Cemetery Gates (2006)

How bad is it? It's a giant mutant animal flick done 20 years too late.
Should you see it? Yes. Fans of bad horror will find enough to make it worthwhile.

The boring title may have kept people from seeing this film about a giant mutated Tasmanian devil. It gets released in a cemetery, where a horror movie is being shot and the usual gory attacks on the usual stupid victims occur, including one good one where someone's head gets pushed between bars. The acting is passable, the effects variable in quality, but the plot is so predictable that you'll know what's coming every second. Still, it's cheapness is sometimes matched by its ridiculousness.

Chainsaw Sally (2004)

How bad is it? It's pretty good for a slasher flick.
Should you see it? It's worth a look.

There apparently was a Chainsaw Sally television series and an animated version, but this film is the only one I've seen. It's an homage (rather than blatant rip-off) of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and, to a lesser extent, H. G. Lewis' films. Sally is a librarian with a cross-dressing brother who takes it upon herself to right the wrongs of her small town's small-mindedness, by becoming a serial killer who takes her inspiration from horror movies. The gore and violence are fairly well done, though the low budget shows and, remarkable for the genre, the characters are interesting and developed.

Carnival of Souls (1998)

aka Wes Craven Presents: Carnival of Souls

How bad is it? It's one of the least needed remakes ever.
Should you see it? No.

The original "Carnival of Souls" was a great film about a woman being trapped between worlds after a car accident, but this has Larry Miller as a pedophile clown to begin with... do you need to hear more? Even disregarding the original film, this one has nothing to offer, making it possibly the worst film for Wes Craven to "present."

Carnival of Blood (1970)

aka Death Rides a Carnival

How bad is it? It's lousy enough.
Should you see it? I think not.

Ever wonder what Burt Young was in before the "Rocky" films? This dull, talky horror film was his first film. A guy with a mother fixation straight out of "Psycho" is killing women at a carnical and extracting organs. It's not interesting enough to be good, nor terrible enough to be enjoyable. It just sort of sits there for 80-some minutes.

Captured (2000)

aka Agent Red

How bad is it? It's a minor by-the-books action film.
Should you see it? No. It's instantly forgettable.

I've seen this twice and am not sure why some feel this is so bad it's good, though it has a couple of funny moments (which are intentional, if poorly executed), such as when star Dolph Lundgren says Agent Red sounds like a bad action movie. A stolen virus has to be kept from release on a submarine. The accents are bad, the one-liners cheesy, the acting clumsy, the villain and sex-interest aren't good. Randolph Mantooth makes an appearance, for what that's worth.

Cannibal World (2004)

aka Mondo Cannibale, aka Cannibal Holocaust 2: the Beginning

How bad is it? It's a poor remake of an exploitation classic.
Should you see it? There's one incredibly bad performance that's almost worth seeing, but no.

A generation after most Italian cannibal gore films, Bruno Mattei decided to remake Cannibal Holocaust, almost shot for shot. A reporter decides that, with people getting into war footage on TV, what people really want to see is cannibals, so she and a team go looking for them and, of course, things go badly for them. The original made a statement about modern society's cruelty and insensitivity, but this film misses all of that. The female reporter's acting is truly over-the-top bad, making Al Pacino at his eye-rolling frenzy-est look sedate. The actual gore scenes aren't terrible, mostly being seen from a distance and the film quality isn't awful, which actually detracts from the grittiness of the 1970's cannibal films.

Catwoman (2004)

How bad is it? It's all surface, with no substance.
Should you see it? No.

I'm sure many people were, like me, expecting this to have something to do with the Batman franchise, but it doesn't. I also expect that they think: Halle Berry in a cat suit - how bad can it be? Halle gets turned in the Catwoman from inhaling something from ancient Egyptian tombs, but the film never explains what that means. How does being Catwoman affect her, other than causing her to nap on a shelf in the warmth of the sun? What powers does the Catwoman have... and why? Is there any back story at all? There's an evil company and she takes it down with gymnastic martial arts that are dull to see, even with the revealing clothes. When the Razzie awards came out, she was a good sport and picked up her trophy for worst actress, knowing that this was a dud from the start, but no one could've saved this non-story.

