Hate Watching with Dan and Tony

Send us Fan Mail

Nuclear theft, a smirking supervillain, and a train sequence that refuses to quit—our rewatch of John Woo’s Broken Arrow is a love letter to the wildest corners of ’90s action. We kick off Todd’s birthday stream with a question we can’t stop asking: why do some “bad” movies age into perfect Friday-night fun? From the opening boxing match that telegraphs John Travolta’s heel turn to the copper mine countdown and that infamous dummy shot, we break down what’s silly, what’s sharp, and what still absolutely rocks.

We talk craft first—Woo’s kinetic framing, musical stings that brand the villain, and the set-piece logic that prioritizes momentum over realism. Travolta’s Deakins is a performance to savor: cigarette choreo, off-kilter affectations, and one-liners delivered like souvenirs. Christian Slater’s Riley Hale adds human scale—witty, bruised, and just competent enough to keep the chase honest. We dig into how Graham Yost (Speed) trades tight architecture for sprawling fun, why the $20 running gag works as a narrative thread, and how the movie sneaks in actual smart bits—like using an EMP to flip a helicopter from hunter to wreckage.

Along the way, we spotlight Samantha Mathis’s Ranger Terry, Delroy Lindo’s steady presence, and the movie’s unapologetic ’90s DNA: practical explosions, miniature mayhem, and VHS-ready quips. Yes, the physics are friendly, the Pentagon is plot-convenient, and helicopters can’t aim—but the joy is real. And that train finale? Still a banger. We finish with what we’re watching now (Marvel Zombies and Chad Powers) and tease next week’s spooky-season pick: Freddy vs. Jason.

If you’re nostalgic for maximalist action or just crave a good-bad gem that plays great with friends, queue this one up, then hit play on our breakdown. Subscribe, share with a fellow Woo fan, and drop your favorite Travolta line in the comments. Ain’t it cool?

Written Lovingly with AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

Ever watch a movie that feels like it was built out of wild props and late-night dreams—and then realize no one bothered to build the world around it? We dive headfirst into Nothing but Trouble, tracing how a killer cast (Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, Demi Moore, John Candy) and a bonkers premise wobble into an unappealing blur of gadgets, traps, and gross-out gags. From the courtroom rollercoaster and the infamous Bone Stripper to a Hawaiian Punch dinner and a cameo from Digital Underground, we break down why spectacle without stakes falls flat—and where the film accidentally shows flashes of the sharper movie it could’ve been.

We talk tone, pacing, and the delicate math of horror-comedy: why absurdity only lands when the world has rules, how character choices give jokes friction, and what happens when you skip setup and chase set pieces. Aykroyd’s judge hints at a better blueprint—a lonely showman versus a gleeful sadist—and we explore how a few structural changes could have turned Vulcanvania into a memorable cult playground rather than a cautionary tale. Along the way, we connect threads to House of Blues, appreciate the handful of precision laughs Chevy sneaks in, and call out John Candy’s split roles and the film’s most head-scratching creations.

Then we zoom out. Gen V returns with Hamish Linklater’s delicious menace, Midnight Mass gets its flowers for character-first dread, and we compare comedy fibers across The Office, Parks and Rec, The Paper, and the Frasier reboot—why some ensembles feel warm and others punch down. It all loops back to the craft: world-building is an engine; jokes and scares are cargo. If the engine sputters, nothing arrives.

Stick around for a celebratory tease: next week we’re queuing up Broken Arrow for Todd’s birthday. Hit follow, share this with your favorite cult-cinema friend, and drop us a note—what one change would fix Nothing but Trouble? Subscribe and leave a review to help more curious listeners find the show.

Written Lovingly with AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

What happens when you take a cult classic like "The Blues Brothers," remove its electric star, add a random child, strip away all profanity, and film it entirely on sterile soundstages? You get "Blues Brothers 2000," one of the most bewildering sequel disasters in cinema history.

Our deep dive into this 1998 misfire reveals how profoundly the filmmakers misunderstood what made the original special. The first film thrived on John Belushi's chaotic energy playing against Dan Aykroyd's deadpan delivery, creating an unforgettable duo wreaking havoc through gritty Chicago streets. The sequel, however, leaves Aykroyd adrift without a worthy counterpart, with John Goodman's talents wasted on an undeveloped character.

We explore the bizarre studio mandates that doomed this production from the start – including the requirement for a PG rating and the inexplicable demand to add a child character who disappears from the narrative for stretches at a time. The musical performances, while featuring legendary talents like Aretha Franklin and Erykah Badu, feel disconnected from the story, lacking the organic integration that made the original's numbers so memorable.

The film's most unintentionally hilarious moments deserve special attention: a car that drives underwater while characters casually converse, a face covered in shaving cream somehow functioning as a disguise, and a bizarre voodoo sequence where the characters become zombies for no discernible reason. These elements combine to create what we dubbed "the most sanitized movie ever made" – a sequel that strips away everything edgy and authentic about its predecessor.

