This afternoon I was sitting in my office bouncing a tennis ball against the window with my forehead no doubt putting on quite a show for the weirdo's with telescopes in the apartment building across the street from my 22nd floor office when I got a call from one of my friends.
She had called into a radio station trying to win concert tickets but was the 10th caller rather than the 9th and been given passes to a movie called "Bring It On" and she wanted to know if I wanted to go, Given all I saw myself doing the rest of the day was dreaming up sick froshings for the freshmen next week and playing head tennis I figured why not?
Walking into the theather, I observed most of the audiance looked like what I would call the Beavis and Butthead demographic, Looking at the Audiance then looking at my friend I ask, What the f--k is this movie actually about, she replies in a Brittany voice "Cheerleading"
Delightful, where is my Tennis ball
I can't believe this movie was made, I can only imagine the meeting at the movie studio
Executive: So what is the plot Producer: Plot? What do you need a plot for we have babes with big tits dancing around. Executive: You can't just have half naked girls dancing around for 90 Minutes Producer: Hmm, Your right maybe we do need a plot. Executive: Come back tommorow
Alright,
Basically you have to teams, picture 24 Brittanys only trampier, the teams are salted with the big name Bimbo's of the moment.
Now this completely blew me away, I talked to one of my American classmates and she did confirm, In the United States, CHEERLEADING IS CONSITERED A SPORT, If cheerleading is a sport then my game of head tennis must qualify for the olympics!
There was really only one good line in this movie "You are all dancers, you just happen to be retarded"
I am not going to go into any further detail, you really have to see this yourself to appreicate it. If that is infact possible. This truely rivles the shitty teen-sex romp movies made in the 80's
'Future War' is so bad even Mike and the bots couldn't keep it from being boring in stretches. Still, I thought 'Manos: Hands of Fate' was officially the Worst Movie Ever Made, isn't it?
I know somebody who is a total-psycho-Star-Wars-nut. He's go the special-editions, the books, the toys, I mean _everything_!
Of course he went to see Phantom Menace four times, not because he liked it. He actually hated it, but he thought if he saw it enough times he'd come to like it. I don't think it worked.
What? Bashing Phantom Menace is cool? Not where I come from.
But either way, I'm not impressed. This generation's resident villain, Darth Maul, had to be the most pitiful excuse for a Sith ever. The 70's and 80's saw Darth Vader, the black knight of sci-fi. Who do we get? An assitant grocery store manager who couldn't string a sentence together if his life depended on it. Vader didn't *need* a double-bladed lightsabre!
But I bet I'm the only person of my age group that liked Jar Jar Binks. He was funny as anything.
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:31:08 GMT, Hikaru's Boyfriend wrote:
And have you noticed that the really interesting villains die FAST without you learning anything about them?
Bob Fett bought it faster than the sidekick in a "Dirty Harry" movie. Unlike you, I found Darth Maul interesting, but he too had the life expectancy of a small boy looking into the gas tank of a car with a lighter....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Yeah, especially when it was first coming out. The popular pose was to bash the entire Star Wars franchise, accusing it of destroying filmmaking. You earned extra "cool" points if, while bashing Phantom Menace as overhyped crap, you praised Eyes Wide Shut. Oh, you had to completely miss the irony while doing so.
No, the "cool" arguement was that Lucas destroyed filmmaking with the first movie, and all the money it made. They argue that, by making all that money, he isn't a pure artiste like Coppola (As though the Godfather movies were low budget projects that nobody saw). Of course, they ignored the fact that Coppola loves the Star Wars movies.
They also ignore that all the merchandizing was done so he could finance the later movies, himself, making the Star Wars movies a triumph for indie filmmaking. I suppose the belief here is that something is only valid if it doesn't make money. But then, posing doesn't have to have any logic behind it.
I have to admit that I do subscribe to the idea that Lucas and Spielberg are at the very least SOMEWHAT responsible for the direction American cinema has taken, and I also admit that for the most part, I do not like where they have taken us.
