I've moved!

I have not many religious followers here, for understandable reasons. But for the sake of forward motion, I've decided not only to move the bulk of my blog content. But i've bought a domain! Head over to www.mchughreviews.com for constant updates on reviews, and content almost every day of the week! Thank you for supporting me all of these years, and here's to a great future!

-Tom

Top Three Thursday: Michael Bay

Stop lying. Yes, we all know Michael Bay movies are hilariously crappy and that he is questionable at best as a director. But you like him. You might not want to admit it, you might not even have realized it yet. But you have fun with his movies. Even his very very worst movies have a campiness and such a prominent sense of bravado that you can’t help but get really into it while you watch. I’m gonna drop the pretentious act. They’re terrible movies, but I have my fun with Michael Bay. So in honor of his new movie “Transformers: Age of Extinction”, here are my Top Three Favorite Michael Bay Movies. 

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Transformers as series isn’t very good at all. But the first Transformers movie was one of my favorite movies in high school. I knew it wasn’t good, but it had this awesome sense of adventure and exploration that really pulled me in, and the robots were flashy enough and cool enough to keep my interest level up pretty damn high the entire movie. Transformers 2 was crap. Complete and utter crap. But I really did enjoy the third installment of the series, Dark of the Moon. Again, it’s not good. But unlike the first two, I really felt the immediate danger closing in on the planet. I felt the urgency and the need to quickly fix the problem. I also loved the departure of Megan Fox, who was just an absolute burden on the previous movies. Granted, I didn’t love her replacement, but I was at least cheering to see her live rather than hoping she was off screen for the rest of the damn movie. Transformers: Dark of the Moon is just a lot of fun to watch, and it really got my adrenaline up during the final action scenes. 

Armageddon

This is, strangely enough, one of my earlier memories watching a movie. I had watched some of this at a friends house when I was a kid, and thought it was so cool then. Now….yeah. I see how ridiculous it is. But honestly, you gotta hand it to the movie, despite all of its flaws it still manages to be really exciting and really tense. The acting his hilariously bad (sorry Ben Affleck,  this was NOT your day), but I also can’t help but feel that it’s genuine in its own weird way. The science of this movie is bullshit (did you know NASA actually uses this film to text astronauts knowledge of space physics? The more problems they find, the higher their score), but it’s all mostly just beyond the point of obvious, enough that I buy it for what it is and let it move the story forward as it needs to. Then there’s obviously the huge action scenes, the shots of the asteroids blasting through building sides and crashing through streets, meteor showers on the asteroid making an absurd light show and the rest of the cast screaming and fighting to finish the job and save the world. All of it is kind of infectious. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy it. 

Pain and Gain

Pain and Gain was a pretty great basis for a movie - a heist that was run by a bunch of gym rats who really had no idea what they were doing, based on a true story. If there’s a true story for Bay to tackle, this has to be it. And then he manages to book great actors, like Mark Wahlberg and Anthony Mackie, to tackle these roles. And they absolutely nail it. Sure, the pace is definitely weird, and I definitely don’t understand the point of the random voice overs (granted I didn’t get them in oddly the same context watching American Hustle), but I did enjoy the glorification of the stupidity of these characters. It’s been said this movie glorifies violence, but I actually disagree. If it did glorify violence we would be seeing  a lot worse. No, this movie glorifies the dumb actions of our main characters. And that leads to one brilliant part of the movie. I won’t give the context away, but there’s an absolutely brilliantly timed moment where on screen we see in big letters, “THIS IS STILL A TRUE STORY”. And that’s definitely a defining moment of Michael Bay’s timing. Why can’t all of his movies be as brilliant as that joke?!

That's all I wrote! Here's a trailer for Bay's new movie Transformers: Age of Extinction!

"Mega-Shark Vs. Giant Octopus" Is So Bad It's...

There's a little production company out there known infamously as "The Asylum". The wonderful mines out there are responsible for such wonderful movies as Snakes on a Plane, The Davinci Code, Alien Vs. Predator, Transformers, and the enormous blockbuster, High School Musical.



Oh wait...sorry...that came out wrong. They're responsible for Snakes on a TRAIN, The Davinci TREASURE, TransMORPHERS, and SUNDAY School Musical. Yep. This production company is notorious for spitting out rip off movies, the ones that you see in the 99 cent bin at your car wash or gas station. And they have credibility? Well...credibility isn't the right word...but they have a movie people care about?

Mega-Shark vs. Giant Octopus is being sold exactly as you would expect it to be sold. It's about a giant shark fighting a giant octopus. That's about it. Except not. In fact, throughout the entire film, there's actually very little monster fighting. That's right. In a film called Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus, there's not even that much fighting between a mega shark and a giant octopus. The film caters itself to strange conversations and implied sexual tension to develop its cardboard characters, like the star of the film Debbie Gibson (for some strange reason...). But that's not what you're paying to see. We're treated to a bloated running time of nothing but talking, talking, talking, more talking, talking, talking. It's SO boring.

When we do get our attempted action scenes, don't get me wrong, they're very poorly CGI. BUT...they're not bad enough. I can buy that it's a low budget strong attempt at something that isn't awful. So there's really not much to laugh at. And they're so few and so short, it leaves so much to be desired that there's not much humor. When we finally get to the big fight, it doesn't exactly look like a fight. It's a lot of thrashing, and...not much else. So there's no real tension from the fight. In fact, it's over in about thirty seconds. Instead, the film tries to force tension though these really weird jump cuts, I can't make heads or tales of them..they just turn the screen grey or sepia for a moment before cutting back to the same instant in time we were just watching...

