into the dumpster forever, the fast path is to team up with Christian Slater in a crime-caper. A band of bozos get caught in an dirty FBI sting and must steal all the gold for themselves...and they only thing stopping them is their own idiocy.

We'll start by saying that this ALMOST has something. There's bookends of banana business but that squishy look-warm middle bit drags it back into the depths of quite not interesting. Despite it having the worst produced car chases, worse than SNL rear-projection, Verne Troyer in a toilet with a dart-gun, Val Kilmer giving his belief in his characters one last try, and Bill Forysthe in a washing machine, there's just not enough fun here to put it in the do column.

It's almost like it doesn't know what it wants to be - either a screwball bumbling crime gang movie or a hard-boiled heist movie with lots of betrayal and twists. 

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

When it comes to the Christmas Flop, there's not too many floppier than 2006's Deck the Halls. I could be the groan-inducing jokes, the two one-time (and future) A-listers with their careers on the skids, or the really cliche and played plot. But mostly it's just that you hate the characters and want them to explode in a ball of fire.

Both of these men are horrible people. Which works great in a forum like Always Sunny but not so much in the yearly family outing at the movie theater with the cousins from Des Moines. Both Steve and Buddy are completely unlikable from the start - frame 1. You can't do that. When you have this plot (Dads take things too far!) you need at least your protagonist to be both likable and identifiable so that when the dads shake hands and treat each other with respect at the end, you have a location to return your character to with the viewer. This doesn't have it. Steve's a dick at the beginning and middle and end.

Aside from your disgust with the two people you have to watch for the next hour and half, the gags are awful and the jokes are poorly presented and delivered. Nothing is funny (aside from one unintentional laugh brought to you by a different movie playing in one scene). So there's nothing good here guys. Steer clear.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

The film that puts you directly into the mind of the characters and the writer/director at the same time - you'll feel confusion and without direction. By the end you'll be giving the same answer as the movie - "I don't know!"

Not even M. Knight can say what this movie is directly about. Ask him 6 different times and you'll get 6 different answers. One could put this into the sub-genre of disaster movies, but please, someone tell us definitively what the disaster is. The best that can be done is "The trees take revenge on man for invading their environment" but that just opens up more questions that can only be answered with "I don't know!" The on-screen scientists can only say "I don't know". Wahlburg never figures out what's going on and repeatedly says "I don't know". We don't know!

Despite a few glimmers of ridiculousness, the film is pretty damn boring and consists mostly of people walking while no one has a clue what is going on. There's dialogue piled upon other dialogue just there to tell us "See! These are real Earth people." There's nothing happening that moves the story forward, only reinforcing that Shyamalyan had no clue what to do with this pile of crap.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

To the disheartening of many fans of the book series, men in ties decide to make a dragon movie without any dragons in it and decide the story is too confusing so they just remade Star Wars. Beware the powers of the dark side of jelly beans!

If you're like us and have never read the Eragon book series, then you'll arguably have less problems with the divergence (that wasn't an accident) of the source material from the pre-teen books to this flaming pile of nonsense. It's a necessary position to look at the 2006 film objectively. We don't know the back story and the subtle elements of the world that this takes place in (if there are any) so don't come at us, bro! And in any situation, none of that should matter - because Eragon the movie, at least, doesn't suffer from it's abandonment from the source material - it suffers from the direct theft of OTHER source material.

It's just Star Wars gang. Which may seem like an oversimplification of the standard "epic" format of storytelling, ie. Star Wars, Gilgamesh, LOTR,  The Iliad and The Odyssey, et. al. we can show you that it is a direct case of intellectual property theft or the great scene heist of 2006. Perhaps the writing team called in Danny Ocean...

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

38 Metacritic, 39% Rotten Tomatoes, 35% domestic returns, universally panned by all, a terrible idea that could never make money and its one of the best films we've reviewed. If you haven't seen Speed Racer, you are blowing it.

