Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Greek/American Fig Spreads

      It's spread/jam/jelly/preserves time once more.  My local Shop-Rite has been remodeling a lot the past year or two, and has also changed its assortments of available products.  Including the deli section, which now has several new shelves and subsections.  All of this explains why I espied a new spread recently, amidst the cold cuts and specialty cheeses.  Specifically, an orange fig spread, and a chili fig spread, both from Divina.

     As you can tell from the post's title, Divina's wares are both Greek and American in nature.  Several decades ago, a man named Phil Meldrum (who from context clues I think is American, but this was not mentioned) was on vacation on an unidentified Greek island with his wife.  It sounds like it was quite a life-changing experience for him, as he was overcome by the place's atmosphere, culture, history, and food.  All of this caused him to start a business importing and distributing traditional Mediterranean foods.  So, in 1996, in New York City in the U.S., FOODMatch, Inc. was born.  This overall company has developed and nurtured a slew of brands, of which Divina is the flagship one.  Others include Espirit de Sel, LaMedina, Beaufor, Olivista, Saint Louis, Peppadew, and Barnier.  FOODMatch's brands are fairly specialized--they seem to focus mostly on selling olives, spreads, and antipasti, for sale to groceries, restaurants, and olive bars*.  As for Divina, this brand consists of various types of olives and spreads.  Alternate flavors for the latter include Calabrian chili orange spread, caramelized onion spread, sour cherry spread, date spread, fig & cocoa spread, Peruvian pepper jam, Muffuletta olive salad, Dijon mustard, and basil pesto, to name just a few.  Evidently FOODMatch offers over 400 different products in total, from 15 different nations.  (Again, the countries aside from Greece are unnamed, but presumably all located around the Mediterranean Sea region.)  As for other details, some, but not all of their wares use non-GMO ingredients, and some but not all are Kosher.  Although none currently are Halal-appropriate.  There was no mention of allergens, gluten, or whether their products are okay for vegans, either, so if any of these issues are important to you, it's best to check online before you buy.

Divina chili fig spread:  This was brownish in color, very shiny, with yellow seeds visible.  Not much of an odor.  Kind of an odd flavor--sweet and spicy.  I had some plain, and some on bread.  Both ways tasted pretty similar.  It didn't seem that spicy at first, but did build up a little over time.  Decent overall, but not awesome.  Maybe a bolder spice bite would have been an improvement.

Divina orange fig spread:  Looked identical to the previous.  But did have a sweetish odor.  Also a sweet taste, with orange flavor detectable.  I had some plain off of a spoon, and then on bread.  Good.  Again, decent but not great.  So overall I'd give both of these a mild endorsement.  When it comes to fig-based spreads I preferred Braswell's take on it (see my post on April 1st, 2023 for more on that).  Furthermore, I think Braswell's was a bit cheaper, too.

 *  The immature part of me was struck by this term, and I want to believe that there are actually taverns that serve only olives, or at least serve only olives and olive-flavored liquors and such.  Sadly, I doubt this is true, and "olive bars" are probably just separate sections within a regular grocery store or restaurant, like a salad bar.  Reality can be such a buzzkill sometimes.

Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Three Unusual Chocolate Bars

      Today's selection is one I've explored before--odd or at least atypical flavors of chocolate bars.  In fact, I've done this six previous times:  August 20th and October 22nd of 2012; March 21st and September 20th in 2015; January 17, 2016; and April 27th in 2019.  The three I tried recently were the hazelnut butter dark chocolate bar from Hu, the 100% cocoa concoction from Lindt & Sprungli, and the milk chocolate with corn flakes from Ritter Sport.

