Most times that I review a movie, I leave the review-ee a generally positive impression of the film. Am I too easy on movies? Am I a suck-up? Actually, no. I'm fairly tough on films, all things considered. The reason why most of my reviews are positive is that I'm good at figuring out which films are worth watching. It's called selective viewership, and we all practice it. Here's an experiment: just watch the poorly put together trailer for

Because of selective viewership and good instincts, most of us hate Twilight without ever having watched it. You want to rip those movies apart, but you also want to save time. Actually watching those movies wastes time, so you might as well hate on them from a distance. To some, it's cowardly to criticize a movie that you've never seen, but don't listen to them. You're doing it right. Stay intelligent, save up those IQ points, and maybe go to college someday. Life is too short for you to waste your time on bad movies.

Which is why there's something wrong with me. And my sisters, who share my Valjean genes. Did we listen to our better judgment? No. We knew that the Twilight movies were bad. We knew that they failed on every level. We knew how we'd feel about them. It didn't matter; we watched them anyway. One summer we were minding our own business when we saw a review (warning: contains language) of Breaking Dawn, Part 2 on The Escapist, which encouraged people to watch the movie just so they could laugh at it for all the wrong reasons. Then we got an idea. An awful idea. The Valjeans got a wonderful, awful idea.

What if we used our selective viewership powers to intentionally go out of our way to watch bad movies?

We went to the library, checked out all of the Twilight movies, and made ourselves some popcorn, ready to revel in the perverse blasphemy against the good name of cinema. The result would have been a natural disaster, if not for how unnatural it was. Still, it was a cinematic catastrophe, and like any catastrophic event, it deserved a proper name. We called it "Bad Movie Marathon Alvin."

The surprise twist? The Twilight movies weren't that bad. Well yes, they were bad, but not that bad, because we watched another movie first that helped us put things into perspective, and in fact made us appreciate the talent that went into Twilight. Yes, it made Twilight look good! Only a total abomination could do that, a manure cart filled with poop — stuffed with poop, overflowing with poop, actively radiating poop — and our selective viewership, for all its insight, was not shrewd enough to realize just how bad it would be.

Ladies and gentlemen: Eragon.

I have never reviewed this movie, and never will. Absolutely nothing that I write will ever compare to this recap (like the last link, it contains language). It is the best review of a bad movie I have ever read, and I still pull it out every once and a while when I need entertaining. Only a movie like Eragon could produce this. Thank you, Christopher Paolini.

We Valjeans came to a conclusion: individually, Eragon was worse than any of the Twilight movies, save for possibly the last one. However, as a whole, Twilight as a series outdid Eragon, because is was long, boring, tiresome, and far more drawn out than it had to be. As a matter of fact, we tried something out of a hunch and looked up the plot for the books in Wikipedia; we then looked up the plot for episodes of Star Trek and found that individual episodes had more story than all of the Twilight books combined. So don't worry, we still have plenty on Twilight.

Years went by and we learned from our mistake. A few weeks ago week, it's my pleasure to announce that we, the blasted fools, plugged in another bad movie marathon, this one named Bertrand, and we saved the worst movie for last. Are you ready? Let's get started:

BIONICLE: THE LEGEND REBORN

Drive by review: this is Barbie for Boys. The animation is poor and clunky; the actors are posing with their voices; and the band of protagonists unite together with cringe-worthy ease. It's kind of campy, although it doesn't amp the camp up to eleven like it should have, because it wants to take itself seriously as a story about superheroes, saving the world, and bravery.

The Legend Reborn starts off on the wrong foot right away, since it begins with the infiltration of Makuta into the body of Mata Nui, enslaving the Matoran and doing evil stuff, except I'm not sure if any of that was mentioned by name. If you followed the Bionicle storyline prior to this movie, you knew that all of the characters lived inside of Mata Nui, who as it turned out was a giant robot, so huge that he had entire island chains inside of him, and Matoran were people inside of him who kept him running. It was really weird.

Do you know what wasn't too weird and made a bit more intuitive sense? The Mata Nui Online Game, which was epic. It was back when Bionicle was cool, and I can't stress this enough, that it was cool. I have very nostalgic memories of a dignified, epic telling of the Bionicle story that rose beyond being a mere advertisement for the toys.

