Right off the bat, I'm saying now, there are approximately four choices on this last that'll make a good chunk of ya'll quiver with rage. Again, simply put, these movies didn't work for me. That's it. And like the wonderful bath of other worsts, plenty of these were problematic.

Now that that's out of the way, thanks for coming back! It means a lot that so many of you like to read these. I'll keep 'em up! Cause you know, a little love in this world goes a long, long way.

Alright. Without further ado, let's wade into the muck. Where the hell is Chad?

WARNING: The following contains coarse language, anger, and studio interference.

10. Rain Man (1988)

Chad: Have you heard of savants?

Me: Yeah, I get called one often. Usually it's a mental skill ...oh god, you realize not all people that are autistic are savants?

Chad: B.S, my man. B. S.

Me: And furthermore, can I be frank?

Chad: Isn't that your brother's name, though?

Me: I wanna give a giant middle finger to any movies that use disabled or mentally challenged characters to propel the character journey of an able bodied protagonist. This is a device that needs to die, instantly. It says one thing. We are not devices. We are not props. Not the least to whiny 80s Tom Cruise.

Chad: How do you know that?

Me: Cause I have a disability, you fuck! I notice you never give Raymond a tangible arc. What, he learns to like his shit heel of a brother? Who doesn't even have a proper arc himself, so what's the point of anything? If it's him becoming a better person, using your autistic brother to break the law and make you money is a HORRIBLE and selfish act. And it makes for a shitty montage, too.

Chad: Hey! That's 80s gold!

Me: It's loud, coarse, jumpy, and brims with too much energy. Without much substance. Kind of like the entire movie itself!

Chad: You ain't talking smack about my boy Dustin Hoffman, are ya?

Me: Look, what use is an immersive performance if the character is virtually nonexistent? If a quirk or condition defines the character entirely, that's not acting, in my opinion. That's exhibition. Nothing more. Coupled with a time period of film excess, and, well, the results are like a loud, obnoxious 14 year old demanding attention with a really expensive megaphone. Say, why does everyone worship the 80s filmscape so much?

Chad: Cause of Raging Bull, Blade Runner, Do the Right Thing, Amadeus, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High?

Me: Touche!

Chad: Thanks! I read that off this candy wrapper.

Me: Anyway, please, this is a legitimate, angry plea to Hollywood: since I wager quite a few, if any studio heads have a disability, do us a favor and stop doing our stories if we're gonna be props. You're not entitled to 'em. And don't worry, able bodied people will be fine, I'm sure.

9. The Wild One (1953)

Chad: Ugh, the 50s were so cool it makes my brain pot hurt! Like bikers?

Me: Bikers stopped being cool in the 90s, I think, but go on.

Chad: Well, this is a treat for ya. The King of Cool, Marlon Brando himself, plays a badass rebellious biker! Going town to town! Ripping up the status quo like I ripped up my nephew's lawn!

Me: But...but none of this is cool! Despite it trying so hard to convince us! It's like The Perks of Being a Wallflower of the 50s. In fact...is anything wild?

Chad: The one, obviously, you idiot.

Me: So...they go into a few bars. Have a couple of fights, talk to a couple of people, make loud noises, tussle with an incredibly fun Lee Marvin, and...that's it. When you have dialogue, music, and tone that presents the bikers as the second coming of Satan but the actual story makes them out to be greasy little puppies, you get a comically hard to watch product. That's really the gist of why this movie is such a bad experience, in my opinion. It's the cinematic equivalent of that kid in your 9th grade math class who always lounged back, spoke with a slight attitude, and everyone thought was the bomb. Here's it's cardinal sin, too - it's boring. Unbelievably so.

Chad: What are you, an old man?

Me: What? That rebuttal makes no sense at all.

Chad: I said, what are you, not hip with the times?

Me: Is that...a cocaine line on top of your cocaine line?

Chad: Pirate's life. Savvy?

Me: Look, I don't hate something because it hasn't aged well. You're not gonna find me buzzing in on an oldies radio station claiming all those songs are the worst. But if that aging is a detriment to the film's themes, tone, makes it obsolete, and renders the whole thing boring, that's a sign of the product's quality itself. We still watch The Wizard of Oz because it's a great movie despite any 30s hallmarks. Casablanca works so well because it's not made as just a byproduct of 40s Hollywood. This just happened to be an 'eh' flick whose aging really made its flaws all the more worse.

Chad: Are you saying...this is not so wild of a movie? You saying it's bad?