Then there's the awful consistency. The shark can bite through the golden gate bridge but then can't bite through a submarine. The scientists are supposedly scientists but it takes them a freakin hour to come to the conclusion we see in the damn title. I know this is all campy stuff from any bad movie, potentially anyway, but when you're looking for silliness in a movie like this it becomes inexcusably obvious. There is no suspension of disbelief at all, so there's no cushion to fall back on.

Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus is just bad. It's insufferable. It's not so bad it's good. For that to be there at all, there needs to be something entertaining. And when the fight that your movie is leading up to isn't good, you have a serious problem for entertainment. I hope I never have to watch this movie, or any of its sequels or spinoffs ever again. (Yes, you read that right. There are sequels and spinoffs to this terrible movie).

This Time Last Year - World War Z

Last year we were treated to the zombie movie World War Z. I loved the book (which I actually read!!) and I love zombies period. So what could go wrong?

Sadly, after one viewing, I found myself very bored with the movie. I thought the film felt small, like it's scale as a worldwide catastrophe didn't really ring through. I was annoyed with the politics, the shortsightedness of characters, and saddened by the lack of emotional investment I felt.

I just rewatched it now, a year later. Did it deserve the 2.5/5 rank I gave it a year ago? Nope. It didn't. I have to eat my words a bit.

While still not a great movie and filled with the bogus politics (the reason for the wall being built was strange), rewatching it definitely did give me a strong sense of the scale of the situation. I did feel the world wide catastrophe, I felt the gradual collapse, and I felt the stress on humanity as a whole. It felt much more organic, strangely believable and tangible as well. Perhaps this all stems from the best zombie experience of my life, playing "The Last Of Us" last summer. Amazing video game, but more importantly completely shifted and raised my standards for the zombie genre.

It should be noted that upon a rewatch, I found myself far more invested into the action of the film as well. More of it had me holding my breath. I had forgotten the outcomes of many scenes and found myself having fun guessing what was going to happen next, even though I'd seen the film before. But most importantly, I recognized the global scale while still identifying the films personal story, an outsider looking in to a small piece of a larger problem. It worked surprisingly well a second time around, and there was a lot more of the emotion for me to appreciate.

The cinematography is just as brilliant as I remember it, featuring some of the best zombie cinematography I've ever seen. I'll forever have the awesome scene of zombies climbing on top of each other to scale the wall in my mind, as well as the bus flipping over to zombies running head first into gun fire. It all emphasizes the nature of zombies, the lack of self preservation in search of food. It's creepy, foreign, and awesome.

The film isn't without its problems. It still has its hokey dialogue, and it's nearsighted characters. But unlike a year ago, the scale of the film didn't bother me nearly as much. Rather, I appreciated the smaller scale considering the enormous scale of the catastrophe. Brad Pitt was just as good as I remember him being, and the rest of the cast works through hokey scenes pretty well, again considering the material. Even though I can't give the film a super positive review, I have to say it definitely did more for me the second time around than it did the first.

Original rank - 2.5/5
Hindsight rank - 3.5/5

Trailer Watch - 6/20/2014

Musicals, sequels, and...Third Person... I don't really know what that is. But it's time to check out this weeks line up of trailers! Let's take a look at Jersey Boys, Think Like A Man Too, and Third Person!

Jersey Boys

I didn't have the pleasure of seeing this movie on Broadway, but I absolutely love The Four Seasons and I love the music that inspired the musical. Plus I have friends who are enormous fans of the show, some seeing it multiple times a year to get their Frankie Valli fix. But even with the excitement from Broadway fans everywhere, it should be noted that Eastwoods most recent directorial efforts have been only okay. Trouble With The Curve was decent, Hereafter was okay, J. Edgar was sadly very shallow. When I watch these recent movies, I just feel the lack of focus and heart in the movies, which is so depressing considering the outstanding filmography we see only a year before that and earlier. Jersey Boys does seem like the perfect outlet for campiness found in Trouble With The Curve to come through, but my respect for The Four Seasons is too great to accept light heartedness in its story that is open to a very emotional story. As much as it does conflict me to say so, I'm gonna have to say wait to Stream It.

Think Like A Man Too

I didn't see the first Think Like A Man. I don't remember why I skipped it, but if the trailer for this is anything to justify the film, I can see why I would. It looks boring, uninspired, annoying. Kevin Hart is the obvious selling point for the film, and I'm not his biggest fan to begin with. But here he looks particularly annoying, the obvious punch line in every scene. The story is particularly uninspired, a generic battle of the sexes mixed with a boring Vegas party movie and not much else. It's fine for attracting the masses, I guess, but for me it looks like a movie we'll know the ending to about 10 minutes into the start of it. As always, I'll definitely be seeing it. But I don't think I can recommend it in good conscience. Not until I watch it, anyway. So for now, I'm gonna have to say Skip It.

Third Person

There's only one word that comes to mind watching this trailer - confusing. What is going on? It looks like the film is three unrelated but thematically connected love stories, starring Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde in one, Mila Kunis and James Franco in another, and Adrian Brody and Moran Atias in the third. But beyond that, I just don't know what to even make of this movie. Who's is it advertising for? Apparently there's a love story between Neeson and Wilde, there's a domestic dispute story for Franco and Kunis, and then there's a gangster story for Brody and Atias. I watch the trailer and just feel an enormous lack of inspiration, something that seems to have been thrown together for the sake of thematic justification. But just because thematic material can justify interwoven stories doesn't mean it should. I cite Disconnect, a film with two awesome stories that wove together with one very disjunct one that, while thematically appropriate, didn't seem to add much to the scope of the story being told. So for this, I think I'm gonna have to say Skip It. I'm probably gonna have to skip it anyway.

