I love sci-fi. I even love bad sci-fi, but I have to admit that even some of my favorite sci-movies can be pretty stupid, particularly give the fact I'm a physicist, so things bother me that wouldn't bother other people. Kind of like doctors and nurses can find fault with medical shows that seem just fine to me.
A list of everything stupid and unscientific in science fiction movies would get really long, so I'm going to restrit myself to a list of movies with the most ridiculous fundamental premises:
Silent Running (1972)
OK, let's get this one out of the way first, because the fact is I loved this movie. After all, it's got Bruce Dern on a spaceship. What more could you want? The problem is it's based on a really dumb idea; namely, the Earth's environment has gotten so bad they launched a bunch of bio-domes into space with little forests in them - and not just into orbit, but into interplanetary space. Now you don't have to give it too much thought to realize that no matter how hostile the environment on Earth is, it can't be as bad as space, so it would have made a lot more sense to build those little domes on the ground.
But then you wouldn't have a movie.
The Matrix (1999)
This one is going to make some people angry, because some people are crazy into The Matrix. The fact is that the idea that we're all living in a world of virtual reality is actually kind of cool. The problem comes when they tried to cook up a reason it was happening. Using humans as a power source doesn't make any sense at all. Even if you ignore the fact it violates the laws of physics - it takes more energy to keep a body alive than you can extract from it - they never come up with a reason you'd need to invent a complex virtual reality for them. Just knock them out and keep them alive. If you think for a few minutes, you can come up with a whole list of more plausible motivations: using humans as a big computer, experimenting on them, etc. Pretty much anything is more believable than what they came up with.
Slipstream (1989)
This is an obscure one, but it's probably got the dumbest premise of any sci-fi movie I've ever seen. After series of natural and man-made disaster, there's a very strong wind that blows down a canyon. People use it to fly gliders, but only in one direction. Really, that's it. That's the premise. The funny thing is that in spite of this completely nonsensical motivation, it's actually kind of a cool movie. As they travel from place to place, the main characters encounter weird remnants of civilization. Even though it never really goes anywhere, the atmosphere is kind of cool. Also, one of the few post-Star Wars roles for Mark Hamil. There's even a cameo by Ben Kingsley.
Zaat (1971)
A mad scientist dreams of combining man with fish. It's never clear why this is a good idea. No redeeming qualities. It's just a terrible movie from beginning to end.
Showing posts with label Bad Movie Night. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad Movie Night. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Phantasm IV: Oblivion (1998)
IMDB: here
My rating (as a bad movie): 5/5
Netflix: No
Wow, just... wow.
The first Phantasm was a classic. No one's quite sure why, because let's face it, the plot was pretty silly, but for some reason, it was just iconic. The second and third were OK, nothing great, but entertaining.
This one was clearly conceived as the magnum opus, where everything would be "explained". Of course that's not what happens...
The first problem is of course to get out of the certain doom at the end of the last movie. If you recall, Mike (still called "boy" in his mid-30s) is in the process of being changed into some sort of hybrid silver ball/alien thingy, and Reggie is pinned to a wall by like a hundred of the killer spheres. Mike apparently just walked away, and the Tall Man inexplicably lets Reggie go - and then spends the rest of the movie trying to kill him. I don't know, maybe he's like a cat playing with its food.
After that, it's just a confusing jumble. The main thread follows Mike as he develops super powers and travels back in time to find the origin of the Tall Man, who we learn was once a kindly undertaker named Jebediah Morningside around the time of the Civil War. He somehow invents the tuning fork/portal thing, but how exactly this turns him into the evil Tall Man is never explained - nor is anything else.
A second thread follows Reggie, who wanders around, encounters a beautiful woman, and is once again sexually frustrated. I know you're saying you've seen that before, but trust me, this time the end is...interesting.
As for Jody, the dead/undead/possible impostor brother, he keeps popping in and out, "guiding" Mike, but never really being much help, and generally just adding to the confusion.
Without giving away any spoilers, I'll just say nothing is ever really resolved or explained.
That said, there is a certain "charm" to the movie. The atmosphere and the cinematography are pretty good, and most scenes alone work pretty well - if only they would all tie together into something even remotely coherent.
All in all, this has to be one of the most random, confusing, non-sequitur movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot, but I have to say, it's fun to watch just for the jaw-dropping "WTF!?!" of it.
My rating (as a bad movie): 5/5
Netflix: No
Wow, just... wow.
The first Phantasm was a classic. No one's quite sure why, because let's face it, the plot was pretty silly, but for some reason, it was just iconic. The second and third were OK, nothing great, but entertaining.
