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!

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

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

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

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.

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

When three friends—a doctor with a glass eye, an African-American lawyer, and a mysterious nurse-turned-artist—become entangled in a murder investigation in 1930s New York, they uncover a sinister conspiracy that reaches to the highest levels of American power. What begins as a quest to clear their names transforms into a fight against a fascist plot to overthrow the U.S. government.

“Amsterdam” represents one of the most perplexing cinematic experiments of recent years. Christian Bale delivers a fully committed, physically transformed performance as Dr. Burt Berendsen, a WWI veteran who creates unconventional pain medications for fellow soldiers while sporting a prosthetic eye that refuses to stay in place. Alongside John David Washington’s stoic Harold Woodman and Margot Robbie’s enigmatic Valerie, they form an unlikely trio whose bond was forged in the trenches of Europe and the artistic paradise of Amsterdam.

The film attempts to tackle weighty themes—fascism’s rise, America’s flirtation with authoritarianism, racism, and the corrupting influence of wealth—but repeatedly undermines itself with jarring tonal shifts. One moment we’re witnessing the horror of war wounds, the next we’re watching Mike Myers and Michael Shannon engage in bird-watching espionage comedy. Taylor Swift makes a memorable appearance only to meet an abrupt and darkly comedic end that epitomizes the film’s bizarre approach to storytelling.

What makes “Amsterdam” particularly frustrating is the glimpse of greatness hidden within its meandering narrative. Based on the real-life “Business Plot”—a legitimate 1933 conspiracy by wealthy industrialists to overthrow FDR’s government—the film had the potential to deliver a timely warning about democracy’s fragility. Instead, it buries this fascinating history under quirky character studies and surrealist digressions that never cohere into a satisfying whole.

Robert De Niro brings gravitas as the decorated general these conspirators hope to manipulate, while Rami Malek and Anya Taylor-Joy deliver unsettling performances as the wealthy siblings with disturbing agendas. The cast’s commitment can’t rescue a script that constantly loses focus, jumping between 1918 flashbacks and the 1933 main storyline without allowing either timeline room to breathe.

What could have been a powerful historical thriller or an effective period comedy instead lands uncomfortably between genres, testing audiences’ patience with its 134-minute runtime and convoluted storyline. Has a film ever left you more bewildered by the gap between its potential and execution?

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Remember when 90s horror was all about beautiful people running from fishermen with hooks? “I Still Know What You Did Last Summer” perfectly encapsulates that strange era when our slashers took tropical vacations and our protagonists made questionable decisions at every turn.

Jennifer Love Hewitt returns as Julie James, still traumatized from the events of the first film, now haunted by nightmares and paranoia. When she and her college roommate Brandy (played by musical superstar Brandy) win a dream vacation to the Bahamas through a radio contest, it seems like the perfect opportunity to escape her troubles. Little does she know, the contest was rigged, and the vengeful hook-wielding fisherman has orchestrated the entire scenario to finish what he started.

The film delivers exactly what sequel-hungry audiences of 1998 craved – more beautiful people, higher body count, and even Jack Black in a bizarre role as a dreadlocked weed dealer. While Freddie Prinze Jr. makes a welcome return, fans rightfully lament his limited screen time. The tropical setting provides a refreshing change from the original’s small town, allowing for storm-related tension as our characters find themselves trapped in an increasingly empty resort during the off-season.

What makes this film so fascinating to revisit isn’t its scares (which are minimal) or its kills (which lack creativity), but rather how perfectly it captures late 90s horror sensibilities. The fashion, the music, the dialogue – it’s all a time capsule of a specific moment in cinema history when slashers were commercially viable but creatively waning. The “Ben’s son” twist may induce groans rather than gasps, but there’s an undeniable charm to the film’s commitment to its ridiculous premise.

As a new “I Know What You Did Last Summer” film hits theaters this week, it’s the perfect time to revisit this flawed but fascinating sequel and appreciate how far horror has come – or perhaps how much we sometimes miss the simpler days when all we needed was a hook, some rain, and Jennifer Love Hewitt’s perfectly blow-dried hair surviving impossible humidity.