Me: You got it, Chadman. And besides, everyone's a caricature. Everything here is so mediocre and forced that eventually, it all swirls up to make something that's just plain bad. Look, if you want cool 50s Brando, just go watch On the Waterfront.

8. Love Story (1970)

Chad: Ah, young love. What a concept!

Me: Truly.

Chad: Ah, young love between people of a different class. What a conceptier concept!

Me: Depends how you're doing it. With a twist? A subversion?

Chad: Completely slave to all facets of the cliche!

Me: Ew. Why? It's the 70s, a time when genres were being picked apart, especially in regards to youth.

Chad: I'm not all powerful, son.

Me: "What can you say about a twenty-five-year-old girl who died? That she was beautiful and brilliant? That she loved Mozart and Bach, The Beatles. And me." CHRIST. That's...kind of you, to warn the audience about what kind of film they're about to witness. This was like, the proto-hipster love indie, wasn't it? But if every line was filled with cheese and so far up its own ass that it contracted a venereal disease.

Chad: Wait, honest question, do you hate hipsters?

Me: Not at all! Just indie films pandering to that demographic, cause they're usually condescending and pretentious.

Chad: Another question, buddy. You ever been in love?

Me: Yes. Multiple times. And guess what - it absolutely means having to say you're sorry! It'd be more compelling if these two were painted as delusional in their idealized visions of love, then we might get some sort of dive into two really banged out young lovers getting themselves into disaster. But we're supposed to watch these two as some angelic portrait of love, who are...perfect all around?

Chad: That's about it, yeah. Don't you like themes of class warfare, and stuff like that? Oliver's rich, you see. And his father looks down on his sweetheart Jenny for not being rich, you see.

Me: So, that's it?

Chad: That's about it, yeah.

Me: So it's an aesthetic. Nothing worth exploring. Just a really thin way to add drama to a story that's thin and struggling to stay afloat already. And when the actor playing the father is by far the most talented person in the cast, you just really have to wonder if anything here was done with the slightest hint of creativity - or, you know, skill.

Chad: What's wrong with bad dialogue, bad character types, and flat romance? I mean, there are worse things in the world. Murder, corruption, and more murder, for starters.

Me: You know what, Chad? You're right. There are worse things in the world. Murder is way worse than bad dialogue and bad character types. You're absolutely right.

Chad: Thought so!

Me: Look, this flick is a massive ball of cheese. Not in an entertaining way. Which is the worse thing about it, really.

7. Goldfinger (1964)

(Disclaimer: please don't kill me)

Chad: What?? Do you hate fun? Do you hate Brits? Do you hate the swinging 60s? Do you hate vodka martinis?

Me: No, I love fun, part of my schtick is taking my leg off for kicks. I love Brits, even though Britain kinda fucked the world over, but so did the USA for the most part. I think the 60s were great, you know, apart from all of it. Vodka martinis were one of the most pleasant surprises of my life. And no, I don't hate James Bond. An unfeeling, hedonistic killer for a constantly changing government is a thoroughly interesting guy. Which is why the films that take his character apart are not only lasting, but ripe beyond a simple spy flick.

Chad: We almost take him apart in this! Like, cutting his dick off with a laser.

Me: This film could have benefitted from that. Look, there's no need to defend Connery's Bond. He was constantly sexist, and this was him at peak sexism. Did you forget the fact he pretty much rapes Pussy Galore halfway through the movie?

Chad:...it was different times back then, man.

Me: That doesn't excuse shit! Coupled with the fact that Connery was a misogynistic sentient carpet rug in real life, and it's worse that both character and actor perpetuated such behavior - and still do. The pull of Bond is that he - you know - changes with the damn times!

Chad: But come on! The set pieces! Goldfinger! GOLD-FINGAAAAAAH. Great song.

Me: Yes. The movie is well done in those parts. Problematic components aside - of which are there are several - it's honestly a very flat and stale flick. Bond constantly screws up, but unlike later Bond films, he's still treated as smooth and cool. What a way to make the film uncool and date poorly as a result. With the directors of the older films, you can almost feel them sitting behind the camera, nodding and smirking at how cool their hero is without ever diving into what makes him interesting or deconstructing his many flaws. At least with a later director like Sam Mendes behind Skyfall, or Martin Campbell behind Goldeneye and Casino Royale, they know Bond is, at his core, a horrible hedonist who nonetheless is willing to embrace that lack of humanity in order to serve a higher ideal. Bond's always vying for the greater good, it's just the little things that make him a dick.

Chad: I like James Bond. Jason Bourne is in a close third, Ethan Hunt is number two. Top three favorite espionage heroes.

