Full Metal Ninja (1989)

How bad is it? The title's the best part.
Should you see it? Only if you're watching Godfrey Ho films already (and why are you?)

The ninjas come with headbands that identify them. A nice touch.

This is yet another Godfrey Ho cut-and-paste job, where he took a film, added unrelated ninja fight scenes and gave it a title sounding like a well-known American film. In this case, he tried to fuse two films, one of which might've worked on its own, but the two are completely unrelated. A warrior named Eagle seeks a warlord who kidnapped his wife while another named Leon also seeks him for killing his family. There's a lot of classical music repeated endlessly as a sort of leitmotif (my god that's highbrow for this blog). Even the people who speak English get dubbed. The fight scenes are adequate, but grow tiresome.

Forever Dead (2007)

How bad is it? It's about a zombie rabbit. Need I say more?
Should you see it? If you really enjoy zero budget horror, you could do worse.

"Night of the Lepus" is no longer the worst killer rabbit movie. A laboratory rabbit escapes and starts attacking people, turning them into zombies. The rabbit is obviously a puppet on a string, but the gore effects are not terrible. The movie's overly long, loosely structured, poorly acted (one guy keeps staring into the camera) and filmed shaky-cam without lights. Still, it's watchable.

For Singles Only (1968)

How bad is it? One algorithm decided this is the worst film ever made (It isn't).
Should you see it? As a goofy time capsule of the 1960's, perhaps.

The cast of this film sets it apart: John Saxon, Mary Ann Mobley, Marty Ingels, Milton Berle and in a cameo, Angelique Pettyjohn! There's also a ton of music: The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, The Sunshine Company, The Lewis and Clarke Expedition, Cal Tjader, Tayla Ferro and the Wally Wanderley Trio (I didn't say it was great music). Two women move into an apartment complex where everyone must be unmarried and under 30... was that ever legal, anywhere? There's a bet about seducing a girl which the girl finds out about and she goes along with it to help out the guy, because the money would pay for his going to college. They get engaged, then evicted. There's a rape scene and a death, but then there's happy music.

The Family that Eats Soil (2005)

How bad is it? It's extremely cheap, but it's effective.
Should you see it? If you have a strong stomach for both weird and gross.

This film from the Philippines is extremely violent and graphic and tries to make sociopolitical commentary with symbolism and shock - but it's basically just a sick joke. The family does in fact eat soil, but that's the least weird thing in the movie: bleeding undead poet, staggering man with cotton balls stuffed in his nostrils, cockfighting, murder, prostitution, drug dealing, clay animation sequences, etc. Essentially, the film is about the bonds of family... I think.

Evil Brain from Outer Space (1965)

How bad is it? It's just episodes of a children's show mashed together.
Should you see it? It's so weird you have to.

This is episodes 7,8&9 of "Super Giant," making it a sequel to "Atomic Rulers of the World," but it almost makes sense on its own. There is truly an evil brain from outer space and hero Starman must defeat it. The costumes in this are amazing (and distractingly form-fitting), the fight scenes look like no one ever gets touched, the plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense - and there's a plot twist that confused me and 78 minutes of action is retained from three hours of the show. Worth seeking out.

Evil Bong (2000)

How bad is it? It was shot in a week and looks it.
Should you see it? I can't see why you should.

This is a Charles Band "Full Moon" production, which is always bottom-of-the-barrel, and a first attempt at stoner humor. Having Tommy Chong in the cast is a nice touch, but doesn't help. The giant bong in question grows a face and traps souls in another dimension. There are only two sets, endless references to other films by Full Moon and a cameo by Tim Thomerson. I chuckled exactly twice.

Dragonfight (1990)

How bad is it? Some have given it glowing reviews. They probably watched only the first 30 minutes.
Should you see it? If you're a fan of the cast.

Imagine a remake of "Arena" starring Robert Z'Dar in chain mail. Okay, when you stop laughing, you'll have an idea of what this film is like. In the future, companies make money by having gladiators fight to the death and, when one of them makes a run for it, his opponent tries to track him down in the Arizona desert. It's the cast in the background that makes this interesting, besides star Z'Dar - he of the widescreen chin - there are small roles for Charles Napier, Ken Howard, George "Buck" Flower (who does nothing but drink and narrate the film), James Hong, and Michael Pare' (with a very ditracting ponytail). There's also a mystical woman who can heal the guys and a song by the band Velvet Hammer. The first half hour of the film is interesting, wild and wacky, but it slows and drags after that.