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

“Stop trying to make fetch happen” might be the most iconic line from Mean Girls, but this musical remake probably should have stopped trying to make itself happen.

The 2024 Mean Girls musical adaptation presents a curious paradox: it’s a movie musical with songs so abbreviated they barely register and a storyline that somehow manages to lose all the sharp edges that made the original a cultural phenomenon. Where the 2004 film brilliantly captured the brutal social ecosystem of American high schools, this remake offers a watered-down version that neither satisfies as a musical nor works as a compelling story.

What’s particularly frustrating is how the film squanders its potential. The Broadway musical version, which serves as the adaptation’s source material, features energetic, memorable songs that effectively translate Tina Fey’s razor-sharp observations into musical form. Yet the film presents these songs in truncated versions, often lasting barely over a minute before abruptly ending. The “Revenge Party” number and the Halloween costume song stand as the only fully realized musical moments, with everything else feeling like musical interludes rather than complete expressions.

Character development suffers similar shortcomings. The original film showed how Katie gradually transformed into the very person she initially despised – a mean girl herself – creating a complex moral center. In this version, Katie never convincingly becomes mean, removing the crucial character arc that gave the story its emotional weight. Similarly, Janice’s character loses the fascinating duality that made her simultaneously sympathetic and problematic in the original. Even Regina George, perhaps the most iconic high school villain in cinema history, lacks the calculated cruelty that made Rachel McAdams’ performance so memorable.

Despite these shortcomings, a few bright spots emerge. The actress playing Janice demonstrates genuine vocal talent, and occasional meta-jokes about the musical format land effectively. But these moments only highlight what might have been with more thoughtful execution. For those intrigued by the concept of Mean Girls as a musical, the Broadway soundtrack offers a far more satisfying experience than this cinematic adaptation.

Have you seen both versions of Mean Girls? We’d love to hear which you preferred and why. Join the conversation in the comments section below!

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

When Disney unveiled its 2025 live-action reimagining of Snow White, audiences expected a thoughtful update of the beloved classic. Instead, we discovered a bewildering misstep that fails at the fundamental elements of storytelling, character development, and musical composition.

Diving deep into this adaptation, we meticulously compare the original animated masterpiece with its modern counterpart, revealing how the remake abandons the narrative clarity and emotional resonance that made the 1937 version timeless. From its opening scene featuring a bloodless childbirth in a pristine carriage to its inexplicable costume changes and nonsensical plot developments, this film consistently makes baffling creative choices.

The musical elements prove particularly disappointing. Unlike successful modern musicals that understand how songs should advance plot and reveal character, Snow White’s soundtrack relies on simplistic rhyming without memorable melodies or meaningful lyrics. Even talented vocalists can’t elevate material that fundamentally misunderstands what makes movie musicals work. We highlight how the film’s approach to color (garish primary hues instead of nuanced fairy tale aesthetics), characterization (telling us Snow White is empowered without showing it), and world-building (inconsistent magic rules) creates a frustrating viewing experience for audiences of any age.

Perhaps most revealing is our analysis of how the film attempts to modernize its message while inadvertently undermining it—Snow White lacks agency despite being described as inspirational, the dwarves are rendered as unsympathetic CGI creations, and the Robin Hood-inspired love interest fails to develop any chemistry or purpose. The original’s simple elegance is replaced with complexity that doesn’t serve the story or characters.

Have you experienced the disappointment of a cherished classic being poorly reimagined? Share your thoughts in the comments, and join us next week when we tackle Mean Girls: The Musical—hopefully with better results!

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

A teenage martial arts star with a perfect body and an expressionless face attempts to become the next Jason Bourne? What could possibly go wrong?

Taylor Lautner’s post-Twilight action vehicle “Abduction” takes us on a wild ride through one of the most illogical spy thrillers ever made. When high school student Nathan discovers his childhood photo on a missing persons website, he’s thrust into a world of government conspiracies, international assassins, and badly choreographed fight scenes that somehow manage to be both frantic and boring.

