The first installment of “The Hobbit” (“An Unexpected Journey”), opted to spend what felt like a quarter of the movie setting up the “unexpected journey”.  In the second installment (“The Desolation of Smaug”), they opted for a lot of fight sequences – which, to be fair, were really well done, except they got a little excessive at times.

From what I recall from reading “The Hobbit” when I was younger, I didn’t think that the one book (on its own) could spawn three 2.5hr movies, simply because it is just one book.  In fact, I think that when the animated movie came out (in the late ’70s), it was only a 90-minute work.  And, while I don’t remember it all that well – I watched it when I was a kid – I feel as though it did the book a fair amount of justice at 1.5hrs.  So, when I heard that this reboot of “The Hobbit” was going to be 7.5hrs…. I was wondering where that extra content was going to be coming from.  And, now, I have my answer.

I still think that they should have cut out the filler, and the excessively long fight/action sequences, and made this a two-part movie (at the most), but you get more money when you do 3 movies as opposed to 1 or 2; I get that part.  I’ll still see the finale whenever it comes out, however, I’m not seeing it outside of the $5 theater up the road.

For $5, it was a GREAT value for entertainment, so long as you have the 2.5hrs to watch it.  Peter Jackson does good work with this franchise, and puts together an entertaining show.

-Ryan.

There were a LOT of cameo appearances in “Anchorman 2”; from Kanye West to Will Smith, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey, Harrison Ford, and Liam Neeson, and I think Jim Carrey was in there, too… most of which appearing in the obligatory News Team Brawl.  There had to be some reason that IMDb gave it 7.4 out of 10…because it certainly is not a 7.4 out of 10 movie, based upon its merits alone.

Now, a lot of people are I think going a little over-board with the criticism.  And, yes, there were probably a dozen or so people who walked out at various stages of the movie, but I stuck it out, and I survived.  Will I watch it again? Probably not. Actually, I don’t usually say “never”, but I think it is more likely that I will never watch this movie again, than I “probably” won’t watch it again.  It wasn’t terrible, it just wasn’t very good.  The best way I can describe it would be: When it was at its best, it was enjoyable; but, when it was at its worst, it was terrible – the jokes often fell flat, or were excessively hammered into the ground (to the point that they were no longer funny).

I only paid $5 to see the movie, so I wasn’t too upset when I left the theater.  Will Ferrell and Steve Carell are both guys that are very hit-or-miss to me.  Usually, when they are in “stupid humor” roles, they are both terribly annoying; and I feel as though “Anchorman 2” was one of those “stupid humor” movies.  I would probably even say that had it just been a 90min feature, it would have been a lot more enjoyable.  The additional 20+ minutes, though, just made it feel longer and, as though, they needed to fill the time with filler, as opposed to real narrative content.

In closing, I leave you with a moment from “Movie Commentary with Ryan Henley”:

Ron Burgandy: (to the News Team after a fight) “Wait! Come back! Don’t leave me!”
Me: (to the Bizzle Wondizzle) Do you think he was talking to the News Team…Or the handful of people who just left the theater?

…and that was a moment from “Movie Commentary with Ryan Henley”.  Thanks for reading,

-Ryan.

It is not an unknown fact that I like movies.  I watch movies regularly; I collect them and cherish them, and, occasionally, I record commentary tracks with my good friend, Ace Griffin.  To that effect, I sometimes will get posed the question by folks of What is your favorite movie? Or Top 5 favorites? – which is a very, very difficult question to answer.  I usually have to give a long preface to establish the variables of what sort of mood I am in, or who I am watching the movie(s) with, and so forth, before responding… if I get to a response at all.  It is incredibly difficult for me to rank my favorite movies, because they all bring me joy in some capacity or another…..but it’s remarkably easy to rank the 10 worst movies that I have ever seen.  And so, here are the Top 10 Worst Movies (That I’ve Ever Seen)…

I am a sucker.  I first want to, and need to, express just how easily I am duped into watching just about anything..