Don't get me wrong; I did enjoy the Star Wars trilogy, and still do. I think it is great movie making, as is the Indiana Jones series. Lots of people try to poke holes into Lucas and Spielberg's work, saying it isn't original, and so on -- but when you think about, it's pretty hard to come up with a truely original film, in fact, I think it's near impossible. Old stories lend themselves, for the most part, to newer ones (Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress lending itself to Star Wars, for example). The movies, from a technical standpoint, are amazing; I can watch the making of Star Wars, and not be bored by it.
But here's the thing that bothers me about what happened after Star Wars trilogy came out. Slowly, the take at the box office has become more important that the movie itself. I'm not saying Hollywood was ever an artists' colony that would let directors go willy-nilly and do whatever they damn well pleased for the sake of thier art (nothing wrong with that tho). I am saying, that in the 1970's, a period that most people agree is the golden age of Hollywood cinema, the studios were more willing to bankroll something like Chinatown, or Apocalypse Now. These films were not dumbed down, nor were they special effects spectacles like we know them today. They were thoughtful films, that were deeply layered and couldn't be understood fully in one sitting.
Watching Star Wars now makes me see the universal mythos symbolism ("the hero with many faces," that sort of thing) that ran in the series, and I see things now, when I see the films, that I didn't see as a kid. So is Star Wars a thoughtful film like Chinatown? I think so -- after all, it appealed to more than kids when it first ran. But one of the arguments about Lucas and Spielberg were that the films they made were fanciful and fairy-tale-ish, versus the noir feel of Chinatown or the psychedelic Apocalypse Now. And in the end, as we all know, Lucas and Spielberg's view of film became the mainstream in Hollywood.
So what were the results of Lucas and Spielberg? Whether they meant it or not, money became more important than the actual craft of making a film. There aren't too many auteurs in Hollywood cinema -- I am not being elitist, but how many directors have a vision that they consistently try to convey through their films? Think about this -- movies that would have been considered B-movies 25 years ago are now made into premier films (action films, monster films, and so on). And then, of course, there's the marketing; you can't tell me you haven't watched a movie, and came out convinced that it was a 90 min. ad for action figures and playsets.
Like I said, I don't think Star Wars is crap, and I do actually think that Speilberg and Lucas are auteurs. But I can't help but think the critics that are so critical of them and what happened after Star Wars might be right. Why else would a picture like Pulp Fiction do so well? It's got lots of dialogue, there's no action figures and basic special effects. It did well because it's a good film and people still want to see a film (and not a movie). That's why, when I said Phantom Menace was one of the worst films, I didn't say it to be gilb or sarcastic. Star Wars took a good 45 mins to develop the main chracters before it really started moving. I mean, when you think about it, the begining, after the droids escape in the pod, is downright boring -- Luke's a farmer, for chrissakes! In Menace, the lightsabers are out in less than five mins, and it seems like it's one playset after another (action figures not included). And there's the whole feeling of something deeper in Star Wars that I didn't feel in Menace -- no feeling of deeper symbolism or common hero myth themes. And most of all ... Jar Jar. Everyone has admitted that he was in there for the kids, and people argued that he was kinda like R2 and C3PO. But it wasn't exactly the same; the droids were more like comic relief in the Shakespearean sense of the word; Jar Jar was annoying in the Power Rangers sense of the word.
If you liked Phantom Menace, great. But I couldn't ever justify calling it a good film, and I did feel cheated after I saw it. Just my two cents.
This was probably one of the advantages Lucas had with the original trilogy (Eps. IV-VI): people didn't have a clue where the story might go. Here, everyone knows that eventually, the little kid is going to become chief co-badass of the galaxy far far away, and that there's going to be a big political shakeup. Lucas had to make Episode I with most of the audience knowing all of this. If he took the time to develop the characters, a lot of people would've been bored. So instead he took the complete opposite route -whiz bang action and a boatload of special effects right at the start. But THEN he had to introduce the whole political intrigue thing with the Palpatine character as it's going to be a major point for Eps. II and III. I guess ultimately he was afraid of boring the audience. Bottom line: Episode I was clumsy because it had to be made both as what the public views as a Star Wars movie (action, weird creatures) and also as an opener for what's ultimately a six-part series.