Deathstalker IV: Match of Titans (1991)

How bad is it? It's the end of a poor franchise.
Should you see it? Sadly, no.

The first Deathstalker film wasn't much. The second one, directed by Jim Wynorski, was so silly that it was a lot of fun (the sock puppet "cave worms" being most memorable). The third one was a bit of a let-down from the second, but better than the first. This, the fourth, is just a remake of the first one, with the same star - and a lot of borrowed footage from the first one. It's another warrior tournament, being held by an evil queen who's using it to eliminate all of her enemies. The fight scenes are among the worst ever filmed, both lazy and implausible. There area few scattered laughs, but not enough.

Dumpster Baby (2000)

How bad is it? It's a Troma film that tries to be a cult film and fails.
Should you see it? Only if you want to play "spot the references."

This video takes forever to get started, with a preview of "Poultrygeist" and an introduction by Troma founder Lloyd Kaufman. The story is about a crackhead who has her friend toss her newborn in a dumpster and then the film follows the baby through the lives of others (sort of like "20 Bucks" - which as a treat for people who actually read this blog, was one of two films to have someone I once dated in it): a teased guy of diminished capacity, a shadowy figure in black, three teenage boys and a cannibal mechanic. The film keeps starting along an interesting plotline, then just veers and does something else and starts another interesting possibility; eventually, it just spins its wheels. The film is better than most Troma offerings, but not exactly something to recommend.

Dragon Against Vampire (1985)

How bad is it? Even writer Godfrey Ho didn't put his real name on it.
Should you see it? Yes, but don't expect to understand what's going on.

Three graverobbers take a swastika from a coffin, then a vampire attacks a bathing girl, a man eats dog soup, a man gets saved by a fast turtle, falling in a pit leads to the introduction of a Shaolin master who taught the vampire but now walks on his hands because he can't get out of the lotus position, there's a bunch of either dream sequences or flashbacks... eventually a pitchfork to the head kills the vampire.


That non-sensical non-linear description fits the film. It's just a bunch of odd action.

Dinoshark (2010)

How bad is it? It tries to be a serious shark attack film, which doesn't work.
Should you see it? No. There's plenty of other cartilaginous fish in the sea.

This Roger Corman production is less a sequel to "Dinocroc" than a direct take-off of the original 1978 Piranha, as the monster gobbles up tourists from Alaska to Mexico. The characters are actually developed a bit - the girls in and out of bikinis are very well developed (wink, wink) - the cinematography is pretty good (excepting the CGI monster), and the plot is okay. Well, the plot was okay when you saw it the first time; there's an event that must go on despite deaths, the monster can only be killed with a shot directly between the eyes, there's the usual cast: greedy bad guy, hunky hero, brainy heroine, sidekick, shark fodder. If it shows up on television late at night, it makes a passable timewaster.

Die You Zombie Bastards! (2005)

How bad is it? It's exactly what you'd expect from the title. It's not terrible.
Should you see it? Sure, but not because it's so-bad-it's-good.

Serial killer tries to rescue his cannibal wife form evil baron who plans to take over the world with zombie slaves. There are ninjas, dog faced men, Vlad the Impaler, giant mosquitos, giant penises, a barmaid with no nipples, porn star Jamie Gillis and rockabilly guitarist Hasil Adkins. That description should pretty much tell you whether you'll enjoy it or not.

Demon Island (2002)

How bad is it? It's the low point in the careers of all involved.
Should you see it? It's amusing, but not amusing enough, so I say no.

David and Scott Hillebrand have shown up on this blog before. They both get producing and directing credits here and the cast has Jaime Pressly, Nate Richert and little Ed Gale (as the monster). The movie's about a killer piñata! There's an island underwear scavenger hunt - I kid you not - when someone mistakenly strikes the piñata with a stick and it comes to life and starts hunting them down with the stick. The special effects are among the worst I've seen for a film made this century. There's water gun fights, port-a-potty jokes, bad music, pot smoking, there's failed attempts at humor and there's no dramatic tension or characters to root for.

Death Academy (2005)

aka Death School, aka School Night Massacre

How bad is it? It might be the worst Swedish film I've seen.
Should you see it? No.

Kids break into their school to solve a mystery (were kids killed 10 years ago by their principal, rather than the guy who was arrested?) and they end up getting trapped inside with the killer. There's a sizable body count and the gore effects are sometimes passable - though the fake blood is very pink - but the acting is unbelievably wooden. The director tried for some fancy cinematography which is occasionally interesting and there are a few imaginative deaths (the fire extinguisher being the most memorable). Overall, though, the film looks like it took a weekend to make and was done as a lark and there's nothing remotely entertaining going on here.

Dear God No! (2011)

How bad is it? It's an extreme grindhouse film homage with mixed results.
Should you see it? If nothing offends you, this can be fun.

I don't think this intentionally offensive film is all that bad, though it is cheap. Outlaw bikers invade the cabin of a Nazi anthropologist who does experiments on animals and his family. There's tons of toplessness and buckets of blood, there's a lot of sick and twisted humor, there's drugs, nuns, Bigfoot, the kitchen sink, but not much plot connecting the gross-out scenes. The final scene is so over-the-top that I was laughing (with it, not at it).

Deadly Eyes (1982)

How bad is it? It's a ridiculous low-budget film that rips off "The Killer Shrews!"
Should you see it? Sure. It's a fun ride.

I left this film off the list until now because it's not terrible and it is enjoyable. Grain contaminated with steroids causes rats to become giant killers (and somehow smarter). The rats are portrayed by dachshunds wearing rat costumes and there are times when you can see they had trouble getting the dogs to "attack." The acting and direction aren't bad compared to most films on this blog, but the dogs-dressed-as-rodents idea was used in The Killer Shrews a generation earlier and it hasn't improved.

Dark Town (2004)

How bad is it? It's a confused minor vampire flick.
Should you see it? Nah.

A suburb is invaded by lesbian vampires. You've seen it all before and done better. A child dies in a fire and the tenants seek retribution from a slumlord, only to find out that he and his family are infected with vampirism. There's some stereotyped gangstahs whose accents fade. The film exists to show softcore lesbian sex scenes in the disguise of a horror film - though there is a lot of blood - and there's not enough plot to hold it together.

Dangerous Men (2005)

How bad is it? It's terrible, but I think it's intentionally terrible.
Should you see it? If you can find it, it's worth a look.

Is that the 1983 St. Paul Winter carnival ice palace?!

Written, produced, directed, edited, scored and music performed by John Rad, this film has a couple attacked by bikers. The guy gets killed and the woman then decides to seek revenge on all men. Half-way through, this plot disappears and the dead man's brother goes on a rampage. There's people visibly reading from scripts, one sound effect for everything, graphic sex, nude men running around in the desert, beards that grow between shots, a belly button fetish and what seems to be very contrived badness.

The Conquest (1996)

aka Honfoglalas

How bad is it? It's long and boring.
Should you see it? Only if you're dying to see an Hungarian epic.

To celebrate the 1100th anniversary of the Magyars coming to what is now Hungary (and whether they were settling, invading or just meandered by is debatable), an epic film starring Anthony Quinn was planned. It appears the budget kept getting slashed and we're left with this minor biopic with a few shoddy battle scenes; there's one fight where the enemy should be a cast of thousands, but can be counted on one hand. The cinematography's okay (if perhaps at least partially shot on video), as is the music, the acting is okay, but there's little character development, no action and little dialog of interest.

Children of Sorrow (2012)

How bad is it? It's mostly dull, then is gory, but it has its admirers.
Should you see it? It's not exactly required.

A woman searches for answers to her sister's disappearance in a religious cult. Done in found footage-style with acting that seems at least partly improvised, the first 80 minutes are dull, but must be watched carefully for the final 8 minutes to make sense. At that point, the film becomes wildly violent. The most memorable scene involves sex with a desk drawer.

Child Bride (1938)

How bad is it? Technically, it's not bad, but it certainly is unseemly.
Should you see it? Yes, unless you've been registered as a pedophile.

This exploitation classic starts with the admonition that child marriages must be stopped and then goes on to show why, in the most exploitative way manageable. There's a famous skinnydipping scene that shows an 11 or 12 year-old girl in the nude; it's done with restraint, though there is a man slobbering all over himself while watching her. There's a fall in a pigpen, a lot of dresses torn in interesting ways to reveal flesh not commonly seen in 1938 films and the hero that saves the day is dwarf actor Angelo Rossitto. The film quality and acting are tolerable, it's just the subject matter that makes some people call this terrible.

Cruel Jaws (1995)

aka Jaws 5: Cruel Jaws

How bad is it? It's in the running for worst shark film.
Should you see it? Yes, especially if you've seen Jaws 3D and Jaws the Revenge.