Top Three Thursday - Movie Musicals

With the Jersey Boys movie coming out this weekend, I started thinking a lot about movie musicals. Musicals are touchy for me. Sometimes I love them, a lot of the time I hate them. I recognize the classics for the brilliance that they have, but they're not necessarily my first choice movies to watch. So when I started thinking of what my favorite musicals would be, I had to be honest. This is less about which musicals I think deserve to be thought of as the greatest of all time. This is my personal top three musicals, my three that I can pop in any time and love, and that meant something to me growing up.

The Lion King

My mother told me that one of the most defining moments of my personality was when she left me alone in the living room as a kid watching The Lion King. Mufasa's death passed by, and when she came into the room she saw me crying, but was surprised to learn it wasn't the scariness of the scene that had me upset. Rather it was the fact that Scar was blaming Simba, telling him to run away. That always stuck with me. It tells me that Lion King was a movie that was successful at communicating very dark thematic material to young children. I still love the idea that Simba was brought up by two male role models. I also love the thematic material borrowed from Hamlet, just different enough to let a new story shine through but similar enough to show an update perfect for anyones enjoyment. Then there's the cinematography. I don't think I'll ever forget the stampede scene, engraved in my mind as one of the scariest scenes from my childhood. All in all, The Lion King is an enormous success of filmmaking on every level, and I absolutely love it.

Prince of Egypt

This is an often forgotten movie from Dreamworks animation, although it's definitely more popular than any of the other movies dream works made at that time. It tells the story of Moses saving his people from the tyranny of the Pharaoh enslaving them. It's a beautiful movie, one that beautifully shows us the magnitude of the story at hand while never forcing overzealous religious beliefs down our throats. It's easy to take in and believe for the run time. And there are some beautiful scenes in the film. One that always stuck with me is a scene where Moses talks to his new wife about the incredible experience he just had with the burning bush, a scene with no talking and explosively beautiful music. The movie is an underrated masterpiece, often forgotten to the piles of Disney movies that overshadow it. But it actually had a pretty profound effect on me, even as an atheist today.

The Wizard of Oz

This is one of my earliest memories of movies, and I still remember watching the movie transform from black and white into color. It was a magical moment, and a significant one for me. The Wizard of Oz defines a lot of how I think about movies. The character interactions set my original standard growing up, the amazing performance of the wicked witch was another defining moment, as I now look for villains who manage to create a fascinating character in the same way, sometimes never coming close with an enormous amount of screen time compared to her shocking 12 minutes. The sense of transportation to a new magical world has only very rarely been matched by any other movie, and most of them still don't even come close to the magic I experience watching this movie. It's pretty obvious to see what makes it one of the greatest and most important movies of all time.

22 Jump Street

Oh Phil Lord and Chris Miller, you've done it again. I love you both. Come give me a hug.

Lord and Miller have proven themselves to be brilliant parody film makers, what with their recent jabs at disaster films (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs), toy related films (The LEGO Movie), or campy 80s action TV (21 Jump Street). 22 Jump Street manages to parody not just college comedy, later action films, and buddy cop movies, but also cinema as a whole. And I freakin love it. There's jokes referencing the films budget, the fact that there is a sequel at all to something as ridiculous as a reboot of the TV series, the idea that no one wants to see anything new so they should just do the same thing again. I particularly love one shot of the movie that shows the duo driving through a building, no damage shown, only to have them pop out the other side and Tatum to say "Did you see all of that expensive stuff we broke?!" 

The two filmmakers show a superior sense of timing and camera work, mixed with brilliant comedic sensibility from Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill. It makes a beautiful demonstration of how talented everyone is in this film. The duo on screen his hilarious thanks to brilliant writing, but the brilliant writing shines through even stronger by an amazing sense of the script from the duo. I don't think i've seen a better demonstration of teamwork between film maker and actor, at least not in such an obvious light. 

The movie continues in its wonderfully updated-but-not-updated plot line enough to give us exactly what we want to see. But then it becomes more, finally letting itself become something special and original. It lets us see the original thematic material from the first movie (the idea that one of them fits right into the culture while the other has a significantly harder time), but flips it. And from there, we don't see necessarily one being jealous of the other as in the first, but rather them following different paths in college as best high school friends often do. It results in a pretty hilarious breakup, and lets the film parody romance films in the mix of the dozens of other film references its already making. Seriously, this movie can just pack in the parody. All of it works brilliantly. 

The audience was loud and rowdy where I was, laughing and cheering appropriately, gasping and silent when appropriate. It was electric. It's clear that Lord and Miller know how to make a movie that really is going to appeal to everyone. That being said, I was the only one laughing at the jokes about film budget and scenic design. But whatever! I'll have my fun dammit. 

Rank - 5/5

How To Train Your Dragon 2

There are so few examples in fiction of places that I desperately wish I could be. I wish I could be an Earth Bender in the world of Avatar. I wish I could be a Jedi in Star Wars. I wish I could be Spider-Man. But honestly, that's it. And it's only to a silly extent, my inner child trying to come back to life.