     I've already reported on several products from Lindt & Sprungli, including quite a bit about the company's history in the April 27th, 2019 post.  So I won't repeat myself here.  However, the other two chocolatiers are new to me.  Hu Products, LLC, which also goes by Hu Kitchen, is based out of Texas.  It was founded by Jordan Brown, Jessica Karp, and Jason Karp.  These folks liked chocolate, but were also super into eating healthy.  Since they felt the chocolate on the market didn't measure up to their standards, they started making their own.  Partly because Jason Karp had/has some sort of auto-immune disease.  The trio were inspired by the teachings of dieticians Mark Hyman and Mark Sisson as well.  (It should be said that many doctors and dieticians disagree strongly with Hyman and Sisson's theories.  The two Marks push a diet which is related to the Paleo one, which I discussed in more detail in my post on December 13, 2015, and is rather controversial.)  Anyway, after leasing a building in 2011 and developing their recipes, they opened a restaurant in Greenwich Village, NYC, in September of 2012.  At some point they opened up a facility in Texas, although the chocolate I ate is listed as being made in Italy.  Hu makes dark chocolate bars, milk chocolate bars, baking chocolate, and some snacks.  Staying with their paleo and vegan diet philosophies Hu's products lack the following ingredients:  cane sugar, refined sugar, sugar alcohols, erythritol, dairy, soy, lecithins, and emulsifiers.  Although, surprisingly, on another part of my product label it says the product may contain almonds, cashews, pistachios, and dairy.  (Which kind of negates the "vegan" designation, I think.)  Also, their facilities process tree nuts, soy, dairy, and wheat.  If you're curious about the name, "Hu" is short for "human."

     Alfred Ritter GmbH & Co. KG is based out of Germany.  Back in 1912 Alfred Eugen Ritter and Clara Ritter started the company in Stuttgart--Bad Cannstat.  By 1930, the company expanded, and moved to the town of Waldenbuch.  And then, the official company website history discusses Nazism, which seems a tad unusual for a candy seller.  Specifically, by 1935 the impending war made certain ingredients like chocolate difficult to acquire, so Ritter switched to selling things like jelly-based confections.  By 1940 production shut down entirely.  Possibly because Alfred Ritter refused to join the Nazi party, or NSDAP.  Because of this, after World War II was over, during the American occupation, Ritter was offered and allowed to become the mayor of Waldenbuch.  Ritter started making chocolate again when supplies opened up in 1950.  Ritter seems particularly focused on treating its employees and producers well, and trying to be as environmentally friendly as possible.  In 1990 it supported sustainable chocolate farming in Nicaragua.  In 2002 the factories started running on renewable energy sources.  By 2020 the company itself was carbon neutral.  By 2025 Ritter aims to have this happen with all its partners and supplier as well.  The Ritter Sport brand name was suggested by Clara Ritter, since their differently shaped chocolate bars would fit into a sport jacket pocket without breaking.  Currently the business manufactures about 40 different kinds of chocolate, some of which are vegan, and free of lactose and gluten.

Hu hazelnut butter dark chocolate bar, 70% cocoa:  The exterior looks like a typical chocolate bar, being dark brown, but the interior is a lighter shade of brown.  The taste was rather unpleasant, with the usual amount of bitterness from dark chocolate.  (For those that don't recall, I don't like dark chocolate much in general--I prefer the milder, sweeter flavor of milk chocolate much more.)  The hazelnut does cut the nasty dark chocolate taste a bit.  I could finish it, so I guess that's faint praise?  It grew on me a tiny bit, so maybe I would rank this as one of the better dark chocolate offerings, almost mediocre.  But I still would never buy it again, and would only recommend it to folks that like dark chocolate.

Lindt & Sprungli 100% cocoa dark chocolate bar:  First off, the percentage listing of 100% is a little misleading.  I looked online, and some sites noted that "100%" cocoa chocolates sometimes had a tiny smidgen of cocoa butter.  As long as it's not more than  .25% the bar can still be listed as "100%," due to rounding, I suppose.  Anyway, I took a look at the ingredients for this bar, and sure enough, "cocoa butter" is an ingredient.  So, it's not "pure" cocoa.  But, long story short, this tiny amount of non-cocoa didn't make an appreciable difference.  This was utterly gross and revolting.  Bitter as hell, and not in a good way at all.  I figured I would hate this, due to my chocolate preferences, and I was right.  I don't see how anyone can enjoy this--is it just a dare food, or to make yourself seem badass?  And it's not for cooking, it's for eating as a chocolate bar!  Oh, and it was very thin, and a dark brown color.

