Bad is relative.

It's a small world even in cyberspace. When I started writing for einsiders.com, and "speaking" digitally with Stephen and Ken, I thought that they were thousands of miles from me. It never crossed my mind that Stephen would be less that 45 minutes from my home.

"The Crippled Masters" Read the review at badmovies.org

And so it happens that the cyberspace is made even smaller with my introduction to Andrew Borntreger via his wonderful site badmovies.org. After passing many emails discussing choice awful films (perhaps, awful good according to Andrew) like "The Crippled Masters," I discovered that Mr. Borntreger resided only about an hour from my place of residence.

So, Stephen and I had to meet this living encyclopedia of bad film. Last weekend, the wives (Andrew and I are married, Stephen managed to produce an exquisite young woman for the evening) traveled to a trendy Italian restaurant and ate, drank and talked bad movies. The women were bored to tears, Oprah was mentioned.

Andrew consumed several Jack and Cokes and I had one on the rocks. He agreed to talk with us in this interview to discuss his passion for very bad things.

EInsiders.com: What makes a movie bad?

Andrew Borntreger: The site encompasses a great deal more than just bad. B-movies, kung fu flicks, cult films, and anything that seems "quirky" enough are fair game. For the most part I review films which interest my inner b-child, but which your average mom and pop would ignore. Truly bad to me means one thing and that is boring. A film could be insanely inept, but watching a heroic ranger fight undead sorcerers wearing 80's hot pants with his magic whip is awesomely entertaining to me.

"The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" Read the review at badmovies.org

How many movies do you watch weekly, monthly, yearly? Ever just read?

Probably four to six films are digested by my television set every week, everything from old school kung fu to the latest Full Moon offering. Reading is one of my other passions, I have been known to pick up a book and not put it down until finished. Unfortunately the golden eras for some of my favorite authors seems to be over, but I can always dig something musty off my bookshelf and read it all over again.

Where do you get all of the obscure films?

Anywhere possible. The greatest treasures are going out of business sales at independent rental stores or chains. Just wait until the last day, when they are parting with the tapes for three dollars, and ask for a large box. Another fantastic resource is Movies Unlimited. They have a small stockpile of hard to find films, including "The Sound of Horror" ? a Spanish film about invisible dinosaurs in Greece.

Not to mention that in the last year we have seen a slew of b-movies put out on DVD. Anchor Bay has been leading the field, putting out classic Fulci and all of the "Evil Dead" series. One of my readers once asked about a museum for lesser known movies, so they would never be lost. Making thirty thousand digital copies and spreading them across the face of the planet must be the best way ever invented. Needless to say, I love DVD.

How do you digitize the clips--procedure, software, hardware, etc.?

The editing board is a Miro DC30 Plus, it had Adobe Premiere software bundled with the card when I purchased it about three years ago. Expensive for people just wanting to do video capture, but anyone interested in a good editing board for under a grand should look into one. Mpegs are created with Xing's Mpeg encoder, though their website does not seem to be resolving in DNS tonight.

"Bloodsucking Freaks" Read the review at badmovies.org

In practice the procedure is first watching the movie and picking out what will flesh out the review, then doing captures with the Miro board. The Mpeg encoder has a free plugin for Premiere, so making the videos is simple. Sound clips are edited with Creative's Wav Studio (I've been using it for years and it was part of my Soundblaster Live! package), while the still captures are dressed up using an old version of Photoshop.

Was Ed Wood a misunderstood genius or just a bad filmmaker?

What is the best way to describe his talent for making movies? Let me say that Mr. Wood had a knack for making films entertaining for reasons other than intended. Some people find "Plan 9 from Outer Space" one of the funniest films to sit through (that would be the group I am sitting with), while others reach for the eject button.

Most cliched film? Worst big budget film? Worst film all around?

It has to be "Seven Samurai." The plot is generic enough that a person could see it reused in dozens of other movies and television shows. As for specifically referenced, millions of obsessed fans have made sure "Star Wars" gets my vote. (Which is "Seven Samurai," go figure.)

"Batman and Robin" is probably the best example of wasted money.