DISCLAIMER: Speed Racer is in NO possible way a stinker (other than it's reputation). It's absolutely crack for your eyeballs. It's pulse-pounding racing action and over-the-top fun, all while being genuinely funny, well told, competently acted and a great tale. At the very least, it should have won Oscar gold for special effects, editing, sound design, production design, and cinematography. So don't expect much lampooning here.

So here we shall discuss why it makes it on the podcast. Its because its Speed Racer. No one cares. No one wants to care. It falls into the same bad idea category of (the deplorable) Jem and the Holigrams and (the BRILLIANT) Blade Runner 2049. You cannot make your money back, no matter how well you make the film. There just isn't a big enough fan base to capture the attention of the movie masses and have success. It's impossible!

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

When you need the toughest of tough guys to play your super agent and lone wolf defender of justice, get that Achy Breaky Heart guy. No man has ever been tougher! But make sure his girlfriend is the one that is the most "radical".

Here's the end result of Radical Jack; Jack is NOT radical, in fact. His most penultimate "action" move to hide under a bed. Not kidding. The film spends the first 3/4 telling us how tough Jack is, what with his smoldering gazes, his Ray-Ban shades, his supreme mullet, his "Renegade" Jeep, his barb-wire tattoo and such. Then we learn he's just not tough at all as he fails to be the catalyst and executor of the climax. It's DeeDee Pfeiffer who is indeed the radical one. "Radical Kate" should be the title of the film.

We just can't understate how poorly put together Radical Jack is. Nothing makes sense, timelines don't add up, Jack builds a shed with no doors, Asahi Guy...on and on and indescribable stupidity abound. This is complemented by it's perfect pacing for lampooning. Get the group together and prepare to have pants filled with pee from laughter. It's like surgery - best that you evacuate before starting.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

Neil Breen is back in his directorial debut with this week's trip into the mind of a crazy person. He stars as a double-agent, elite mercenary, computer hacker/security expert, bio-terrorist, cyborg, assassin/vigilante, and just a simple man. It's a Neil showcase into baffling story-telling, yet again.

While Double Down is not near the production that Fateful Findings is, it is still an exceptionally bonkers movie. Nothing makes a lick of sense. It's the type of film that leaves you wondering what the hell is going on throughout. While we have a likely infallible theory on what happens, you'll have to listen to show to find out.

There are some things to know going into this that may make it hard for some listeners and lovers of bad film. About 25% of the film is stock photography. That is A LOT. Another 25% is narration by Breen sometimes over the stock shots and sometimes while he rolls around in dirt in the desert. But let's face it, you're not coming into a Neil Breen movie because you are looking for excitement. You're here for the nonsense and this delivers that in heaps and heaps of bananas.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Whole Movie!

A group of trash vampires waste their immortality so that they can focus on their location-rotating fight club that has less rules than Tyler Durden's. The only thing that can stop them - horrible karate, bullet dodging DEA agents, and post-production effects that are just the presets in Adobe Premiere. Yuck!

Let's get out the disclaimer on this one - it's extremely budget and put together by people who have no experience in film, but hey! They got it done, right? They got their movie finished. So we'll give them that.

The rest of the film though, good night. This is one to steer VERY far away from, fam. It's not necessarily the acting or the "story" or the horrendously bad karate that is the problem. It's the over-editing and after-effects (trademark Adobe), mixed in with the wall-to-wall Nu-Metal. Within 5 minutes, I would argue that 80% of our fandom would abort this within 5 minutes due to it's awful design.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

Spectacularly over-rated director M. Knight Shyamalan gives us his vanity piece in the vein of Neil Breen and Tommy Wiseau and not only shows us he stinks at film as badly as they do, but that he's a giant, narcissistic, arrogant, terrible person. Good job!

So it's a fairy tale that involves water people called Narfs, who want to help mankind solve their problems. Standing in the way is their lack of sense of meeting people and a solo grass dog, but also the rules of being eaten by one of Gandalf's eagles. Ok... Now we know that if you look too deeply into most fairy tales, you'll find plenty of problems within the logic and that's fine. However, that is not what this jackass is trying to get us to not do. He tries to put forward some moral about man's desire to destroy itself without some sort of altruistic outside influence as a vehicle to change. What he succeeds in, is to say that he is the greatest story-teller ever to live and if you feel differently you should be eaten by a monster green monster.