It's hard to explain what all made Bionicle so unique, but I'll try, since it has inspired me as a writer almost as much as other major influences like Star Wars. I insist that you go play MNOG and get immersed in the original Bionicle world and its storyline. It has an atmosphere about it that makes it larger than life, mysterious, intriguing, and unique. It was a special world that I wanted to immerse myself in, and it even had

After its glorious third year, Bionicle got a lot less interesting, because they took away a lot of the mysticism in the storyline. They made the heroes less special, and ventured off of the original setting that made the story so fresh. The most significant grievance was changing the nature of the Makuta, a satanic entity who was the jealous brother of the much-adored god Mata Nui. They made him a cyborg, one of many Makuta, and changed his name to the drastically less mystical sounding Teridax, which sounded like it came from a bad fan fiction. They then changed the mythology even further by changing Mata Nui from a god sent by the Great Beings to the aforementioned giant robot. It was very, very stupid.

Then there's this movie, which some people defended, but an honest reviewer like me could see for what it was. That is to say, it's that mentally challenged kid with a heart of gold. Okay, maybe it's heart isn't that golden, because this movie was an obvious cash grab so that the LEGO company could make a little extra money on the side, but the film itself isn't too cynical and has a positive spirit. Other than that, any objective viewer can say that its characters are flat, its storyline is incomplete, its plot is unoriginal, its world is uninteresting, its voice acting is cartoony, its animation is an afterthought, and its atmosphere is uninspired. I can't stress that last part enough: the old Bionicle had a whole ton of atmosphere, and this doesn't have any.

The movie doesn't even succeed as a toy commercial, because the movements of the characters really show off their awkward proportions. Perhaps strong characters with in intriguing stage presence could make up for that, but clearly the movie doesn't have that either. So what you have is an advertisement for action figured that brings attention to just how awkward these figures are when they're actually in action. Does that sound like a winning move?

Otherwise, it's harmless if you want to show it to your kids, although you want them to be intrigued by something, I recommend that you show them MNOG and get immersed in that world, pretending that the latter storylines never happened. It will be much cooler that way.

BARBIE IN THE NUTCRACKER

An actual, proper Barbie movie, made for girls. Barbie in the Nutcracker is a little darling, much hated by my sisters. As they have made sure to remind me, the characters mistake a cardboard cutout of a castle for the real deal, even as they're walking through its front door! Yes, this is a stupid movie alright. It doesn't operate under any human logic, and like most direct-to-DVD films, the characters were cardboard cutouts.

The main character, "Barbie Nui," the bland female equivalent of Mata Nui, has no personality. She does have a name, Clara, but let's be honest — you're not going to think of her as Clara. For crying out loud, the movie's name is Barbie in the Nutcracker, so for all intents and purposes her name is Barbie. Meanwhile, as with any Mary Sue, the movie pretends that she has a personality, but her traits are all generic positive attributes. If I can remember correctly, she possesses cleverness, kindness, and bravery. Incidentally, she has these exact same traits in every Barbie movie.

Barbie films have bad animation in general, and this was the first computer animated Barbie film, coming out in 2001, so its animation was especially bad. For example, when Barbie does ballet, something about her thighs looks disturbingly unnatural, even by Barbie standards. I also get a kick out of the hair, because as much as the Barbie franchise loves hair, they animate it as one ugly, solid piece of matter. Some of the characters also have the oddest 'do's, like the aunt who gives Barbie the nutcracker. It has some sort of weird spiral going on in back that I can't describe, and you'd just have to check out the movie for yourself to know what I'm getting at.

This movie wasn't as bad as The Legend Reborn, though, because in its defense it at least based itself off of one of the great ballets. And on that note, the music wasn't half bad, for obvious reasons. So for me, at least, it was a more entertaining watch than Barbie for Boys, because it had a classic story. Other than that, this isn't my choice for entertainment, nor should it be anyone's.

THE WIZ

The Wizard of Oz is a fantastic, classic fairytale with unforgettable, striking imagery and timeless characters. The movie is one of the most iconic films ever made, arguably one of the definitive entries in our movie culture. There have been countless adaptations, unofficial sequels and prequels, and spoofs of The Wizard of Oz, generally being quite entertaining. Many television shows, if they go on long enough, will eventually feature episodes mimicking The Wizard of Oz, along with A Christmas Carol and It's A Wonderful Life. It's one of those phenomenons that stands on its own as truly inimitable, and there will never be another Wizard of Oz. Things that base themselves off of The Wizard of Oz also, with few exceptions, turn out to be delightfully entertaining.

The Wiz is one of those exceptions. It isn't too difficult to explain why, either. It's a musical, and the cardinal sin of any musical is to have uninteresting music. As the movie trudged on, I found myself looking at the clock, because it was boring, and we often zoned out during the musical segments. It just wasn't that interesting, and that's a shame.