-nick reffuse
**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**
I don't agree. I found myself wishing that the young Obi-Wan and Qui-Jong-Li had been more interesting characters. Inatead, Jar Jar was the most memorable character in the film. If there had been more character development, I would've been more interested, not less.
The farm scenes early in Ep. 4 didn't strike me as dull at all. The space battle at the beginning tells us what's really at stake in the film. Luke, Uncle Ben, and Aunt Varu going about their daily business have no idea of the menace that's brewing, nor the danger that's entailed in their keeping these funny droids. To me, there's a good deal of dramatic tension here.
He bored some of the audience anyway, because the characters weren't interesting.
I think Nick makes the better point here. Episode 1 was a very high action movie with some "kid" stuff thrown in. I think it is a "hook" movie. By this, I mean that while Lucas tried to ensure that, whatever happens, they story get's introduced, he also hooks as many of the masses on the trilogy with the first one as possible. This way, they'll go see the second and third as a matter of corse, and then he gets to tell his story.
I'm willing to bet the next one will be somewhat comparable to "The Empire Strikes Back" in the way people percieve it. Action hacks were bored by TESB, since it had a lot of talking and a lot of running away. Vader vs. Luke was too one sided (on the wrong side) for it to compensate.
People who liked good drama and storylines mostly throught TESB was the best in the series. You really got to know the characters during this movie. And it's nice to see that the bad guys aren't *total* pushovers, thus making the final victory of the good guys that much more satisfying.
I wish it were possible to join a star wars ng and not totally be bombarded by spam, trolls, and flamewars. Hmm... I've never actually checked this. I'll have to do so.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm on about. The difference, though, is that instead of setting up an independent movie which has sequel potential but the sequels weren't necessarily going to be made (ala SW/Ep. IV), GL actually had to put TPM together as a film knowing damn well that it's going to wind up linking to five other movies. Quite a rough task. Hence it really doesn't stand on its own well, and can only be viewed as an intro. But for marketability's sake, he had to try and throw in all the stuff that normally makes a stand-alone film -lots of stuff for the eyes, and not so much for the mind. Given, it was a box office success from the moment it was announced, but...well, you know. ;)
Given all the stuff that's leaked and been figured out via postulation, Ep. II actually does look like it's going to be that very kind of film. There's going to be some cool action, but it's going to be a very dark kinda film with lots of disturbing revelations and goings on. Not to place bets a whole year-plus beforehand, but right now...wow, it sounds like really good stuff. No pod race here, either. ;)
Geez. Over at starwars.fan.org, there are fans on the bulliten boards who are convinced that just because they think an idea is stupid that GL should scrap it. Some people even think that the idea of stormtroopers actually being clones should be dropped, even though at this point it seems about 60% definite that's a key element of the film... What thick-headed bastards. ;)
-nick reffuse
**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**
On 09 Sep 2000 19:40:51 GMT, [email] (nick reffuse) wrote:
In the case of a standalone, it only matters that they come. In the case of a planned trilogy, it matters not only if they come, but they also have to come *back*.
The studios have always been about money. That's how they make their living, after all. They've always interfered. That was why it was so important for Lucas to be able to finance the movies on his own, so the studio COULDN'T interfere.
The studios have also always tried to make a formula when they saw something break through. Public Enemy was a huge hit in 1930, so it was followed by a million gangter movies. The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms was a huge hit in 1953, so there were a ton of giant monster movies. Look at how many Tarentino wanna-bes we've seen the last few years.
("the
and I see
Star
appealed
Lucas
view
Again, the market decides. The original Star Wars was low budget. Also, if we're going to discuss Speilberg, you have to include Schindler's List.
it or
film.
elitist,
convey
(action
Actually, in the 30s, you had top level talent working on the gangster, detective, and horror films. James Whale's horror films were brilliant, regardless of genre. Chinatown was a homage to those B- movies of the 40s, where we get the term "noir".
Most of the great, innovative, directors, the auteurs, had to work under a studio system much more restrictive than we have, today. Look at Hitchcock.
that
critics that
right.
of
well
a
films, I
to
when you
whole
Menace -- no
all ...
people
same;
the
calling it a
I didn't feel cheated. I knew it was going to be back story, just one chapter in a larger epic. Since you mentioned Tarentino, I'd say he's proof that a talented, visionary, filmmaker can succeed in today's market. And, like Lucas, Spielberg, and Scorsese before him, he's gotten a lot of imitators.
And again, it was Lucas, Speilberg, and Coppola that took the power away from the studios and into the hands of the artists. Before then, you had a few independant filmmakers, but they weren't making a dent. For a big budget project it was still pretty well work for hire.
Point well taken, but you still have to admit, most of the imitiations that you find aren't much in the way of flattery, as they are crap.
I'm not that great with film history, but isn't that because most of them were immigrants from europe, who had done work in film there, but they had to make a name for themselves in hollywood, and the B-movie genres were the avenue to the bigger and better things?
Stable systems and Hayes code. I'll give you that. But I think an artist can still make a great film no matter how stifing the environment (though it is easier when those restriction are lifted).
I'd like to see Tarantino direct a star wars. That would really be something. Was it just me, or were you expecting Samuel L. Jackson to start bitchslapping someone and cursing when you saw him at the Jedi Council? ;)
Seriously, though, I guess the whole feeling cheated thing is me. But, that's the way I saw it -- things pretty much being thrown at you without much being told about the characters.
It's a cycle really. I think when Pulp Fiction was released, it was the first time an independent film caused that much interest in a long time. I understand what you're saying, but you also have to remember that after the first films of Lucas, Speilberg and Coppola, they became absorbed into the mainstream and into the big studios. You really didn't hear anything about independent films until Tarantino, and by that I mean, again, the kind of buzz you usually associate with a big studio production. I'm not saying that directors should take a vow of poverty and stay as far away from big studios -- I think most of them start doing very good work when they have the resources to do the kind of films they want. It's just all the imitators that crap everything up that bothers me, and the fact that the studios only see money.
It's like the classic statement regarding rock bands. "I was a fan of [insert name] back when they were playing tiny clubs and living in their cars. They were good then. Now they've sold-out and I can't stand them." And in this case "sold-out" is defined as "became popular and made money".
I just have to say that _that_ is a phrase that has always annoyed me. All of humanity's accomplishments since the dawn of civilization and the thing that is supposed to impress us the most is baked goods cut with a knife? :)
It's just an expression that's found its way to the general American consciousness. It probably was first coined way back when sliced bread was actually important...maybe the act of preslicing bread made a lot of things quicker and easier, like preparing the next day's brown bagged lunch or serving up bread with a meal or something. I don't know. It's just one of those explainable old sayings like "make your bed" or somesuch.
Oh yeah, and getting back onto topic...I think one of the worst movies ever made was "Wigstock". I thought "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" was a stinker too. Any "Batman" movie aside from the first two can be included. Any Lifetime "woman-as-victim" movie can fit in here, as well as any Fox Family "let's-rip-off-the-current-box-office-champ" movie. I hated "Barbarella" when I saw it, but I would see it again just to giggle at Jane Fonda uttering the line, "I'm looking for Duran Duran" (I am such a pathetic fan). I hate "A View to a Kill", too, and can never manage to stay with it past the first five minutes after the opening credits (which of course I sit through dutifully as I AM a fan). Then again, I'm not into James Bond...btw, what is it with guys and James Bond, anyway?
Her short story that incited a riot was more Bond-ish (the books, not the movies) than Blaze-ish.
Fleming's actually a good writer to study when one wants to learn how to write. You have to start with characterization and plot (Know the basics before you get fancy), so Fleming is perfect for that.
I never could get into the Fleming novels. It's probably because I saw most of the Connery Bond films before I read the first one, and they're just too radically different.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
The original James Bond films up to "You Only Live Twice" were brilliant. Roald Dahl wrote at least one version of the script for the latter. The Roger Moore films were merely very expensive "Monty Python" sketches.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
I'd have to include On Her Majesty's Secret Service among the great ones. If Connery had done it, it would likely be remembered as THE best Bond movie. It's a perfect climax to the storyline that built from Dr. No through You Only Live Twice.