I really didn't think the Jaws franchise could sink lower than Jaws: The Revenge, which made no sense, but someone hired Bruno Mattei to direct and this film has no shark in it! The shark footage is entirely lifted from other films and the shark changes size and type (it's a dolphin at one point!) and it looks like it was filmed decades before being released, with scenes tinted blue to make them day-for-night. The plot has a navy-bred shark and a greedy land developer and the mafia; it has a Hulk Hogan look-alike, a paralyzed girl who kicks her legs when she swims, guys who manage to kill everything (themselves included), except the shark, by lighting gasoline with signal flares and it has jaw-dropping theft from other films. You can hear lifted John Williams music. There's even the line "We're going to need a bigger helicopter!"

Cross Bearer (2012)

How bad is it? It's near torture-porn territory.
Should you see it? No.

Hooker and her friends plan a big score, but end up in a warehouse being hunted by a religious maniac trying to purify the world one gory hammer blow at a time. Some of the cinematography is pretty good - as is the lighting - and there seems to be some attempt to make a comment about society or religion, but it's all wasted in a thin plot, poor acting and sickening killing.

Creature (1985)

aka Titan Find

How bad is it? It's not a complete failure.
Should you see it? Why not?

I saw this twice, forgetting that I'd seen it under a different title; it's currently available on DVD in a ripped from VHS double bill with "Slime People," but deserves better treatment. It has Klaus Kinski at his eye-popping baddest, for one thing. This film retreads "Alien" and borrows elements heavily from other sources, but it's not uninteresting to watch. Granted, the creature is bad and the acting is worse. The plot twist at the end is laugh out loud funny. There's some serious gore effects and some genuinely creepy moments, so it's not a complete waste - it just isn't good or original.

Catman in Boxer's Blow (1993)

How bad is it? It's not even as good as the other Catman movie.
Should you see it? If you enjoyed the other one, this one will be acceptable.

The gang from the first Catman film, Catman in Lethal Track, get a new leader and seem to have acquired a device that the CIA needs, so it's up to Catman and Gus to retrieve it (though Catman isn't seen much). There's 20 fight scenes, bad dubbing, one sound effect used for everything, worm-eating, an ending unrelated to the rest of the film and again two stories that just barely connect.

Catman in Lethal Track (1990)

How bad is it? It's two terrible movies that never merge.
Should you see it? Yes. It may be the most entertaining Godfrey Ho film.

Godfrey Ho has directed more than a hundred films with the word "Ninja" in the title, mostly just editing a minute or two of ninja nonsense into some other film and re-releasing it. Here, he tries to go the superhero route. A man gets scratched by a radioactive cat, gains powers (like controlling his TV without the remote, something cats are know to do), puts on a ridiculous costume and fights a crazed priest with his friend Gus. And then there's a whole different film about a girl dressed as a man going against a biker gang that has a guy in an eyepatch. The two films never meet. Ho just couldn't not make a martial arts film and his one storyline was pretty thin. Followed by a sequel.

The Cape Canaveral Monsters (1960)

How bad is it? It's better than other Phil Tucker films, i.e. bad.
Should you see it? Sure.

Aliens take over the bodies of two people who died in a car crash and then try to shoot down missiles from Cape Canaveral from their cave bunker - the fact that there are no caves in Florida notwithstanding. The special effects involve beams of light (as cheap as imaginable) and a hollowed out television with something floating in it, plus weaponry and devices made from left-over household plumbing and electrical fixtures. One of the aliens keeps losing his arm, which suggests that Tucker meant this to be silly, as opposed to his "serious" Robot Monster and Dance Hall Racket. There's no real plot continuity and it's up to teenagers to foil the alien plot. The film has some exploitation elements, nudity (not explicit) and violence (decapitation, torture), and the female alien seems to be into it. There's a cliffhanger ending, with a car crash and a scream.

Bug Buster (1998)

How bad is it? It's a poor man's Mimic (or Arachnophobia), with failed humor.
Should you see it? Only if you're a huge fan of former television stars.

Randy Quaid stars as an exterminator in this film that also has Katherine Heigl, James Doohan and George Takei (but not together), Bernie Kopell, Anne Lockhart and Downtown Julie Brown. An experimental pesticide turns insects into monsters and people start dying. There are huge plot holes, there's failed comedy relief, the CGI is barely adequate and the rubber suit monster at the end is terrible (there are visible wires). As a comedy horror film, it fails on both counts.

Bikini Car Wash Company II (1993)

How bad is it? It's sole purpose is nudity, which is cut out of most prints.
Should you see it? No. The original's worth a look, though.