The film desperately wants to position Lautner as a legitimate action star, but saddles him with a character supposedly suffering from “rage issues” that never materialize. Despite being surrounded by seasoned actors like Sigourney Weaver, Alfred Molina, and Jason Isaacs, the Twilight heartthrob delivers most of his lines with the emotional range of a cardboard cutout. His parkour skills and shirtless scenes can’t compensate for a script filled with nonsensical plot developments and technology that would make even the most forgiving sci-fi fan roll their eyes.

Most puzzling is the film’s title – nobody actually gets abducted. Instead, we’re treated to a collection of spy movie clichés stitched together with teenage romance that feels awkward and forced. From magical phones that can’t be traced (except when they suddenly can) to an international network of assassins who can appear anywhere in minutes, “Abduction” breaks every rule of logic while following every rule of bad filmmaking. Join us as we break down this spectacular misfire that tried to launch a franchise and instead became a cautionary tale about what happens when marketing executives decide someone’s abs qualify them to carry an action thriller.

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Take a journey into the sumptuous yet flawed world of Anne Rice’s vampires as Tony and Dan sink their teeth into “Interview with the Vampire,” the 1994 adaptation that tantalized audiences but left many fans of the novel bloodthirsty for more.

The hosts explore how this gothic tale suffers from its reluctance to embrace the passionate relationships at its core. While Tom Cruise goes full throttle as the flamboyant Lestat and Brad Pitt broods intensely as the tortured Louis, their chemistry never ignites the screen with the intensity described in Rice’s prose. But amidst these missed opportunities shines Kirsten Dunst, whose haunting portrayal of the child vampire Claudia steals every scene—a remarkable achievement considering her young age and the Hollywood heavyweights surrounding her.

With their trademark humor, Tony and Dan pick apart the film’s logical inconsistencies while appreciating its sumptuous visual aesthetic and practical effects. They examine how the 1990s cultural context limited the film’s willingness to explore its queer subtext, creating a strange dissonance where characters who should be deeply connected barely seem to like each other.

The discussion ventures into fascinating territory as they consider the nature of immortality, the horror of eternal stasis, and how the film’s portrayal of vampirism differs from both its source material and other vampire stories that followed. Whether you’re a devoted fan of Rice’s vampires or just curious about this influential piece of 90s cinema, this episode offers bloody good insights into what makes “Interview with the Vampire” both memorable and frustrating.

What vampire films do you think better capture the sensuality and horror of immortality? Share your thoughts in the comments and join us next week when we’ll be reviewing the 2025 adaptation of “Snow White.”

Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Adventure films are a delicate balance of charm, wonder, and heart—which is why “Fountain of Youth” is such a fascinating disappointment to dissect. What should have been a thrilling revival of a beloved genre instead becomes a masterclass in missed opportunities.

The frustration comes not from the film being terrible (we’ve seen worse), but from how tantalizingly close it comes to greatness before veering off course. With John Krasinski, Natalie Portman, and stunning locations around the world, all the ingredients were there. Yet something vital is missing: soul.

Great adventure protagonists care deeply about something—Indiana Jones respects artifacts even while stealing them, Benjamin Gates in National Treasure risks everything to protect historical treasures while pursuing them. Krasinski’s Luke, by contrast, moves through the story with curious detachment, displaying impressive combat skills without explanation and making quips that never land with the intended charm.

The supporting cast fares no better, with potentially interesting characters reduced to exposition machines. The chemistry between leads is nonexistent despite the script insisting otherwise. Even the central mystery—the Fountain of Youth itself—operates on confusing, inconsistent rules that change to serve the plot rather than create a coherent mythology.

What makes this analysis worthwhile is recognizing how “Fountain of Youth” illuminates exactly what makes adventure films work by doing the opposite. It’s a reminder that spectacle without heart falls flat, that heroes need vulnerability alongside capability, and that audiences want to feel wonder alongside the characters discovering ancient secrets.

If you love adventure cinema and want to understand why some attempts work brilliantly while others fail, join us for this deep dive into a film that might just kill the genre it hoped to revitalize. Subscribe, share your thoughts in the comments, and let us know what adventure classics you’d recommend instead!