C Me Dance (2009)

How bad is it? It's currently the lowest rated film on IMDB (1.5/10.0)
Should you see it? Hell no.

Some feel that the films being made by and marketed to evangelical fundamentalist Christians are the modern equivalent of the Commie-bashing films of the 1950's and will seem just as silly in time. I'm not so sure. What I am sure of is that no one will enjoy this film. The film's about a girl who devotes her life to dance and then finds out she has leukemia, so I expected an Afternoon Special type weepie with some dance sequences. Instead, the girl develops extrasensory powers with her cancer (if that's the big C of the title, I think that's unintentionally clever), which allows her to instantly convert people to her faith, stop suggestive lyrics in songs and remove nudity from film. For someone with cancer, she never gets sick and doesn't spend much time around doctors. She has a long argument with the devil that would be boring for a Sunday school lesson and when she finally - finally! - dies, she's clutching a license plate that reads "C ME DANC" The fact that it's not quite the same as the title is telling. This film has acting worse than the worst of high school plays, special effects that came with the camera and a plot and characters that are completely uninvolving and irritating.

Burial of the Rats (1995)

How bad is it? As T&A, pretty good; as a horror flick, very bad.
Should you see it? It's a minor fun bad film; yes.

This is a Roger Corman special - after finding out that a Russian film company was going out of business, he used their sets for locations and made a movie based on what he had available, in this case making a version of a minor Bram Stoker novel (which, like "Lair of the White Worm" shows that Stoker's almost as hard to film as Lovecraft). Stoker himself is taken captive by the queen of the rats and her thong bikini wearing followers. Adrienne Barbeau gets to guillotine a rat for dancing out of step. Best line: "Better to be taken by rats than by a man!" There's a ton of nudity, mostly by women you've never heard of, though Maria Ford does a long nude scene. Linnea Quigley and Nikki Fritz make brief appearances. It's fun, kind of like "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death," but nowhere near as good as that film.

Bugs (2003)

How bad is it? It's a by-the-numbers monster flick.
Should you see it? If you're desperate for one more giant bug movie, maybe.

Note: this is NOT the documentary "Bugs!" from the same year, but a SyFy original, much like Infestation (2009), Deadly Swarm (2003), Black Swarm (2005), Insecticidal (2005) or just about any other giant bug movie. What this one has is Antonio Sabato Jr. and Angie Everhart, neither of whom are noted for their thespian quality. The plot, characters and even set design were heavily borrowed from the "Alien" series, including using a forklift at the end much like Ripley in her exoskeleton; it's almost fun to spot the references. The usual corporate slimeball character appears and his acting is the worst of the cast. The film's plot: excavation unleashes prehistoric giant bugs, which terrorize and must be killed (sounds familiar). The CGI is poor, but this is about on par with most SyFy films.

B.T.K. Killer (2005)

How bad is it? It's dreadful.
Should you see it? No.

Couldn't find a single screen capture online.

Ulli Lommel's directed three films about real life serial killers (so far). This one is perhaps a touch more professional than Green River Killer, done the same year, but only because it involves some decent editing - which may have been the result of trying to edit down to an R rating. The story doesn't fit the facts particularly well - as far as I remember them - and it spends way too much time showing animals getting slaughtered in a slaughterhouse. Real life serial killers are not interesting, the way some fictional ones can be. The film's done from the killers point of view, in cheap camera and skaky-cam footage, and may be trying to get the viewer to feel empathy for the killer, which not only doesn't happen, but is questionable morally.

Boa vs. Python (2004)

How bad is it? It's about as bad as most giant attacking snake films, maybe a little worse.
Should you see it? No. If you must see one giant snake film, don't make it this one.

Update: I saw this again and enjoyed it! I must've been in a foul mood the first time. I don't recall the image above being in the film.


