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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