Whether you're a Blues Brothers devotee still nursing wounds from this sequel or someone who's never experienced either film, our breakdown will have you laughing at the absurdity while appreciating why the original remains a beloved classic. Subscribe now for more deep dives into films that miss the mark in spectacular fashion!

Written lovingly with AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

Thirty years in the making, the legacy sequel to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" promised to resurrect a beloved 90s horror franchise by bringing back Julie James and Ray Bronson. What we got instead was a bewildering reinvention that left us questioning everything we loved about the original.

In this deep-dive episode, we unpack how this sequel fundamentally misunderstands what made the 1997 film work. The original gave us morally complex characters who committed a genuine crime and suffered authentic trauma. This new iteration offers a flimsy premise where fleeing an accident scene (that wasn't even their fault) somehow warrants a murderous rampage. Without that solid foundation, the entire house of cards collapses.

The most egregious misstep comes with the killer reveal that completely rewrites a beloved character's personality and motivation. When a film betrays its own legacy this profoundly, it's not just disappointing – it's almost fascinating in its misguided execution. We examine how this character assassination undermines not just this film but retroactively damages the original.

Beyond the plot problems, we discuss the film's technical shortcomings: unmemorable kill scenes, underdeveloped characters, and wasted potential. The original film gave us iconic moments like Helen's mannequin escape and Julie's unforgettable bathroom scene. This sequel offers nothing that will linger in your nightmares – except perhaps the baffling script choices.

Is there anything to salvage? Surprisingly, yes. The soundtrack delivers some genuine bangers, Sarah Michelle Gellar's brief cameo gives a fleeting glimpse of what could have been, and the final scene between survivors actually shows promise – making everything that came before even more frustrating.

Join us for this therapy session as we process our disappointment, celebrate what works, and try to understand how a franchise with such potential could go so terribly wrong. Whether you're a die-hard fan of the original or curious about this new chapter, you'll want to hear our unfiltered take on this fishy sequel.

Written Lovingly by AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

Welcome back to another episode of Hate Watching with Dan and Tony! This week, we're diving into the 2008 sci-fi flick "Babylon A.D." starring Vin Diesel. A movie so confusing, it made us question if it was even finished!

Join us as we try to make sense of a plot that is "very influenced by Children of Men" but fails to live up to it, a hero who collects $20 cashews, and a finale that leaves you with more questions than answers. We’ll discuss everything from a "virgin birth" to mind-reading "pill babies", and the absurdity of a car chase with no stakes.

This episode is a masterclass in breaking down a movie's baffling decisions and a celebration of what makes a good film truly great.

Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell for more movie chaos!

Join the Conversation:

• What's the most confusing movie you've ever watched?
• Have you seen Babylon A.D.? What did you think?
• Leave your best movie recommendations for us in the comments!

Written lovingly with AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

Welcome, fellow cinephiles and movie-haters! In this episode of Hate Watching with Dan and Tony, we’re taking on a true heavyweight of bad cinema: the 2004 movie 

"Alien vs. Predator"! 

Dan and Tony put this sci-fi showdown under the microscope, tackling some of the most ridiculous movie moments you've ever seen. We’re talking about an entire mission launched because of a “heat globe,” an alien's blood being an "endless acid," and a group of "schmucks" who make all the wrong decisions. You’ll laugh, you’ll cringe, and you might even wonder if a chemical engineer's degree can help you survive an alien attack. 

Is AVP truly one of the worst movies ever made? Tune in and decide for yourself! 

Connect with the community!

• What's your favorite bad movie?
• Did you hate-watch AVP?
• Leave a comment below with your thoughts and movie suggestions!
• Subscribe and hit the notification bell for more episodes!

Written lovingly with AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

Enter the bizarre world of "War of the Worlds 2025," where product placement and alien invasion collide in what might be the most gloriously terrible sci-fi film of recent years. Join us as we unpack this Amazon Prime spectacle that had us laughing harder than any intentional comedy could.

At the center of this disaster is Ice Cube as Will Radford, a government surveillance analyst who can hack into anything on Earth—except, apparently, the door keeping him trapped in his office during an alien invasion. While meteors rain down and tripods emerge from the ground, Will's primary concern remains spying on his pregnant daughter and gamer son, much to our bewilderment and amusement.

The film reaches peak absurdity when Will needs to upload a virus to defeat the data-eating aliens (yes, they eat data), but can only receive the necessary thumb drive through an Amazon Prime Air delivery—which requires placing an actual Amazon order first "because protocol." When a homeless man is convinced to help the mission in exchange for an Amazon gift card, we knew we'd reached cinematic rock bottom.

From Ice Cube's emotionless "oh" upon seeing his daughter's blood-soaked empty Tesla to the son's revelation as the mysterious hacker "The Disruptor," every scene delivers fresh waves of unintentional comedy. The climactic solution involving a "cannibal code" that makes the aliens consume themselves perfectly caps this monument to illogical storytelling.

Whether you're a connoisseur of terrible cinema or simply need a good laugh, "War of the Worlds 2025" belongs in the hallowed halls of so-bad-it's-good classics. Have you experienced a movie so delightfully terrible it became entertainment gold? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Written lovingly by AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

Is a creator's vision more important than fan expectations? When Dan selected Zoolander 2 to counter Tony's Happy Gilmore 2 pick, neither expected to ignite a fundamental debate about the nature of filmmaking itself.