This film manages to mash "Alien vs. Predator" with "Python" (2000) and fails to live up to either. The film starts with two wrestlers named Boa and Python, which gave me some hope, but very soon there's an escaped 80 foot python. An FBI agent hires a herpetologist with her own giant boa constrictor to track the missing snake, while big game hunters are also looking for it. Then there's a nest full of snake eggs. there's a disco, a flamethrower, a runaway subway train and enough loose ends for a sequel.

Blubberella (2011)

How bad is it? It's an unfunny self-parody by a poor director.
Should you see it? Only if you watched Bloodrayne: Third Reich and actually liked it.

Uwe Boll has been called by some the worst director since Ed Wood, Jr., but that isn't fair; his films are usually saddled by bad scripts originating from video games - but that doesn't make them any better. I've never played BloodRayne, so I can't comment on authenticity, but Boll's directed three films in the BloodRayne series and during the third one, simultaneously filmed this parody of his own work. Unfortunately, most of the humor is sophomoric and insulting. Blubberella is half-vampire and fights Nazis while eating a lot, but accidentally makes Hitler immortal, making her the only one who can stop him and his undead army. Clint Howard makes an appearance, which is always a nice touch, and Boll himself plays Hitler.

Bloody Mallory (2002)

How bad is it? It's clunky and amateurish at times.
Should you see it? I give it a mild yes, unless you're a devout Catholic.

This French film is much like a cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess, with its low budget showing at the seams on occasion. There's a drag queen, a telepathic teen, a kidnapped pope, hidden dimensions, a vampire, a fallen angel... lots of elements that don't quite mesh. The action is okay, if sub-par and the film has some artistic aspirations that fall short.

Body Rock (1984)

How bad is it? It just might be the worst breakdancing movie.
Should you see it? It definitely has it's laughs.

Lorenzo Lamas, badly miscast, plays a South Bronx youth who deserts his friends to work in a Manhattan night club as a deejay and who sees breakdancing as his ticket to the big time. Lamas is often hysterically funny to watch. The film has at least a dozen musical numbers, astonishingly awful fashions, and 1980's movie cliches from montages to the obligatory slow-clap victory.

The Blade Master (1984)

aka Cave Dwellers, aka Ator: The Blade Master

How bad is it? It's one of the worst Conan the Barbarian knock-offs.
Should you see it? Yeah, and the MST3K version actually points out some things I missed.

This is a sequel to "Ator, the Fighting Eagle" which gets recapped early in this film. The original, though bad, was better than this, and the sort-of third in the series was better made. Ator must storm a castle to wrest control of a super weapon from the Snake God, with the assistance of a wizard's daughter. There's bad dialog and worse acting (especially by Lisa Foster) and some anachronisms (tire tracks and sunglasses). The best parts involve a truly terrible giant snake puppet and an attack by hang glider.

Brazilian Star Wars (1978)

How bad is it? It's awful bottom-of-the-barrel sludge, among the worst films from Brazil (see previous post).
Should you see it? No. I doubt you'd be able to watch all of it.

The Turkish remakes of popular films like E.T. and Star Wars all have their Brazilian counterparts, but instead of borrowing elements and making their own science fiction films, these are meant to be comedic and are aimed at children. By American standards, this is awful, but I've seen Brazilians defend it as okay for children. There is a chase scene involving a Volkswagen Beetle (in "Star Wars!") and the four heroes, a comedy troupe whose name translates roughly to "The Tramps," seem to think rolling their eyes is the height of comedy. The film seems way too long and padded, with slow motion chases, interminable slapstick fights (with sound effects that sound like they're from Three Stooges shorts) and unfunny jokes. There are a few quite (unintentionally) funny lines, but they are spaced too far apart.

Bruce Lee vs. Gay Power (1975)

aka Kung Fu Contra as Bonecas

How bad is it? It's truly awful. It gets my vote as worst film from Brazil.
Should you see it? It has some comic bits, but not enough, so: no.

