Stinker Madness - The Bad Movie Podcast

What is the point of any of this??? What does life even mean anymore?!?!

Watching Alone in the Dark is like stepping into a surreal nightmare where logic, talent, and coherence take a permanent vacation. Directed by Uwe Boll, the film somehow manages to turn a moderately creepy video game series into a cinematic trainwreck so inexplicably bad it’s almost mesmerizing.

Let’s start with Tara Reid, whose performance as "Dr. Aline Cedrac" is the kind of thing you’d expect from someone who Googled “archaeologist” five minutes before arriving on set. Reid delivers lines like she’s trying to remember if she left the oven on, her scientist character less "Indiana Jones" and more "lost intern who wandered into the wrong set." Her chemistry with Christian Slater is nonexistent—though to be fair, Slater himself looks like he’s plotting his escape mid-scene.

The plot is the cinematic equivalent of dumping puzzle pieces from three different games onto the floor and calling it "art." Something about ancient artifacts, a secret government agency, monsters from another dimension, and the unexplained disappearance of common sense. Characters reference backstories and motivations that the movie never bothers to show or explain, leaving viewers wondering if they accidentally skipped an hour. But don’t worry—it wouldn’t make sense even if you had the context.

Nothing in this world adheres to any internal logic. The creatures are impervious to bullets until they suddenly aren’t, characters forget their own objectives, and physics behaves like it’s being controlled by a drunken toddler with a dartboard. There’s a moment when flashlights become pivotal to survival, except the characters don’t seem particularly invested in keeping them working. Why? Who knows! Consistency is for amateurs.

Then there’s the action, if you can call it that. Imagine someone yelling, “Action!” and the cast collectively deciding to flop around and fire guns into the dark. The choreography is stilted, the editing is headache-inducing, and the monster effects are so bad they look like rejected renders from a 90s PC game. Somehow, Uwe Boll takes things that should be inherently exciting—gunfights, explosions, and supernatural horror—and makes them as thrilling as watching beige paint dry.

And yet, in its complete and utter failure at being a movie, Alone in the Dark achieves a kind of perverse charm. It’s like a black hole of quality so dense it warps reality into something entertaining. You can’t help but laugh at the absurdity of it all—the wooden acting, the nonsensical dialogue, the budget-bin special effects. It’s a film you watch with friends, drinks, and the understanding that you’re witnessing a masterpiece of mediocrity.

Verdict: Alone in the Dark is not just bad—it’s spectacularly, gloriously, hilariously bad. For aficionados of cinematic disasters, it’s a must-watch. For everyone else? Save yourself.

What happens when a B-list horror film tackles small town romance, anthropology, and…vampire bureacracy?

This movie takes us to a vampire-infested Salem's Lot, where the acting is about as wooden as the stakes they should be driving into these vamps’ chests. The lead actors deliver their lines with the enthusiasm of someone half-listening to a bad knock-knock joke, and I swear the child actor spent more time looking at the camera than playing a convincing kid. But it doesn’t matter, because that’s part of the charm.

The vampires in A Return to Salem's Lot redefine what it means to be bloodsucking undead. First, they feel the need to sit you down for a full-blown vampire lecture series, explaining their origins and why they drink blood as if they’re some misunderstood subculture rather than, you know, predators of the night. The amount of time they spend philosophizing about vampirism makes you wonder if they’re vying for tenure at the local community college rather than dominating the human race. They’re so bad at being vampires, it almost seems like they're on a trial period—experimenting with their nocturnal lifestyle, second-guessing their fangs, and generally acting like vampires who accidentally got bitten and are just trying to make the best of it.

Then, out of nowhere, comes Van Meer—the anthropologist-turned-vampire-slayer who actually gives this movie a reason to exist. The man is a total badass, with the wisdom of Gandalf and the "not here for this nonsense" energy of every grumpy old man who has ever lived. Van Meer doesn’t just kick vampire ass—he clobbers it, struts into scenes like he’s about to win an award for "Best Scene Stealer in a Horror Flick" and delivers lines with such unearned gravitas that you can’t help but root for him.

So, is A Return to Salem's Lot a good movie? No. But is it an awesome movie? You bet your fangs it is. If you’re in the mood for vampires who suck at being vampires and a hero who looks like he walked in from an entirely different (better) movie, this one’s worth sinking your teeth into.

