1) Others have tried to watch all the IMDB Bottom 100 films but found it a depressingly poor use of time. How have you persevered where others have not?
I've had this discussion with some people before, and I think it comes down to the way I approach bad movies. For instance, I love the guys over at the Bad Movie Fiends podcast, but we have very different philosophies: they are, like many, searching for the elusive "so bad it is good" movies. If someone goes into the IMDb Bottom 100 expecting to find those movies, they will either quit due to frustration or boredom. When I watch bad movies, I try to do it with more of an analytic eye. I usually liken the experience to performing an autopsy: I dig around in the guts of the film to figure out how it functions, and ultimately make some sort of judgment on why it failed. I find that kind of thing really interesting. I still love those "so bad its good" flicks, but that isn't what I expected to find in the IMDb Bottom 100. As it turns out, I was right in that assumption.
I think others are similarly turned off by the ranking because they don't agree with it. That comes from a misunderstanding of what the IMDb Bottom 100 is, and is something that I talk about at length in a review on "Saving Christmas": the IMDb Bottom 100 is a living democratic list, which means it is not objective in any sense. It is a popularity contest, which I don't see as an insult in this case. It is, like the Rotten Tomatoes audience score, a barometer of public opinion and perception: that's why "Saving Christmas" tanked so fast. If you appreciate it for what it is, it is pretty fascinating from a sociological perspective. You can't get hung up on the fact that "Monster A Go Go" is clearly objectively worse than "Pledge This!" or "From Justin to Kelly". The ranking just doesn't work that way.
The last thing that I am sure has discouraged many is the fact that not all of the IMDb Bottom 100 films are readily available. Because of the recent surge of international movies in the list, many of them didn't get a Region 1 release, and English-speaking watchers have to rely on non-traditional acquisition methods and fan-made subtitles to see them. That's more effort than most are willing to put into such a trivial task. Unfortunately, some of the films like "A Fox's Tale" and "Tony Blair Witch Project" barely exist at all. I had to come up with a way to make up for this, so I dug up some archives of the IMDb Bottom 100 list from 2004, and covered alumni features that have since fallen out of the ranks. It also helps that the list is constantly rotating in new movies as more new votes come in, so patience ultimately paid off in some respects. I'm still giddy that "ROTOR" made it in this year.
2) Fans of MST3K have systematically given 10's to all bad films rated lower than what they've aired. Do you think the ratings are truly democratic?
As far as quality of the movie, I think "Monster A Go Go" and "The Starfighters" have to be towards the top. However, there were plenty that were more offensive and creatively bankrupt. I think it depends on which sensibilities you rely on more to judge a movie's overall quality. I, for instance, have a personal dislike for Bollywood movies on the whole, just because I hate unnecessary musical numbers and excessive run times. So, I might be more likely to rate them lower than others would. Also, anything with blatant sexism/misogyny or racism is going to draw a little extra ire from me. It is not only lazy, but that sort of thing reinforces negative aspects of our society.
There are at least two movies that I don't think have any business being in the Bottom 100, and I personally think that they got as low as they are due to thinly veiled racism in the voting masses. They are still bad movies, but nowhere near as bad as their cohorts in the list. I'm going to talk about those at length when I wrap up the list in the next week or so.
5) There are 1000 films rated 1.0 - 1.9 that don't have 1500 votes, so they didn't make the bottom 100. I'd love to see that list, wouldn't you? Would you watch them?
I'm curious how many of them got theatrical releases. In any case, I know I have seen a few of them at least. The infamous Casper Van Dien / Tiny Lister / Coolio direct to video flick "Dracula 3000" has a 1.9 (quite deservedly), and I actually reviewed "The Legend of the Titanic", which has a 1.3. It is up to debate as to whether that is better or worse than its doppelganger "Titanic: The Legend Continues", which is in the Bottom 100 with a 2.3. Believe it or not, those Titanic animated movies have no relation whatsoever, despite the huge similarities.
I certainly would be interested to see more of these movies, but I am also a big fan of that quota for the list. is a ranking that functions as a barometer of public opinion, so having movies with only a couple hundred votes in there wouldn't accurately reflect the zeitgeist.
6) Adam Sandler or Larry the Cable Guy?
7) I learn technique from bad films (for example, blocking from "The Giant Gila Monster"). What can one learn from yet another "Date/Disaster/Epic Movie" spoof?
8) Name as many prolific directors worse than Ed Wood Jr. as you can in 5 minutes.
9) What was the best year for bad films?
I can certainly say that 2014 is going to go down as one of the best years for bad Christmas films, at least. Grumpy Cat, Larry the Cable Guy, and Kirk Cameron. Blech.
10) If someone's new to bad films, where do you suggest they start?
11) In a bad movie based on your life, what's your signature move in hip-hop kung fu?
The Stammering Fumble Maneuver. It is different every time, but always disappoints. I still come out on top somehow though.
For the record, I'm counting 6 worse directors than Wood.