10. 2012  (2009)

With the tagline of “We Were Warned,” I really wish I had been with this movie.  Not just warned with how bad it was – to be fair, I did not check out reviews or consult movie-going friends of mine – but warned with just how long of a movie this actually is.

I’m not going to beat around the bush: this movie is bad. Really bad. Way too much time building up what I (and I reckon everyone) wants to see: explosions and sci-fi special effects.

**Side Note: the scene with Yosemite’s super volcano erupting was sweet. End Side-Note**

The movie started off slow, introducing us to characters that, ultimately, I did not care about and would not have been too disappointed had it been a doomsday type of movie where everyone died (yeah, people survive, of course). John Cusak is hit or miss and aside from absolutely ridiculous driving sequences (that the casting director ensured I would never believe possible with Cusak behind the wheel) he did what he typically will do: performed his lines in his awkward style and didn’t screw up. While he may not always carry the movie, he never drags it down.

So back to the duration. The film is said to only be 158 minutes…but it felt like I was watching this movie for hours.  In fact, it felt like I was watching it for 2012 minutes.  Had I saw it in the theatres, after 20 minutes of previews and a large Coke, I probably would have been painfully holding on the bathroom not wanting to risk leaving and missing some thing cool. It was that long of a movie.

This movie would have been higher ranked but I got it at a Red Box for just a dollar.  So, that softened my reaction and opinion towards it.  Had I invested $20 in seeing it, well, that anger may have spurred it higher/lower in this list.

9. The Lost World: Jurassic Park  (1997)

I like dinosaurs. I like TV shows, articles, Discovery Channel programs about dinosaurs and I like movies about dinosaurs. I like Michael Crichton’s work and I also like the film adaptations of the aforementioned writer’s work. All of that said, I did not like this dinosaur movie.

I suppose the story is simple enough. Following the events of “Jurassic Park” the businessmen who have a lot of investments tied up in the Park obviously want to get their money’s worth. Their brilliant idea: go to the island and kidnap the dinosaurs from seclusion and bring them to…San Diego. Awesome. Armed with that premise, you should know that you are not in for a good ride.

**Side-Note: There is one thing I dislike about activists and they captured it so well in this movie: too focused on their radical agenda to see the greater picture. The scene I am writing about is after the businessman’s troop has captured a bunch of dinosaurs and have them in cages in their camp (probably not a wise idea in a world where they are the prey for 40-foot tall predators roaming freely around your camp, but they’re just the muscle so whatever) and the small band of “good guys” resort to sabotage in freeing the caged dinosaurs. Noble? Yes. Wise? No. Sure, the caged animals then roam free…and cause chaos in the campsite which is not good for anyone. I wish that one of the good guys would have gotten trampled to death in the chaos, too, as a way to show this point to the world and, hopefully, remove the blinders from activists and extremists abound. End Side-Note**

Anyway, what made this movie #9 on my list was that all of the cool special effects, the potential of the story, and everything positive this movie had going for it was immediately negated with the boat’s arrival in San Diego. From the moment that boat crashed into the dock, the movie came crashing down. The T-Rex on rampage through the streets of San Diego was just ridiculous and like a very expensive remake of authentic Godzilla sequences. The property damage and death toll in that situation would have been massive. THAT or the T-Rex would have been dropped really quick with a variety of semi-automatic weapons…though, it was San Diego and not Oakland, so maybe the former moreso than the latter.

It really bummed me out that this is what the sequel to “Jurassic Park” ended up becoming. It’s not just that this movie sucked so bad that it made it into this list but also the immense disappointment that I experienced on account of my own high hopes.

8. Domino  (2005)

It is a bit of stretch when the movie is about a female bounty hunter…played by Keira Knightley. Please hold your hissing for a moment – sure, I can roll with the idea of a female bounty hunter (sort of like Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft, adventurer/archeologist)…but not when played by Keira Knightley who is not only way hotter than the real Domino but also not an actress with an edgy reputation. She cannot sell me as an action actress.  Just like I would not be able to get fully on board with Jason Statham in a romantic comedy.  In my mind, it just does not work.