Then there's his martyrdom. He plays a character in the film who is the object of the Narf's musing. This person will change the world via his book. It will be read by the future leader of the world, thus inspiring him to make mankind peaceful and prosperous. Yet at no point does he make an attempt to declare what is contained within his "The Cookbook". His only reference to its content is "Its got things about leaders and governments and society and stuff". THIS is the words of the greatest storyteller according to himself. What an asshole.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer!

It was one of the biggest horror movies of the 2000s and created an entire style of film-making on the cheap for such studios as The Asylum and Blumhouse. So that should mean its good, right? Wrong. Saw stinks on ice. Happy 300th episode to us, I guess.

Where to begin with the problems of the film? Well lets actually start with a compliment. It only cost $1.2 million. Could they have used the money more wisely to make a better film and still raked in the cash? Absolutely. 

First there is Cary Elwes, who astounds at his lack of nomination in the Razzie awards. Rest assured, when we get our time machine built and right the wrongs of crappy movie award history, Mr. Wesley will be getting a big ol' SMABFA for either best or worst bad actor. He stinks. Then you've got Danny Glover working in mostly ADR in his usual befuddled whisper talk. It's a shame the two didn't get more screen time together because wow...So the acting is atrocious.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Become a Patron!

Watch the Trailer

A baked potato (and Fox News Russian Expert) puts on a bunch of stupid shirts and tries to sell us how much of an action-man he is by having a body double fill in for the entire movie. Also there is a wizard who helps fight terrorism and monks? We don't know.

Belly of the Beast is arguably among the worst of the action genre. What's the 1 thing you need to get right in an action movie? Well that one thing goes quite askew here. The fight scenes are so laughably bad. And yet as bad as the action is (and by bad we mean GREAT!) it isn't the only reason to show up here.

Its such a strange production. Take this, the film skirts around nudity for 95% as if its PG-13 yet has incredibly gratuitous nudity in one topless scene where it appears a topless woman has a disappearing ink treasure map on her chest. And no, there is no treasure in this movie. So weird.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Whole Movie!

When corporations that can't exist go to far, they anger Mother Nature. Her herald of corporate oversight, a 100 foot dinosaur shark and sexual innuendos! Can it possibly be the worst shark movie ever made?

Shark Attack 3 is next to Troll 2 in the ensemble of horrible acting. Everyone stinks. Even Captain Jack Harness who has seen a splash of success can't get a line right without the audience giggling. His counterpart, Dr. Science Lips, is especially horrendous and only is defeated by the daughter in said Troll 2 in the can't act department. Show up for the bad acting, stay for the banana's shark.

Then there's the shark. It should be noted that the main shark doesn't show up for quite a chunk of the film. Yet, when it does...boy howdy! If I described the megaladon's battle strategy, it wouldn't do it justice in righting. You have to see it to believe it, which can't be believed.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Trailer!

Roland pulls out all the stops in the disaster genre by blowing up the entire planet (sorta). Bad science and bad acting abound in one heck of a production, but does that translate into a good time?

Lets just start by saying this film is way too long. By the 3/4 point even the diehard dumb movie viewer is tired and bored of the "excitement". It just keeps going and going and going. That would be ok if you could possibly be emotionally invested in the characters in anyway. But you just want them all to die.

The acting is awful. Woody Harrelson steals the show with his terrible hippie Art Bell. But he's not alone. John Cusask shows us why he went straight to VOD after this. His Jackson Curtis is about the least likable character in all of film. He's a giant douche who at no point redeems himself. Amanda Peet (who somehow manages to keep her top on) does nothing to thrill us. Danny Glover looks quite confused throughout.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Trailer!

