Blood Diner, by Andy

I wonder if the producers and directors knew when they were making "Blood Diner" that it was going to be terrible. I mean, at some point, somebody said, "well, the script sucks, our actors are terrible, let's try making it as terrible as we can." It's gloriously bad. And on so many levels.

The obvious stand-outs are acting and plot. Wow. What can you even say about the two?

But somehow Blood Diner succeeds in it's stereotypical genre. For some reason having ridiculous amounts of bloods, T&A, an overwhelming number of stupid people, and more blood makes this film succeed.

Obviously this film isn't for everyone. In fact, it's probably not for anyone given it's overwhelming offensive nature (on so many levels), and evidenced by the fact that it isn't available anywhere (I had to have a ripped copy sent to me in the mail just to watch it).

But wow. Perfect for our current group.
by Andy


Big thanks to Jason, et. al, for getting me a copy of the disk.

Oh, and still haven't gotten Megaladon III yet, even though it's been at the top of my list for months now.

A Gruesome Twosome

by Jason Pyles

I apologize for my two-month hiatus, but I opted to punish myself by watching "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" (2002) and "Blood Diner" (1987).

“Shark Attack 3: Megalodon”

There are low-budget films, then there's "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon." I guess it isn't the most cheaply made film I've ever seen, but it's close. Voted worst movie ever by Craig, "Shark Attack 3" is worth watching for two reasons: 1.) Its "special” effects. 2.) It has the most surprising one-liner I've ever heard in a movie. But after reading the IMDb.com trivia for the movie, some of the magic was lost since it wasn’t initially written into the script. Much like the improvised "You're gonna need a bigger boat" line from "Jaws," this vulgarity was an impromptu joke that John Barrowman said in an attempt to make Jenny McShane laugh, and apparently it stuck.

Otherwise, “Shark Attack 3” is reprehensible, having learned nothing from a successful shark movie like “Jaws” (1975). For instance, in “Jaws,” Spielberg held out a long time, refraining from showing his fake-looking shark; instead, he opted to ramp up the suspense, making us want to see the shark. “Shark Attack 3” builds little suspense or dread and shows us its really fake-looking shark fairly early in the movie.

But the real question is what about "Shark Attacks 1 and 2"? I mean, sequels are often bad, but with a movie this poor, we are compelled to wonder whether this wasn't like the inexplicable "Leonard Part 6" phenomenon, where there were no preceding Leonard parts. But no, there were two previous "Shark Attack" movies: "Shark Attack" (1999) was merely a TV movie, and "Shark Attack 2" was released straight to video. So if you wish to see the entire trilogy, go nuts.

“Blood Diner”

My cousin Brian recommended “Blood Diner,” a prime example of a cult movie. Released in 1987, it seems that “Blood Diner” is difficult to find nowadays, but one of my cousin’s friends ordered a copy from overseas, and we’ve been passing it around. If you’d like to see it, let me know, and I can place you in the mailing rotation. Its currently on its way to Andy in Utah.

“Blood Diner” has its diabolical charm. What I like about it is how it’s the kind of movie you’d find on USA’s late-night horror movie program hosted by “Elvira.” (Wasn’t that called “Fright Night”?) Anyway, it’s exactly that sort of film — the kind you’ll never forget. It’s the type of movie that’s unsettling, not because of the horror movie itself, but because someone was warped enough to think of such weirdness.

Sure, “Blood Diner” is meant to be a comedy, a dark-comedy horror movie. But even so, when we see “Sheetar’s” remarkable stomach — and what it can do when it’s in action — it’s the kind of imagery that makes the hairs stand up on the back of the neck of the little boy in me. How can something so ridiculous simultaneously be so disturbing?

Oh, and for those who are LDS, like me, if you watch closely enough, Uncle Anwar’s evil book that his nephews read from is actually a Doctrine and Covenants (which is not an evil book). The filmmakers were gracious enough, I suppose, to hide the cover and the book’s title at the top of the pages, but if you freeze the frame at the right moment, you can tell that it’s a D&C. How’s that for trivia?

Bad movies are difficult to find....by Andy

I know it's no shock, but bad movies are difficult to find. I've been waiting for weeks for blockbuster to send me megalodon 3, and I can't find anywhere that rents Blood Diner. Ideas people? I can't even find a used copy for a cheap price.

Dancer in the Dark & Rashomon, by Andy

I finally got around to watching these two movies. Good picks by the way.

I had no idea Dancer in the Dark would be so "dark." I'm not sure I've been so sad after a movie. I'm sure part of the reason for my intense feelings were from my job, having now defended a handful of guys charged with capital offenses. But still, when Bjork starts hyperventilating as they put the hangman's shroud over her, I nearly emulated her response. The movie left me sadder than any movie in recent memory. It obviously buoyed up my feelings against capital punishment.

Rashomon was also a very interesting film. It seemed kind of racy for 1950s but was a fascinating to look into Japanese culture. I'm not sure whose version of the story to believe...

Master of Disguise, comments by Andy

Yeah, this will be a hard section of movies to get through. And it's sort of anticlimactic for me. I just finished the last of the AFI 100 movies (the 1998 & 2007 list), so moving onto a list of movies that are particularly bad is going to be a bit of a drag. The problem with bad movies is "bad" is so difficult to define. "Bad" is way too broad. What makes a movie "bad" is often times what makes it so great, or at least a cult classic.

In analyzing Master of Disguise, I'm sort of tempted to just say that Dana Carvey and other SNL actors just can't make the transition from SNL to movies with the characters they play on SNL. Dana Carvey was hilarious, and he's a great stand-up comedian, but his prowess seems to be in short skits, not long movies with a running story and theme. Maybe what makes the skits for which he is famous (think "Church Lady") so good is how terrible they are. Can you imagine two hours of "well isn't that special?" The floors at the cinema would run red from the blood spilt of the suicidal movie-goers.

But then the argument for SNL actors making it on-screen would have to include Chris Farley and Adam Sandler (yes, I know there are several others; Jane Curtain was always funny, but I stand firmly behind the statement that Mike Myers career was a push). Both of those guys had several movies that incorporated a lot of their SNL stuff, and audiences loved it. Maybe the difference is that their characters were themselves only doing bits when reverting back to SNL material, whereas Carvey was doing a whole movie based on his characters. I don't know. Maybe it's as simple as Farley and Sandler were funnier. It makes me sad to think that might be true because I really like Carvey.

Here's the other strange phenomenon. Really bad movies are not hard to find, but the worst ones are very hard to rent. I've been waiting for three weeks now for either "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Killer Clowns from Outerspace", and "Megalodon 3", and they are all listed as "very long wait" on Blockbuster. That is shocking to me. How bad can these movies be if they're so demanded and impossible to rent?

A Thinly Disguised Comeback Attempt

by Jason Pyles

Writing meaningfully about this “Worst Movies Ever” series is already more difficult than I thought.

I first saw “The Master of Disguise” in 2003, with professional pianist Paul Cardall. I absolutely despised it, concluding at the time that it was the worst movie ever made. But it’s not. There are worse movies. But after having detested it over the past six years in my mind, when I forced myself to revisit it, I came to realize that it’s not as bad as I thought, even though it’s still decidedly unpleasant.

Dana Carvey used to be something special … or, at least, the junior high Jason remembers him that way. And perhaps it’s merely that phenomenon where you’re gravely disappointed in something as an adult, even though it impressed you in your youth. Maybe that’s my problem with Carvey.

But maybe not: According to his filmography on IMDb.com, Dana Carvey hasn’t acted in anything since this movie. Indeed, what appeared to have been some kind of puny comeback attempt may have actually killed his career altogether. And Carvey bears more responsibility than just acting in this movie — he was also a co-writer.

In simplest terms, “The Master of Disguise” is both sad and embarrassing. Assuming that Carvey’s Saturday Night Live heyday truly deserved admiration, this movie is humiliating. Most of the characters he does impressions of aren’t even worth impersonating. Aside from the singular, semi-humorous highlight of the movie, his “Turtle Club” member, and possibly his Al Pacino impression and Robert Shaw’s “Quint” character from “Jaws,” Carvey falls flat on his face and looks like an amateur.

And that’s the reason for the depths of this movie’s badness: Sure, the writing and story line are both awful, but we could possibly overlook those if the star met our expectations. “The Master of Disguise” was meant to be a vehicle for Carvey to show off his silly impersonation talent, so the one thing we’re hopeful about fails us, too. In short, his impressions are so disappointing, Carvey crashes the vehicle and the movie falls apart.

And perhaps the low-point of the movie is when he spills spaghetti on the customers’ heads, and he says, “I clean. I clean,” and sprinkles cheese on them. I know there are probably a handful of Americans unintelligent enough to think that’s humorous, but picture standing off camera on the set during the filming of that scene. When the director said “Cut!,” was there laughter? No way. I’d bet money it was awkwardly quiet, and Carvey and the actors who had spaghetti on their heads probably wondered what they were doing with their lives. You’d think that was the low point, but then there’s also the cow-pie disguise …

In the end, we must remember that “The Master of Disguise” was intended for 9- to 12-year-olds, kids who were the same age I was back when I thought Dana Carvey was funny. But when those kids revisit this movie again in about 20 years, they’re going to be deeply disappointed.