My issues with Keira Knightley as an edgy bounty hunter aside, this movie just is not very good.  The story is all over the place, bouncing between memory states and the present, real-life events and creative license. The movie becomes more of a revolving door of characters than anything else. Characters seem to randomly pop up and then disappear and while the main focus of the movie involves a plot with an armored truck robbery, there’s a few sub plots that get introduced that serve as only a distraction from what I perceived as the point of the story.

Ultimately, what gets this movie on the list is that the flow of the story is constantly interrupted by abrupt returning to the present, flashing back to the past, an awkward lap dance scene, and the revelation of twists so quickly that it would cause neck spasms. I think what they were trying to do was make a movie like Dog the Bounty Hunter (minus the Hawaiian dialect) but it is hard to make that interesting for the length of a feature film. Ergo, there is a lot of unnecessary material in this movie and a lot of effort in trying to convince the audience that Keira Knightley is a legit action star…which she is not and a concept I rejected very early in the film.

7. Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom  (1984)

What do you get when you remove Nazi Germany from an Indiana Jones movie? A really crappy movie that accomplishes nothing…except maybe adding an addition to Harrison Ford’s house.

I will never forgive this squandered opportunity. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was great. “The Last Crusade” was phenomenal. The meat of this trilogy sandwich though is a Spam-garden-burger-hybrid called “The Temple of Doom.” Since when did Indiana Jones give a crap about child labor in Asia?  Indiana Jones stands for one thing, and one thing only: protection of artifacts from Nazis.  That’s it.  That’s all.

What was with the annoying chick who was supposed to be the “Bond girl” for the movie but not ridiculously attractive, intelligent or useful? I once heard complaints about the portrayal of women in Bond movies as being ditzy or only portrayed as objects, the possessions of men. But at least they often had a role in the plot or had some thing to contribute. This chick had nothing to offer except maybe to win over

And the annoying kid, Short Round, who brought nothing to table?  And, the dictator/shaman who looked like the non-verbal henchman in Mad Max 2? There’s not much in this movie that makes sense, to me.

Like a cinematic Dante, I am gradually working my way through the rings of hell that happened to be captured on film.

6. Class of 1999 II: The Substitute (1994)

The only reason I watched this movie was because I saw the name Sasha Mitchell – better known as Cousin Cody from “Step by Step” – and thought of it as a fun little “where are they now” type of movie.  Apparently, being type-cast as an idiot, and a domestic abuse record, will limit your movie-making options.

**Side-Note. Before I get into how bad this movie is, I first want to attempt to explore the time frame of, not only this movie, but the franchise. It is the “Class of 1999″…but the first film was in 1990 and the second film was in 1994. Both are set in high school so there’s no way that the kids depicted could be remotely close to being the class of 1999. Even the sequel’s kids would (in theory) graduate in 1998 – presuming they are freshmen, which I do not know was ever discussed but am inclined to believe is not the case. The kids are too bold to be fresh out of mid school. Some fuel for thought. End Side-Note**

This movie is probably, by far, the weirdest movie in this entire list. Sequels are always tough but direct-to-video sequels of direct-to-video installments leave ample room for a very weird plot (and very low quality). Especially when the “star” was a recurring character from a mildly successful kid sitcom.

I never saw the first one but, from what I gathered, the movie is about a school where the kids are out of control and humanoid cyborg (like the Terminator) occasionally grace the faculty and kill a bunch of gang-related kids. Okay, I can roll with that.

I mention the Terminator because I think that is what they were going for. I say this because Sasha takes a drastic turn from the absent-minded, stoner, Cousin Cody to having the buzz cut hair, dark sunglasses, and very much Arnold-like posturing…minus the muscle.  I even recall one instance where he gets angry and his “eyes” glow red behind his black sunglasses.  Yeah…totally going for the Terminator take off; especially since three years prior, Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) destroyed the box offices – in my opinion, the greatest sequel ever.