Well we exit 2016 with a bang...sorta. We went ahead and re-recorded our previous attempt at 2012, since we bungled the first versions and now in all it's glory we dive into the 2009 film from stinker Hall of Famer, Roland Emmerich in which the world explodes...sorta.

Casual Do's and Don'tsHellbent (1988) - IMDBDemolition High - YouTubeThe Village of the Giants - MST3K on YouTube OR standard versionThe Wild Card - Pop Quiz Hotshot (2012 Edition)A Judy Garland dress which sold for $302,000 in 2012 was worn in which movie? The Wizard of OzWhat is the year 2012 in Roman numerals? MMXIIWho became the oldest actor to win an Oscar in 2012? Christopher PlummerWhat member of the Monkees died in 2012? Davy JonesName the devastating mid/N American hurricane of Oct 2012? SandyWhat film released in 2012 went on to win Oscar gold? ArgoRazzie winner? Twilight 4About 2012 (2009) - Movie InformationSam's Boring Bullshit

2012 released in 2009 as it would have been far too late otherwise. By the way, we are all currently dead. We collectively did not heed the words of Nostra-Dumb-Ass, nor did we individually learn to fly limousines; for shame. Roland Emerich tried to tell us in 2009, but we didn’t listen.  He also tried to tell us about magical gateways to the stars, and how great James Spader’s hair used to be. He also wants us to listen to what 50’Cent has to say, as the main character, Jackson Curtis, is names sort of backwards after the rapper. Upon writing this I realized I know really nothing about Curtis Jackson or know any of his songs, but with titles like: “I Get Money”, “I Get In” and “OK, You’re Right”, he probably isn’t wrong?

Emerich stated in an interview that this would be his last disaster movie, it wasn’t, not by a long shot.  I don’t know what he thought he was going to do? Make movie about horses? Heavy drama? – Coming this spring; An Inconsequential Day in March starring John Hurt and Jane Seymour, bring a pillow… - I am not against Emerich making more personal projects but he needs to keep blowing up landmarks until the ride his ass out of town on a rail.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Trailer!

When you've been stuck in an attic, are literally yellow, and forced to be your mom's sperm donor for your whole life, you're probably going to have some issues. So pick up your pokey objects and take some eyeballs out in the name of Santa!

The problem here is that this film, while somewhat entertaining, is just too generic and blasé. It's a slasher with fairly little imagination. When you come into a slasher film, you're here for one thing - ridiculous death scenes. This film does NOT have that. There's fairly vague death scenes (oh the camera cut away, the horror!), there's "deaths" that people wouldn't actually die from (such as a tiny icicle shattering through your skull, dropped from a height of 3 feet), and pretty meh makeup. The obsession with eyeball mutilation is over done and gets old after the first two eyeball sequences.

HOWEVER, the plot is super-super stupid. There's two killers, spoilers (too late). And they are possibly the worst, least effective slashers in the history of film. As mentioned, most people wouldn't die from their injuries inflicted, one lady dies on complete accident, and two of them die from impossibility, leaving 3 actual murders accomplished and 1 girl to go ahead and kill the slashers. Meaning out of 12 people, only 3 of them die. Pretty good work guys. Jason or Freddy would have tore through these dumb girls in about 15 minutes.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Trailer!

Jingle jingle and egg nog hangover ahoy! It's that magical time for awful crappy holiday movies and Jackie's dialed up a slasher with a special Xmas message; don't ever remake a classic film with a bunch of day-player bimbos.

Streaming Do's and Don'tsNine Deaths of the Ninja - Mill Creek - B-Movie Blast 50 PackHundra - Amazon/EpixMissing in Action - YouTube/TubiTVThe Wild Card - Good Xmas/Bad XmasEternia - He-Man/She-Ra Xmas SpecialHobo with a Shotgun TownKazook - Star Wars Holiday SpecialAbout Black Christmas (2006) - Movie InformationSam's Boring Bullshit

Bob Clark’s career spanned 5 decades and some of his more treasured works are, Porky’s, A Christmas Story and the multi award winning Murder by Decree. He also was responsible for a laundry list of stinkers, including but not limited to; Rhinestone, The Karate Dog and three films which have landed in the conversation of worst movies ever made, those being, Turk 182! and the Baby Geniuses duology. Hard to imagine that the same guy could give you a piece of treasured Americana like A Christmas Story while in the other hand delivering a turd sandwich like Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2. 1974’s Black Christmas was Clark’s fifth film and it marked his break out of ultra budget films. It reportedly returned $4 million against a budget of $620k. In 2006 he decided to remake the film, acting only as producer in this case. This time around the film would return $16 million against a budget of $9 million.