But seriously, honestly. I don't think there's a single movie universe that makes me desperately want to live there as much as How To Train Your Dragon. I want a dragon so badly.

The original How To Train Your Dragon was a beautiful movie that suffered from some unfortunately generic narrative, a blunt script, and a pretty predictable plot. I wanted to love it, but felt myself having problems with it. Even so, I had to admit it was a gorgeous looking movie, with tons of awesome flight sequences that managed to really give the sensation of flying on a dragon. It was really amazingly animated and beautifully designed. 

How To Train Your Dragon 2 improves on this already beautiful design, letting us now experience Berk and all of its lovable characters as young adults. The animation style is stepped up perfectly, showing the advancements in technology without at all sacrificing the fun style and beautiful artwork. It makes its world feel organic, enormous, and best of all, graspable. It really made me wish I could be a part of this world, flying around on my own dragon, being best friends with my own night fury. 

But best of all is the wonderful improvement to the script. Which is strange, because at first glance the story is actually less original sounding than the first. Instead of the traditional "boy and his dog" story with a dragon, we find the dragon riders of Berk fighting an enemy who looks to conquer all dragons and use them for his own evil purposes. Even though the story sounds forgettable and predictable, the movie is anything but, having many twists and turns that shock me, had me laughing, crying, and dare I say it, very much surprised me. It's a bit darker than it's prequel counterpart, but not by all that much, enough to appreciate its older audience without sacrificing its heart and its roots (although it's known that these movies don't follow the books at all for the most part). 

How To Train Your Dragon 2 is a beautiful movie, packed with heart, love, fun, laughs, tears, and joy. It succeeds at improving in every way over its already very powerful prequel, and manages to make its story perfectly matured without the sacrifice of the magic. Between this film and The LEGO Movie, it's a tough choice for best animated picture so far this year. 

Rank - 5/5

"The Room" Is So Bad It's...

In 2003, a movie came out made on a $6 million budget and grossed about $1,900. It was so badly hated that the movie theatre running the film posted a large sign reading “NO REFUNDS” in its window. It was described as an experience similar to being “stabbed in the head” and “…the Citizen Kane of bad movies. So brutally hated by its own production team that there were several on set changes to personnel, including actors leaving mid production and replacements of professionals to student workers.

And then…

Michael Rousselet, a member of the famous film group 5-Second Films, happened to catch one of the last screenings and saw a lot of great unintentional humor in the film. He quickly called his buddies to come and join him in their own private screenings, seeing as the rest of the theatre was completely empty. They loved the film so much that they hit the streets, using a word of mouth campaign to get a hundred people to the final screening of the movie, them seeing it 4 times in 3 days, and becoming the first cult followers of this. 

Immediately after the screenings, the new following of the movie emailed writer/director/star/producer to tell him how much they enjoyed the film. Tommy was so encouraged by the new found fans of his film that he booked a single midnight screening in June of 2004. That screening was so successful that he booked a second show, and a third, eventually booking two screens, and then multiple theaters around LA. Celebrities like David Cross, Paul Rudd, and Patton Oswalt all attend at some point. Today, The Room is so loved by fans that it sells out monthly screenings constantly in cities all over the United States. One of its actors, Greg Sestero, has gone on to write a wonderful book about his experiences in the film, a book lovingly titled “The Disaster Artist”, revealing the madness behind the films creator and the even higher level of madness from the many fans of the film, this guy included. 

But what is it about The Room? Why is this movie so wonderful, so watchable, so hilariously zany from poor quality? 

The Room is a bizarre movie. Bizarre is really the only way to describe it. It’s not necessarily funny, even. It’s just strange. There are tons of lines that don’t make a lick of sense, there’s a lot of prolonged sex scenes that leave you uncomfortably restless in your chair, there are characters that appear out of nowhere and then vanish into nothingness, only to be replaced by equally bizarre characters, there are plot points that pop up and never come back again. There’s terrible music that’s played with equally terrible panning shots of pretty much nothing.

But what’s notable is the audiences embracing of every aspect of film making. So many bad movies are called bad by awful dialogue and bad acting - bad music and poor camera work (shaky cam aside) are usually forgotten. This movie is criticized for everything, and made fun of for everything. Audience members are heard screaming “Focus!!!” during the fuzzy shots, can be heard singing along with “you are my rose” during one of the absurdly long sex scenes. They address the problems in filmmaking as well as writing, which is something you typically don’t experience in any movie. 

Then there’s the obvious hilarity in the disgracefully awkward dialogue. “You are tearing me apart Lisa!” being the most famous, but my favorites including such gems as “ahaha what a story Mark,” “don’t touch me you stupid mother fucker,” “no I cannot. Anyway, how is your sex life?” Lines that just jump out at you for every wrong reason, being bizarre and uncomfortable. It’s a strange formula that somehow works. It really leaves you wondering if Tommy Wiseau knew exactly what he was doing…

And in the creepiest way, he did. Tommy Wiseau really did think he was making the greatest movie ever made, shown for the first time in the unbelievable book “The Disaster Artist” by the actor who portrayed Mark, Greg Sestero. I had a wonderful opportunity to sit down and talk with Sestero, who confirmed that Wiseau genuinely believed himself to be the next Marlon Brando, that he saw himself far above every other hollywood filmmaker. He loved what he was doing, and only changed the genre of his movie to “black comedy” after hearing his audiences laughing hysterically. But even at his accidental creation of a comedy, one has to wonder just how much he really doesn’t know about the quality of his film. He has to know it’s hated, right? 