Me: (throwing Chad a toy) With some detestably misogynistic overtones, a meandering plot, a Bond at his peak shittiness, and nothing really interesting in the plot, Goldfinger is a prime example of all of the flaws of the Bond franchise. The titular villain is pretty neat, though.

6. Gone with the Wind (1939)

Chad: Hey, now! You're coming off the heels of taking a stab at Goldfinger, are you sure you wanna do this? To a beloved classic?

Me: (deep breath) Yes. Because tradition and legacy does not excuse any horrible, horrible flaws. Nor should it demand a blind eye, especially in a film. This is art and entertainment - criticizing it isn't some sort of slap to humanity.

Chad: As God is my witness, I'll never go hungry again!

Me: Yes, that is in fact a line from the movie. Very nice.

Chad: Yeah, a movie with hella killer production design, a hella tense romance, and other...great stuff! Like, all that happens in the middle for two and a half hours? All that stuff!

Me: It doesn't matter if the production design is outstanding, or the romance actually boldly ends. Do you want to know why?

Chad: Louis, I believe this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Me: It's because above all, this movie wants us to sympathize with the Confederacy. It wants us to sympathize with plantation owners. Do you disagree with me on that?

Chad: No.

Me: When I think of elite Hollywood art back then, what pisses me off most is the fact that underneath all of that elitism and self congratulations, was still a morally vile time. Hell, Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for a movie whose producers and directors still probably yearned for the days when the South ruled over all. Telling this story is not naivety giving way to overlooking a glaring problem, but full blown endorsement of lamenting the South's fall! The Godfather may have criminals for its protagonists, but the theme of that film isn't "gee whiz, the Mafia is really something great and it's sad that it's not in power anymore".

Chad: That's true.

Me: Stop agreeing with me, it makes me feel weird. Gone with the Wind is the 30s Hollywood form of inherent racism. It never verbally supports racism or slavery. It never outright depicts any graphically racist actions. But it keeps them in place to its satisfaction, never calling it out either. Begging sympathy for the white plantation owners who have lost a war to keep slavery. I think that's why the production values and quotes are so fondly remembered. Because who gives a shit about these characters' losing their livelihoods because they can't hold slaves anymore? Those iconic elements are the only thing keeping this beast afloat. It's a smug institution that we are not at all obliged to keep liking or praising. We shouldn't, at all. There's nothing to defend about this movie, and it does not deserve its place in the Hollywood pantheon, seeing how it worked to cry against the values artistry holds dear. In fact, the beauty of the industry is how it evolves alongside its morals, so we can improve not only our craft but our history as well. Those are my thoughts, Chad...Chad? Where'd he go?

5. Almanac of Fall (1984)

Chad: Hey, sorry about that. Your last pick made me do some thinking on culture and the race. Foreign movies are GOOD.

Me: Not incorrect, yeah.

Chad: I mean, it's like reading a book on screen. This stuff makes me feel smart all over. These European artists, they talk about deep philosophy and it's very limited to a few folks in one setting! I know you don't like whiz bang bow POOM action and there's none of that across the pond. All European foreign films are amazing, like God himself pulled them out of his great glass menageries.

Me: That's...not true at all.

Chad: EXPLAIN. Stupid plebian.

Me: Okay. Uh, actually, this is a loaded question. Wait, let me separate it first. Styles of film are their own thing. Yeah, okay! It's like praising dub step as an American value.

Chad: Where you going with this?

Me: I'm actually not sure. You know what, let me condense it to, uh...the style of art house cinema that evolved from a certain time and place. Better! Uh huh. What you're talking about has nothing do with a country as a whole. Rather, it's...oh, fuck it, I'm gonna go straight to the review. I'll make it quick.

Chad: For the first time, we see eye to eye.

Me: Many directors mistake people doing horrible things to each other as raw and vital - when, if you don't have anything compelling as a character, it's just woefully grating. Many writers mistake long winded monologues on whatever abstract concept they can find as deep and smart - when, if that's all what dialogue sounds like, it gets on your nerves real fast and shows the sleight of hand. Many actors mistake staring dead eyed in the camera and looking all flowing as artistic and minimalist when, if there's nothing of substance calling for it, really harms any chance of getting slightly invested. This film has all of that for two hours straight, without ever deviating from that concoction. There are some unorthodox camera angles, sure, but it's a pithy try to make nothing seem like more. A multiplier of zero. Almanac of Fall doubles down on everything that's bad about these style of films. I don't know, maybe it's the critical acclaim it's gotten that makes me dislike it even more. I can be a petty little thot sometimes, it's true. Or maybe it's because I've seen and loved some of director Bela Tarr's later works, and here it feels like he's resorting to cheap faux depth to indulge in himself. Is it the worst of any of those films like that? No, but it's got arguably of what I've seen, the most empty and unlikable elements of that sort of stuff.

