Bad Movies I Love (Part Three of Four)

This is yet another post that has been inspired by Bob Freelander and his wonderful blog Rupert Pupkin Speaks. Check it out, if you haven’t already.

I’ve ruminated on this list long enough I believe. In the spirit of my recent post about lists not really being finished, I’ll just go with what I have at my disposal currently and spitball it. For the mutual convenience of myself and whomever may read this, I will split the list into four posts.

Now, I did, as most who have compiled this list recently, have to examine what makes a movie both bad and one I can enjoy because of that. There were a few different directions I could’ve gone with this list. I could’ve picked some films universally considered to be bad that I like and I don’t care who knows it (Many of those can be found here). I could’ve picked the rare film that’s so bad that it’s good, which in my mind are few and far between, but I do have a few that come to mind, and I also won’t argue if you believe there’s no such thing.

What I decided to do instead was to pick movies that I find to be bad, however, that I still enjoy certain things about them (badness included), and in many cases I have given them more than one viewing due to their uniquely awesome badness.

Now, without much further ado, my continued elections:

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank (1983)

Here is the third and final appearance of a film with some connection to Mystery Science Theater 3000, it in essence highlights one of the better more overlooked aspects of that show; there are many of these movies that people would not be aware of were it not for its being lampooned there. Another odd note is that this TV film has, for reasons I don’t yet understand, been stuck from the IMDb.

As for the film itself, the story is quite out there. It concerns a futuristic dystopia wherein arts are prohibited. There are many other weird facets to the story that, if you would like to know them, can be found on the film’s Wikipedia. However, beware, as is often the case, it is rife with spoilers. Perhaps if the film the protagonist was obsessed with, and that this one cribs from, were not Casablanca my take on the film would be somewhat different, as Casablanca is too often referenced, lampooned and cribbed from. It’s also a very high-concept idea with a seemingly rather low budget. Something else I learned about this film was that is was shot on VHS, which I was not aware of, so that is a mark of distinction as older formats are having a renaissance, most notably as featured in Super 8 and the upcoming V/H/S.

The Beastmaster (1982)

“Born with the courage of an eagle, the strength of a black tiger, and the power of a god.” With a tagline like that you know what you’re getting from The Beastmaster, do you not? Essentially, it combines sword-and-sorcery precepts with a dash of Tarzan and there you have it. Plus, it’s another one wherein if you read any synopses you can see how it would end up on a list such as this one. One thing that has occurred to me is that aesthetically this is rather more like what Masters of the Universe would have been had they not employed the-fish-out-of-water element in their telling.

The Redeemer: Son of Satan! (1978)

I love distributors like Code Red, who not only specialize in rare, hard-to-find titles but are also fairly honest about them. I recall the box to this one mentioned something about the opacity of its plot, and boy is it ever opaque! Another way a film can end up on this list is if I thought it could use a remake, and this one could, if anyone wanted to tackle it. There are elements in place that work, and some that come into play that serve to obfuscate what could be a really effective film. It feels longer than it is; it’s confounding at times; gets slow but it never really loses me, which is pretty hard for any bad film to accomplish. An interesting editing experiment comes to mind as I think on it, edit it down into an effective short. In it’s current state it either needs a bit of expansion or contraction to work as a proper good film.

The Nutcracker in 3D (2009)

All credit for this selection making the list goes to Emily Intravia who wrote a guest post on Bob Freelander’s blog that jogged my memory. What really makes this film stand out is that any of the decisions taken in isolation wouldn’t be completely insane, but they all occur in the same film: Involving a thinly veiled Einstein; casting Nathan Lane to play him; making it a musical; having the Rat King and his minions symbolic of Nazis. However, I must say that it is a prime example of the fact that a film does not represent a crystalized version that has to adhere to everyone’s vision of a tale, which is something I’ve written of before. A film adaptation of a tale represents a version of a narrative, the director’s, writer’s and the production. This is why there have been so many adaptations of some of the most popular works in literature, film and cover songs in music and so on.

I have seen myriad versions of the Nutcracker. In fact, in the world of dance interpretations of narrative and choreography differ. As a director, I truly do appreciate Konchalovsky’s uncompromising vision, and some of the elements do work. I saw it upon its initial release and in 3D and that was a good element. The music, as I recall, the instrumentals that is, are pretty good whether Tchaikovsky’s or otherwise. Charlie Rowe, who would later appear in a very different and good interpretation of the Peter Pan myth in, Neverland is also good. As is Elle Fanning, who truly broke out with two amazing performances last year.