I had so much fun the first time I watched The Room with my friends. We loved every second of the awful film. Enough so to play the horrifically dangerous drinking game two or three times. Then last summer I went for the first time to see a midnight showing in New York City and had the time of my freakin life. It involved another man’s belly button. Let’s just leave it at that. But it’s clear that this movie has enough to offer another viewing. Or ten. Seriously, people go nuts for this movie and love every second of their insanity. Did I mention the dude’s belly button? It’s kind of a great story. 

The Room is So Bad It’s Good. It has such an honest awkwardness, such a genuine sense of heart that just completely falls on its face. It tries so hard to work with dialogue and characters that simply cannot ever work under any circumstance, which puts an enormous smile on anyones face. It’s actually kind of a masterpiece of bad movie making. Hence, the “Citizen Kane of bad movies” comment.

So Bad It's....

I’ve decided to start a new segment to my blog. But it requires a set of rules and ideas that need to be speculated. “So Bad It’s…” is going to be a dedication to one of my favorite kinds of film - bad movies. Bad movies make us laugh, they leave us speechless, they even leave us wondering who on earth would think this movie could possibly have been enjoyed by a human being. In the past few decades, the idea of movies that are so bad they’re good has gained an enormous following, from large budget pictures to straight-to-dvd bargain bin pieces of garbage. We love to hate them, but more importantly, we love to defend them.

But there’s a problem here. What makes a movie so bad it’s good?

It’s a phrase thrown around far too much. People go and see a bad movie and declare that you just HAVE to see it, you won’t believe how bad it is! But there’s an obvious distinction - will the film stand the test of time? Will you think it’s as funny the next time around? Will it be as fun to show your friends that one inebriated night? 

Obviously this all comes down to personal taste. I can’t argue with that. But I can argue a few things. There are absolutely traits that all so-bad-they’re-good movies have. Although they can break the rules, I have yet to find a movie that doesn’t follow most of these, if not all of them. They’re my guiding force. If I like a bad movie, I can usually point my reasoning back to these three key traits:

1. It has to work on SOME level

That doesn’t mean it has to have good qualities. But it MUST have the ability to do something. A lot of times, we go into a movie that makes us laugh because it’s bad. But if we’re laughing because it’s recognizably terrible, that doesn’t necessarily make it memorably bad. There are bad movies out there, like The Room, which do succeed as comedies from being absolutely terrible. But there are movies out there, like this years I, Frankenstein, that are ridiculous and campy but forgettably horrible. There’s not a laugh to be found. Plain and simple, it doesn’t work.

2. It has to be genuine. 

A lot of times, movies like Mega-Shark vs. Giant Octopus, Birdemic, Sharknado, etc., are all called “so-bad-they’re-good”. But I completely disagree. These movies to me monopolize on bad movies, that cater to the culture that loves to love bad movies. Frankly, they bore me. 

These films work on a title - that’s the only thing that carries the movie. Sharknado even has the tagline "ENOUGH SAID!". These monopolize on the popularity of bad movies like The room, hoping to cash in a bit using hilarious titles to pull you in. But if they’re made this way, there’s no heart to it, no man actually thinking he made a brilliant movie. That shines through a lot more than you’d expect. It has to be genuine.

3. It must be quotable.

“You are tearing me apart, Lisa!!!” - The Room
“Oh you like that don’t you?!?! GOOOOOOOD.” - Dungeons and Dragons The Movie
“We’ve got the kitchen sinks to spare, son!!” - The Giant Claw
“The baby he was baptizing, he almost drowned.” “He’s been under a lot of stress lately!” - The Devil Inside

Every great bad movie has at least one quotable line. Sometimes you get the rare exception, such as Plan 9 From Outer Space, where the sheer poor quality of the filmmaking is laughable. But I think quotability is one of the most important parts of a so-bad-it’s-good movie. It lets us keep talking after the movie, lets us have our fun by mimicking the actors. 

4. It must be rewatchable 

Any movie that’s only funny once is not so bad it’s good. It’s happened plenty of times to me, I find a movie I laughed super hard at and get my hands on it to watch it with all of my friends. We start watching it and…where’d the laughs go? If it’s not rewatchable, then whats the point of a following? The point of a great bad movie is to be able to show it to others and convince them of the horrors.

These are my own thoughts on a so-bad-it’s-good movie, and this will be my guiding structure to discuss movies that cross my path being called “so-bad-it’s-good”. And from there, we’ll see what I think of them by giving them a rank! However, the ranking system will work on a scale of three rather than five. Those ranks are -

Good - If it’s “So bad it’s…” “good”, then that means I found entertainment out of it. I don’t want to get into nitpicking of these movies as they mean different things and different comedic levels to everyone. But if I find value in it, then it’s So Bad It’s “Good”

Forgettable - If a film is “So bad it’s…” “forgettable”, that means I didn’t find any value or anything that terrible in the film I was watching. It doesn’t mean that it’s good, ever. But it does mean that it’s a movie I’d walk out of the theatre forgetting pretty quickly. A forgettable movie is not a good movie in any respect.

Terrible - If I say a film is terrible, then that means it’s just bad. These are movies that are memorably terrible, but give me no sense of enjoyment at all. Movies like this don’t succeed on any of the levels that I discussed, and only serve as examples of how to not make films. If this is a “terrible” movie, then there is nothing worth taking away.