Maybe I'm missing something here. People have praised the stage version and said that it's better than the movie, and I've witnessed it before where a song sounds boring until sung by the right vocals. When my high school put on a production of Beauty and the Beast, the short guy that they had playing the Beast made "If I Can't Love Her" into the blandest song ever. He technically hit all of the notes, but he sang it with so little personality that I didn't even perceive the song's tune. When the play finished, I had no interest in hearing that song again. Then I discovered a

One thing that I'm sure contributes to the dullness of these songs is that oftentimes the movie completely lacks choreography, robbing the singers of any chance to be expressive. This isn't all of the songs, but it describes enough of them that it becomes a problem. And by no choreography, I don't just mean that they don't dance. I mean that they're not moving, period. No walking, no adjusting their body language, nothing. You'd expect more out of a movie that has Michael Jackson in it.

That's not to say that all the songs are boring. Most people are familiar with "Ease On Down the Road", and that's a gem. I'm also a little bit partial to "No Bad News", and I can hum its tune. Outside of those two, though, the songs are boring, and I know that it's possible to produce consistently interesting songs. Les Miserables did it; Fiddler on the Roof did it; The Sound of Music did it; Oklahoma did it; Beauty and the Beast did it; The Lion King did it; The Phantom of the Opera did it; Mary Poppins did it; Godspell did it; Grease did it; Annie did it; Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory did it; and most importantly of all, Bewitched and the original Wizard of Oz did it. One can argue that I shouldn't put my standards so high, but I say that I should put them that high. Shouldn't I have a standard somewhere that posits that a musicals music should be entertaining? And if it's not entertaining, then it is what it is. What am I supposed to say, that a musical is boring and unentertaining, but otherwise enjoyable? What kind of a review is that?

Let's be clear about something, though. I'm not attacking the makers of this movie. I understand that good art is hard to make, and I have no particular talent with music, so I know that I wouldn't do much better. They aren't grand masters of the craft, but unfortunately it takes grand masters of the craft to write music that's entertaining. Not too many people can do it, so those whose musical credentials read "better than average" still aren't good enough to entertain us. I give them credit for trying, but I don't give them a trophy for succeeding, because they didn't.

Except with their main song, "Ease On Down the Road". As I've said, it's a good song, so the movie isn't completely devoid of merit. I can't speak for others when I say that "No Bad News" is a good song, though. That's just me. If you watch the movie, you might dislike it, but you might find another song that just barely fits your fancy, and you can advocate for that one. There are enough songs in there for that to possibly happen. No guarantees, though, because the music truly is boring, as a general rule.

Outside of the music, the movie's other fault is the sets and cinematography. Personally, I like the sets, because they make the movie feel like an on-screen stage musical, but the lighting doesn't do them justice. Personally, I'm not averse to the idea of darker lighting in and of itself, since it gives us a very different type of Oz that's dimmer and grittier, which puts the film in the green light for having its own distinctive vision. Visually, the film is distinct and can't be mistaken for anything else, and I admire that. It's also nice to give an Oz with an all-black populace its own distinctive "black" feel. However, I don't believe that this decision benefits the overall impression that the movie makes, because it's difficult to take in the beautiful sets and appreciate the choreography and costume designs. It makes the setting appear to have less depth, and everything becomes two-dimensional. I can even see it being argued that creating a run-down, ghetto-like "black" Oz as being a twinge racist, although I'm not sure where I'd fall in that discussion if it were to be had.

Overall, the film just doesn't deliver, which is sad, because it's hard to go wrong with an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. I'd give the play a chance, but it's entirely likely that I will never watch this movie again, because it's simply so boring and only serves to waste my time.

FOODFIGHT!

Here we go. The worst that we saved for last. Foodfight! first came to our attention when the Nostalgia Critic reviewed it, and it was one of the less savory films he had reviewed, which was pretty impressive considering his library of bad films. It's interesting, because in spite of how insanely bad it is, there aren't too many reviews of it on the internet. No Honest Trailers, no "Everything Wrong With Foodfight! in 15 Minutes or Less," no HISHE parody, nothing. The only prominent cinephile to review it was Doug Walker. So I feel privileged to be one of the few to tackle this beast, although it puts some pressure on me to write knowing that I'm something of a vanguard. I really wish I had it in me to write something that would function as a guiding light to future reviewers who might wish to jump on the bandwagon, to set the standard for reviews of this movie.