Ritter Sport milk chocolate bar with corn flakes:  Yeah, so I covered myself a little, and was relieved to locate at least one milk chocolate bar with weird additives, in this case, corn flakes.  It was a light brown hue with lumps visible on the bottom, evidently the corn flakes.  As alluded to before, the shape of the bar was different, as it was more squarish than rectangular.  The texture was regular chocolate with the crunch of the flakes.  The taste was pretty good.  Good milk chocolate, and the corn flakes added something, too.  Nice flavor pairing.  So at least one of my chocolates for this post was legitimately good!  Not my favorite or anything, but more than solid.  I recommend this, and will seek out other Ritter offerings to compare and contrast.

Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Ouzo, and a Writing Announcement

      It's been a while, so let's discuss an alcoholic beverage again.  My favorite type of hard liquor--one flavored with anise.  Today's post is about the Greek version of this, called ouzo.  The one I tried was Ouzo 12, from Kaloyiannis--Koutsikos SA Volos.

     According to what I read online, ouzo's origins date back to the 14th century, when monks on Mt. Athos made a liquor called tsipouro.  One version of this was flavored with anise.  Then, skip ahead several hundred years, after Greek independence in the 19th century, when Greeks began making their own liquors again.  In 1856 a man named Nikolaos Katsaros began distilling ouzo in the town of Tyrnavos, which he dubbed Tyrnavou.  Ouzo got a real boost in popularity when another anise-flavored drink, absinthe, was banned in much of the world in the early 1900's (see my post on October 18, 2015 for more on that drink, and its banning.)  By 1932 traditional ouzo was made using a copper container for distilling.  Aside from anise, many other herbs and botanicals are used for flavoring, such as fennel, mastic, cardamom, coriander, cloves, and cinnamon.  Although exactly which ones, and in what amounts are usually a trade secret.  I also couldn't find out what grain or fruit is the base of the alcohol.  The resulting "ouzo yeast" is then distilled.  The beginning and end parts of this process are then removed, and distilled again, while the middle part is then the ouzo.  That's the traditional way.  Some modern distillers "cheat" by mixing the ouzo yeast with a premade ethyl alcohol, as this is cheaper.  Also, like champagne, tequila, and bourbon, only ouzo made in Greece, using some proscribed manufacturing methods, can legally be marketed as "ouzo," at least in the EU.  For example, all official ouzo has to use at least 20% ouzo yeast to qualify, and the result must have an alcoholic content of between 37.5 to 50%.  Then there's the mystery of the name.  Reportedly, back in the 1800's silkworm cocoons were stamped "uso Marsiglia," or "for use in Marseille."  This became synonymous with saying something was of "superior quality."  Then a visiting doctor had some of the traditional Greek liquor and loved it, remarking it was "uso Marsiglia," and the first part of the expression stuck as the name.  Although others claim the name is from the Turkish word for grape, "uzum."  (Maybe grapes are the base for ouzo sometimes?)  As with other anise liquors, consumers often mix it with water and/or ice, which often causes the resulting mixture to go milky white, called the "louching."  Other drinkers take it straight, but combined with food such as fish, fries (chips), olives, cheese, etc.

     On the bottle I bought it mentions that its ouzo has been made since 1880.  Although this evidently refers to the original recipe or tradition, since the company has only been bottling it since 1950.  The website offers yet another explanation of the name "ouzo," as it claims it comes from the Italian word meaning aniseseed, "uso."  (For the record, when I looked online, sites said "uso" means "use" in Italian, and "aniseseed" in Italian is "seme d'anice," so this explanation doesn't appear correct.  Although I'm not a linguist, nor do I know anything about Italian, so keep that in mind.)  Kaloyiannis-Koutsikos (sometimes rendered with a "g" replacing the "y" in the first part of the name), is in turn owned by W.S. Karoulias.  This larger company partners with many other wineries, distilleries, and breweries.  Some examples include Anhydrous, Barafakas, Lakonia, Yamas, Paulaner, and Jagermeister.  Additionally, the "12" part of the title is a call back to the number put on ouzo barrels dating back to the 1880's.