Maybe the "safety bar" is the problem with your death machine.

If you're looking for a horror movie that makes you laugh, wince, and question your own sanity, The Mangler is an absolute gem. Based on Stephen King's short story, this 1995 film takes a wild swing at horror and lands somewhere deep in the realm of “so bad it’s good.”

At its core, The Mangler has one of the most baffling plots imaginable. The villain? A haunted, soul-sucking industrial laundry press. Yes, you read that right—a laundry press that inexplicably develops a bloodlust. It’s so absurd that you can’t help but be intrigued. How do you make a piece of machinery terrifying? You’ll just have to watch and see, but let’s just say the movie's plot twists somehow take this ridiculous concept and push it even further, to dizzying, laugh-inducing extremes.

The dialogue is a beautiful mess, filled with lines that are equal parts stilted and unintentionally hilarious. The characters often sound as if they’re making things up on the spot, adding to the overall bewilderment as you try to understand what’s going on in the film’s world.

Then, of course, we have Robert Englund and Ted Levine giving some of the most over-the-top performances you’ll ever see. Englund, clad in makeup that makes him look like a human-machine hybrid nightmare, completely commits to his role as the evil factory owner with a sadistic glee that’s infectious. Levine, as the grizzled cop, is both confused and determined, delivering every line with a mixture of desperation and bemusement that’s just... amazing to watch. You get the sense he might be wondering what’s going on as much as the audience is.

Together, these elements make The Mangler a fascinating train wreck, a "what the heck is going on" rollercoaster that’s perfect for fans of unintentionally funny horror. It’s a riotously bizarre film experience that you simply have to see to believe. Whether you're a horror fan or just someone who enjoys the absurd, The Mangler is the perfect bad-good movie for a night of laughs and confusion. Grab some popcorn, suspend all disbelief, and enjoy the twisted, baffling spectacle that is The Mangler.

Gee, I don't know. Who could it be...? Could it be....SATAN????

Look, if you're going to watch Split Second, leave logic at the door, forget everything you know about biology, physics, or coherent storytelling, and just hold on for one wild, wonderfully ludicrous ride. This movie is a masterclass in "so bad it's good" cinema, a staggering tribute to neon-lit nonsense where none of it makes sense, but you'll be too busy laughing, cringing, and cheering to care.

The plot? A near-future London suffering from the Great Flood of Questionable Sets, where a grizzled Rutger Hauer, rocking sunglasses indoors and some of the best action-movie hair around, plays a detective haunted by a shadowy, possibly-mutant killer that may or may not be Satan himself. Or is he a mutant? Or some kind of sewer-dwelling rat-beast with demonic tendencies? We never really figure it out, and that only adds to the glorious nonsense.

Hauer's character, Stone, has the personality of a rabid bulldog and the caffeine intake to match, which, let’s be real, might be the best part of the entire movie. Every scene sees him grinding through his lines like he's auditioning for Die Hard meets Mad Max, and his chemistry with his awkward partner, Dick Durkin (Neil Duncan), feels like it was lifted from a buddy cop fever dream. The scenes where Durkin goes from bumbling sidekick to gun-toting maniac after his own rapid-fire character development are cinematic gems that feel like they belong in an entirely different movie—and yet, they’re perfect.

As for the villain, well, if there were a Golden Globe for “Most Bizarre, Undefined Movie Monster,” this one would win it. The creature's appearance is equal parts Venom and religious cyborg, and its motives? Who cares! Sometimes it's better not to ask questions. All we know is that it’s drawn to hearts (as in, literally ripping them out) and seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Hauer’s character, for reasons the movie wisely decides not to explain.

Is the movie dumb? Absolutely. Is it chaotic? You bet. But if you're looking for a good time, Split Second delivers the kind of gleeful, cheesy absurdity that’s just begging for a midnight viewing with friends. So grab your popcorn, turn off your brain, and embrace the gloriously baffling thrill ride that is Split Second.

Well, you could always just lock the door that contains aliens hell-bent on destroying lives, MacCready.