Alas, I don't have it in me. Not today, as I sit on this chair and try to recall all of the mind-bogglingly stupid things that happened in this congenital defect of a movie. However, yes, I actually bought this movie. I own it, and you can bet your sweet milk money that I plan on watching it again. Maybe someday I will come back and do a scene-by-scene recap of Foodfight!, reacting to each and every one of its individual moments with as much comedy as I can muster.

But for now, I'm just reviewing the film, the worst that I saved for last. And it's true; it was the worst. All the movies leading up to this were pretty bad, but Foodfight! delivered. While everything else was bland and difficult to enjoy, Foodfight! entertained us with every passing moment, because we never ran out of things to laugh at. I have to admit that I was worried that the Nostalgia Critic had selected only the worst parts in his review, but Foodfight! was jam-packed with one bad moment after another, leaving us incredulous as to how such a film could actually exist.

Seriously, I came down on The Wiz for demonstrating that it took more than just better-than-average talent to make a good movie. At least in the other movies you can see how talented people actually tried to make a good produce. But there's no accounting for Foodfight! I have seen college students put together better animations than this. I have seen fanfiction writers put together a better story. I have heard kindergartners read their lines better than some of the voice actors in this bad egg. Where did all of the talent go? Where?

Because it's intended to be a comedy, it's funny. Kind of. For all the wrong reasons, really, but we were still laughing, because the movie consistently gave us reasons to laugh at it for trying so hard and failing so spectacularly. Every single joke that this movie makes is lame, with no exceptions.

Usually, I can list a few redeeming qualities, one or two things that were genuinely good. For as much as I absolutely hated Man of Steel, I loved Antje Traue as Faora. For as much Star Trek Beyond disappointed me, I genuinely laughed along with its sense of humor, and got emotional when they paid tribute to Leonard Nimoy. However, Foodfight! has nothing, at least nothing intentional. Which was a relief. I often get tired of holding back somewhat on an otherwise bad movie because it has at least one redeeming quality. It's hard to actually suck in every conceivable way, but Foodfight! does it, and I'm able to completely bash it for everything that it is. It feels good!

The animation, for example. It is worse than The Legend Reborn, or even Barbie in the Nutcracker. In fact, it's the worst animation I've ever seen in any film. They don't even reach the quality of 90's video games. I'm pretty sure that someone could make a better-animated film than this by playing The Sims. Sometimes, when the characters moves, it looked like the animators were working through a glitch in their software, because their movement was so unnatural.

The characters are everything you've seen before, except for less. Dex Dogtective is an aviator-jacket-and-fedora-wearing scoundrel of a sleuth, with ripoff personality traits of Rick Blaine thrown in, making him the most interesting character in the film, albeit still a stereotype with no real depth. There's Sunshine Goodness (Oh the name!), whose sole character trait consists of being Dex's girlfriend with a sunshiny personality. There's Daredevil Dan, the annoying sidekick who is the annoying sidekick. There's Lady X, the femme fatale who turns out to be the bad guy. And that's about it as far as characters go. That's literally all you need to know, and you understand the entire cast of this film.

The story: it's been done to death, and even then it couldn't be followed. I mean, the story takes place in a world parallel to our own where the food mascots are real, and what happens in the real world has some effect on what happens in the fictional world, sort of like The Lego Movie. Except the rules for this interaction are never clear. It's indicated that the food brands, as personified by their mascots, can interact with the real world, but you don't know exactly how that works. Sometimes they live in an abstract world, but at other times they're running around in the real world and need to physically get across the grocery store in order to check out the manager's computer. When they do this, apparently these abstract entities can interact with humans, but humans may or may not be able to see them. How do they travel from one world to the other? Does their world exist in an alternate universe? Does it exist physically inside of the shelves? The movie indicates that the grocery store aisles physically transforms into a city at night, but I'm not quite sure how this works. Nothing about this makes sense!

I can't even give this film credit for at least having good intentions, like many direct-to-DVD films aimed at children. Among other things, it has fetish humor ("This will be more fun than a spanking!"), which doesn't belong in a children's film. It's also a shameless attempt at product placement, which is probably the only reason that Foodfight! ever existed in the first place. It pretends that it has a moral about not putting "evil products" on the shelves, but I don't know what qualifies as an evil product and how any of this connects to real life. There is absolutely nothing good about this movie, body and soul, so I have to give it a resounding F.

Even so, I insist that you buy it and see it for yourself. This films is an absolute goldmine.