I've reviewed "The Clones of Bruce Lee," which is the most entertaining Bruceploitation film. I always thought the worst was "Bruce Lee Fights Back from the Grave" wherein Jun Chong, sometimes incorrectly identified as Bruce, stars; Bruce's grave is hit by lightning, re-animating him and he fights the Angel of Death before seeking revenge. I thought that there was no such film with the title of this post, but eventually found that it was just a retitling of a film I'd already seen.

This film has no connection to Bruce Lee, nor claims to, except in the retitling. A bunch of guys in children's Halloween pirate costumes terrorize a community in Brazil. Then a guy with questionable martial arts ability frees a woman in their capture and the two of them proceed to kick some butts. The fight scenes are ridiculous and it's obvious those in charge knew that and intended it.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

How bad is it? It's better produced, but worse, than the original, which wasn't good.
Should you see it? No. Fans of the original will be disappointed; for everyone else, it's more of the same.

I hated "Blair Witch." Detested it. Abhorred it. Loathed it. So it took a lot to convince me to see a sequel. The sequel follows people who try to prove that the original wasn't a fake, with the expected outcome. It obviously has a bigger budget, but that makes the shaky "found footage" less believable. The acting is largely mediocre, with the exception of the guy playing the sheriff, who's terrible.

Black Gestapo (1975)

How bad is it? I think it's about average, but almost no one agrees with me.
Should you see it? It's nasty and ultraviolent. If you can take it, yes.

R. Lee Frost directed a lot of trash, from "The Thing with Two Heads" to "Love Camp 7" (both reviewed earlier here). This is his blaxploitation film, one of the most violent films ever recorded. Black vigilantes in Watts (Los Angeles) first help ghetto residents in fighting the mob, then start to abuse them as they become power mad. There's black guys in Nazi uniforms, a bathtub castration scene, Uschi Digart as the requisite huge-breasted German blond and music recycled from porn films.

The Soft Underbelly of Steven Seagal

In the late 1980's, Steven Seagal developed a cult following for his action films, which promised something good to come. That paid off with "Under Siege" in 1991, which was followed by an inferior sequel, and then 20 years of formulaic junk, much of which went straight to video and then a resurgence, with lesser roles in better films. My question was: were any of the lesser films so bad that they were enjoyable for their badness?

I had no idea there was so much for me to see. These are the low-lights.

Clementine (2004)

This one is a Hong Kong actioner with Seagal only in it for about 10 minutes. Forgettable.
Out for a Kill (2003)

Seagal plays a professor (!) and his younger thinner double fights the mob.
Ticker (2001)

Seagal gets third billing in this film about Northern Ireland terrorists. Lazy, dull film.
Today You Die (2005)

Framed former thief seeks vengeance. Continuity problems, action scenes borrowed from other films.
Black Dawn (2005)

Russian terrorists plan to bomb L.A. Action and acting is not bed compared to most films in this list, but Seagal's stunt double looks so little like him that you wonder "who's that?" It's a sequel to "The Foreigner."
Mercenary for Justice (2006)

Seagal has to break the son of a crimelord out of a South African prison. I fell asleep during this one.
Shadow Man (2006)

Seagal goes undercover in a prison to get info on those who killed his wife. Actually watchable.
Against the Dark (2009)

Well, that's a nice change of pace. Seagal fights vampire zombies after a plague and before the army plans to nuke the area. Horrible idea, poorly done.
Flight of Fury (2007)

Seagal has to recover stolen stealth bomber in Banansistan (just try not to call it Banana Stand). The flight scenes are stock footage and there's a lesbian scene for no good reason.
Kill Switch (2008)

Seagal's a homicide detective after serial killers. He tries speaking with an accent and fails. There's a huge number of ammunition rounds fired with nothing hit. There's an obvious double doing stunts. One shot is repeated ad nauseum. There are flashbacks that just confuse the plot. People show up out of nowhere with whatever's needed to forward the action. This one's borderline fun trash.
Attack Force (2006)

