Christopher Lambert dons the worst hair we've ever seen and leads an uprising against the Romans only to ultimately accomplishing nothing and dies off screen. There's nothing good about this film.
Zzzz....Oh I'm sorry. You caught me napping after watching Druids. What did I miss? Oh, nothing. Absolutely nothing? Ok. I'll move on to something else.
The biggest flop in Hollywood history visits the podcast, eats all our food, backups the sewer system and kidnaps our children and then quietly makes us forget that any of it ever happened. Will it be worse than The Love Guru?
Nope.
Elvis and JFK team up to take down a butt-sucking undead SOB in a nursing home. OR Elvis ends up in a horrible nursing home and struggles to find a reason to keep living. Pick one. You can't have both without muddying up the other.
While Bubba Ho-Tep should absolutely be praised for accomplishing what it does on only $500,000, it must also be dissed for its non-budget related flaws. Chiefly its duality but also in its production. If you read the back story on this movie, you'll learn that they had a mismatch with the cameras and the level of knowledge on how to run them. So what should have taken 15 days to shoot took 30. That made a lot of stuff in the screenplay that needed to be in film, end up on the floor and a lot of stretching of what was available (which isn't much). This is one of the lowest on content movies we've ever reviewed.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Its obvious you like Stinker Madness, so subscribe to the podcast and get new episodes of Stinker Madness every week - on your phone, your tablet, your computer, however you like to listen! Once you’ve subscribed, free episodes will automatically download on Fridays and Mondays. Don't know what the hell a podcast is or what it means to subscribe? Enter the present: 
