Breast Cancer Shirts

i did not hit her. it's not true. it's bullshit!i did not hit her. i did not. oh, hi, mark. // oh, hi tommy, come sit down with me. // what'sbothering you, mark? // i just... i saw your movie, "the room" the other day. // yeah.// and, well, i think you might be an alien. // what makes you say that? // your accent,performance, and weird-mood sings... it's like you're not from this planet. // hahaha,what a story, mark! // okay, you're definitely an alien... and this is movie night! hello and welcome to movie night, in-depthreviews in five-minutes or less. i'm your host, jonathan paula. tonight, as we concludethe show's fifth season, we'll be taking another look at some of the crappiest movies evermade. i consulted wikipedia's "list of films

considered the worst", and picked out fiveinteresting and terrible-sounding examples from across the decades. we'll begin withthe oldest of the bunch, "plan 9 from outer space". produced on a budget of $60,000, this campyscience-fiction horror film from notoriously awful director ed wood saw limited generalreleased in july of 1959... where it languished in obscurity for almost twenty years untilauthors michael and harry medved dubbed it the "worst movie ever made". originally titled,"grave robbers from outer space", the bizarre film opens with a curious fourth-wall-breakingintroduction by the amazing criswell, a well-known and flamboyant psychic from the 1950's whocontinually addresses the audience as "my

friend." the weird and unique plot followsthe townspeople of small town that finds its dead being resurrected by invading aliensin an effort to stop humanity from developing a powerful bomb. in a recording discoveredby the american military, the orbiting alien commanding humorously remarks, "how couldany race be so stupid?". the unrated film incorporates an insulting posthumous appearanceby the original dracula himself, bela lugosi - who is included in the film by way of randomsilent footage shot years earlier for an entirely different film. his inclusion here, and histop-credited billing is so brazenly misleading, i'm amazed wood got away with such a cheapploy - especially since lugosi's integration into the script is so pointless and cobbledtogether. beneath the irritating and unnecessary

narration from criswell, we're witness toclumsy and overt exposition that routinely brings the story to a grinding halt. on parwith a first-year student film project, the picture features blatant production mistakes,cheap props, and rigid editing. wood's boring and unmotivated direction doesn't help either...every actor delivering their lines with the energy and urgency of a cardboard box. hisdefinition of a well-framed close-up sees the actors from only waist high. fifty-fiveyears old or not, the specials effects are downright embarrassing, as the red hot chilipeppers once famously sang, "space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a hollywoodbasement" - and in the case of 'plan 9' - it really looks like it. couple that with somereally unforgivable lighting inconsistencies,

and you're left with a technically inept experienceon how *not* to produce a motion picture. the loud and sporadic, amateur sounding musicand sound effects (like roaring wind in the vacuum of space) don't help much either. thereis however a somewhat coherent sequence of events, and some almost interesting conceptsin a film that is thankfully only 79 minutes long. the moral of the story is ultimatelynothing more than thinly veiled protest against nuclear proliferation with goofy costumes,and hokey effects. like some disgusting ripley's believe it or not exhibit... this movie isamusing only as a curiosity: so awful that you're unable to look away, at least the firsttime anyway. "plan 9 from outer space", "dreadfully incompetent production. famously bad." let'ssee what you had to say about this ed wood

spectacle in the youtube comments. "plan 9 from outer space"... a one and a two.lamenting the bad effects, acting, and sets - you found no reason to spare this film fromthe lowest score, ranking it a garbage. there's an undeniable quaintness to this picture,and wood's passion for filmmaking somehow resonates despite his many missteps. and whenyou consider the time in which it was made, is it really a total failure? i'll be slightlymore forgiving, and score this a bad. for tonight's poll question, what's your favoritebad movie? leave your response a comment below with the hashtag, "#pollquestion". next uptonight, let's review "the garbage pail kids movie".

this rod amateau adventure comedy film somehowmanaged to squeak out a profit of $500 hundred-thousand, above its $1-million dollar budget when itreleased in august of 1987. shamelessly, and foolishly based on the then-popular seriesof children's gross and weird trading cards... this live-action adaptation is perhaps thestupidest product tie-in in the long and pathetic history of hollywood adaptations. seriously,this pg-rated movie was co-produced by a freaking chewing gum company! the ramshackle and nonsensicalplot follows mackenzie astin, of "the facts of life" fame, as a dweeby and horny teenwho accidentally uncovers seven disgusting mutant baby creatures: who live in a garbagepail inside an antique store, for some reason. compared to his untalented co-stars, astinactually does a halfway decent job with some

