Hate Watching with Dan and Tony

Send us Fan Mail
94% on Rotten Tomatoes should feel like a slam dunk. Instead, Obsession (2026) sent us into full detective mode: how does a movie with gorgeous shots, impressive sound design, and strong acting end up feeling so slow, so consequence-free, and so weirdly safe?

We walk through the wish premise (a guy wishes a woman will love him more than anyone in the world), why that setup should be terrifying on a consent and agency level, and why the film keeps slipping away from its own most disturbing idea. We also get specific about what works: a genuinely hilarious helpline call, a couple of scenes that finally lean into horror, and a handful of lines that have become instantly quotable. Then we get into what doesn’t: unclear monster rules, characters who don’t feel like they have consistent opinions, and cutaways right when the story should force real emotional fallout.

Along the way we ask the question we can’t stop asking: is this a horror movie, a thriller, or a collection of TikTok-ready moments stitched together? If you’ve watched Obsession (2026) and loved it, we want to hear why, because our brains are still stuck on the “half measures.” Subscribe for more contrarian movie talk, share this with the friend who defends the 94%, and leave a review with your take: what single rewrite would fix it?

Written Lovingly by AI
Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail
A world where you can literally spend your life on a cup of coffee should be terrifying. Instead, In Time (2011) somehow turns one of the best sci-fi dystopia premises of the last two decades into a story that keeps dodging its own consequences, and we could not let that slide.

We walk through Andrew Niccol’s time-currency concept scene by scene, from the moment Justin Timberlake’s character gets a life-changing windfall to the way the movie handles time transfer, surveillance, and the so-called Timekeepers. Along the way we get into the stuff that matters to anyone who loves film craft: why voiceover often signals a script problem, how music choices can kill tension, and why a police-state setting can’t have “we don’t have the last five minutes of footage” energy. We also give credit where it’s due, because Roger Deakins’ cinematography makes several moments look genuinely stunning even when the logic is melting down.

Then we hit the big pivot: when “time is money” stops being a story engine and the movie becomes a Bonnie and Clyde style bank robbery spree. We talk class zones, tolls, the weird math of the “million years” plan, and the action beats that look unintentionally hilarious. If you’ve ever argued about plot holes, world rules, or why great premises deserve better scripts, you’ll have plenty to yell about with us.

Subscribe for more hate-watching, share this with a friend who loves sci-fi movies, and leave a review with your favorite “wait, how does that work?” moment from In Time.

Written Lovingly by AI
Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail
A comedy can survive bad taste, broad jokes, even a ridiculous set piece, but it can’t survive refusing to commit. We kick things off with a very real spiral about money and sustainability, then take a hard left into a bigger fear that’s creeping into entertainment: AI likeness, synthetic commercials, and what happens when consent becomes optional. That thread sets up the core question we keep coming back to: in a world flooded with content, why does so much of it feel weightless?

Then we get into our main event: Netflix’s Little Brother with John Cena and Eric Andre. The cast is game, the premise has solid bones, and the movie still dodges the one thing it needs most, clear stakes. We talk through the scenes that almost work, the moments that collapse under “reset button” writing, and why a redemption arc can’t land if the story won’t let anyone be truly wrong. Along the way we revisit a rule we’ll scream forever: a reference is not a joke.

To close, we unpack the confusion around Louis C.K.’s new Netflix special and what his return says about comedy culture, platforms, and the ways people justify watching. If you’re thinking about comedy writing, streaming movies, AI in filmmaking, and the ethics of fandom, this one gives you plenty to argue about. Subscribe, share this with a friend who loves movie debates, and leave us a review with the worst comedy trope you’re sick of seeing.

Written Lovingly by AI
Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail
A future where your eyes record everything should make crime harder, truth clearer, and privacy basically extinct. That is the promise of Anon, the 2018 Netflix sci-fi noir starring Clive Owen. We wanted to love the premise. Instead, we end up asking the most brutal question a tech thriller can face: if the movie cannot follow its own rules, why should we believe any of its stakes?

We break down the filmmaking choices that constantly pull us out of the story, especially the stiff first-person POV shots that feel locked to a tripod and the bizarre “gun on a stick” staging that makes tense scenes look like a dated video game. From there we dig into the bigger problems: a surveillance system that is sold as perfect but proves fallible almost immediately, hacking that seems to work differently in every scene, and a mystery that tries to hide the plot instead of building it. We also unpack the twist involving Cyrus and why the motivation never feels earned, plus the movie’s claim that everyone becomes numb and robotic in an always-recording world.

Along the way we hit a few tangents that fit the theme more than you would expect, including a wild story about ChatGPT being discussed in court, plus what we are watching for fun right now and what we are reviewing next. Subscribe, share the show with a friend who loves sci-fi movies, and leave a review. What is the one “future tech” idea you actually think is coming soon?

Written Lovingly by AI
Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT

Send us Fan Mail
The wild thing about War Of The Worlds (2005) is how quickly it earns our trust and how loudly it tests it later. We sit down on Heat Watching and walk through Spielberg’s alien invasion thriller beat by beat, starting with that terrifying, razor-tight opening stretch where ordinary people do the only “heroic” thing available: make one decent choice, then make the next one fast. The sound design, the crowd behavior, the dust-covered aftermath, and the sense of public systems failing all feel brutally real, and we talk about why the movie’s 9/11 allegory still hits.

Then we get into the stuff that makes us argue. Why give Ray a specific job that never pays off? Why does the timeline feel vague when the movie needs us to feel the long grind of survival? And what is the son’s arc actually doing besides forcing a few plot turns? We also talk performances: Tom Cruise is surprisingly great as a messy, selfish dad, while Dakota Fanning runs circles around almost everyone and keeps the emotion honest even when the script gets shaky.

Finally, we go straight for the big debate: the basement detour with Tim Robbins, the rushed sprint to the finish, and a climax that hinges on the common cold instead of a character-driven payoff. If you love Spielberg, disaster movies, alien invasion films, or film criticism that’s equal parts admiration and frustration, you’ll have opinions here. Subscribe, share the episode with a movie friend, and leave a review, then tell us: which scene would you rewrite first?

Written lovingly by AI
Be our friend!

Dan: @shakybacon
Tony: @tonydczech

And follow the podcast on IG: @hatewatchingDAT