Ouzo 12:  It had a clear color, and an anise-y odor.  The taste was also anise-y, or to my palate, good.  As far as other anise-flavored liquors, I thought it was considerably better than aguardiente, but not as great as Arak Razzouk.  Or about on par with Yeni Raki or Sambuca.  Which all means that it was tasty, and I quite enjoyed it.  If you like anise flavoring, you'll probably like this one, too.  The anise flavor was bold, and strong enough.  I had mine plain, as a shot.  I didn't feel the need to water or ice it down, so I didn't get the louching effect or anything.  So overall a more than solid booze, and I would recommend it.  

     We're not done with anise-flavored liquors.  We NEVER will be!  (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but hopefully there will be at least a few more.  Definitely sambuca (Italy), and perhaps Armenian oghi, Bulgarian mastika, and French pastis.  And any others I can locate.  And yes, I will cover non-anise liquors too--I'm an enthusiast, but I have my limits.

     Finally, I'm happy to report that "Death's Garden Revisited," the cemetery-themed anthology I was a part of which came out in paper format about a year ago, is now out in electronic format.  It's $5.99 to buy, or $0.00 if you have Kindle Unlimited.  So head on over and help yourself to some fun, poignant, interesting, and sometimes morbid tales about the places where the dead are buried.

Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Cake Bites

      This was another in my long list of foods from my alternate Shop-Rite grocery, located a few towns over.  Specifically, something called cake bites, which are kind of a hybrid between cakes and cookies, brought to us by the fine folks at Cookies United, in Islip, Long Island, NY.  I tried two versions--their frosted coffee cake kind, and the iced blueberry cobbler one.

     The company that made these products is kind of in between, age-wise.  It's far from ancient, but neither are they a very recent enterprise.  In 1994 Louis Avignone and Wally "Famous" Amos founded the company, later known as United Baking.  Later, this was divided into two entities--the sales and marketing part called Uncle Wally's (presumably run by Wally Amos), and the manufacturing arm and parent company, called United Baking.  Cookies United is in turn a subsidiary of these companies.  And then there are four main brands--Cake Bites (which are the products I'll discuss in detail), Bake Shop Bites (which makes a few specialized cookies like macaroons and brownies), Cookie Jar (which sells kits for making cookie houses) and Baker's Baker (which handles gourmet cookies sales in bulk).  Aside from the two I tried, alternate flavors of Cake Bites include vanilla iced, sweet lemon layers, the chocolate tuxedo, strawberry shortcake, filled Cake Bites, M & M minis, crumbles, and Cake Bites associated with famous movies and characters, such as Marvel, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Star Wars, and the upcoming Trolls line.  If you're so inclined, the official company website also sells a decent amount of merchandise, such as t-shirts, hoodies, grocery bags, key chains, coffee mugs, and pillows.  They also encourage consumers to suggest their own flavor ideas.  Although I don't know what happens if they like your idea--do you get credit in the flavor name?  A cut of the sales?  Or just the satisfaction of knowing your flavor was considered good, and the experience of eating a (hopefully) tasty treat?

Cake Bites, iced blueberry cobbler:  These were little cubes, about 1 inch (about 2.5 cm.) square.  The cake part was in three layers--two yellowish-white layers with a blue interior layer.  And then a white frosting covering the layers, with blue and purple sprinkles on it.  The texture was slightly crunchy on the outside, with a soft cake-y inside.  And it tasted....like cake.  I like cake in general, and this was a good example of one, with nice blueberry and vanilla flavors.  And despite being boxed and bagged up (i.e., it wasn't fresh), the cake itself was still soft and tasty, not stale or anything.  I really enjoyed this--it was like getting little bite-sized pieces of cake, as a quasi cookie.

Cake Bites, frosted coffee cake:  Same size and shape as the previous.  Only this time the two yellowish-white layers enclosed a dark brown layer.  And the icing was white, but with light brown streaks.  Same texture as the previous.  These were quite delicious.  I'm a sucker for cinnamon, and this had a bold cinnamon taste to it.  Really sweet, and the coffee cake layers were good as well.  I probably like this kind a bit better than the previous, but that one was really good, so this isn't a major criticism at all.

     So overall this was an extremely pleasant surprise, and rates my strongest recommend.  A really excellent and new kind of dessert.  I will definitely buy these again, and will eagerly try the other Cake Bite kinds that I can.  My local Shop-Rite just started stocking at least one of these Cake Bites, so I might not even have to drive as far to satisfy my sweet craving.  And if I see the other three United Baking/Cookies United brands I won't hesitate to try them, too.

The 11 Worst Movies Ever

      For the past few years, when I've discussed movies they've all been ones I at least liked, if not loved.  Let's flip that around today, and talk about films I actively despise.  So I've thought about it, and I'm going to present my least favorite movies ever.  Movies that I, to paraphrase a famous Roger Ebert quote, "HATED, HATED, HATED."  Sometimes so much that I couldn't finish them.  (Although, I'm being fair--I'm not cheating and including films I only saw a few minutes of.  To be on this list I had to see a fair chunk of it-- at least a third to a half of it.)  As you'll see, there is a mix on my list.  Some of these choices practically no one enjoyed, others are considered mediocre, and some are even regarded as being very good or excellent by most viewers.  In other words, the average reader will surely disagree with some of my picks, perhaps strongly.  But I'm not being click bait-y here--these are my honest opinions.  And I'll explain why I hated each one.  So even if you disagree, you'll know why I feel the way I do.  Anyway, let's get to it.  These aren't in any particular order.  For each one I'll include their release date, and their ratings on both the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB), and Rotten Tomatoes (RT) (Both critics' ratings and general audiences', in that order), as well as some info about their cast and/or crew.  IMDB rates movies on a scale of 1-10, and RT rates them as a percentage, and for both the higher the better.  And some SPOILERS included.

1)  Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966).  IMDB raring of 1.6, RT rating of 0%/20%.  The story behind this movie is pretty interesting.  Fertilizer/insurance seller Harold P. Warren met Academy Award winning screenwriter Stirling Silliphant, and bet him that anyone could make a movie.  So he did, on an estimated budget of $19,000, which even in the mid 1960's was miniscule.  The resulting film was barely released, and achieved little to no critical attention.  Decades later it was popularized by Mystery Science Theater 3000, and enjoyed a cult revival, as a so-bad-it's-good movie.  Alas, in my opinion, it doesn't qualify as this.  It's not stupid fun like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (1959), "Battlefield Earth" (2000), "Troll 2" (1990), "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" (1977), etc.  It's mostly just ploddingly dull.  A family drives around in the country and ends up at a house run by a sinister cult leader, who has a bizarre henchman and a harem of women.  And nothing much of anything happens.  No action, no gore, no sleaze.  Inept acting, writing, directing, camera work, etc.  There are a few laughs had at how terrible it is, but not enough.  It's only 70 minutes long, but it seems much longer.  Reportedly, the only "profit" for the movie was the young actress who played the little girl (Jackey Neyman-Jones) got a free bike, and her family received 50 free pounds of dog food!