It gets a bad rap, but Lazenby wasn't that bad. Compared to Moore, he was Olivier.
My favorite is "You Only Live Twice". The production values are outstanding for a film of the time, and for a B movie, the writing is excellent. Donald Pleasance was the best of the Blofelds.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
The first couple are good. In the books, Bond is portrayed as a ruthless killer (verging on the psychotic) who is thus a quite useful (but ultimately disposable) tool for his masters. The first films capture something of this. The rest are jokes.
Agreed, in terms of "serious" content (the later Bond movies are still fun to watch, but they've missed the point).
Ian Fleming vacillated between writing them as wish-fulfillment fantasy (he was a real British intelligence operative, but of course his service was nowhere near as glamorous as Bond's); and a character study in how a violent, almost primitive man can be vital for national interests, while at the same time being totally ill-suited for anything like a normal civilian life. You could write books of criticism on how much of Bond's ruthless, violent, misogynistic philosophy was meant to be ugly and how much was meant to be "realistic".
Note though: Bond did have a sense of honor, which was what prevented him from being truly evil. Without this sense of honor, not even the British could have trusted him.
The same can be said for Modesty Blaise, who is in some ways a superhuman being and in other (mostly emotional) ways a crippled misfit. Her origin (she was a supergenius war orphan, forced to struggle to survive at an early age) makes her personality quite plausible. Modesty also has a strong sense of honor which redeems her.
Thinking about it further, Modesty's actually very sane considering her horrible early life. She clearly engages in "family-building" (a la Batman); she can't have a stable romantic relationship with men but what she usually does is stays friends with them afterwards and treats them thereafter as "kin". Then there's her longest-term friendship, which is totally non-romantic in nature, with her sidekick (whose name I'm drawing a blank on though I know it).
The thing is, there was an awful lot of expectation over that movie. The twenty and thirty-something fans who'd seen the holy trilogy as children where expecting a more grown up movie aimed at them. Instead there was yet another one aimed at 9 year olds.
I'm so far removed from cool, I'm incandescent but I just thought the plot was stupid. Some movies of the "switch your brain off for 100 minutes" variety are excellent if you just take them as what they are and don't expect them to be something they're not. I thought X-Men was excellent but Phantom Menace just annoyed me for a whole host of reasons.
On the mountaintop, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) spake thusly:
I semi-enjoyed Phantom Menace, but after spending four hours stuffing Darth Maul figures and Star Wars Trivial Persuit games into bags for GenCon ("Knife goes in, Darth Maul figure comes out, that's what GenCon volunteering is all about..."), I don't think I could ever watch it again.
Ehhh...not particularly. I mean, they show it on ESPN, but they consider just about anything a sport...and anyway, there's an audience for it.
But there is kind of a movement among many cheerleaders to try to get people to consider it a sport, the rationale being "We get sweaty at practice, and we go to competitions." I won't deny that they have to work hard, and competition is involved at times, but that doesn't make it a sport. I was in marching band, I got sweaty at practice, and I went to competitions, and I don't consider it remotely a sport...and I bet neither would a lot of cheerleaders.
(NOTE: I was on good terms with a couple of cheerleaders, so I should include a disclaimer that they're not all bad.)
Watakushi no kioku ga tashika naraba, on Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:12:56 GMT, Tice Rust wrote:
Actually some of those moves require great deals of athleticism and balance, rivaling those of professional acrobats. Besides which, I've never seen a marching band member do a triple somersault. ;)
Not that I'm defending cheerleaders, by any means, just that there is a huge difference between the "cheerleading" you see at national competitions (which is more a mix of acrobatics and dance), and that which you see at your local football games.
I liked the movie, but then, I would have loved it even if Eliza Dushku had been up there reading a telephone book for 90 minutes.
Watakushi no kioku ga tashika naraba, on Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:01:48 GMT, [email] wrote:
Hi to you too. ;)
Mmm, Eliza must not be missed. I didn't think I'd enjoy a cheerleader movie either, but damn, they did such a great job with Eliza's character, and the subtext is fast and furious. That alone makes it worth the price of Matinee, at least. :)
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 05:18:38 GMT, "The Contentious Objector" wrote:
[stuff about silicone cheerleader mindless flick]
I agree that breast implants are an abomination, but to call this the worst movie ever made just confirms you haven't seen the film paid for by the U.S. Army enumerating the virtues, specifications and usage of the army toothbrush! Now *that* was a suspense flick to rival Hitchcock. Suspense as to when it would end that is! :)
"I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury."
Blegh. If you want sex, rent a straight-up porno. Not something disguised badly as artsy-fartsy sensationalism.
Well, okay. Mark Arm needed a place to lift a band name from. Then again, anything beats the hell out of a name like "Mr. Epp and the Calculations"... ;)
-nick reffuse
**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**
On 02 Sep 2000 03:26:52 GMT, [email] (nick reffuse) wrote:
Meyer vehicles have something that real "porn" movies don't. They're funny... on purpose.
Don't confuse Russ Meyer with Max Hardcore.
It's like saying that "The Getaway" (the real one, not the pale imitation) is the same as "Faces of Death".
Actually, my favorite band name (whom I've never heard) is the "Dirty Rotten Imbeciles", a British punk band, if I'm not mistaken. My first reaction was, "Whom does that describe better, the band or the fans?"
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
That sounds right. I was living in Atlanta back in the 80's, and I saw stickers advertising them plastered around. I never went to see them.
BTW, there's a lot of competition for the Worst Movie Ever Made. "Phantom Menace" isn't a contender for that. It's just the worst Star Wars movie. Compared to sci-fi films in general, I thought of was mid-range. I've seen plenty worse, most of them on MST3K.
Eventually. Green River was a stop on the way. As were the Thrown Ups. And some other bands, too. I don't remember the eighties history of Seattle too well...but then, who is capable of remembering all the sordid details of the pre-commercialized days? My one friend Mark (NOT Arm!) has a book called Loser which details all that stuff and is really good. Can't remember who it's by, though. :(
-nick reffuse
**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**
The reason that many people consider it a sport is because competitive cheerleading is extremely similar to gymnastics - with many flips and tosses - and you have to be in some kind of decent physical shape to do that and not get seriously hurt. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with this... ;)
This afternoon I saw about 5 minutes of "Priscillia Queen of the Desert" after seeing this I can no longer have faith in my opinion that "Bring It On" was infact the worst movie ever made, therfore I wish to extend my most sincere appologies to the cast and producers of "Bring It On"
</Politician>
If you did not know, "Priscillia Queen On The Desert" is a movie about four Australian drag queens crossing the Outback in a rusty old bus.
OMG! I LOVED "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" (yeah, you got the title wrong...no big whoop). I thought it was funny, took risks (can't say the "e" word), and certainly had a lot of spunk invested for its characters. From the previews I've seen, I would venture a guess that your original choice of "Bring it On" would be the closest thing to being "the worst movie ever made". God, Kirsten Dunst DOES = "white trash jail bait". If she weren't so damn famous, she'd be on "Jerry Springer", no sweat.
How can you not like Priscilla? You're like ... the only person ever!
Priscilla is single handedly responsible for the huge comeback of ABBA. Perhaps we shouldn't thank the creators for it, but it was popular in its own right. (And for the introduction of the infamous tampon line).
Congo ... the worst movie ever is definitely Congo (closely rivalled by Varsity Blues).
"Lady Interference" wrote in message news:[email]...
I work for an advertising agency, I am VERY familier with the "e" world. And given I will soon be writting for a advertising \ marketing magazine, so I will be eating, sleeping and bathing in "Edge"
Although given my favorite movies are "Mall Rats" and "Babe: Pig In The City" I am probably not in a very good position to be rating the quality of movies.
Remember, everyone, the Matrix stars an idiot, Cowboy Curtis, and a drag queen...