Hobgoblins (1988) is the kind of classic cinematic disaster that bad movie connoisseurs dream of. It’s a true gem in the "so-bad-it's-good" genre, serving up every ridiculous trope you could hope for with a straight face. The budget is, to put it kindly, non-existent. You can almost hear the coins jingling in the director's pocket as they make every possible corner-cut. The "hobgoblins" themselves—clearly puppets—are so laughably bad that you can’t help but wonder if they were purchased at a yard sale. They wobble, flop, and seem to be more interested in starring in a middle school production than in wreaking havoc.

The acting? Let's just say the cast appears to have been picked up from a local mall food court. The dialogue delivery is awkward at best and painful at worst, with a cast that seems genuinely confused as to whether they’re in a horror film or a comedy. But therein lies part of its charm: this is a movie that doesn’t know what it’s doing, and it’s doing it with complete sincerity.

The plot is a fever dream that barely holds together. Some sort of government warehouse holds dangerous creatures (because of course it does), and these hobgoblins have the power to make people’s fantasies come true—though how or why is a question the film couldn’t be bothered to answer. The rules of the film’s universe break constantly, which somehow adds to the chaos and comedy, especially when you stop trying to make sense of it. Why are the hobgoblins doing any of this? Who cares! This is all about the ride.

If you're into riffing, Hobgoblins is a riffer’s paradise. The unintentional humor is endless, and every scene begs to be torn apart by a quick wit. Between the atrocious puppetry, nonsensical plot twists, and wooden performances, you’re in for a treat if your idea of fun is mercilessly mocking a film.

To be clear, Hobgoblins is not for everyone. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a dumpster fire: fascinating to watch, but only for those who appreciate the beauty of the burn. For the advanced class of bad movie lovers, though, this is a must-watch. It’s a perfect storm of everything you love to hate about bad movies, and it will leave you grinning at its sheer ineptitude.

Sure, it's super budget and leads with a crazy murder theme but that's not enough to stay in the game.

"Splatter University" starts with a flash of promise, diving right into the action with a bloody opening scene that hints at a thrilling ride ahead. Unfortunately, that promise quickly fizzles out, and what follows is an hour and a half of filler material that seems thrown in just to pad the runtime. The film struggles to build any real momentum, relying on scenes that add little or nothing to the central plot.

Instead of ratcheting up the tension or developing the mystery, it meanders through pointless side plots and unengaging character moments that make it tough to stay invested. For a movie in the slasher genre, you'd expect more focus on building suspense or delivering scares, but instead, "Splatter University" leaves you counting down the minutes until it's over.

Ultimately, this film falls short of delivering the thrills it promises and ends up a slog. With plenty of superior slasher flicks from the same era, "Splatter University" is an easy one to skip.

If you've ever wanted to have a bunch of random stuff coming at you, well this is for you. Not so much for anyone else though.

"Comin' At Ya!" is an odd entry into the world of Spaghetti Westerns, one that leans heavily on its 3D gimmicks to differentiate itself from the pack. However, once you strip away the over-the-top, in-your-face 3D stunts, what’s left is a fairly standard, if not forgettable, Western. The plot is basic, the characters serviceable, and while it checks off most of the genre’s boxes—dusty landscapes, gunfights, and a revenge story—it doesn't bring anything particularly new or exciting to the table.

The real selling point is the 3D, but even that feels more egregious than entertaining. Spears, snakes, and babies fly at you in a barrage of visual tricks, but the novelty wears thin quickly. Instead of making the movie so bad it's good, the 3D elements just end up feeling like a desperate attempt to spice up an otherwise average film. It’s a fun time capsule of early 80s gimmick cinema, but beyond that, "Comin' At Ya!" is more of a curious footnote in Western history than a must-watch cult classic.

Grieco didn't need sticky spy shoes. He could have just used his hair gel to stick to any wall.

"If Looks Could Kill" starring Richard Grieco is a delightful surprise that defies expectations in the best way possible. Known for his more serious and brooding roles, Grieco takes a refreshing turn in this zany action-comedy, delivering a performance that’s as energetic as it is unexpected.

This movie is the epitome of early '90s charm: it's corny, it's cheesy, and it's packed with jokes that initially might make you roll your eyes, but stick around, because much like someone with an unstoppable case of bad gas, it soon becomes a riot of laughs. The first few jokes might make you groan, but before you know it, you’re giggling at every ridiculous quip and over-the-top stunt. It’s almost like the movie dares you to not take it seriously—and that's where the fun really begins.

