Cocaine Cowboys (1979)

How bad is it? It's plotless and dull.
Should you see it? No.

I got tricked into seeing this a second time, thinking perhaps my judgment 30 years ago was unfair; it was not. A supposedly about-to-hit-it-big band smuggles cocaine to make ends meet and wants to stop, but have to do one more job for the mob. They toss 20 kilos out of a plane onto their property (Andy Warhol's home in Montauk), but can't find it. Trouble with the mob ensues, they try to make good on their deal, they play some songs. This was directed by Ulli Lommel and it looks like it was filmed with an outline rather than a script. Warhol plays himself and not particularly well. There's a sex scene involving lots and lots of baby powder. Jack Palance, as band manager, does what he can.

Claws (1977)

aka Devil Bear

How bad is it? It's not even the best killer bear film with that name in theaters in 1977.
Should you see it? If you absolutely love nature-revenge films, it's watchable... barely. (bearly?)

Fast on the heels of "Grizzly," which was also called "Claws," came this very similar film; no one died in a helicopter during filming, so that's a plus, but otherwise it's strictly derivative. A grizzly in Alaska is wounded by poachers and then takes revenge on humans. A couple who lost their son to the bear, a woodsman, two university students with a capture cage and shoddy-looking equipment, a game warden and a stereotyped native then hunt the bear. There's a lot of scenery shot padding, a horrible and boring romantic subplot, lots and lots of flashbacks, an obvious taxidermy bear and a ridiculous pay-off (flare gun and cliff). There are two actors in it named Buck, and neither is Buck Flowers, who would've been an asset.

Chesty Anderson, U.S.N. (1976)

aka Anderson's Angels

How bad is it? Imagine a porn version of a Charlie's Angels episode with the porn removed.
Should you see it? It's actually mildly entertaining, so yes.

This film is the most huge breast-obsessed film outside of Russ Meyer's world, yet there's very little nudity. Shari Eubanks (of "Supervixens") stars as a navy enlistee who fights to recover her sister, who's been kidnapped by thugs working for a senator who Chesty's sister had photographed in drag. No one believes her, she's thought to be AWOL and then her recruit friends come to the rescue. Besides Eubanks, there's Dyanne Thorne ("Ilsa - She Wolf of the S.S.") as a nurse who gets a chest exam OVER HER BLOUSE, Rosanne Katon ("Swinging Cheerleaders" and Playboy centerfold) and even Uschi Digard (from pretty much every exploitation film). If that's not enough, there's also Scatman Crothers, Fred Willard, Betty Thomas and Timothy Carey (in wild clothes, clucking like a chicken). There's catfights and bar brawls and chase sequences, but it all ends disappointingly. And though there IS some nudity, you almost have to freeze-frame to be sure.

City in Panic (1987)

aka Thirteen

How bad is it? It's a cheap shot-on-video slasher.
Should you see it? Probably not.

This is an odd one. A detective and talk radio host track down a killer who cuts the letter "M" into his gay victims. It's quite grisly and it references "Psycho," "Killer's Kiss," "M," and "Talk Radio," so its makers know good film, but there's also a lot of dated propaganda against AIDS. The kills are done fairly well, but the film plods and the individual scenes are hit-and-miss; there's a good scene in a mannequin factory (that also references something, but I can't recall what), but the final reveal and explanation are terrible. There's a castration in a public restroom stall that will stay with you for a while. Kind of a mixed bag, overall.

C.H.U.D. II (Bud the Chud) (1989)

How bad is it? It's a horror comedy that has neither horror nor comedy.
Should you see it? No, though the cast is interesting.

Most of the abuse heaped on this film is due to the fact that it is a sequel to "Return of the Living Dead" and not to "C.H.U.D." The last remaining person "chudified" is, of course, accidentally set free. On Halloween. Yes, it's that original. The cast has Robert Vaughn, Bianca Jagger, Larry Linville, Jack Riley, Norman Fell, June Lockhart, Rich Hall and (in an unbilled cameo) Robert Englund; so there was some talent involved. There are zero scares and the silly characters doing slapstick and TV sitcom-ish scenes aren't funny.

Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror (1998)

How bad is it? It's a direct-to-video fifth installment of a bad franchise.
Should you see it? Only if you're a fan of someone in the cast.

This was released straight to video and is on a DVD with the 6th installment, which I may review tomorrow. [update: nope, not worth it] It'll only be remembered for being Eva Mendes' debut and she does not rise above the material. Neither does David Carradine, whose head splits open. There's also Fred Wiliamson as the sheriff and Season Hubley, Kane Hodder and Ahmet and Diva Zappa. After a bungee jumping death, a bunch of annoying kids are stuck in a town where spooky kids sacrifice to a corn god (essentially, they have a bonfire in the silo and there's a green mist). Very little happens, but it looks like it was played for laughs and it passes by soon enough.

Centipede! (2004)

How bad is it? It's a Sci-Fi (SyFy) original, a throw-back to 1950's giant bug films. Not good.
Should you see it? You've seen it all before. Wanna see it again?

A bachelor party goes to India to go into deep caves (don't think about it too much), they get trapped and have to fight off giant centipedes that, when cut in half, become two giant centipedes. If you know anything about spelunking, nothing is realistically done and there's way too much light. The one thing this film has going for it is that there's no CGI effects, but there's also no characterization, no pacing, some embarrassing dancing and a poor ending.