My first review in this style will be posted today, as I discuss one of the most obviously popular bad movies of all time - Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room”! From there on, I’ll be picking a movie a week to watch, a movie that the internet has dubbed “so-bad-it’s-good”, and we’ll keep it going as long as I have material!

This Time Last Year - Man Of Steel

Welcome to my latest section - This Time Last Year! This is going to a segment that's devoted to a point in time exactly last year, where I go back and discuss whether or not the film I posted about really deserved the score that I gave it. How ironic that this weekend last year was devoted to a movie that I absolutely abhorred. That's right, it's what I saw as the worst film of the year...Man Of Steel.

Last year I went and saw this and absolutely hated it. I thought it was terribly shot, looked like crap, had stupidly written characters, poorly scripted dialogue, a jillion plot holes, and completely ignored what Superman was supposed to be - FUN. I hated the explanation of the powers Superman had, I hated that it tried to shoehorn in science bullshit in ways that only created a billion more plot holes, and most of all, I hated the dank, dirty look of the movie, not at all consistent with anything Zack Snyder has done at all.

But was it REALLY that bad? Was it REALLY so bad that it deserved the rank I gave it? The movie is so split down the middle between fans who love it and those who hate it, does it really deserve the rank I gave it, branding it the worst movie of 2013?

Yes. Yes it does.

Another viewing of this movie really let those plot holes shine. I watched it with the intention of paying super close attention to fill those holes. But instead, the small screen and the lack of a movie theatre environment completely amplified the glaring problems. How is it that Superman can't breathe in another atmosphere, but has no problem breathing in space? Why is it that his powers are amplified from years of growing up on Earth under our sun, but Zod comes down and matches his abilities in about 45 seconds? How come it took Superman an entire childhood to master oversensitivity to light and sound, but again, it only took Zod about 5 seconds? Why is it that we blatantly see a shot of matter falling AWAY from a black hole!? If him flying is entirely based on jumping, how the hell can he maintain a flight pattern?! And if this is all just enhanced abilities from a different atmosphere and gravitational pull, where the hell does laser vision come from? Sure, you can say I'm nitpicking Superman. But this movie is also nitpicking Superman. We don't need explanations of his powers. He's an alien. Let's leave it at that!

The acting is just as terrible as I remember. Amy Adams, who I used to love, overacts, underacts, then just kind of stopped. She didn't really seem to have any idea what she wanted to be doing with the awful role she was given. Cavill was fine for what his part was written to be, but Superman was completely emotionless, without any character at all and with no humanity to connect with. Until of course, he has to kill someone. Then he has an emotional breakdown and is forced to live with the consequences for the rest of the film. Oh wait, that's right. He gets over it in about 5 minutes. And where did this inability to kill come from? Yes, I know that's one of his character traits. But seriously? It's never mentioned in the film. Finally, there's the horrendous blandness that is Kevin Costner. Watching him tell Superman to not use his powers was kind of like... 

...and that's more passionate of an effort. Not to mention the complete lack of believable physics in that scene...why is the tornado sucking in everything except the stuff that conveniently needs to be sucked up?

Sorry, but I can't back down on this. Man of Steel was a terrible, terrible movie. Looking back on it a year later, I still can't walk away from it with any sense of enjoyment or fun at all. Sucks. 

Trailer Watch (6/13)

I had started this idea a year ago but dropped it, but I liked it a lot! So I think it's time to bring it back! Every week I'm gonna take a look at some of the trailers and give them a rank - See It, Stream It, or Skip It!

This week, we have two major releases and one decently opening limited release. It's a big sequel weekend though, as we see a sequel to a major animated feature and a bit of an unexpected previous hit. We'll start off with -

How To Train Your Dragon 2 

The original How To Train Your Dragon benefited from amazing visuals and a lot of heart, despite a lackluster story and pretty awful dialogue. Remember how the tagline for the first Superman film was "You'll believe a man can fly"? While that was true then, the first film in the Dragon series is a movie that really made me feel like I was flying on a dragon. Plus it had an absolutely mesmerizing musical score. Early reviews for this movie are coming in super strong, declaring it to be better than the original. I hope the script is more interesting than the first. So far, it looks like that's definitely going to happen. Then there's the equally amazing visuals, visuals that made me sit on the edge of my seat just during the freaking teaser trailer. I have incredibly high hopes for this movie. So I'm gonna go ahead and say See It.

22 Jump Street

This movie benefits from the amazing writing and directing talents of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, famous for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and The LEGO Movie. They've proven themselves over and over again to be unbelievably funny and wonderfully directors of comedic timing. The first 21 Jump Street was an amazing homage to buddy cop and 80s action films. The joke of the trailers of this movie is that it's going to be exactly the same movie. But knowing the guys working this film, it will keep that sense of humor while building on its original premise beautifully. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum also make for quite a funny pair. I was surprised at how much I liked the first Jump Street. This time, I'm not going to be as surprised if I enjoy it. I'm definitely going to say See It.

The Signal

This is a limited release, but it looks like it's opening enough places to mention. While I can't say the trailer is uninteresting, I can say it definitely bears some signs of being pretty terrible. There looks to be an enormous amount of stories going on, and a lot of focus on imagery rather than substance. Obviously I can't say that for sure. But this is only writer/director William Eubank's second major film, and his previous film received average at best reviews. This one is coming in at 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. It looks like it could be really interesting, but it also looks like it's going to cater mostly to science fiction fans, despite advertising itself more as a horror/thriller. But most importantly, a critic compares it to District 9 in creativity. That's a bad sign, knowing that while District 9 is a good movie, it's definitely not original. So even though I'd be lying if I said this trailer wasn't interesting, I'm probably not going to get around to seeing it anyway. I'm probably gonna Stream It.

Shameless promo...

Guess what! I have a twitter now!

Yes, the time has come to really try and make something of this blog, and the first step is going to be keeping a very active twitter account! So give me a follow and I'll give you updates on the movies that I'm watching, random movies that I like, and silly thoughts on movies and life.

Follow @McHughReviews!!!

-Tom

Top Three Thursday - Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Welcome back to Top Three Thursdays, where I pick a favorite film actor, director, producer, or writer from a film opening this weekend, and talk about their life and career, as well as my top three favorite films or projects that they've been involved with! I'm not gonna lie, at first I was thinking of writing about Jonah Hill for his upcoming 22 Jump Street, or Jay Baruchel for the new How To Train Your Dragon. But no, I have one WAY more fun for me to write. Who are they? Why, it's Phil Lord and Christopher Miller!

Wait. Who?

You might not know their names yet, but these two guys are two of my favorite people in the business right now. They might be young, but they're making quite a stir in the film world as some of the best in the business for what they're doing. You love them and you don't even know it. In fact, as directors, they've only made three movies. But all three are just so good, too good to ignore and too good to overlook at all.

Phil Lord (pictured left) is from Miami, born to a psychologist and business owner. Miller, on the right, is from Seattle, where his father is in charge of a lumber mill. They both grew up making short films, both with a love of animation. But the two of them didn't have their fateful meeting until their freshman year at Dartmouth College, apparently bonding over an incident that involved lighting fire to Miller's girlfriend's hair. While studying there, the school published a profile on Miller that caught the attention of Michael Eisner, who had fellow executives offer a meeting with him. In a fateful act of true brotherhood, Miller only agreed to the meeting if he could bring his best friend, Phil Lord. This meeting lead them to a 2 year deal for Disney Television Animation, specifically in development. 

The duo's first major work was Clone High, an unproduced show that was unsupported by Disney and then dropped by Fox. MTV picked up the show, but it was cancelled after a portrayal of Gandhi as a partier lead to hunger strikes in India. Oops. The two worked in various facets of television, though nothing particularly notable before 2003.

But then, the big break came. In 2003, when Miller was 27 and Lord 26, they signed on to write the feature film Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Then they were fired. Then they were rehired. Then they were almost fired again when the film they wrote had a "lack of story". Then they readjusted one character in the film, making a relationship exist that satisfied the head of Sony. They say that it taught them two important lessons - the power of collaboration, and the importance of emotion in a story, even a comedy.

The result was an enormous hit. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs went on to be a critical and financial success. And thus, I stop talking in this way. Because the only way to describe these two's fabulous film work is to talk about their three major pictures, and why I love them so much. So lets start with the obvious...

3. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs

I'd be lying if I didn't say I thought of Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs as one of my favorite movies of all time. It's an incredibly witty and clever story, expanding upon the children's book ideas from the picture book to include a before and after, explaining why the food was falling from the sky and following up with what happened after. The characters are hilariously zany and silly, but maintain just enough humanity to connect with in a really fun way. There's just enough emotion to keep anyone invested in this ridiculous story, but it's never enough to detract from the comedy that we all paid to see. It has wonderful references to past and present media, including television and film tropes and actors, as well as hilariously fun slapstick for the kids and Looney-Toons lovers everywhere. And it's an absolutely brilliant parody of disaster movies from the 80s and 90s, featuring the wonderfully clever "Dange-o-meter", a device that measures the danger around them in the conceivable way every disaster movie does, poking fun at national landmark destruction, and pretty damn impressive destruction sequences despite its cartoony look. Mix that all together with a dynamite soundtrack, and you have a film packed with laughs, heart, and fun. There's a reason this is my go to movie. It also has great commentary. There was a sequel that the two wrote the story for, however the screenplay and direction were handled by a different group of people, and while a fun movie, it's definitely not quite as clever. So I don't count it in my mind as one of theirs.

2. 21 Jump Street

Imagine going from a bunch of forgotten unaired TV pilots to a major animated film. And then the next film project being a film adaptation of a classic TV show that would be rated R. That's one heck of a jump, especially with such high profile actors such as Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Rob Riggle, Dave Franco, and Ice Cube slated to be in it. But just like the brilliant disaster parody from Cloudy, this film brilliantly parodies both buddy cop movies, high school melodramatic teen movies, and classic action films from the 70s and 80s. Wait, what? You read that right. Somehow, these guys managed to write a story that parodied three completely different classic genres. And did it incredibly well. The story is wonderfully funny, taking punches at its own ridiculous premise and serving as a pretty brilliant update to the classic TV show while still referencing plenty of things from the original series. There's pretty hilarious action work and appropriate camera work to parody the styles from these classic films, and its all tied together with absolutely wonderful performances from Tatum and Hill. Who knew that they could take such a success? I mean, the only thing they could tackle next would be something like, a film idea that incorporated a toy line. But we all know after films like, oh I don't know...Transformers, GI Joe, Battleship, Masters of the Universe, Garbage Pail Kids, Bratz, and Dungeons and Dragons, theres no hope for any good film based off of a toy, right?