Chad: I let my 19 year old cousin distribute this movie. I didn't even know it existed. You didn't start out with that rant, why?

Me: Cause you went into some weird tangent about foreign movies!

Chad: I've no idea what you're talking about. You just barged into my office and started ranting.

Me:...I did do that, yeah, but...never mind, let's get to the next movie.

4. The Outsiders (1983)

Me:...what about them?

Chad: They make me hard!

Me: Thanks for the image - yeah, me too. So damn good. How does one person cinematically rule over a decade like that?

Chad: Oh, wait until you see his next flick! It's about a gang of impoverished kids engaged in a power struggle with a gang of rich kids in a small, Midwestern town. You can find Patrick Swayze, Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, and Tom Cruise all at the start of their careers! In a sumptuous 50s backdrop!

Me: Oh shit, that sounds swell! Great director, great cast -

Chad: Yes, yes! Coppola uses the camera to slam story elements in yo face! The actors all make sure to scrunch their faces really hard and shout their lines LIKE THIS!

Me: ...this film is betraying all of my expectations in the worse possible way.

Chad: Do you want your mind blown?

Me: Why not?

Chad: So one of the greasers is this really smart poetic fella named Johnny Cade. And for some reason, a good chunk of the plot involves these greasers as we call them -

Me: Oh.

Chad: - saving kids from a burning house. Why not! And this Johnny Cade ends up dying in the end. Did you, uh...did you notice his initials?

Me: Yes.

Chad: JC.

Me: Uh huh.

Chad: Like Jesus Christ!

Me: YEAH, AMAZING. That type of schmaltzy emotion and poeticism permeates this entire film like an angry asbestos. Damn, Coppola. What happened to you? Your ass used to be beautiful, man.

Chad: Ya didn't even let me finish, you one legged bastard! It's filled aplenty with poetry, fictional and real, and they really talk about the divide between the rich and poor!

Me: It really just consists of both sides calling each other rich and poor and then beating each other up.

Chad: What do you want, Apocalypse Now 2: Napalm Scented?

Me: I don't expect every one of his films to be a masterpiece! I only wish he'd pick material that's...well, look, it's like this. Mind if I offer an analogy?

Chad: Only if it's better than your weird as hell analysis of art house cinema from the other post.

Me: Oh, loads. It's like, what if we found a play where bad stereotypes fought bad stereotypes, any symbolism was forced and totally simplistic, it had a weird surf score, there was little to no plot and a gushy kind of "edgy" sentimentality to the whole thing...and Shakespeare wrote it? You'd still hate it, but that would just let the bad taste linger. Because you know Shakespeare's better than that. You're baffled that such talent didn't at all try and fix the story.

Chad: When I was in twelfth grade, I played Hamlet in my English final. But I made him a pirate!

Me: (sighs) I'm gonna go pop open a bottle of his wine. Which, by the way, is delicious.

3. Patch Adams (1999)

Chad: Laughter! A great cure, no? For many a malady?

Me: Uh, on like a small scale, yeah. Punchlines can't get rid of cancer, but I guess a good knock knock joke can help a flu or something.

Chad: But what if they DID? And the man hated it!

Me: Huh?

Chad: There was this man in real life who did that!

Me: Who, Dr. Hunter Adams? He told a few jokes to keep a warm atmosphere, but give the guy some credit, he was mostly a practiced doctor who DID use true, curable techniques. This story you're heading for is actually so fictional it's insulting to his memory. Why not just make your own fictional character at this point?

Chad: Psh. We got the perfect lead, anyway.

Me: 90s...film about someone improving other peoples' lives through laughter...a whimsical rebel...oh, for real? It was getting old even then!

Chad: Don't blame me!

Me: Why? People like you pushed the Robin Williams formula till it damn near ruined his career! Even while he was coming off the heels of Good Will Hunting, which pretty much displayed that he was at home with drama! Which kept this stupid formula from getting stale. Anyway, where was I?

Chad: Typing furiously on your laptop.