Anyway, so the plot for this movie is as simple as it is stupid.  In short: the teachers have no control over the classroom and the kids control what happens.  Until the Substitute (Mitchell) comes and puts everything back in order; methodically (and ridiculously) killing problem kids along the way.  The only twist in this movie is that, towards the end, it is suggested that perhaps maybe he is not a machine (like in the first movie) BUT actually a brainwashed child of the cyborg-maker, made to believe he was a machine.  Right.  In principle, it could be a good twist, but when they go through all of the trouble throughout the movie of distinguishing him as a machine (see glowing red eyes above) and an ex-CIA operative stalking him because he is a machine, then the twist at the end is not so much a twist as it is poor narrative.

5. Hulk  (2003)

I admit it – I am a sucker for the promise of special effects. It’s why I endured the drawn out story of “Titanic” – I really wanted to see that ship get torn apart. “Hulk” was the zapper to my curiously enchanted moth for the summer of 2003.

The first thing that greatly upset me about this movie was the lack of action. From what I recall, the trailers and commercials for it were 10% information (release date, credits, etc.), 10% the lovely Jennifer Connelly, and the other 80% with the Hulk smashing roads, throwing tanks and taking out helicopters. I was expecting a lot of carnage – sort of like with the “Transformers” series. That is what I paid for and it never really got there and, when it did, it was short lived and not impressive.

To this day I am still on the fence with Eric Bana. I thought he did a good job as the Defender of Troy in the movie “Troy” but other than that, he’s been hit or miss in my book. Same with Jennifer Connelly – she is always great to look at but some times she does not seem to bring it on the screen (or her character annoys the hell out of me). That aside, though, the casting for this movie was not some thing that I felt confident about going into it. Especially when I was hoping for and expecting off-the-wall destruction and mayhem.

The other thing that bothered me about this movie is the same thing that makes it really hard to get invested in the Hulk series. I hate to say this, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, but you made a flaw in the design of this story – or an apparent flaw that makes it too hard for me to get interested and invested enough to watch this series of your work.

Essentially, what this boils down to, is a guy who gets out of control and the more out of control he gets, the bigger and stronger he becomes and the more raging he does. Very macho and masculine themes being conveyed here – which is what we like to see. But then, why, is really the ONLY thing that makes him go flaccid is the smoking hot chick?? Really?? It could not have been like a car or dog or some thing? Superman has an alien rock and the Hulk has a smoking hot chick??

It just makes me chuckle and lose my attachment to the movie every time I see it. Every time.

Yeah, this movie (like I presume the 2008 remake fared) was not very good. The problem with this series is that it is designed and targeted for the destruction and mayhem that people want to see The Hulk create! But, unless you go heavy on the CGI (like “Transformers”) there’s really only so much destruction a giant green man can do before you run out of budget space – or meet time restrictions.

4. Shredder  (2004)

I stumbled upon this “gem” while vacationing at my high-desert resort in Albuquerque, New Mexico (read: my parents’ house) on satellite…deep on satellite.  I saw the title and thought that maybe it was a mythical 4th installment of my beloved childhood series – the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – but what I discovered was some thing very different…and very bad.

I really wish movie makers would listen to me…ideally paying me for my advice, but even if I benefited only through being able to watch higher quality work, I could make peace with that. If you have a small budget then it is a safe bet that you’re not going to have good actors – which is rough.  You’re also probably not going to have good writers – which does not improve the situation.  Furthermore, you probably will not be able to film at cool or desirable locations, or have great cinematography – an equation that holds the outlook on your movie winning any worthy awards pretty much null and void.  ALAS! What you CAN do (and MUST do) is create characters and a storyline where the audience cares about the survival of the characters.  If nothing else, that keeps investment in the movie and opens the door for maybe getting some of your money back.  (Or just make a completely over-the-top movie that is entertaining.)

The primary faults in this movie were the character development, storyline progression, and, ultimately, execution. When the characters are annoying, wimpy, or otherwise troublesome, it makes it very hard for the audience to support them. Bad acting can be curbed by having characters that we grow to care about. Curbed, not cured… there is a difference.