Few films cause me real physical pain, but "Pigs" is among the all time worst. You read the box and nominally expect something to do with the title animals eating people. Okay, fine - they do eat people, but only because the owner feeds them dead bodies. I wanted to see a haggard woman fleeing from a hungry pack of flesh eating oinkers! There is also a scene with nothing except pigs squealing and a woman screaming, it seems to go on forever. Ick.

Interviewed any directors for whose films you have given bad reviews?

One of the things to remember is that even wretchedly horrible works interest me, sometimes I happily plunk down and watch a movie that earned a skull rating. Who needs run of the mill masochism when wounds to the psyche last so much longer? No matter how the movie comes out, you have to appreciate that the film makers tried. Despite all odds (which all often includes the budget and acting talent available) they made a movie.

"The Dark Power" Read the review at badmovies.org

In light of that, I've spoken with several directors and most understand where I'm coming from. Even when mere mention of the title causes me to hiss and spit like a tortured cat. The most hostile director I've ran across was Gary Goddard, about a year ago he made a point of visiting review sites and lambasting the writers. Seems he was unhappy with what we were saying in reference to "Masters of the Universe." The thing is, I liked it! Gave it three slimes out of a possible five.

Anyway, the other webmasters and myself had fun forwarding his comments around.

Your page demonstrates a huge amount of work. Do you have any other ambitions for the content?

There are plenty of things on my back burner, including an automatic "crazy captions" contest using scenes from B-movies and profiles on monsters from the Godzilla and Gamera films. The problem is time, every week I write two reviews and answer two hundred emails. Lump that in with my Marine Corps duties, plus having a normal life, and I'm buried. Luckily, my body requires little sleep, four hours a night is the average.

Worst movie of 2000?

Good question and for some reason I think missing "Battlefield Earth" (decided to wait for the DVD, it was a forgone conclusion) will invalidate the answer, but my choice has to be "Octopus." Paying any attention to the film will cause more brain damage than being beat over the brain housing group with a large wrench. And I like monster movies...

"The Road Warrior" or "The Postman?"

To keep things brief I'll focus on three points. Copies of neither movie are on hand to view beforehand, so my goal will be to avoid specific issues that I might screw up.

"Six-String Samurai" Read the review at badmovies.org

Life's basic requirements are edible food and potable water. Some might argue for shelter, but you can usually live without shelter. You just might be extremely miserable at times. The Mel Gibson film is set in a arid wasteland and all these idiots are fighting over fuel! In addition to fuel, vehicles require maintenance and replacement parts. Why haven't they switched back to horses or camels? How is supplying water for a small army in the middle of a desert a problem? Why? Why? Why? Meanwhile, the other film has everyone reverting to something more like the society in Colonel America.

Costner is quite good at playing the (very human) reluctant hero, while Gibson has made an art of becoming a mentally unbalanced badass. Enough said there.

A big problem with "The Postman" is the running time, whenever a movie goes much over two hours I often wish they had just made a sequel. In this case we have the "extended Kevin Costner version," which is over three freaking hours long! I can watch both "Mad Max" and "The Road Warrior" in that period of time.

So why would I watch the inherently flawed Australian film over what appears to be a superior American piece (imagine me waving a little flag here)? Suspension of belief. The former hits all the right buttons for me to forget what common sense dictates, plus it is over before I can think about the problem.

Bad movies or good movies, which do you like more? Indulge your guilty pleasures, if you really like "Pretty Woman," I'll try to understand.

Depends on my mood, but usually I'm much more appreciative of something that took a great deal of imagination than anything Hollywood cranks out these days. "Pretty Woman?" Chick flicks are probably the best way to make me leave the room.

Andrew could never just leave the room folks--not without leaving an impression on those left behind. Surfing some of the "bad movie" production company sites such as Troma and Full Moon, and meeting Andrew personally, he seems to be a perfect fit for their target audience. Not a dumbed down creature Heinleinized, visiting the Herbert desert wastelands crawling atop a great worm, or caught beneath Rice's Lastat's enchantment, rather, Andrew brings all those qualities full circle making us appreciate truly good films that all start with lots of bad parts ending up in piles on the cutting room floor or specially boxed on that limited edition DVD.

Bad is necessary.

Jonathan W. Hickman