It also underscores another common element in the films I tend to choose for this list is that there’s something so unique, an intent so honest that I could never fully disparage the film without some qualifier. It’s one I haven’t revisited yet, but definitely will.

Sidekicks (1992)

The Chuck Norris joke as a cultural phenomenon is rather dead in the water, aside from the rare soul who hears one for the first time and then builds a newfound obsession with them for a time. I’m not sure anyone ever traced the exact source of that phenomenon, and if that would serve any real purpose, but this film may have something to do with it. The reason is, of course, that in this film Chuck Norris plays himself and the idol of a downtrodden kid. At this point Norris had already been in enough bad movies where he improbably beat the crap out of everyone that it made sense and this just adds to his odd mystique, and, of course, up until The Expendables sequel was announced he was the most one of the most notable action star who wasn’t in the club.

Come back tomorrow for the conclusion!

That Movie Sucked: Trailers That Give Too Much Away

I had a recent Twitter conversation with Larry Richman, after he had attended an advance screening of Someone Like Us, and he had some interesting thoughts on the film. I told him I was glad to hear some of them after having seen the trailer. When he watched the trailer he confirmed what I feared: The trailer essentially gives away the entire movie.

I am doing my best to forget the details of said trailer before seeing it and won’t link to it here, but it does raise the point about why trailers feel the need to be so spoiler-laden. Now, there are certain realities I know and acknowledge, such as: I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) it’s mainly the marketing department (in a studio) in collaboration with the producers who select highlight type moments, good footage and shop them out to companies who specialize in cutting trailers together. They usually get two or three different versions and choose one. Essentially, it’s a sub-contractor relationship. However, this outsourcing of the job isn’t the only reason that over-sharing in trailers occurs, if you ask me. The first part is that some involved with the film select segments to supply the bidders. So the selection has to be a bit more guarded.

What is going to compel me to see a movie is not necessarily knowing the synopsis, not that synopses are innocent of giving away too much (far too often on the back of a film you are told not just the first act break but the second also). What will compel me is getting a sense of the tone of the film with some compelling images that make me wonder “What’s that about? I have to see that!”

Some notable examples of this for upcoming films are:

Les Miserables (Teaser)

The Road (2012)

Even way back when in the Golden Age and before when audiences were not as sophisticated in certain respects as they are now, trailers disseminated information through voice-over and text but not too much of the story was seen and heard through actual footage:


Dracula (1931)

When I went to YouTube I just typed in the very generic search of “1930s Trailer” and sure enough I got more or less what I expected. A presentational pitch with hyperbolic text, grandiose announcements and key images that intimate what the film is but give very little real information. A lot of times with older films you were allowed to see a piece (sometimes a large piece) of a scene play out but you had little context by which to understand it. It was all just supposed to be enticing.


Casablanca (1942)

Approximately a decade later the formula was still pretty much the same. The hard thing is watching trailers for films you’ve seen already, for some the edit seem to be giving away a lot of the story because you know it, but it’s really not. Think of the moments in Casablanca that became iconic and none of them are here the farewell, “Louis, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship…”, “…shocked to find that there’s gambling going on in this establishment”, “As Time Goes By,” etc. Yes, this trailer is selling the adventure and danger much more than it is the romance but it’s not shying away from it either. The ethos is still similar in these two examples compelling images, backdrop, genre, stars but not the whole film.


Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

My favorite professor in film school, Max Simkovitch, was not only great at planning double and triple features but also at screening clips and trailers. Therefore, even if something didn’t quite make it on the syllabus, we were made aware of it and tempted to see it. His horror/Sci-Fi class was where I first got a glimpse of Suspiria and then I had to track it down. We also watched The Invasion of the Body Snatchers there and while I can’t argue that this is a brilliant trailer, it is fragmentary enough in the ethos of its time to succeed. There is the frame of panicked reaction. First, you assume insanity then as images compound you think there’s more to it. The best part is the impact of the film is far greater than the trailer and the trailer doesn’t show it all, or intimate it all either. The bad part is that it doesn’t show you just how very good this movie is.


Psycho (1960)

Now, I will grant you that there are many things that allow this trailer to be as unique as it is. Firstly, you’re dealing with Alfred Hitchcock one of the greatest directors to ever walk the face of the Earth. However, he was also by this point a TV personality too. So his pitching his own film in an extended trailer is not so odd. However, what’s really brilliant about this Psycho trailer is how it seems to be telling you everything but there is so much misdirection and trickery afoot.