For example, the leading man (Scott Weinger, of “Aladdin” and “Full House” fame) gave probably the most pointless and poorly delivered taunting speech to the murderer in cinematic history.  It was terrible.  (I tried finding it on YouTube to share, but, apparently, YouTube didn’t want it, either.)  The speech is a staple of the genre, and usually only works if it is short and witty, or delivered by a beautiful woman, wearing a white blouse, in the rain – like Jennifer Love Hewitt in “I Still Know What You Did Last Summer.” It does not work from the chair lift of an abandoned ski slope with the material based upon safety regulation that is being disregarded. WHO CARES!?!?! If the killer wasn’t going to kill him already, the speech would surely push them in that direction. And, again, because the story has done NOTHING to make these characters worth saving, the audience probably would be in support of the murder.

In short, when you have bad actors, bad writing, low budget, minimal shooting locations, and compound all of your problems with characters that the audience doesn’t care about, you get one really bad movie…that makes it to the # 4 spot on my list.

After making my way from #10 all the way through #4, we arrive at the Top (or Bottom) 3 movies.  BUT FIRST, I want to share some Honorable Mentions that either just missed the cut or I have not seen (yet), but am assured that they are terrible.

I Heart Huckabees (2004) – Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004) –
The Matrix: Reloaded & Revolutions (both 2003) – Freddy Got Fingered (2001) –
Dorm Daze 2 (2006) – Bride Wars (2009) – X Men: The Last Stand (2003) –
Not viewed movies in Italics

And now…

THE FINAL 3

3. The Wolfman  (2010)

Oh, where to start?  I hate this movie. If not for my leniency, since it is the freshest candidate in my mind thus I held it out of the Top 2, this terrible movie could be #1. It really, really could be.

I went and saw this movie with some of my buddies shortly after it opened. The detail of when I saw it is only important because there were a good amount of people in the theater – a sight that I cannot imagine was consistent throughout its theatrical run.  It was awful.  How awful?  I started texting during it; yes, totally ignoring the cell phone etiquette that we get reminded of….every…time…we…go…to..the…movies.  We were in the back row so it did not matter.  Plus, everyone to my left was texting.  Everyone to my right was texting.  And, from my vantage point at the top and rear of the theatre, roughly 1/4 of every row below me was texting.

Now, I’ve had people – even some of the guys I saw it with – say how it was awesome because it was not supposed to be a good movie; that it was supposed to be bad and stupid, and thus that’s why it was so great.  Ease up, Ryan, it’s a werewolf movie; it’s not supposed to be taken seriously.  The werewolves look the same from Teen Wolf, it’s supposed to suck.  Those statements, alone, are valid.  But, in regards to this movie? No- just, no.  And, do you want to know why I say ‘no’ to all of that?  Here is why:

You do not get Benecio del Toro if the goal is to make a crappy movie.  You do not get SIR ANTHONY [EXPLETIVE] HOPKINS on board, if your goal is to make a crappy movie.  Hell, you don’t even get Elrond (Hugo Weaving) if you’re goal is to make a crappy movie.  You just do not do that. THEY DO NOT DO THAT!!

THAT is how I know this movie was supposed to be good – or at least they were trying to make a good movie.  You do not piss away the MILLIONS of dollars in their salary if the goal is to make a crappy movie.  Sure, maybe they were not aiming for Oscars, but they sure as hell were not aiming to make a movie so bad that it was really good.  That is not ANY of their M.O.s!!

So, that aside, where to start with this movie?  First of all, the story was like any other werewolf movie you can imagine – mysterious beast is roaming free in the UK, causing problems, freaking out the townspeople – and kills the brother of a wealthy family.  The distant brother, touring the United States as an actor, returns to avenge his brother’s death and, of course, he’s the lead suspect.  Never mind that he is a publicly-known figure who was on tour across the ocean, and it was his brother who was slain; obviously, the prime suspect.  Him or gypsies, naturally.  I would have hoped that they’d at least try to make it a some what original or compelling story.  Within the first half of the movie you know exactly what is going to happen.

In case you do not plan on watching it, here’s what happens: Brother is mauled and killed; Town freaks out; Smoking hot fiance summons estranged brother; Estranged brother returns; Estranged brother gets bitten and turns into the Wolfman; the Patriarch is revealed to be the original Wolfman (surprise!!!); Townspeople arrest estranged brother believing he is a murderer with mental problems and take him to London for torture/treatment; Full Moon comes and he becomes the Wolfman and kills most people as he escapes; Goes to shop of the smoking hot fiance in London for help; Eventually makes his way back to battle the Old Man; Defeats the Old Man and gets killed by the woman he loves (smoking hot fiance of his dead brother); BUT, in the process of the final battling, another guy got bit, thus leaving the option open for a sequel that, THANK THE GOOD LORD, never happened.

Another thing that bothered me about this movie, which probably shouldn’t have but I can’t let it go, was the casting decisions.  I like Sir Anthony Hopkins movies, and I like Benecio del Toro movies.  But, Benecio del Toro playing the role of Sir Anthony Hopkins’ son?  I don’t know about that.   They couldn’t get Jude Law, or Cillian Murphy, or one of another dozen English actors for the role?  I don’t recall if it was referenced in the movie (i.e. a touching scene where Sir Anthony Hopkins spoke of his late wife being of Spanish descent, etc.) — I have tried to forget as much of that movie as possible — but I thought it was a casting error.  They could have done better (not that it would have mattered).

The last thing that bothered me about this movie was that there, apparently, has been no advancement in the wolfman depiction since “Teen Wolf” (1985).  With all of the computer graphics, developments in costume and make-up, essentially, you have the same product that Michael J. Fox wore 25 years ago. Awesome.

Now, it may be upsetting to some, but yes, half way through this production I was solely invested in making fun of it (which I did) and what I believed would, for sure, yield nudity.  It sported an R-rating and the gore wasn’t too bad, and I don’t recall foul language, so, naturally, nudity was the last hope for the R-rating, in my mind.  NOT IN THIS MOVIE. Which further upsets me.

**Side-Note. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from really crappy movies is that they throw nudity in there. Whether it’s a plot-related sex scene or just for the purpose of showing nudity, there’s almost always going to be nudity in really crappy movies. I’m not sure if it is solely so that they have some thing exciting to show (briefly) in the poster or trailer to get people to see the movie, or if it’s their way of saying “Hey, I know this movie sucks, so please accept my apology by seeing some skin.” End Side-Note**

 Essentially, this is how my experience went with The Wolfman: 1) I got kicked in the wallet; 2) I got kicked in the balls; and 3) I got kicked existentially because that is a couple of hours of my life that I will never EVER get back.  Never.  The only upside was that my buddy, Ace Griffin, and I came up with some hilarious commentary and one-liners regarding how awful the movie was.  Other than that positive memory, I wish I could scorch my mind of this atrocity…and I’ll never let Teige Weidner pick the movie ever again.  Ever.

2. Copper Mountain: A Club Med Experience*  (1983)

Never heard of this movie?  Most haven’t…and you’re probably better off that way. “Copper Mountain” is notable for a few things: 1) I believe it is Jim Carrey’s Canadian film debut;  2) the “star” was Alan Thicke (who you may remember as the dad from “Growing Pains”); and 3) it may not be a movie at all – more on this in a little bit (it is why I have the asterisk up top).

I must have watched this “movie” a few times and still am not sure what the whole point of the narrative is…or if there is a point.  From what I gather, Jim Carrey and Alan Thicke are heading to Copper Mountain…to have a Club Med Experience.  Seriously.  That’s about it.  Upon arrival, Alan Thicke decides to enter a skiing contest while Jim Carrey does crappy impersonations in a (failed) attempt to pick up girls.  Makes sense.  Mix in almost a full-length concert and some stock footage of skiers and you have this “movie.”

How bad could it be?  Well, I acquired this from a good friend of mine from the University of Portland, Ryan Dewey, who bought it for $5 in a bargain bin and figured he would give it a shot, since it had a young Jim Carrey in it.  It was the quickest donation I received when I put out a declaration that I was on the search for the worst movie ever made, and when I finished watching it, I asked Ryan if he wanted it back.  His response?  In so many words, he would have rather put a sensitive, and vital, part of his body in an oven.  Yeaaahh…THAT bad.  Bad enough to lock up the # 2 spot on this list.

The reason I put it in quotes each time when questioning its status as a movie (and the asterisk) is mostly due to its length and balance of content.

At only 60 minutes long, it is a stretch to call it a movie, in the same context as the rest of the list being full feature films (90+ minutes). It sort of lands in an odd and lonely place at just an hour long – not really long enough to be a movie but too long to be a short film.  Granted, it is not a fast hour.  You do not sit through this movie and say Wow, it’s over already?  So, I suppose it cannot be discounted based on the interpretation of time.  I’ve endured insanely long movies that were really interesting and thus did not realize their length until after it was over.  Ergo, I do not get as hung up on the length as others might.

But then there’s the balance of content; or, imbalance of content, rather.  As for narrative content, while I have never timed it out precisely, when considering the musical performances and stock footage, I estimate that there is, at most, only 35-40 minutes of narrative content.  There is A LOT of stock footage.  This is probably the nail in the snow-packed, comedic-less coffin that is this “movie.”  The fact that it is incredibly short in duration and has an even shorter amount of narrative content is what calls its status as a movie into question.

Whether it is a movie or just a really long and boring music video, it is awful.  You lose nothing by avoiding this movie. You may not gain from avoidance, but you definitely do not lose anything.

1. Dorm Daze (2001)

My head hurts just thinking back to when I watched this abomination and I am deeply troubled that I am having to recall this movie for the sake of this list.

I saw National Lampoon’s “Dorm Daze” probably some time in 2005, when I went on a search for the worst movie ever as part of a quasi-game in a campus publication that I operated during college.  I do not remember who nominated “Dorm Daze” as the worst movie they had ever seen and a contender for the worst movie ever…but they were spot on.

The only way I can really compare “Daze” to anything, and have it make sense, was that I felt like I was Bobby Fischer watching an elementary school checkers match.  Moments after the characters had been introduced, the plot line was as obvious as my anger as I write about it now. Clear as [expletive] day.

For the life of me, I do not know why this movie was made.  It was like taking a blender and tossing in “American Pie,” other Lampoon failures, bad writing influenced by the “Scary Movie” franchise, some vomit, and blending it together.

The characters are cliche’ and annoying.  There is no plot development, no story arch, no interesting narrative, nothing.  There is nothing in this movie you haven’t seen before; nothing!  There is nothing about this movie that is remotely interesting, compelling;  there is nothing these characters provide that is worth the making of this movie. THERE IS NOTHING!

It is as if the writers/directors/producers got together and decided to capitalize on other college-themed comedies…but without the comedy.  And I know that they knew how bad this movie was going to be, because, like a predictable bad movie, they went with gratuitous nudity; over the top and just ridiculous — as, I imagine, there [expletive] attempt at an olive branch or apology.  NOT ACCEPTED.  This movie was so bad, so mind numbingly stupid, that not even the token French exchange student, who never wore a top (because she’s French!! Get it?!?!….), could not save it.  Not that she wanted to, either.

To date, this is the only movie I have ever seriously wanted to hurt myself during, and I could not wait for it to be over.  Seriously.

What further disgusts me is that this movie was successful enough (on DVD) that they decided to make a sequel – wait for it – “Dorm Daze 2.”  Wow.  It’s really why we need to change the suffrage laws in this country.  The same people who got “Dorm Daze 2” made I am sure has jeopardized this country at one point or another.

####

I am always interested in talking about movies, and am always welcoming of additions or suggestions to the list.

-Ryan.