2)  Meet the Spartans (2008).  IMDB rating of 2.8, RT ratings of 2%/25%.  Grossed $84,600,000 on a budget of $30,000,000.  Writer/Directors Aaron Seltzer and Jason Frieberg are the creators behind a slew of "parody" movies--"Date Movie" (2006), "Epic Movie" (2007), "Disaster Movie" (2008), "Vampires Suck" (2010), etc.  Most of which, inexplicably, made large profits at the box office.  Most critics savage all of these, as well as many moviegoers.  I had only heard universally bad things about these movies, but I decided to give this one a chance when it was on cable television.  (I didn't directly pay for it, fortunately.)  The critics were spot on.  This was a miserable experience to sit through.  As many have noted, classic parodies like those made by Mel Brooks, The Zucker Brothers, and the British comedy team of Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright/Nick Frost satirize a movie, or genre type with intelligence and humor.  Meet the Spartans, though, and by all accounts their other offerings, just reference other movies.  No sly takes on the story, they just have characters and sets that recreate the original movie(s), but they don't make a joke, or attempt to comment on it.  Instead, they just say some profanity, or do something disgusting, or fart or something.  That's all this movie was.  Incredibly lazy--the lowest hanging "comedic" fruit.  At one point, a character looking like mentally distressed Britney Spears is kicked into a well, while she's wearing a t-shirt that reads "Little Miss Sunshine."  That's the extent of the joke, it acknowledges that this movie exists.  That's the type of "cleverness" in this pile of refuse.  Its creators truly are a cancer to the film industry.  When something's quality is even beneath Kevin Sorbo and Carmen Electra's self-respect and "talent," you know it's bad.

3)  Jumping Jack Flash (1986).  IMDB of 5.9, RT ratings of 27%/58%.  Grossed 29.8 million on an 18 million budget.  When my family first got a VCR in 1986 it was almost magic to me.  I could watch any movie I wanted, whenever I wanted.  No more having to go to the theaters, or having to watch edited versions on TV when they chose to schedule it.  So I loved renting movies.  But, there was a catch--they cost a bit of money, usually $2-$3 or so.  Which sounds cheap, but when you're in high school, making $3 am hour, it's more significant.  My point is, no matter how terrible a rented movie was, I almost always gritted my teeth and finished it.  Not this one.  I should mention, I'm not a fan of Whoopi Goldberg in general.  I find her incredibly annoying in nearly everything she does.  With one exception--1990's "Ghost" was a good performance.  (She was annoying in that, but her character was supposed to be, so it worked.)  But JJF was too much.  I forget the plot, mercifully, but I clearly recall my rage at trying to endure this.  I think I made it about halfway through before realizing no amount of money was worth this.

4)  The Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977).  IMDB score of 3.8, RT's of 10%/13%.  Grossed 30.7 million on a 14 million dollar budget.  I'm a huge horror fan, clearly, and "The Exorcist" as I've covered before (see my March 5, 2022 post), is one of my very favorite films.  So I reacted to seeing the sequel with interest.  Linda Blair and Max von Sydow were back, and joining them this time were quality actors like James Earl Jones, Richard Burton, and Louise Fletcher.  Director John Boorman has made some good films as well, such as 1981's "Excaliber" and 1972's "Deliverance."  But this one was really putrid.  Again, I'm hazy on the plot details, something about a mind reading machine, another demon possessing Regan, and bees in Africa.  But I do remember it wasn't scary, wasn't interesting, and didn't add anything worthwhile to the original story or characters.  Much the opposite.  I've loathed many sequels in my life, but this is the worst one.  It's making me angry all over again, just thinking about it

5)  Revenge of the Dead (AKA Zeder) (1983).  6.1 rating on IMDB, No RT score for critics, 75% for general audiences.  It reportedly grossed about $208,000 (converted from Italian currency) on an unstated budget.  Okay, this one is obscure.  Probably only other obsessive zombie fans such as myself have even heard of this one, much less seen it.  The writer/director Pupi Avati is fairly well regarded in the independent horror circuit.  His "The House With Laughing Windows" (1976) was a weirdly fun outing for me.  But, this one was a zombie movie which forgot to add the zombies.  Almost literally, as I recall.  (It has been decades since I saw it.)  In it, there's something about a mysterious place called the K-Zone, which restores the dead to life, and people investigating that.  Anyway, I just recall being incredibly bored, waiting for anything to happen.  I think that there was one or maybe two zombies at points, who didn't do much of anything.  The movie wasn't scary, not entertainingly bad, not funny, and not compelling in any way.  I don't know why living dead fans often rate this one fairly highly.  One small crumb of a compliment--one of the movie's posters was undeniably awesome.  It features several zombies literally breaking up through the street and sewers.  The exact kind of cool walking corpse action that is sadly missing from the film itself.