The plot is absurdly entertaining, following Grieco’s character, Michael Corben, a high school student who accidentally gets mistaken for a secret agent while on a school trip to France. The ensuing chaos is a roller coaster of wild car chases, explosive gadgets, and villainous plots that seem like they were pulled straight from a comic book.

The humor is relentless, with each scene seemingly trying to outdo the last in terms of sheer goofiness. The villains are over-the-top caricatures, the action sequences are delightfully exaggerated, and Grieco’s transformation from clueless teenager to accidental hero is a joy to watch. The film doesn’t shy away from leaning into its own silliness, and that’s exactly what makes it so endearing.

"If Looks Could Kill" might not win any awards for subtlety, but it’s an absolute blast if you’re in the mood for something lighthearted and fun. It’s the kind of movie that you start watching with a skeptical smile, and by the end, you’re laughing out loud, appreciating the fact that sometimes it’s okay to just enjoy a film for its pure, unabashed absurdity. It’s a cult classic for anyone who loves their action comedies with a hefty dose of cheese.

They put commercials on this platform and we then give us this garbage? Maybe time to switch to cable....

"Jackpot" (2024) is an absolute disaster from the get-go. The plot is so implausible that it feels like it couldn't exist in any universe, let alone ours. Nothing about it makes sense, and from the opening scenes, you're left scratching your head, wondering why the writers even bothered. The jokes? If you can call them that—seem unfinished, like someone wrote the setup and forgot to add the punchline. You're constantly waiting for a laugh that never comes. It’s awkward, and the humor falls completely flat.

The core premise of Jackpot (2024) is so utterly absurd that it crumbles under the weight of its own illogic within the first few minutes. The entire film revolves around the idea that if you win a massive lottery, you are immediately hunted by the entire state of California. Yes, you read that right—if you're lucky enough to hit the jackpot, your life instantly turns into a non-stop manhunt, where literally everyone is out to kill you. So, naturally, the question that comes to mind is: Why in the world would anyone buy a lottery ticket?

Think about it—nobody in their right mind would want to win, because the moment they do, their life is effectively over. Instead, the incentive in this ridiculous world is to not win, but to track down and kill the unlucky winner. This bizarre twist undermines the entire concept of a lottery in the first place. Lotteries exist because people want to win huge amounts of money. In Jackpot, the goal seems to be the opposite—everyone is actively rooting for someone else to win so they can hunt them down. This paradox creates a plot that is fundamentally impossible. If no one wants to win, the lottery can't work. It’s like creating a race where the objective is to lose but expecting everyone to keep competing.

The action sequences are equally frustrating. They're so vague and poorly choreographed that it's nearly impossible to tell what's going on. It feels like you're watching someone play a video game with the brightness turned down and no clear objectives. And then, they go ahead and kill Sean William Scott in the first ten minutes. Seriously? That's an instant walk-away moment for me. If you're going to take out one of the few redeeming qualities of a movie so early on, what’s even the point? "Jackpot" is an absolute failure, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking for a coherent story, solid laughs, or even enjoyable action. Skip it.

You can't put lipstick on a pig but you can wear its eyebrows and escape the law!

*"Thunder" (1984) is one of those films that's so bad it's almost good. From the over-the-top acting to the bizarre plot, it's a movie that knows how to entertain, even if it's not in the way it intended. The acting is hilariously exaggerated, with characters delivering lines in a way that makes you wonder if they were trying to win an award for the most awkward performance. It's hard not to chuckle at the sheer silliness of it all.

The plot is a strange mishmash of clichés, with twists that come out of nowhere and leave you scratching your head. It's like the filmmakers threw every idea they had into a blender and hoped for the best. The result? A weirdly captivating story that keeps you watching, if only to see what ridiculous thing happens next.

The action sequences aren't exactly top-tier but are great. The choreography is clunky and poorly executed, the stunts are dangerous, and the explosions are way too big. But, honestly, that's part of the charm. There's something fun about watching a chase scene where the car crashes look like everyone died but the characters have little injury.

Sure, the movie can drag at times, especially when it takes itself a little too seriously. But the unintentionally funny moments more than make up for the slow patches. If you're in the mood for a laugh and don't mind a bit of 80s cheese, "Thunder" is definitely worth a watch. Just don't expect anything Hall of Fame-worthy!