What begins as a typical movie discussion quickly transforms into a passionate philosophical standoff. Dan champions Zoolander 2 as a delightfully absurd comedy filled with machine-gun joke delivery, praising everything from Kyle Mooney's hipster character to Kiefer Sutherland's pregnancy reveal. He argues that filmmakers should follow their creative instincts rather than simply recreating what worked before.

Tony, however, sees the film as a betrayal. Where the original Zoolander offered grounded fashion industry satire, the sequel's supernatural elements, fashion police, and action-movie aesthetics abandon everything that made the first film special. "This could be about any group of people that want to live forever. It has nothing to do with fashion," he argues, making the case that legacy sequels have an obligation to honor what fans loved.

The conversation spirals into fascinating territory as the hosts examine specific scenes through completely different lenses. Whether discussing Benedict Cumberbatch's controversial All character, the bizarre masks sequence, or the lava pit finale, their disagreements reveal deeper questions about artistic growth versus audience satisfaction. Dan summarizes the contrast perfectly: "Happy Gilmore 2 is a perfect sequel but not a great movie, while Zoolander 2 is a horrible sequel but a fine movie by itself."

Perhaps most compelling is their exploration of how creative failure shapes artistic paths. Ben Stiller's admission that Zoolander 2's poor reception propelled him toward creating acclaimed work like "Severance" raises questions about whether commercial disappointment sometimes serves a greater purpose.

Whether you've seen the polarizing sequel or not, this episode delivers laugh-out-loud moments alongside thoughtful examination of what we truly want from the films we love. By the end, you'll be questioning your own stance on the eternal debate: should creators prioritize their artistic vision or give audiences exactly what they expect?

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

In this passionate, no-holds-barred episode, Tony and Dan find themselves on opposite sides of the Happy Gilmore 2 debate, creating one of their most spirited discussions yet. Tony defends the Netflix sequel as a masterful love letter to the original, awarding it an impressive 8.5/10, while Dan dismisses it as a lazy rehash that fails to stand on its own merits.

The hosts dissect the film's controversial use of flashbacks to the 1996 original, with Tony celebrating the painstaking attention to detail and Dan questioning why a movie needs to remind viewers of jokes from three decades ago. Their conversation evolves into a fascinating exploration of nostalgia, fan service, and what makes a successful sequel work.

Where they do find common ground is in praising the professional golfers who appear throughout the film. John Daly's deadpan delivery (especially his "contutor" line that became Dan's lone laugh-out-loud moment), Scotty Scheffler's surprising comedic timing, and cameos from celebrities like Eminem and Bad Bunny emerge as bright spots even Dan can't deny.

The discussion takes particularly interesting turns when examining the cemetery scene between Happy and Shooter McGavin, the controversial "shifty" sequence that raises questions about the film's politics, and whether Adam Sandler has betrayed the working-class roots that made the original character so relatable.

By the end, Tony and Dan's disagreement transforms into a thought-provoking meditation on what we want from our entertainment: comfortable nostalgia that reminds us of what we loved, or fresh experiences that challenge us to feel something new. Whether you loved or hated Happy Gilmore 2, this episode offers a passionate analysis from both perspectives that will make you reconsider your own stance.

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail

Have you ever anticipated a sequel only to have your expectations completely shattered? That's exactly what happened with Broken Lizard's "Club Dread," their follow-up to the cult classic "Super Troopers." What went wrong when the comedy troupe attempted to blend slasher horror with their established comedy style?

In this deeply analytical episode, we dissect the fundamental failures of "Club Dread" as both horror and comedy. The film simply can't decide what it wants to be – lacking genuine scares and creative kills while simultaneously failing to deliver consistent laughs. We explore how the movie squanders numerous comedy setups and character opportunities, creating a frustrating viewing experience where potential humor repeatedly evaporates before reaching satisfying payoffs.

Bill Paxton emerges as our unanimous highlight, delivering a genuinely entertaining performance as Coconut Pete, a washed-up Jimmy Buffett-esque resort owner with delusions of musical grandeur. His outburst about writing "Piña Colada-berg" years before "Margaritaville" represents one of the film's few genuinely memorable moments. Yet even his character suffers from the film's structural problems, with his demise occurring unceremoniously off-screen.

We compare "Club Dread" to successful horror comedies like "Shaun of the Dead," "Freaky," and "Slither," examining why these films succeed where Broken Lizard failed. The answer lies largely in character development – when characters feel like actual humans rather than caricatures, their peril generates genuine tension, allowing comedy to emerge organically from authentic situations.

Join us for this entertaining breakdown of a disappointing sophomore effort from Broken Lizard, and stick around to hear what Vin Diesel classic we'll be tackling next week. Whether you're a fan of horror comedies or just enjoy dissecting failed film experiments, this episode offers plenty of laughs and insights into the challenging art of genre-blending.

Written Lovingly with AI

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT