If you need a movie to watch, try....

Each year the American movie-industrial complex spends hundreds of millions of dollars turning out top-quality movies that we, as Americans, spend $15 bucks a pop to go see thus ensuring plenty of jobs for the left-coast motion picture arts crowd.


Well, you do.

I, on the other hand, spend a buck to watch movies that were made for 36 dollars and a case of beer by three pot-heads with a camera thinking they might be able to score enough cash to keep them in zig-zags, Mountain Dew and ding dongs.

I can’t explain it, but it has always been thus. When I was a lad in high school, it didn’t take long for most of my friends to absolutely forbid me from choosing movies. I didn’t pick slasher flicks or anything like that, but I just generally choose crap film. It’s probably genetic.

It’s nice to think that as you age you somehow grow out of such things and develop a sense of taste when it comes to something as simple as choosing a movie. Alas, you would be so very, very wrong.

A few years back while on a temporary duty to do an inspection in some square western state, my friend Gracie and I were availing ourselves of some free time by inspecting the bottom of beer bottles for mice (See “Strange Brew” c1985) when we decided to order a movie on the hotel service. Now, there are a few choices we could have made:

1. Porn. Not likely. Because, let’s face it, no matter how many movies you may see where guys gather together to watch porn, it Just. Doesn’t. Happen. Plus, what Gracie likes to call “SpankerVision” movies typically run about $14 and I’m sorry, that ain’t happening either. Fourteen bucks is a large pizza and as you age a bit, pizza is more enjoyable than watching someone - who isn’t yourself - score.

2. A ‘first-run’ film. These are good movies we’d all like to see but essentially cost as much to watch on your 27-inch, tube-style, in-room television bolted to the credenza, as it costs to watch at the local mega-plex. Except with the added benefit of lousy seating and the likelihood of having your poor quality sound interrupted further by the guy in the adjacent room who opted for choice 1 above.

3. Roe’s choice. If you choose option 3, which we did, you end up with something like “The Life Aquatic” for $3.95.

Now, this isn’t to say Bill Murray’s “Life Aquatic” wasn’t a bad film…yes, yes, it was exactly that. It was vomit on a reel. And while we tried to make it seem like it was so bad it was actually very good, it just wasn’t. It was awful – probably a lot like that Charlie Sheen live performance people were duped into paying $75 to see. At least that’s what I tell myself because it makes the $4 I wasted seem like a bargain by comparison.

So, now that I’m living alone sans cable TV (yup, I’m the one guy you know without cable TV) - I have lots of free time and the magic that is Netflix, to watch as many bad movies as I can stand.

And I do.

So, in the interest of providing you a public service, if ever you find yourself with some free time I’d like to offer the following cinematic suggestions:

“Throg” This is one of those stoner-hippy with a video camera offerings I mentioned. As the name sort of implies this is set in the stone-age and Throg, I assume, is meant to be the hero of the film. It’s kind of hard to say really because he doesn’t say much and he reminds me for all the world of Milton Waddams the “that’s my stapler” guy from Office Space. I'd be willing to bet the set and costume budget were significantly less than the cost for lunch on the one day I'm sure this film was shot in.

Curious as to whether this movie has ever been heard of by anyone but me, I checked IMDb, the Internet Movie Database and found, to my horror, this film was made in 2004. I would have said late 80s at best. Anyway, it also gives the plot in rather optimistic tones… “an immortal idiot is chosen to champion the bored Gods of Mount Olympus. Poor Throg, ever the optimist, stumbles through history, leaving a trail of comic carnage in his wake.”

Let me be plain regarding the preceding sentence: He is. They are. He may be. He most definitely does not.

There is no Pollyanna in the world who believes there is anything resembling “comic carnage” in this film. To be fair, even I didn’t watch the whole thing so maybe it got better after the first 45 minutes, but it’s very doubtful.

So, if Throg doesn’t suit you, I would humbly suggest: “Dorkness Rising”

I really wanted to watch all of this film, because it just sounds like one of those movies that really is so insipidly bad that it would be cult-funny. It’s only half of that.

Again, courtesy of IMDb… “All Lodge wants is for his gaming group to finish their adventure. Unfortunately, they're more interested in seducing barmaids, mooning their enemies, and setting random villagers on fire.”

Sadly, that line is funnier than most of the movie. But you’ve got to admire the chutzpa of a film brazen enough to say, “Dorkness Rising is a hilarious romp through the world of sword and sorcery -- in this case, a world of exploding peasants, giant house cats, and undead roast turkeys”

Come on! Exploding peasants and undead turkeys?! What’s not to like there? Plenty as it turns out.

So, after all this if I still haven’t convinced you to watch a film, I need to quote Rocky the Squirrel…here’s something you’ll really like.

“Netherbeast Incorporated” It’s a vampire flick from 2007. But it’s not the slick, metro-sexual vampire shtick so well known by millions of teenage girls and grown women who want people to think they’re teenage girls – no this movie has a cast: Darrell Hammon (SNL), Dave Foley (News Radio), Robert Wagner (Austin Powers and so many other so-so films and just average TV shows) and Judd Nelson!

Dave from News Radio and John Bender from Saturday detention…wow! And actually, this movie is ok. It’s a dark comedy that has a follow-able plot and some laugh-out-loud lines making it worth watching to the end. And you really have to because it’s a whodunit.

Of course, I could tell you who did it, but that would spoil the ending and I need every opportunity I can get for someone to say I finally chose a good one.

Read this - No inhaling or viewing necessary

I didn’t really want to write anything about Bin Laden in the last post, and I really didn’t want to today either – it was the furthest thing from my mind … until I saw the headline that said Osama had porn.


The word ‘porn’ is like the word ‘free’ – it stops you and makes you look again. Even if you’re not in the market for whatever it is someone is giving away with ‘free’ you’re going to look to see what it is. I had to read the article.

It appears, according to both the Huffington Post and Reuters, that OBL was a randy mullah, a rutting jihadi, dare I say, a taudry terrorist. Amidst his computer files of destruction and carnage, there was a good deal of pornography. The article said, and I quote…

“The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.”

Now, I’m not trying to link any two things that are unrelated together, but…if you were to ask me, that sounds an awful lot like some guy we’re all familiar with…

"When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton

They weren't sure if bin Laden himself had viewed the materials? Really? He just happened to have his courier bring him a video montage of Tarts of the Taliban for who? His butler? The guy who was making the suicide vests?

Maybe it was a little T&A (Toes and Ankles for the burquha-wearing set) for wife No. 3 so she would know exactly what kind of thing they were fighting against. Know your enemy...Sun Tzu and all that.

Clinton not inhaling and OBL not viewing are, in my mind, two of the biggest examples of, “This is what we’re going to tell you but we don’t really expect you to believe it” spin-doctoring ever. Why anyone is even trying to give him the benefit of the doubt is beyond me.

And here is something else from the Reuter’s article…

"Three other U.S. officials familiar with evidence gathered during investigations of other Islamic militants said the discovery of pornography is not uncommon in such cases."

It’s not? I would think it would be a little unusual…I mean, a little... No?

Apparently not. I have to wonder what these U.S. officials who are familiar with gathering such evidence talk about in private?

“Hey, Bob, I'm on the team to study the bin Laden files"

"You're such a lucky bastard. You always get the militant files."

"You see them yet?”

“No. Any interesting intel in there?”

“Well, depends on your definition of ‘intel’ I guess.”

“I heard it was all military-realted…”

“Girls of the Israeli Defense Force is kind of military-related I suppose. Ironic, but yeah…related.”

Of course, that’s pure conjecture on my part, because while I saw the headine and the story I didn't read it.