This one was clearly conceived as the magnum opus, where everything would be "explained". Of course that's not what happens...
The first problem is of course to get out of the certain doom at the end of the last movie. If you recall, Mike (still called "boy" in his mid-30s) is in the process of being changed into some sort of hybrid silver ball/alien thingy, and Reggie is pinned to a wall by like a hundred of the killer spheres. Mike apparently just walked away, and the Tall Man inexplicably lets Reggie go - and then spends the rest of the movie trying to kill him. I don't know, maybe he's like a cat playing with its food.
After that, it's just a confusing jumble. The main thread follows Mike as he develops super powers and travels back in time to find the origin of the Tall Man, who we learn was once a kindly undertaker named Jebediah Morningside around the time of the Civil War. He somehow invents the tuning fork/portal thing, but how exactly this turns him into the evil Tall Man is never explained - nor is anything else.
A second thread follows Reggie, who wanders around, encounters a beautiful woman, and is once again sexually frustrated. I know you're saying you've seen that before, but trust me, this time the end is...interesting.
As for Jody, the dead/undead/possible impostor brother, he keeps popping in and out, "guiding" Mike, but never really being much help, and generally just adding to the confusion.
Without giving away any spoilers, I'll just say nothing is ever really resolved or explained.
That said, there is a certain "charm" to the movie. The atmosphere and the cinematography are pretty good, and most scenes alone work pretty well - if only they would all tie together into something even remotely coherent.
All in all, this has to be one of the most random, confusing, non-sequitur movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot, but I have to say, it's fun to watch just for the jaw-dropping "WTF!?!" of it.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Troll 2 (1990)/Best Worst Movie (2009)
This is an unusual case. I'm reviewing these two movies together, because they really have to be seen as a pair to be fully understood and appreciated. "Troll 2" is unquestionably a top contender in the "so bad it's good" category, while "Best Worst Movie" - the documentary made about "Troll 2" - is genuinely interesting and entertaining.
Troll 2 (1990)
IMDB entry: here
My rating (as a bad movie): 5/5
There's so much bad in this movie that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's start with the title. Based on the title, you'd guess it was the sequel to "Troll", the 1986 movie starting Michael Moriarty, Shelly Hack, and Sony Bono, but you'd be wrong. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the former movie, but there aren't even any trolls in it! The title was just a shameless attempt to leverage the moderate success of the earlier movie.
The plot, such as it is, involves the Waits family moving to the town of Nilbog (spell it backwards, get it?). The young boy is visited by the ghost of his dead grandfather, who warns him to beware of the goblins (not trolls!!) in the town. The ghost grandfather also has some magic powers that are enough to help the boy out a bit and get him into embarrassing situations, but never quite enough to actually solve a problem. It's sort of like Bewitched or I Dream of Jeanie in that regard.
The goblins' game is to trick people into eating some sort of goop that turns them into plants. Why? Because the goblins are vegetarians! Turning people into plants allows the goblins to eat them. This was apparently a way for the the director's wife, who co-wrote the movie, to vent her annoyance at her vegetarian friends.
The dialog is terrible, because it was largely written by the director, an Italian whose English is so bad that he has to be interviewed through an interpreter. Add some horrific acting and low budget special effects, and you have a truly memorable bad movie.
I could go on, but you really have to see it to believe it.
I could go on, but you really have to see it to believe it.
The movie vanished into obscurity for some time, until someone stumbled upon it a few years ago, and it has since become something of a cult phenomenon in the fine tradition of Rocky Horror Picture Show.
The Best Worst Movie (2009)
IMDB entry: here
My rating (as a good documentary): 5/5
For the first few minutes, you may think you have the wrong movie. It seems to be some sort of documentary about a small town and one of its prominent citizens, George Hardy. After a few residents sing the George's praises, the director asks innocently, "Did you know George once made a movie?". No one did. It seems George doesn't talk about it much.
It turns out that 19 years earlier, George Hardy played Michael Waits, the father in Troll 2. As for the child who talked to his dead grandfather, he was played by a young Michael Stephenson, who grew up to make this documentary. You can see an example of their acting ability as well as the movie's most memorable line here.
George had been an aspiring actor when he made Troll 2, but that experience convinced him to give up acting and become a dentist. If you've seen the former movie (or even just watched the clip above), I'm sure you'll agree that this was a wise decision.
The documentary focuses primarily on George's experiences as he revisits his involvement in that film and discovers the cult phenomenon it has become. We also meet some of the other actors and catch up on what they've been up to since.
The documentary focuses primarily on George's experiences as he revisits his involvement in that film and discovers the cult phenomenon it has become. We also meet some of the other actors and catch up on what they've been up to since.
This movie works on a couple of levels. On the one hand, it's great fun to rewatch the worst parts of the first movie and to explore the entertaining world of bad B-movie fandom, but on the other hand it's actually a very effective documentary with some surprising depth. It follows George's journey as he initially embraces the new found notoriety of Troll 2, but eventually becomes disillusioned when he realized that for many people, a bit part in a B-movie was the height of their achievement, and they've spent the rest of their life going to "cons" of one sort or another. On assumes he returned to his "normal" life with a new found appreciation for it.
So make it a double feature night and watch both!
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Movie Review: Ben and Arthur (2002)
IMDB Link: here
My rating: 5/5
You may think you've seen bad movies before, but unless you've seen this, you're wrong. It's been referred to as "'The Room' with gay people", but that's not really fair, because (a) the plots are very different, and (b) "The Room" is much better. Yes, you read that correctly: this movie makes "The Room" look good!
You know you're in for a real treat right from the beginning, as the EZ-Piano version of The Entertainer plays very slowly over the opening credits, who are mostly Sam Mraovich and other people named Mraovich. The direct-to-videotape quality is that of a very mediocre high school film project - made by people who have been held back so many times they're in their mid 20's.
If you enjoy spotting plot holes, glaring inconsistencies and downright goofs, then this is a movie for you. They start right at the beginning and don't let up for an hour and a half.
***********Spoilers*************
The movie opens as our protagonists, Ben and Arthur, are overjoyed to learn that gay marriage has been legalized in Hawaii. They immediately buy plane tickets, but their hopes are dashed a few hours later when the judge issues a stay against his own ruling (huh?), so they decide instead to go to Vermont (couldn't they have done that before?).
At this point, Ben confesses that he still needs to divorce his wife. I gather they believe polygamy is legal in Hawaii, because this didn't become a worry until the change of venue. Ben's wife must not have noticed that he moved out and has been living with another man for some time, because she is caught completely off guard both by his revelation that he is gay and by the divorce papers, which she refuses to sign. Ben assures Arthur that he will contact his lawyer to handle it.
This must be one hell of a lawyer, because they are able to marry just a few days later - among the gently swaying palm trees of Vermont! The ex-wife makes one brief appearance much later in the movie when she shows up and demands - at gunpoint! - that Ben remarry her, but he wrestles the gun away from her and we never see her again.
The side story involves their rather meager existence. We are told Ben is a licensed nurse, but chooses to work as a dish washer because he "has his music" (nurses can't be musicians?). Arthur works as a waiter in the same restaurant, but quits after a run-in with a mildly rude customer. At this point, he realizes he has no skills and no education, and decides to hit up his estranged brother Victor for money to go back to school. His brother doesn't recognize him, because he hasn't seen him in "like seven years", but when he finds out who he is, immediately establishes himself as a "crazy Christian", by asking Arthur if he has found God yet. Arthur, in an attempt to charm his brother out of the money, tells him to stop with the "religious s&%#". Nevertheless, his brother insists that before he gives them any money both he and Ben must come to see him.
This is when the movie starts to get really weird. There would be no problem building very sinister villains out of things mainstream churches have actually said and done regarding homosexuality, but this wasn't enough for the writer. He instead opts to introduce "christian" characters (they appear to be Catholic) whose actions are so bizarre and hateful they would make the Westboro Baptist Church blush.
After not seeing his brother for seven years, Victor becomes completely obsessed with saving his soul. He kills (!!) the lawyer who has been helping them get their marriage recognized in California, but then goes really crazy after he's kicked out of his church for having a gay brother (again,huh?). In desperation, he offers to kill Ben and Arthur. The priest thinks this is a good idea, and hooks him up with a hit man, who only manages to wound Ben. This drives Arthur crazy and he kills the priest by dowsing him with distilled water and setting him on fire (note, at this point he has no evidence the priest was even involved).
Yada yada, Victor shoots and kills Ben, then forces Arthur to get baptized (which the writer seems to believe Catholics do naked). In the end Victor and Ben shoot each other after doing a gay reenactment of the scene between Tony and his sister in Scarface.
Oh, did I mention that there's a completely non-sequitur scene where Ben suddenly becomes abusive and punches Arthur (knocking him out) for being a whiny little bitch? No matter, it's just one of the many unintentionally funny parts.
So congratulations, Tommy Wisceau! Now there's a movie even you can look down on.
My rating: 5/5
You may think you've seen bad movies before, but unless you've seen this, you're wrong. It's been referred to as "'The Room' with gay people", but that's not really fair, because (a) the plots are very different, and (b) "The Room" is much better. Yes, you read that correctly: this movie makes "The Room" look good!
You know you're in for a real treat right from the beginning, as the EZ-Piano version of The Entertainer plays very slowly over the opening credits, who are mostly Sam Mraovich and other people named Mraovich. The direct-to-videotape quality is that of a very mediocre high school film project - made by people who have been held back so many times they're in their mid 20's.
If you enjoy spotting plot holes, glaring inconsistencies and downright goofs, then this is a movie for you. They start right at the beginning and don't let up for an hour and a half.
***********Spoilers*************
The movie opens as our protagonists, Ben and Arthur, are overjoyed to learn that gay marriage has been legalized in Hawaii. They immediately buy plane tickets, but their hopes are dashed a few hours later when the judge issues a stay against his own ruling (huh?), so they decide instead to go to Vermont (couldn't they have done that before?).
At this point, Ben confesses that he still needs to divorce his wife. I gather they believe polygamy is legal in Hawaii, because this didn't become a worry until the change of venue. Ben's wife must not have noticed that he moved out and has been living with another man for some time, because she is caught completely off guard both by his revelation that he is gay and by the divorce papers, which she refuses to sign. Ben assures Arthur that he will contact his lawyer to handle it.
This must be one hell of a lawyer, because they are able to marry just a few days later - among the gently swaying palm trees of Vermont! The ex-wife makes one brief appearance much later in the movie when she shows up and demands - at gunpoint! - that Ben remarry her, but he wrestles the gun away from her and we never see her again.
The side story involves their rather meager existence. We are told Ben is a licensed nurse, but chooses to work as a dish washer because he "has his music" (nurses can't be musicians?). Arthur works as a waiter in the same restaurant, but quits after a run-in with a mildly rude customer. At this point, he realizes he has no skills and no education, and decides to hit up his estranged brother Victor for money to go back to school. His brother doesn't recognize him, because he hasn't seen him in "like seven years", but when he finds out who he is, immediately establishes himself as a "crazy Christian", by asking Arthur if he has found God yet. Arthur, in an attempt to charm his brother out of the money, tells him to stop with the "religious s&%#". Nevertheless, his brother insists that before he gives them any money both he and Ben must come to see him.
This is when the movie starts to get really weird. There would be no problem building very sinister villains out of things mainstream churches have actually said and done regarding homosexuality, but this wasn't enough for the writer. He instead opts to introduce "christian" characters (they appear to be Catholic) whose actions are so bizarre and hateful they would make the Westboro Baptist Church blush.
After not seeing his brother for seven years, Victor becomes completely obsessed with saving his soul. He kills (!!) the lawyer who has been helping them get their marriage recognized in California, but then goes really crazy after he's kicked out of his church for having a gay brother (again,huh?). In desperation, he offers to kill Ben and Arthur. The priest thinks this is a good idea, and hooks him up with a hit man, who only manages to wound Ben. This drives Arthur crazy and he kills the priest by dowsing him with distilled water and setting him on fire (note, at this point he has no evidence the priest was even involved).
Yada yada, Victor shoots and kills Ben, then forces Arthur to get baptized (which the writer seems to believe Catholics do naked). In the end Victor and Ben shoot each other after doing a gay reenactment of the scene between Tony and his sister in Scarface.
Oh, did I mention that there's a completely non-sequitur scene where Ben suddenly becomes abusive and punches Arthur (knocking him out) for being a whiny little bitch? No matter, it's just one of the many unintentionally funny parts.
So congratulations, Tommy Wisceau! Now there's a movie even you can look down on.
Movie Review: Noah's Ark (1999 TV Miniseries)
IMDB link: here
My rating (as a bad movie): 4/5
If you're looking for either a serious Biblical epic or a movie that's intentionally funny, then you should keep looking, but this obscure gem is an absolute must for any bad movie connoisseur.
I totally missed this movie when it came out, but Encore was showing this around the time that the Russell Crowe version of "Noah" came out. Based on the previews, it really looked like a parody (think "Monty Python's Life of Noah"). Then I googled it, and realized it was actually meant to be taken seriously. With that in mind, it's kind of like a horrible car wreck you can't look away from.
Where to start...
First of all, they combine the story of Noah with the story of Sodom and Gomorra. Since I don't actually believe either one, this didn't bother me so much. God warns Noah that He's going to destroy Sodom, and Lot gets saved because he's Noah's friend, rather than the whole "Please rape my daughters" thing that's in the Bible. In fact, Lot's daughters are left out entirely, which also gets them out of the awkward part where he gets drunk and has sex with them after they leave the city (what, you never learned that part in Sunday school?). The Ark stuff comes later.