6)  J'Accuse (1919).  IMDB rating of 7.7, RT scores of 67%/90%.  Reportedly grossed 3,500,000 on a 500,000 budget (French currency).  As you can tell from the date, this was a silent movie, and in black and white.  The basic plot is about dead soldiers returning from the grave to prevent further warfare.  Sounds potentially interesting, right?  It's not.  It was interminable.  I can barely remember anything happening, other than boring talking.  No interesting characters, or cool action scenes,  or scary moments, anything.  Plus, unlike a lot of pre-1950's or so movies, which were often short, like 70-90 minutes, this one was incredibly long--the version I saw was 166 minutes.  I only watched it the whole way through out of foolish determination not to let the movie win.  And I know some readers might be thinking, of course you found it boring.  It was a silent movie, a vastly different type of cinema, and you're too much of a philistine to appreciate it.  But, you would be wrong.  I've seen several other silent movies, and liked them, such as "The Battleship Potempkin" (1925), "Haxan" (1922), and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920).  So, all in all, potentially compelling idea but horrifically terrible execution.

7)  Movie 43 (2013).  IMDB rating of 4.3, RT scores of 4%/24%.  Grossed $32,400,000 on a $6,000,000 budget.  The story behind this is more interesting than the project itself.  Charles P. Wessler and Peter Farrelly wheedled, conned, and used all of their industry pull and influence to trick stars into appearing in this movie.  For years.  And for this.  It's a series of short vignettes of "comedy."  There are two different main wrap around stories, and I saw the version where kids are excited by a forbidden website which shows extreme videos.  My overall impression about this is what a colossal waste of time and talent.  Because here is some of the cast list--Elizabeth Banks, Halle Berry, Gerard Butler, Anna Faris, Richard Gere, Terrance Howard, Hugh Jackman, Justin Long, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloe Grace Moretz, Chris Pratt, Liev Schreiber, Emma Stone, Jason Sudeikis, Uma Thurman, Naomi Watts, Kate Winslet.  Several big names also directed segments, like James Gunn and Bob Odenkirk.  And the critics were accurate--rather like with "Meet the Spartans," the short vignettes are tedious, obvious, lazy, one-note, and gross-for-gross's-sake crap (often literally!).  I'm not a Farrelly brothers fan in general, but this is still the worst thing they've been involved with that I've seen.  And it leaves me wondering--imagine if these guys had used all their power and influence to convince movie stars to appear in a good movie, instead of this!

8)  Head (1968).  6.4 on IMDB, RT scores of 71%/78%.  Budget of  $750,000, gross of $16,000.  What a disappointment.  Growing up, I really liked The Monkees.  Their music, and their television show.  (I know, "The Pre-Fab Four" didn't write or even perform, much of their music, but still.)  So hearing that this movie was a more adult, edgier project by them, not limited by 1960's/70's TV rules sounded intriguing.  And what we got was this.  It was the perfect negative stereotype of the arthouse movie--weird for weird's sake.  Like the previous film, this one is a series of short sketches, without anything really connecting them.  And it's.....nothing.  Not funny, not interesting, not dramatic, not incisive, with no engaging comments on society, nothing.  It's just random refuse, a complete waste of celluloid.  I tried to sit though it twice, and once made it through an hour, before I had to admit defeat and give up.