of his poorly-written dialogue - but honestly,not even an impeccable performance from daniel day lewis could save this shitshow. portrayedwith hammy acting by a septuplet of dwarf actors, these "kids" robotically waddle aroundthe cheap-looking sets, constantly spewing out stupid puns, bad jokes, and grotesquefluids from their bodies. the rubberized freak show of midgets can't even execute a goodfart joke correctly - every line of dialogue they utter is eye-rolling and cringe worthy...especially when the break into the picture's lone musical number for no reason. their facialexpressions were reportedly going to be enhanced and finished with post-production animation,but due to budget and scheduling limitations... these elements were never completed, resultingin some positively creepy undead-looking four-foot-tall

doll figures with frozen mouths, and hilariouslyoversized heads. astin takes advantage of the misplaced kindness of the garbage pailkids to help win the affection of katie barberi, an older girl he has the hots for. by whyhe's ever attracted to this mess of a human is beyond me... she's shown to be nothingmore than a manipulative and inconsiderate jerk with poor fashion sense who constantlyexploits her so-called friends. speaking of fashion, a fair deal of the idiotic plot revolvesaround black-market clothing sales: which only serve to remind modern audiences of howdreadful and ridiculous eighties fashions were. the film is backed by a painfully distractingscore from michael llyod that sounds like the soundtrack to a jazzercize workout. anattempt to impart some ethical values concerning

outward appearances, and treating others fairly...is entirely lost in the insulting, crude, and distasteful script that frequently practicesthe exact opposite of what it is trying to preach. over the course of the 97-minute experience,you can practically feel your intelligence diminish in real-time. the lone highlightof this picture however is anthony newley as a sage and mysterious mentor character,who shares this apropos line of advice towards the beginning of the film, "losing is relative,my dear boy. what matters is conceding with grace." unfortunately, this boringly pacedcrapfest ignores its own advice... and fails to concede at all: instead going full-tilttowards the absurd unashamedly. it's one sad, never-ending gag that goes from unfunny toinsufferable, with no redeeming qualities

whatsoever. while it deserves its place uponthe pantheon of terrible films, it is hardly the absolute worst - but that doesn't meani'll ever try watching this again. "the garbage pail kids movie", a "colossal mistake of corporategreed." now let's see what you had to say in the youtube comments. no surprises here... a double one for "thegarbage pail kids movie"... a film that the nostalgia critic once called the "holocaustof cinema" is truly awful, through-and-through, with none of you mentioning anything positive.a whopping 75% of all who voted rated it a garbage. although i was slightly less critical,and wouldn't even put this in my bottom-five, it is quite terrible, and does deserves itsspot on the lowest rung. i thought it was

garbage, too. now, my review for "the room". written, directed, produced, and starringthe weird and mysterious tommy wiseau - this shoddy excuse for a romantic drama film wasshown in a limited number of california theaters in the summer of 2003. independently financedon an astronomically inflated budget of $6 million, the film failed to earn back eventwo thousand during its initial run. the lumbering 99-minute story focuses on a nonsensical love-trianglebetween wiseau, juliette danielle, and greg sestero, with mostly all the action takingplace in two small, badly decorated sets. the dilemma faced by this unmotivated adulteryfeels like a rejected concept for a lifetime movie. wiseau is featured front and centeras a bizarre, depressing loser whose curious

accent and piss-poor acting single-handedlyruins every moment this film attempts to craft. besides appearing decades older than his 20-somethingco-stars, the european protagonist often laughs at inappropriate moments, exhibits wild mood-swings,and begins nearly every greeting by saying, "oh, hi!". unable to remember the lines hehimself wrote, much of his dialogue was sloppily dubbed in post... the resulting performanceso indescribably bizarre, it's like an alien masquerading in human form, unfamiliar withour nuanced earth customs. suffice it to say, casting himself in the lead was an insurmountablemisstep, and the single worst acting performance in the history of cinema. the story is sohorrendously written, you begin to wonder if this screenplay was a result of that age-oldriddle involving a thousand type-writing monkeys.

there's a number of irrelevant non sequituras well, like a now cult-favorite scene where the guys throw a football around an alleywaywearing tuxedos for no discernable reason. the haphazardly delivered, and unrealisticdialogue is bad enough to make you want to scoop out your own eardrums with a spoon.but even with a flawless script, the loathsome acting here immediately sinks any chance thismovie had at succeeding. danielle might be sexy eye-candy, but her inclusion in someof the cheesiest love scenes imaginable wouldn't even get the horniest teens aroused. later,she attempts to defend her cheating habits by saying, "you have to live, live, live!"sestero appears to be the only one in the group aware of the disaster they're producing...but being the fastest snail in a group doesn't