In order to make appeal to a wider audience, the "punched it up" a bit, with action, cheesy special effects, and attempts at humor, some which are funny - although the funniest bits are unintentional. There's also an incredible amount talent wasted on this film. Oscar winners (!) Jon Voight and F. Murray Abraham play Noah and Lot, with Mary Steenburgen and Carol Kane playing their wives. Even James Coburn makes a couple cameos. Their salaries didn't leave them a lot left over for minor things like decent sets. The battle scenes really do look like Monty Python. In addition to playing Noah, Voight also provides the voice of God, presumably because they couldn't afford James Earl Jones. Also, what is it about made for TV movies and accents? Noah and his wife clearly have American accents, while most other people - including their kids - have strong British accents.
The tone is a roller coaster, ranging from sincerely reverent, to bawdy humor (Lot: "Not staying for the orgy, Noah?") to actual slapstick (Lot's wife fall head first into a vat of dye at one point). At one point, the father of Japhet's wife refers to him as - I swear I'm not making this up - "Jay-fart". The music faithfully tracks the tone, transitioning from Cecile B. DeMille to Three Stooges.
You may wonder why the flood happens only halfway through the movie. Without giving any spoilers, I'll just say that there's plenty to come. Grab your beer and popcorn, because that's when things get *really* weird. Also, Steenburgen, who had somehow managed to retain some acting dignity up until this point, completely runs off the rails.
So if you like to watch bad movies and give them the Mystery Science 3000 treatment, keep this one in mind.
I dinged it one point because as a two part miniseries, it's a bit too long, and when it's not really bad, it's merely boring. I'm seriously considering buying the DVD so I can edit down to a 90 minute party cut.
My rating (as a bad movie): 4/5
If you're looking for either a serious Biblical epic or a movie that's intentionally funny, then you should keep looking, but this obscure gem is an absolute must for any bad movie connoisseur.
I totally missed this movie when it came out, but Encore was showing this around the time that the Russell Crowe version of "Noah" came out. Based on the previews, it really looked like a parody (think "Monty Python's Life of Noah"). Then I googled it, and realized it was actually meant to be taken seriously. With that in mind, it's kind of like a horrible car wreck you can't look away from.
Where to start...
First of all, they combine the story of Noah with the story of Sodom and Gomorra. Since I don't actually believe either one, this didn't bother me so much. God warns Noah that He's going to destroy Sodom, and Lot gets saved because he's Noah's friend, rather than the whole "Please rape my daughters" thing that's in the Bible. In fact, Lot's daughters are left out entirely, which also gets them out of the awkward part where he gets drunk and has sex with them after they leave the city (what, you never learned that part in Sunday school?). The Ark stuff comes later.
In order to make appeal to a wider audience, the "punched it up" a bit, with action, cheesy special effects, and attempts at humor, some which are funny - although the funniest bits are unintentional. There's also an incredible amount talent wasted on this film. Oscar winners (!) Jon Voight and F. Murray Abraham play Noah and Lot, with Mary Steenburgen and Carol Kane playing their wives. Even James Coburn makes a couple cameos. Their salaries didn't leave them a lot left over for minor things like decent sets. The battle scenes really do look like Monty Python. In addition to playing Noah, Voight also provides the voice of God, presumably because they couldn't afford James Earl Jones. Also, what is it about made for TV movies and accents? Noah and his wife clearly have American accents, while most other people - including their kids - have strong British accents.
The tone is a roller coaster, ranging from sincerely reverent, to bawdy humor (Lot: "Not staying for the orgy, Noah?") to actual slapstick (Lot's wife fall head first into a vat of dye at one point). At one point, the father of Japhet's wife refers to him as - I swear I'm not making this up - "Jay-fart". The music faithfully tracks the tone, transitioning from Cecile B. DeMille to Three Stooges.
You may wonder why the flood happens only halfway through the movie. Without giving any spoilers, I'll just say that there's plenty to come. Grab your beer and popcorn, because that's when things get *really* weird. Also, Steenburgen, who had somehow managed to retain some acting dignity up until this point, completely runs off the rails.
So if you like to watch bad movies and give them the Mystery Science 3000 treatment, keep this one in mind.
I dinged it one point because as a two part miniseries, it's a bit too long, and when it's not really bad, it's merely boring. I'm seriously considering buying the DVD so I can edit down to a 90 minute party cut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)