In this sequel, the carwash company's success leads to being purchased by an international megacorp, which just wants the land, so the girls try to buy it back. They have one week to raise $4,000,000 and decide to do it by selling lingerie on television... on a televangelism network. The best scene has a bimbo lawyer confronting a TV moralist and they end up having sex while reciting... the preamble to the constitution? declaration of independence? I forget - something patriotic. The original film was co-written by George "Buck" Flower, had a cameo by Jim Wynorski and had a ton of Kristi Ducati topless scenes; the sequel has only one brief shot of Ducati at the end, unless you find the rare  unrated version.

Bong of the Dead (2011)

How bad is it? It fails as both zombie film and as Cheech and Chong wannabe film.
Should you see it? Sorry, dude.

Made for $5000 with a laptop editing package, this film is about two guys who figure out how to use zombies as fertilizer for their pot. Most of the film is just stoners talking, then the gore starts and it's plentiful, though the CGI is evident. I'd swear I already reviewed this film, which says just how unoriginal it really is.

The Body Shop (1973)

aka Dr. Gore

How bad is it? It's got moments of surreal badness.
Should you see it? Yes, especially if you like H.G. Lewis films.

This stars and was directed by a frequent collaborator of gore-meister H.G. Lewis. A mad scientist tries to recreate the wife he loses in an accident with his hunchback assistant, by piecing together other women. The camera work and acting are quite poor - the main actress was overdubbed, apparently because she couldn't deliver her lines intelligibly. There's a surgery sequence that involves aluminum foil and duct tape and in the final sequence one can see the slate clap-board. The film appears to have been unfinished and the ending is cobbled together, without explaining how the doctor ends up in jail.

Blue Flame (1993)

How bad is it? It was written in 4 days, supposedly from a fever dream.
Should you see it? No. There's some campy nonsense, but not enough of it.

This is the only screen capture I could find.

Here's the backstory: a producer having hallucinations after surgery from the medication decides it would make a good film, writes it in four days, then directs it. The fact that he never wrote or directed again tells you how bad an idea that was. A man tried to find his daughter, which he believes ahs been kidnapped, while traveling through time and alternate realities, while simultaneously trying to patch up his failing marriage. There are some very strange lines of dialog and they're delivered badly. The plot, is convoluted, silly and has a resolution that will make you even angrier that you waded through this mess for it.

Bloodsucking Babes from Burbank (2007)

How bad is it? It's a passable timewaster.
Should you see it? Meh.

Archaeology students have a contest to find the best artifact in Burbank and up in the mountains, one discovers a jewel box that turns women into cannibals (there's not actually much titular blood sucking). The film exists solely to show hot girls attacking guys and it delivers just that, repeatedly; we don't actually get to see the nudity we hope to see. The film's completely by-the-numbers and instantly forgettable.

Black Roses (1986)

How bad is it? Well, the soundtrack's okay, but it comes with a crap movie.
Should you see it? Yes, especially if you remember hair bands fondly.

Back when the Parents Music Resource Center started putting parental advisories on CDs, the idea of a band actually causing children to become monsters that kill their parents seemed like a good idea to someone. The band Black Roses, complete with impressive mullets, plays a small town and then the children start to become evil. There's a song by Lizzy Borden that gets played repeatedly, which suggests they had trouble getting the rights to music. The special effects aren't great, though much higher budget than in most films I review, and there are a few moments worth capturing: a guy gets sucked into a speaker, there's a beating with a gong hammer (the pom pom remains attached) and an English teacher kills a demon with a tennis racket.

Black Devil Doll from Hell (1989)

How bad is it? The credits take 6 minutes. You'll think fondly of those minutes later on.
Should you see it? Yes, unless you're easily offended (but then you're reading this blog).

Chester Turner's full-length version of the Night Gallery Trilogy of Terror segment where Karen Black gets attacked by a Zuni doll is not an improvement. In fact, it's regularly mentioned among the worst films ever made. "Helen Black" is very religious - as pointed out by a many minute pan of the religious knick-knacks in her house - and she buys a strange doll in a curio shop, where she's told it's found its way back four times. She has a nightmare about it but doesn't get rid of it, instead she waits for it to terrorize her. And rape her - In a very long detailed scene that will be burned into your brain. It then disappears, she has sex with two more men, she finds the doll back at the store, she buys it again (!!!!!!!) and it kills her. Shot on a camcorder on a budget in the tens of dollars, this is not as good as that suggests.

Bitch Slap (2009)

How bad is it? It's a postmodern "Faster Pussycat," so it's self-aware trash.
Should you see it? Sigh. Even a bad rip-off of a classic bears watching, so yes.