The Exorcist (1973)

Now, this is absolutely brilliant. There is next to now visual information revealed. There is one high contrast shot of Regan, no clear indication of what many of the shots mean and you don’t see the face of the exorcist. That creates the reaction you want. It gives you the emotional tenor of the film and compels you to want to see it. The voice-over works in conjunction with the images and scenes as opposed to presenting them. This is a clear indicator of the evolution of movie trailers. However, this sophisticated near artistry will in the course of the next forty years of film history will lose its restraint and start to give away too much information.


The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Granted here’s another case where you’ve got a lot going for you as you set about creating a trailer: this is the follow-up to the most successful box-office smash of all-time as of this trailer’s debut, you have John Williams’ score and incredible visuals. Yet the temptation could exist to overplay your hand but it’s laid back. You have an exciting kinetic montage, with no information of any kind divulged really and the voice-over only comes in at the very end for one line. Perfect.


Jurassic Park (1993)

I tried to get a Spielberg film on for the 80s, I couldn’t because I thought of E.T. but the trailer I found had an incessant narrator who wanted to delineate every emotional beat in the whole film. With this short, if not brilliant Jurassic Park trailer, I think I re-affirm my point. Spielberg’s images are always strong. Here the story does a lot of the selling anyway, so just briefly touch upon what the chaos in the park is and make it a short, quick sell.


Peter Pan (2003)

For quite a bit of time I thought of Peter Pan as a standard-bearer of shorts. It had been some time since I had seen the trailer but I remembered how it had set the expectations very high for me, and then I saw the film it lived up to or exceeded practically every one of them. However, it also is a great illustration of how treacherous a game the cutting of trailers is. For above, what you have is the second version of the trailer. Multiple versions of trailers existing is nothing new, but what struck me as most interesting is that the minutest of changes could have such a drastic impact. When I found the #2 trailer I knew pretty quickly it was the one I liked for it seemed a more fragmentary and tonal presentation of this vision of the story whereas the #1 (below) felt a lot like a demonstration “Here’s this part of Neverland and this part and that part.”

The Present

As for the newer crop the trailer fo Dark Shadows is bad, but does contain a similar tonal dissonance to the actual end product. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an excellent trailer.

Dark Shadows (2012)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

A recently compelling one, that convinced not only me, but many people to see the bad movie being hocked, was that of The Devil Inside.

It’s widely acknowledged that the marketing job done by Paramount to make this film a financial success while thudding with critics and audiences alike is astoundingly good. Another recent Paramount win was the viral marketing effort, the introduction of the “Demand It” concept prior to the release of the first Paranormal Activity film. However, regardless of whether you liked the film or not, the trailer is practically all the highlights of the film. Watch below…

Now, I will readily admit that I, as someone who frequents multiplexes and art houses alike and have a tendency to be quite early, such that I watch not only the trailer but the pre-show, will view these more times over than the average spectator. However, the success of the studios, the box-office both domestically and globally relies on everyone, and trailers are one of the best methods to repeat your business. You have a captive audience, a packed auditorium for the latest tentpole, all the big movies want to advertise in front of it. Whereas sometimes commercials work better because they can give less away, a trailer gives you anywhere from 90 to around 150 seconds to give your best pitch. So please try and tantalize not bore.

When a short film of mine Suffer the Little Children got into Shockerfest, we were afforded the opportunity to buy commercial time on local cable airwaves to advertise our screening. With only 30 seconds and my proclivity to tease rather than over inform, this is what I decided to do:

Here you’ve seen quite a few of the major plot points in the story, however, without knowing the Stephen King short story upon which the film is based you don’t necessarily know the context or the significance of the events. The shots come at you quickly, with juxtapositions that are apropos of nothing and little dialogue is heard. You are given the tone of the piece and some allusions as to what it’s about but you are not told everything. That’s as it should be I feel, even given more time to play around.

Far too often, after seeing a trailer, I will snidely say to myself “That movie sucked.” Now, of course, I’ve learned that the trailer is never a good indicator of what the film is. However, while I do want to be compelled to see the film by the trailer I don’t want to feel like I watched the movie. I felt John Carter, despite other marketing missteps at least attempted to compel with images first and not giveaway all the plot intricacies therein. The removal of the qualifier ‘of Mars’ from the title, the reticence to be upfront about the literary pedigree of the tale right off the bat likely had more to do with its failing, than a trailer that didn’t spoon-feed absolutely everything.

I think above there are plenty of examples of how to do it and how not to do it, and I hope that we get more good than bad in the future. However, in the meantime caveat emptor, buyer beware is definitely a motto to live by. Most recently I heard warnings to stay away from the trailer for Sinister. He is correct. The movie does look very good but there is much information in the trailers. So happy viewing but try and avoid spoilery trailers.