still make you quick. years later, he actuallywrote a book discussing his turbulent experiences making the film, which was recently optionedby seth rogen's company for a film adaptation. the story is also rife with inconsistenciesand plot holes... not the least of which are threads involving breast cancer and a loanshark debt, which are abandoned as soon as they're introduced. the background music mightas well be a cheap demo track built into a child's keyboard, because it sounds just asbad. from a technical standpoint, wiseau isn't entirely incompetent, most of the scenes aredecently lit, and adequately framed, but he tends to go overboard with foreground clutteredtracking shots. hilariously though, wiseau was not familiar with the difference betweenfilm and video - and ended up shooting the

entire movie on both formats simultaneously,at a ridiculously unnecessary expense. the r-rated mess is ostensibly nothing more thana poorly constructed, non-erotic soft core porno that repeatedly repeats itself. seriously,danielle shares near-identical dialogue with her mother in three separate scenes. the filmentertainment weekly famously dubbed the "citizen kane" of bad movies was promoted by wiseauwith a single billboard on highland avenue in los angeles... at a cost of $5,000 a month...for five full years. if i had to guess, i'd say wiseau was burned by an ex-lover earlyin life, and produced this entire mistake of a film as some sort of therapeutic revenge...the unfortunate result is an illustration of the dangers of an unfettered, and misguideddream. only seldom, and unintentionally entertaining

- this is a dreadful experience i hope i neverhave to see again. "the room", "a horrendous auteur's regretful disaster." now let's seewhat you had to say in the youtube comments. here's our ratings for "the room"... a twoand a one. while you were justifiably critical of this picture... you also found a greatdeal of amusement out of it, and rated it only a bad. laughable train wreck or not,it's still a train wreck, and there's nothing really redeeming here: i thought it was garbage.a reminder now to check out the movie night archive channel for an organized collectionof all our reviews, and to hear my thoughts on upcoming movies - this week i gushed aboutthe new "expendables 3" trailer. our fourth review tonight will be for "the hottie andthe nottie".

capitalizing on the then-enigmatic fame oflead actress, and celebrity socialite paris hilton, this nine-million dollar gross-outrom-com was released nationwide in february of 2008, where it pulled in a pathetic 1.5million in proceeds. directed by tom putnam, the pg-13 rated story follows joel david mooreas a hapless loser who travels to santa monica california to reconnect with his elementaryschool crush: but is disheartened to discover he must first find a date for her hideousbest friend first. step by step's christine lakin plays this "nottie" character, whosephysical issues are entirely superficial - and as the plot roles on, we find out just howeasily correctable they all were. she poignantly laments on her lonely existence by remarking,"knowing what you are is also knowing what

you're not." while i hesitate to call hiltonan "actress", her performance here does what it needs to, and remains somewhat realistic:especially when she's required to bat an eyelash or two, the girl knows how to play the townflirt like nobody else. ultimately though, the entire premise of this stupid 91-minuteplot fails to work for one simple reason: lakin is a more attractive woman than hiltonany day of the week. for a movie that literally rests on the attractiveness on its star, it'san unforgivable misstep. but despite the ridiculous, shallow, and misogynistic conditions of theplot, the narrative is actually well-structured, and decently paced. playing out like one long,and broken mad tv sketch, the film is nothing more than one pathetic and predictable gross-outtrope after another. when one of lakin's infected

toe-nails chips off, and lands in some poorguy's mouth... the reaction induced is more of a gag reflex than laughter. which is whyi'm embarrassed to report i actually did chuckle once or twice during this otherwise repugnantfilm. the ending of the film is particularly trite, with dialogue even telegraphing itsown clich� ending. "beauty is only skin deep" is obviously this film's primary message...but it abandons the core principal of this concept by giving lakin a physical makeoverbefore film's end... completely diminishing any impact this shameless movie could havehad. the traditional cinematography makes good use of its pacific coast locale, whiledavid e. russo's score is relatively unnoticeable. although it often hovers near the #1 spotof imdb's notorious "bottom 100" list... this

picture is far from awful, feeling almostsweet at times. had it not been for a few big mistakes, and a stronger cast... the filmmay have just been forgotten in a sea of mediocrity, instead of being vilified for its unpopularleading lady. it may be far better than its reputation, but that isn't saying much...and the movie is best if avoided. "the hottie and the nottie", "distasteful premise, boringand predictable." here are some youtube comments with your thoughts on this picture. our scores now on the rate-o-matic... a twoand a three. you criticized the film for being degrading, and mean-spirited, but admittedit wasn't totally terrible, you rated it a bad. for a film that is reported one of the"worst of all time", i went into this picture

with extremely low expectations, and leftfeeling almost robbed: the movie is dumb, insulting, and unfunny... but never unwatchablyso. i thought it was lame. finally tonight, let's suffer through "movie 43" the motion picture richard roeper called "thecitizen kane of awful" was produced over several years on a budget of six million dollars - andit somehow earned back five times that amount when it was released nationwide on january25, 2013. this absurd comedy farce is compromised of a dozen, completely separate, disconnectedshort films tied together with a loose and irrelevant wraparound plot, that remarks onthe film-within-a-film as "the one movie that can bring down society as we know it." don'tget me wrong, this picture is a true sideshow

of stupidity and obnoxious material... butit thankfully isn't quite "society-destroying". the twelve separate live-action shorts eachhave a unique director, with accomplished individuals like james gunn, brett ratner,and peter farrelly amongst them. for reasons known but to god, a host of otherwise talented,a-list celebrities signed onto this despicable excuse for a movie, and the mammoth cast includes:dennis quaid, greg kinnear, will sasso, kate winslet, hugh jackman, liev schreiber, naomiwatts, anna faris, chris pratt, j.b. smoove, kieran culkin, emma stone, richard gere, katebosworth, aasif mandvi, jack mcbrayer, justin long, jason sudeikis, john hodgman, uma thurman,kirsten bell, leslie bibb, chlo� grace moretz, christopher mintz-plasse, patrick warburton,matt walsh, johnny knoxville, seann william

scott, gerad butler, stephen merchant, halleberry, terrence howard, elizabeth banks, and josh duhamel - all of whom receive a small,but equal amount of screentime. the ratio of capable actors to terrible performancesis truly astonishing, with every line sounding like it was phoned in. i will spare you thedetails of this ridiculous disaster, but the entire first segment sees jackman with unslightlytesticles on his face for some reason... in a seven-minute sketch that is about eightminutes too long. another central joke involves a prop medicine called "poop viagra", whichis precisely when audiences realize they're in for a particularly crappy time - pun intended.indeed, the entire 94-minute experience is a never-ending string of painfully unfunnysketches that all overstay their welcome.

the fact that actual oscar winning actresseswere employed in this pile of garbage simply adds insult to injury. the r-rated movie is often vulgar,racist, sexist, and embarrassingly immature: seemingly written by a ten-year-old boy whojust discovered 4chan for the first time. technically speaking, the movie is put togetherlike a used ford pinto... barely functional, but it gets the job done. to pad its alreadydrawn-out runtime, the film's credits begin rolling with seventeen full minutes left onthe clock... only to cutaway to another unnecessary sketch just when you thought it was over,and couldn't get any worse. there's never any interesting ideas or resolution, justa collection of immature bullshit that attempts to suggest famous people are funny just byvirtue of their appearance in such a stupid

script. i fear for those who genuinely enjoyedthis picture... as their intelligence and sense of humor can only be classified as mentallyimbalanced. this is an irredeemable waste of time that is as repugnant as it is pointless."movie 43", "celebrities wasted in shameful atrocity". that was my scathing review, nowlets read six of yours. "movie 43" on the rate-o-matic... a doubleone. well, "atrocious" seemed to be the word of the day... with many of you calling thispicture bad, tasteless, pathetic, dim-witted, and wasteful - you ranked it a garbage. icompletely agree... this picture is truly dreadful in every respect, and given the peopleinvolved, especially painful to watch, i thought it was garbage too. finally tonight, for thelast time this season, let's take a look at

some of your tweet critiques to see what you'resaying about films currently playing in theaters. if you see a new movie in theaters, tweetyour review with the #jpmn hashtag. although i took some breaks along the way to maintainmy sanity, season five of movie night was my most productive yet, with 113 separatereviews across 32 episodes. following a renovation to the mann chinese theater itself, the showwas tweaked and improved along the way - with slicker graphics, improved title-cards, achange in editing style that featured much more screen-time for myself, new poster backgroundsfor all the comment screens, an in-slate graphic to finish each episode, and of course, mycold-open skits which are becoming increasingly more involved and creative. it takes me alot of time to produce this show every week,

so hopefully you agree that all these changeshave made the show even better. but i'd love to hear your thoughts, so please share anysuggestions for improvement, i appreciate the feedback, and will be reading them all. for me, it's time to take a much needed break,but fear not, the show's annual summer hiatus will be interrupted once a month for somebig special episodes i already have planned... when i review some awful mockbusters, anotherlook at box office bombs, and some of my favorite spoof-comedies. and of course, season-sixwill return in full-force around halloween. in the meantime, stay tuned to this channelfor lots more great content, including some more comedy sketches, a "microwave show" episode,and even the return of some other jogwheel

shows. if you'd like to watch more movie nightreviews, check out the "related videos" on the right, or click subscribe to be notifiedof all new content. also be sure to follow me on social media for updates between episodes.once again, my name is jonathan paula, thank you for watching and listening. until nexttime, have a good movie night!