The most breast-obsessed film since Andy Sidaris died, this film very knowingly recreates scenes from Russ Meyer films (particularly "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!") and other grindhouse classics. Three hot babes go to the desert lair of an underworld kingpin to rob it of a fortune in diamonds. The leads are attractive, but cannot act and the film will resonate with those who watch Tarantino films without knowing all the things he "borrows" from earlier exploitation flicks. Kevin Sorbo and Lucy Lawless have cameos, which must mean that Bruce Campbell was unavailable.

Beware: Children at Play (1989)

How bad is it? It's very amateurish and all but 90 seconds is dull.
Should you see it? If you're wondering how Troma would do Beowulf. Really - Beowulf.

This Troma release could develop a small cult following. It's 85 minutes of cops investigating mysterious disappearances of children and murders of adults, done in a way that has nothing to do with real police procedures. Then the film suddenly changes into extreme gore, with children being stabbed, shot and bludgeoned by their parents - also, a woman is raped in front of her child - it's done poorly enough that you see the dead breathe, you see the strings that guide arrows and blood packets are visible.

Back from the Dead (1997)

How bad is it? It's a cheap gross-out affair with failed humor.
Should you see it? Only if you really really want an early Peter Jackson-like flick.

Apparently filmmakers in New Zealand try to emulate Peter Jackson and his films like "Bad Taste." This one has experiments of regression into ancestor's lives leading to a sort of re-incarnation of a criminally insane prisoner. The film tries for outlandish, sometimes cartoonish violence for both shock and humor, but fails at the humor. A brain gets sucked through a straw, as in "Bloodsucking Freaks," though I expect it was stolen secondhand from "Hannibal." There's cannibalism, a seance, a stabbing contest and even a climactic death by license plate. It might have succeeded, had not all of it been done before and better by others.

Attack of the Sabretooth (2005)

aka Attack of the Sabertooth

How bad is it? Imagine the worst possible rip-off of "Jurassic park."
Should you see it? No.

Yet another SyFy original (somebody please stop them). This time, cloned extinct beasts kept in an island zoo get released when college students on a scavenger hunt release a virus into the security system. Stereotypes? how about: dumb blonde, dumb jock, goth girl, smart Asian, hot girl, greedy businessman, incompetent security guard, etc. The special effects are so bad that they're almost enjoyable. Some of the many deaths are also funny because they're incompetently done - the owner being killed by having a giant tooth fall directly into his mouth is so outlandish that it's almost worth seeing (but not quite).


Story- I'll say it now, the story sucks. It's a rip off of Jurassic Park. The theme park is called Primal Park and it even has the same logo, with a sabretooth. We have the typical group of college students, a smart Asian, a hot love interest, a goth girl, a dumb jock, and a dumb blonde. And we have the typical greedy business owner who suffers a terrible fate. Plus, a security guard in an affair with a park employee that really makes no sense. Oh, and the business owner's evil brother-in-law. Yeah, I'll stop there. Story gets a 1 out of 10.

Effects- The special effects are so bad it's funny. First, a couple of nameless security guards get offed in the most unrealistic way possible. Then, when we see the sabretooths, they look so fake, it's disturbing. Then, three of the main characters suffer three of the fakest, and funniest, decapitations in movie history. Remember I said the greedy business owner suffers a terrible fate. Well, the tooth on a giant sabretooth structure falls right into his mouth, instantly killing the man, resulting in the stupidest, most pointless, death in movie history. Again, it is hilarious. I'll say the effects are average due to the humorous fakeness, and give them a 5 out of 10.

Rewatchability- Let's just say, it's funny the first time you watch it, but it gets old fast.

So, in the end, the only thing that makes this an average movie is the hilarious deaths. None of the others are quite as funny as the tooth in the mouth, but they're all pretty funny, especially since it's impossible for you to feel bad for any of them with the crappy story. I recommend watching it once, but don't buy it. 5 out of 10.

Atlantic Rim (2013)

How bad is it? Bad enough that I'm hating everyone involved in its making. IMDB rating 1.6
Should you see it? No no no no no no no no no no no no No!

This is an Asylum/SyFy knock-off of "Pacific Rim," which I didn't like in the first place. Monsters from the ocean attack the US East Coast and three soldiers, in giant robots, fight them. Even Graham Greene, who I really like, does not fare well in this stinker. The CGI wasn't execrable, but the acting was and the plot doesn't follow any logical progression; it's just action scenes interspersed with scenes of soldiers and reporters acting as soldiers and reporters never do.