1. The LEGO Movie

So basically these guys can do no wrong is what I'm saying. These guys came along and took a movie based off of a toy line, and made something really special. This isn't a copout storyline about a toy character in his own world. No, this is a LEGO living in the world of LEGO toys. It feels like how I used to play with my LEGO collection, superheroes next to ninja turtles next to space men and animals in some strange world of weird zany beauty. It features characters like Batman and Superman, who have screen time enough to be funny and stick to their character type, but never so far that they detract focus away from our lovable main character Emmett, a character who's written with the understanding that he is truly unremarkable. The story fills the kid in our heart with nostalgic joy, featuring scenes of hilarious low quality to match the high quality story telling segments, imitating the lack of resources a child has when making flying ships and vortexes of nothingness. Then it all pays off in a funny, but also truthful and a bit sad, reveal about the nature of the toys being played with. I'd be lying if it didn't bring nostalgic tears to my eyes. Although that might have been from my lack of friends in elementary school leading to my own adventures with LEGO. But that's just what the movie was made for, to tap into our deepest memories of play time and allowing us to miss them just like anyone else. This movie is a masterpiece to me, a beautiful display of comedy, and one of the best animated comedies I've seen in years. I have it preordered, and I can't wait to watch it again and again.

So now here we are, opening weekend for their next big hit, 22 Jump Street! Here's the trailer, and with it my high hopes for a great movie!

Edge of Tomorrow

What a shock. I haven't read the book. Moving on.

The trailers for this movie alone had me fascinated. I loved the idea, a soldier who dies again and again, forced to relive the same day over and over, knowing full well that the battle he was fighting was an incredible failure. It's a hilariously futile idea, I couldn't wait to see where it was going to be taken and how it was going to work.

This is the rare example of a science fiction film where I completely bought the bullshit science. Somehow, for some reason, I was completely fine believing the strange explanation of his time travel, and lack of memory loss. And I loved the idea of the aliens, who looked awesome I should add. Sure, the idea of "take down one to take down an army" has been done a trillion times. But for me, the trope was helpful at highlighting the bizarre story happening around Tom Cruise's character. Not just that, but every circumstance really let humor come through beautifully, subtle jokes filling the entire run time. It's funny to watch Cruise get tired of dying again and again. It's interesting to see his fear of death never completely goes away. And it's pretty badass to watch him learn to fight having no military background at the beginning of the film, and a cool idea (the "jacket" technology) that allowed him to learn quickly, as explained at the beginning of the film. It's one brilliantly wrapped up package - exciting, funny, and pretty damn cool.

The acting in this film is top notch. Tom Cruise plays a wonderfully terrified but quick learning soldier, one who you hate at the beginning and love by the end. Emily Blunt plays the wonderfully badass leader, throwing conventional action female characteristics out of the window. She's sexualized very little, left to be the soldier that she is, but never forgetting that she is a woman and showing her in that light as well. The odd spark between them is both beautiful and confusing, perfect yet awkward, sensible yet unexplainable. It shouldn't work, but goddammit it does!

And that's pretty much my theme for a film like Edge of Tomorrow. It absolutely shouldn't work. But somehow, the film pulls it off. It makes repetitive time travel with no memory loss somehow work. It makes a romance that never lasts longer than a day, somehow work. It makes a man learning to use military hardware with no background learn quickly and make sense. It has the same events happening over and over again with no problems for me in believability. It just works. It works so well, I can't wait to get it on bluray and watch it again!

Rank - 5/5

The Fault In Our Stars

Cancer is a rough subject for me, having gone through the death of my father from the horrible disease and having sadly more than one friend who has fought through the disease. During 50/50, a film about Joseph Gordon Levitt fighting through cancer at a young age, I was hysterically crying in a fetal position in my theatre seat. Not exaggerating. True story. So despite the corny premise of this book I haven't read, I was pretty sure at least something would hit home with me. 

Parts of it did. Scenes of Hazel, played by the wonderfully talented Shailene Woodley, dealing with her disease on a day to day basis while struggling to maintain her sense of normalcy did hit home with me. Little things brought a lump in my throat, especially memories of my fathers helplessness and incurable pain. Scenes of treatment and near-death experiences also brought the tears up and let me feel the struggle all over again. It worked on that level, at least. 

But for me, the movie simply didn't carry the emotional weight it could have. Even though we know the cocky side of Augustus Waters, played by Ansel Elgort, I never feel like the movie really opened us up to his character and never gave me a strong reason to connect with him. Thus, his story with hers wasn't important to me.  I wanted to learn about Hazel, everything she loved about her life and everything she tragically wanted to change about it before her own "inevitable death" (not a spoiler, her own personal belief reiterated frequently throughout the film. I'm not gonna say how the movie ends). It always wants to be at a particularly emotional level, but never really gets there. And it's kind of sad, in my observations, as to why that is.

We really never see her relationships grow. We see her relationship with her mother that borders on friend, but never really see the motherly struggle aside from a couple of scenes. But these scenes tell us, rather than show us, the bond that they have. It's not nearly as powerful or meaningful as it could be. Her father is hardly ever on screen, but has an emotional speech himself. But I don't see him as her dad, I see him as another character. His emotional speech's weight doesn't have the power it could have either. 

Everyone in this film is really wonderful in their performances. But relationships feel shallow, a forced deepness that we only accept from our own relationships. It's really like an outsider looking into a story, rather than into the life of a fascinating character. I wish I could have felt more, especially having so much to relate through from my own experiences. But then again, what can I expect? There's no way anyone other than a cancer survivor can understand the struggle Hazel went through.

Rank - 3/5