Yowza. Drug dealers funded by rogue miltary take out a strike-force, leaving Seagal to investigate while thwarted by military. It was supposed to be science fiction, but then got rewritten and then post-production led to further changes (there's a lot of overdubbing). It's quite bad.
Submerged (2005)

Stinkeroo. This is supposed to be Uruguay (a land-locked nation, by the way, where submarines aren't needed), but looks like Bulgaria (where it was shot), with shots of Central America to make it look authentic (buy a map, guys).Seagal's a mercenary freed from prison so he can fight terrorists who've stolen a sub. Almost no underwater footage appears, as that costs money. This one's just not enjoyably bad.


and worst of all,
The Foreigner (2003)

Seagal is a courier in deep-cover, delivering a flight recorder from a downed plane, while the guys responsible for the plane crash try to stop him. The plot makes no sense, the acting's bad and the action scenes are shoddy and widely-spaced. Terrible and not enjoyable.

Final verdict: "Kill Switch" almost makes the so-bad-it's-good criteria. The more prominent the gun on the poster of a Seagal film, the more desperate it is.

Bigfoot (2012)

How bad is it? It's one of the worst SyFy films and one of the worst from Asylum.
Should you see it? NO.

Bruce Davison, who once won a Golden Globe for his acting in "Longtime Companion," both directs and acts in this turkey from the team at Asylum, made for the SyFy network. Bigfoot terrorizes Deadwood, South Dakota, where a music festival is going to be held. The film stars former television stars Danny Bonaduce (whose overacing may or may not be intentional) and Barry Williams, with assists from Sherilynn Fenn and Howard Hesseman. Alice Cooper, playing himself, gets the closest thing to an intentional laugh in this. Besides the typical high body count of people killed in ridiculous ways and terrible CGI effects, there's some basic script problems. In this, Bigfoot is so enormous (bigger than a house) that he couldn't have gone unseen; also, his attacking and eating people is new and why this happens is never explained. This film's entire purpose was to arouse interest in what these actors would do in a low-rent horror film; save your time and don't watch - they don't do much.

Birdemic 2: Resurrection (2013)

How bad is it? It's much worse than the original, for different reasons.
Should you see it? No way.

Eagles and vultures attack Hollywood for reasons environmental. I believed that the original was made as bad as possible after seeing it was impossible to make it good, but this screams its intents at the audience. Fake unintentional "hilarity" is never good. Production values and acting are terrible, but obviously so. Skip this at all costs.

Big Sister 2000 (1995)

How bad is it? It's horrible. It's the pits.
Should you see it? Ugh. It's in the running for worst film ever, so only if that's what you want to see.

Couldn't even find a screen grab of this one!

Donald Jackson, who started directing with "Demon Lover" (reviewed earlier here as "Devil Master") and his disciple in schlock, Scott Shaw, made this film with low-rent soft-core porn stars Julie Strain, Big Bill Smith and Jill Kelly. A woman is abducted, put into a steel cell and tortured. She and other inmates do what they have to to survive, guided by a spirit called Big Sister. There's little worse than boring porn.

Bibleman: Big Big Book (1995)

How bad is it? It's extremely poorly made dogmatic propaganda.
Should you see it? No.

This was the pilot episode of a series that lasted years and had a change of casting of the lead character, played by Willie Aames in this episode. A wealthy man is miserable, but finds a Bible and has a conversion, leading him to fight evil - the idea is that he will pick up all the powers of the Bible as he progresses. The production values are execrable (though not as bad as "Clutch Cargo"), but this has a very fundamentalist evangelical bent that has offended most who have given it a terrible review. It apparently was popular in some households and aired for years. My thought is that kids generally hate Sunday School and parents generally hate teaching it, so sliding this into the DVD makes things easier for all involved and that's why this was made.

Beyond the 7th Door (1987)

How bad is it? It's a trainwreck.
Should you see it? It's worth a look.

This film has a cast of three people, one of whom is among the worst actors ever put on screen (the others aren't great, but look good in comparison) and it's his performance that gives this film cult status among bad movie buffs. Two people try to steal money from a rich man, who has apparently turned his enormous underground bunker into a series of games to solve and traps to avoid. None of it works. Episodic in nature, with minimal sets, this relies on character to succeed and we're stuck with Lazar Rockwood, perhaps the worst actor to come from Canada (move over, Shatner!), whose lines are mumbled and who causes us to want him to fail. Spoiler: he fails; and the explosion is off-screen, so there's truly nothing to see.

Beverly Hills Chihuahua (1987)

How bad is it? Depends on your tolerance for talking dogs. Somewhat below average.
Should you see it? No.

There have been far too many films with talking animals since "Babe" and far, far too many films about Beverly Hills, so this film was a natural to be made and has spawned two sequels. The entire plot: a pampered pooch gets lost and needs help to get back home. That lack of originality, along with stereotypes, makes the film drag. Andy Garcia, George Lopez, Cheech Marin, Paul Rodriguez, Placido Domingo, Edward James Olmos and Luis Guzman - all very different actors of different backgrounds - end up being very much alike. Piper Perabo, Jamie Lee Curtis and Drew Barrymore, the major characters, aren't great voice actors and point out that the casting only went Hispanic for male characters.

Ben 10: Race Against Time (2007)

How bad is it? It's a dumb kid movie and reportedly worse for fans of the show.
Should you see it? Nope.

This is a live action version film of a children's television show that I've never seen, but the fans of the show REALLY hate this film. An alien criminal seeks an ancient artifact so he can take over the town, but he's stopped by boy hero Ben Tennyson. The aliens are cheap, the effects very poor, the fight choreography dreary. Lee Majors and Robert Picardo show up long enough to collect checks.

Behemoth (2011)

How bad is it? Interesting premise, poor execution.
Should you see it? Not really.

In this film, a volcano doesn't erupt to kill people, it reveals itself as a monster; a monster literally the size of a mountain, and perhaps all of the earth, may be a record for film. Unfortunately, it's never seen well - the CGI isn't good and the film is murky - and being hidden doesn't help, as it sometimes does in better films (Val Lewton's for example). This SyFy film is further hampered by wooden acting and some plot holes. For a simple, monster rampage movie, it doesn't match 1950's films.

Beast of the Yellow Night (1971)

How bad is it? It's not good.
Should you see it? John Ashley fans will want to take a look; others won't care.

If not for Jess Franco, Eddie Romero would be remembered as the worst director from the Philippines. He did a number of films with John Ashley (who was in the Beach Party film series) as star. In this one, rather than the hero, Ashley plays the villain, a guy who makes a deal with the devil which allows him to absorb the evil of those he kills and turns him into a variety of beats, including a scaly werewolf-like one. The make-up is poor, especially the gore, and the budget is quite low, even with Roger Corman as executive producer.

Andy and the Airwave Rangers (1988)

aka Andy Colby's Incredible Adventures

How bad is it? It's almost entirely borrowed footage, aimed at undiscerning children.
Should you see it? I think not, though it has its fans.

Though I don't see Roger Corman's name associated with this, the film is made up almost entirely of footage from films he produced. A boy is supposed to babysit his sister and gets an unreleased video from the local video store that has the instructions "don't sit too close to the screen and don't let go of the remote." Of course, both happen and he gets sucked into the TV, where he gets green-screened footage of other films to kind-of interact with. It is almost impossibly cheap and poorly conceived, so cinemasochists will find enough faults to find, but I don't think it holds up for more than 10 minutes, which is about how long it looks like a film for theatrical release; it then looks like straight-to-video (which it was) and degrades until the final credits, which might as well have been done with crayons.

American Commando Ninja (1988)

aka Silent Killers

How bad is it? It's one of the cheapest martial arts films.
Should you see it? I guess - I was in a bad mood when I saw it.

This stars the same guy who was in "Zombie vs. Ninja" and was directed by the guy who did "The Black Dragon" 14 years earlier. The opening scene has the cheapest ninja dojo I can recall and the film screams 1980's with such things as a guy in confederate flag short-shorts. There's not enough action for my taste, particularly in the middle, but the ending isn't bad. It even had a sequel, "Born a Ninja."

The Barbarians (1987)

How bad is it? It's the second worst wrestling twin brothers film (yes, I have another to review).
Should you see it? Go ahead. You've seen worse.

Directed by Ruggero Deodato, better known for gore films, this stars David and Peter Paul, who tried to transition from professional wrestling to film. It also has a brief appearance by Michael Berryman and  a woman with hair shaped like a doughnut.

 Two orphans are raised by traveling entertainers. An evil ruler wants a girl for his harem, so the twins become gladiators and have to fight a dragon (this makes sense eventually, if you watch the film) to make things right. This is one of the silliest swords and sandals barbarian films and has some intentional laughs and some decent action.

Bats (1999)

How bad is it? It's a 1959 horror movie made 40 years too late. With CGI.
Should you see it? If you're in the right frame of mind, this can be fun. (Mild thumb's up)

Genetically altered bats attack a small western town and Lou Diamond Phillips has to rescue them. There's not a lot of time wasted on preliminaries, as the film expects you've seen films like this one before (and you have), so it's on to attack scenes, which are largely CGI clouds of bats that attack in a murk that's hard to make out. The close-ups aren't much better. There's a couple of decent scenes and the ending has plenty of action. It's nothing special.

Bad Biology (2008)

How bad is it? It's almost impossible to rate, but it's offensive and disappointing.
Should you see it? If you loved "Basket Case" and "Frankenhooker" you might enjoy it.

We all waited a long time for Frank Hennenlotter to make another film. "Basket Case" was a true classic, though cheaply made and a bit disturbing (which was fine by me); the sequels were less interesting and "Brain Damage" and "Frankenhooker" seemed like steps backward.  If you take the sexual creepiness of some Wes Craven films and push it to an extreme, you might get this film, which has the monster penis of "Welcome Home, Brother Charles" (reviewed earlier) meeting the woman with seven clitorises. It's all very icky, and I'm not much of a prude when it comes to film. It's just a boy-meets-girl film, made as disturbing as possible.

Badi (1983)

How bad is it? It's a Turkish rip-off of "E.T." with one truly enormous flaw.
Should you see it? It has some laughs, if you can find a version dubbed or subtitled.

This shot of the creature isn't typical.

There are at least two Turkish "E.T." films and this is the worse of the two I've seen. It follows the plot of the American film rather closely, but suffers from an incredibly small budget. It's big problem is that the supposedly loveable creature is horribly unappealing, reminding me of the short-lived Chris Elliot TV show "Get a Life" that had an episode with an alien monster called "Spewy" that kept trying to kill him, but which he insisted was loveable. Amazingly, this film manages to be better than the original in one respect; there are positive adult characters in this film, something sorely lacking in the original!

Batman and Robin (1997)

How bad is it? It's overblown mediocrity.
Should you see it? If you haven't already, it'll show up free sometime when you're bored. See it then.

I include this film on this blog only because it makes so many "worst movie" lists that I feel it has to be addressed. It's not even as bad as "Batman" (1966), which has its own campy appeal. The film tried to lessen the darkness of the rest of the series, but this angered purists, who also rejoiced at the chance to make fun of George Clooney (whose real life is much like Bruce Wayne's) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is given tag lines like in his popular films, but which all fall flat). The Bat Girl character is introduced, but has nothing to do. It's loud and garish and much too long. It's a waste, but it's not terrible.

Back from Hell (2011)

aka Ex Infernis

How bad is it? It's an Italian version of "Paranormal Activity" - type films. Not good.
Should you see it? No. It's too dull.

Yet another in the found-footage shaky-cam trend, this Italian film is about a group of classmates that rent a creepy house and one of the guys starts acting possessed, so they call in the local priest. These things depend upon good acting to make them believable, but this doesn't qualify. The film suggests it could go in several interesting directions, but never does.