9)  Unbreakable (2000).  7.3 score on IMDB, RT scores of 70%/77%.  Grossed $248,000,000 on a $75,000,000 budget.  Yeah, I'm going here--fight me!  For the record, I'm not a big M.Night Shyamalan fan.  "The Sixth Sense" (1999) was good, the first half or so of "Signs" (2002) was okay, and "The Visit" (2015) was sort of fun in a so-bad-it's-good way, but otherwise, ugh!  But Unbreakable was terrible.  Such a dumb plot--a guy doesn't notice that he never got sick or hurt until a train accident in his 40's?!  But he's only affected by water?  And clearly Samuel L. Jackson's character was set up as an antagonist, only nothing comes from it.  The film just ends with no resolution.  I realize that they finally did a sequel much later, but I refuse to watch it to see how they explain everything.  Like a lot of Shyamalan's movies, this one had a decent set up, but a very lackluster execution and conclusion.  I found this film to be incredibly dull.  Even the characters themselves seemed listless and disinterested.  The time I saw this was at a friend's house, on home video.  Out of kindness I soft-pedaled how much I hated this at the time.  But I'll be more direct now.

10)  Eyes Wide Shut (1999).  7.5 on IMDB, RT scores of 76%/74%.  Grossed $162,000,000 on a $65,000,000 budget.  I'm normally a Stanley Kubrick fan.  He's had some duds, but I really like or even love "Spartacus" (1960), "Dr. Strangelove" (1964), "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), "The Shining" (1980), and "Full Metal Jacket" (1987).  Leading up to his movie, I heard that Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise took a year or more out of their busy schedules, just to be part of this magnum opus.  And the result was this...thing.  Cruise plays a guy who is slowly involved in some conspiracy involving a sex club for the rich, while his marriage to Kidman's character is struggling.  Only, again, nothing really happens.  People seem to be following Cruise, threatening violence or murder, or something, only they ultimately don't really do anything.  In what was supposed to be a huge, revelatory scene Kidman's character breaks down and tell her husband a long story about being sexually attracted to some random guy one time.  Which somehow stresses their marriage even though, again, nothing really happened.  She didn't have sex with the man, or even kiss him.  She just thought about it, briefly.  Ohh, so terrible!  This movie even makes giant sex orgies boring, somehow.  To paraphrase Bart Simpson once more, "You know what's more interesting than nothing?  Something!"  And yet many viewers disagree with me, and loved Eyes Wide Shut.  Did we see the same movie?!

11)  My Dinner With Andre (1981)  7.7 IMDB, RT scores of 92%/85%.  $475,000 budget, and disputed grosses--either 1.7 or 5.2 million dollars.  This one had a potentially interesting idea.  It's a movie where 95% or more of it is the conversation between two guys at a restaurant.  But this movie is abysmal.  Because if your movie is just talking, the conversation should be....something compelling.  Interesting, dramatic, thought-provoking, funny.  Engage me in some way.  But it didn't.  The guy doing most of the talking, Andre Gregory, goes on and on about nothing much in particular.  Tedious tales about some theater troupe in Poland, interminable accounts of his family's problems, stuff like that.  For 111 minutes.  It was so dull and unmemorable that I can't recall most of it.  (Which, really, is fortunate for me.)  Somehow the man speaking is both annoying and forgettable.  And I like Wallace Shawn, but he's wasted here--mostly he just encourages the boring guy to keep speaking.  Plus, take another look at those ratings--people love this movie!  How?  I'm halfway convinced that people are lying about their true opinions of the film as a prank.  There are only two amusing things related to this movie, and these are jokes about it from other projects.  In a "Simpsons" episode nerdy Martin Prince is playing a "My Dinner With Andre" video game, with buttons for "Tell me more," and "Bon mot," instead of a joystick or firing buttons, etc.  And in "Waiting for Guffman" Christopher Guest's delightfully quirky character is selling action figures for the characters in "My Dinner With Andre."  (Get it, because there's no action in it!)  So like some of the other picks in this list, a germ of a possibly good idea was ruined with woeful execution.  Sometimes being creative and different aren't enough, you still need to entertain the audience in some way.  My only emotional reaction to this was frustration about wasting my time and attention on it.

     So there we are, my least favorite movies ever.  Feel free to disagree, or even criticize my criticisms.  Opinions are necessarily subjective, after all.  But for me these movies were the most miserable viewing experiences I can recall, and don't ever want to repeat.