Me: Uh...oh, I have one. Yeah, so, aren't you tired of narratives that not only condone harmful acts in the name of "rebelliousness", but celebrate them? It's downright insulting to the audience. What, are we not capable of knowing for a fact that practicing medicine without a license is not at all something to root for? I mean, I agree completely with the message that patients are more than a sickness - but goddamn, do it justice by being a little mature and smart, huh? Does Patch ever get called out on his behavior? Not running background checks on mental patients, stealing prescriptions, treating death for patients like a casual thing when they're n the hospital because they don't want to accept death? Jesus, the character of Patch Adams here is a goddamn sociopath!

Chad: We don't celebrate him all the way, per say. Hell, we kill his girlfriend halfway through!

Me: Yeah, the fuck was up with that? It's such an explosion of being bafflingly haphazard, lazy, cruel, nihilistic, that it gave me a strange buzz. And another indicator of this film's desperately urging you to be invested in its thematic. Anyone who desperately claims for any source of rationality is treated a a humorless, boring villain! One of the "villains" claims that Patch's methods are horrible because they bring the doctor the patient's level - is the screenwriter even trying?

Chad: Ah. One such villain is a great role by a young Philip Seymour Hoffman. Rest in peace, my friend.

Me: Aye. Sleep well, sweet prince.

2. Grease (1978)

Chad: Huh. I assume you don't have chills that are multiplying.

Me: No, nor am I losing control. I gotta ask off the bat, where are any likable characters in this movie besides Sandy?

Chad: Whaddya mean? This is a motley crew of slick, colorful whatchamacallits!

Me: They're also all loud, obnoxious, rapey, manipulative douchebags!

Chad: Yeah, sure...look, lemme guess, horrible lesson? That's what so many of those DWEEBS ya'll call critics say! I'd like to see them direct it. I'd like to see them jumpstart John Travolta's career!

Me: When your lesson is that terrible, yeah, you've gotta live with it. You can't shrug that off even as a sign of the times. Telling the girls in the audience to change for a boy - a boy who tries to take advantage of you, embarrasses you in front of his friends by pretending to forget who you are, and someone who never really says sorry or shows any pretense of changing - demands every bit of justifiable backlash there is. If you consciously write that, think over it and deem it okay, you deserve to get called out. There are medieval stories with stronger lessons and better women characters than this!

Chad: Name one!

Me: I don't know, anything on Joan of Arc or...stuff. Uh. Damn it, don't distract me from hating on Grease!...that was the whiniest thing I've ever written.

Chad: You gotta admit, the people here are cool.

Me: In what universe? I can't stand one single character in this movie except Sandy, and it's her embracing of this world that's the completion of her arc. No, Sandy - get away! These people don't deserve you. Don't fall into that abyss, go back to the Outback and enjoy the sun and surf! Whatever the writing and musical numbers may try and convince you, this world sucks. It's full of bullies and cliques that I'm sure were outdated even in the 1970s. Why do we cheer for the alpha jerks?

Chad: Yeah.

Me: And who the hell came up with the idea of that car flying off at the end? It's the cherry of stupid on a sundae of suck.

Chad: Uh-huh.

Me: Are you even listening?

Chad: (pulls his head up from giant pile of cocaine) I'm sorry, what?

1. The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Chad: Wait...Sweetpete.

Me: Oh, no. Oh, nope, I am not giving you any room to explain this one. Sit down -

Chad: No, I was actually gonna say...let's take this motherfucker down together.

Me: ...ah! You mean it?

Chad: I'm serious. This isn't like Gone with the Wind, where it's racism is constantly shrouded over. This movie is an affront to humanity!

Me: Keep going!

Chad: I don't give a hoot and a half of its narrative innovation. Was it the first big film to truly use editing in a dynamic way? Sure, but let's forget about that. Because when something positions the GODDAMNED KU KLUX KLAN as the heroes, it forfeits any of its right to be anything but white supremacist propaganda. It's the outwardly racist old grandpa to Gone with the Wind's lesser form of systematic racism.

Me: Chad, this is beautiful. Wow. I don't know what's come over you!

Chad: LEMME FINISH!

Me: (backs off) okay!

Chad: It's your duty to refuse this film any legacy. It's perpetuation of white dominance is no worse than anything you see today. Yes, it practically invented narrative editing, but...but nothing! If you don't see this film's premise and hate it from the outright, then piss off! That's all I gotta say.

Me:...yeah! YES! That's how something can unquestionably be the worst film of its era. Chad, you've championed many a problematic film and let loose a ton of poorly made behemoths upon our society. It's not too late to join the side of responsible film criticism and artistry as a whole. Denounce your works, ye mighty, and despair!