Glen Morgan, veteran producer who also directed the remake of Willard would be brought on to direct. Though notable for working in the horror genre, the majority of his time has been spent producing television shows for Fox. After leaving the X-Files he would create Space Above and Beyond, which apparently only I liked.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Trailer!

Two A-Listers make us question their entire career in what appears to be a metaphorical hang-down contest of who is the tougher guy that gets weekly manicures and follicle treatments. It's Costner vs Russell in full Elvis tradition....the tradition of dying on a toilet.

3000 Miles to Graceland is one of the most inaccurate titles ever. See this map: http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/?lat=53.484652&lng=-99.643463&z=3&u=mi&r=3000. That is 3000 Miles from Graceland (Elvis' house). Now we learn that the ship Kurt Russell tries to get to and is located in Mt. Vernon, WA and their trip starts in Las Vegas. That is a journey of about 1,800 miles. So good job already.

Now as far as the film. It sucks. Costner stinks, Russell stinks, Arquette REALLY stinks (but dies early so there's that) and Slater stinks. Courtney Cox looks pretty good but she unfortunately stinks as well. No one in this film is likeable. 

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Trailer!

Put on your sequin jumpsuit, grow out your side-burns, and fry up them bananas because we've got a movie this week that features too many Elvis' and so many Razzie nominations. It's Kevin Costner vs Kurt Russell in a no hold barred competition of who can suck more.

Casual Do's and Don'tsMurder Weapon (1989)Future Hunters - Part of the Mill Creek Sci-Fi Invasion PackThe Wild Card - Who Would Win in a Knife FightKevin Costner vs Kurt RussellAbout 3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) - Movie InformationSam's Boring Bullshit

There is nowhere in the lower 48 states that is a distance of 3000 miles to Graceland. The furthest point from Graceland in the contiguous United States is the border to Canada in Washington State, north of Seattle. It is a little over 2500 miles from Graceland. Through rushed deduction and relatively unsound mathematics I have decided that the major city that would be closest aforementioned distance would be Calgary, known for it’s famous rodeo, not so much it’s Elvises.

This film would be directed by Damien Lichtenstein and the script would be provided by Richard Recco with Lichtenstein’s involvement. Though it would seem that Lichtenstein was prolific in music video, Recco was and is relatively unknown. So how is it that these novices in the industry would get a budget of $62 million from Warner Brothers around the year 2000 to produce a heist film, which is a genre know for more modest budgets.

Listen to the Stinker Madness Episode

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Watch the Trailer!

While we're too late for Thanksgiving, it's never too late for a movie about an ancient Native American curse that manifests itself in the form of a very dirty mouthed killer turkey. When you have 0 money and you accomplish what was done here gives us a tip of our hats but a wag of the finger too.

ThanksKilling deserves to be congratulated. It's a better film in all standpoints than the majority of films that cost 0 dollars to make and better than even a majority of films by The Asylum or any crummy gimmick movie showing daily on SyFy. The effects aren't bad, many jokes delivers (some do NOT), the pacing is never dull, and the bad acting is pretty fun. It deserves some merits.

With that it mind, it's a little much. The vulgarity of the turkey tends to get a little old, well after the first line really. The jokes can run a little many with the majority of them falling flat. That's not to say this isn't a funny movie. It's just there's about 60 times more jokes than your common film. It's wall to wall. So if they only have 6 or 7 really good jokes (which is pretty decent) that means there's a thousand that aren't funny.