~Aabi fan of odd cult flicks... And I know it was wrong when I said it was true That it couldn't be me and be her inbetween Without you... ~Robert Smith Inbetween Days
I actually LOVE that movie. I welled up with tears at the end.
You saw romantic tension? D'oh, I rarely see stuff like that unless it bites me in the face (figuratively, a la the bits with Mark Wahlberg and Diane Lane). Okay, someone in here (namely, me) is dead below the waist...or something.
LI (who admits to not looking for high art in movies)
It was poorly written. It used cheap tricks and setup to make you want to care about the characters, without actually developing them into anyone worthwhile. The tension was stale with no buildup (the characters got mad for absolutely no reason). The plot dragged and the ending was too quick.
I could have written a better script. And I don't write scripts.
Yeah...I wasn't the only one.This guy in the back, in the scene where the boat is filling up with water and George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg were trying to keep their hed up, yelled out "Kiss him!" really loudly.
It was the most entertaining part of the whole movie.
~Aabi And I know it was wrong when I said it was true That it couldn't be me and be her inbetween Without you... ~Robert Smith Inbetween Days
Okay, I realize I'm reaching back into the archives here, but I've actually seen both 'Glen or Glenda' and 'Jail Bait', by the late unlamented Ed Wood Jr. I mean, some movies are made bad, some achieve badness, and some have badness thrust upon them - and some are carved from the living rock of badness. 'Perfect Storm' will be forgotten in a decade, while people are still marveling over 'Jail Bait'. Robert
"You're maudlin and full of self-pity - you're magnificent." Addison DeWitt, in "All About Eve"
I've seen "Jail Bait." It may yet prove to be Ed Wood's best work. Of course, that's compared to "Bride of the Atom," "Plan 9 from Outer Space," and "Glen or Glenda." :-)
I've never seen "Robot Monster," however, which is not an Ed Wood film, and if I ever see it, it may in fact be worse. I dunno yet.
What I've always wondered when watching that film is what plans 1 through 8 were, and exactly why they were _less_ practical than plan 9 (which has to be the most idiotic scheme for alien conquest to ever grace a sf movie).
_Robot Monster_ manages to be both bizarre, stupid, incredibly cheesy, and actively depressing. This is a strange combination, and one hard to achieve. The villain is an "alien robot monster" consisting of a guy in a gorilla suit with a diver's helmet on top of it, and he has a "space communicator" consisting of a radio mated with a bubble-making machine.
There _are_ special effects though. All lifted from another cheesy movie, about dinosaurs, whose name I forget but is to "Robot Monster" as Shakespeare by comparison :)
Glen or Glenda is hilariously bad, basically a stilted docu-drama about transvestites, bringing the deadness of a stilted documentary to the big screen.
Actually that brings to mind a great TV film in which one guy plays both the brother and sister from some dire family: Steeve Coogan played both Paul and Pauline Calf in "Three Fights, Two Weddings And A Funeral", a totally brilliant comedy (much better than the film it borrows it's title from IMHO). They avoided the need for special effects by doing it as a video diary shot mainly by Paul, so that he never had to be in view at the same time as his sister, instead you just heard his voice from behind the camera making dry comments about everything. It worked very well, and Coogan looked very convincing in drag as Paul's ugly sister. Steve Coogan is one of those actors who's like a chameleon, he totally vanishes inside his character. (He also played the ignorant sports presenter Alan Partridge in current affairs satire "The Day Today", and subsequently a spoof chat show, "Knowing Me, Knowing You", which is probably his best-known role. He reprised his Alan Partridge character at the Brit Awards a while back, and got a snog out All Saints' Melanie Blatt for his troubles, so I guess his character was pretty popular!)
Watakushi no kioku ga tashika naraba, on 16 Sep 2000 05:43:35 GMT, [email] (Robert Vincent Walker-Smith) wrote:
Agreed... And lest we forget Roger Corman -- the same director who perfected the technique of painstakingly filming a movie in his backyard over the course of three days -- whose huge catalogue of films, including "Teenage Caveman" and "Attack of the Crab Monsters" set a new standard for badness.