Tag Archives: film

Killer Robot Week: “Red Planet”

February 16, 2015 Gordon Maples 31 Comments

Red Planet

Today, we’re kicking off Killer Robot Week with a bit of a forgotten sci-fi feature: 2000’s much maligned “Red Planet,” which features the killer military tracking robot AMEE.

“Red Planet” was directed by South African Antony Hoffman, and is to date the director’s only feature. He did a short in 2014, but has no other planned credits listed on IMDb. The best information that I could find indicated that he apparently does commercials these days, which I suppose is better than nothing.

A fellow named Chuck Pfarrer is listed as both the writer and a producer on “Red Planet,” and it has been his only credit in the new millennium. Previously, he had an assortment of writing credits on movies like “Hard Target,” “Darkman,” and “The Jackal.” However, his most telling credit is on the film “Virus,” just one year prior to “Red Planet.” Back to back high-profile, high-budget failures in consecutive years is just about what it takes to sink a career.

Another writer credited on “Red Planet” is Jonathan Lemkin, who is still around today. He went on to write the action movie “Shooter” starring Mark Wahlberg, and is listed as working on “G.I. Joe 3” at the moment. Before “Red Planet,” he mostly did television writing (“Hill Street Blues,” “21 Jump Street”), but did do screenplay work for “The Devil’s Advocate” and “Lethal Weapon 4.”

The Art Department and Production Design team feature a couple of names still quite active today. Owen Paterson, who is credited with the production design, is currently attached to “Captain America: Civil War,” and has recently worked on “Godzilla (2014).” He also had a lengthy connection with the Wachowskis, doing the production design for all three “Matrix” movies, “V For Vendetta,” and “Speed Racer.” Hugh Bateup, who is credited as one of the Art Directors on “Red Planet,” took over Paterson’s Production Design role for the later Wachowski movies “Cloud Atlas” and “Jupiter Ascending” after serving as an art director for the siblings on the “Matrix” trilogy and “Speed Racer.”

“Red Planet” boasts a pretty interesting cast: Simon Baker (“The Mentalist”), Val Kilmer, Terrence Stamp, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Tom Sizemore lead the way in a minimal cast of astronauts who are sent to investigate a Mars terraforming project. Apparently, a lot of creative shooting had to be done with stand-ins and body doubles due to a major feud between Kilmer and Sizemore on set, which led to numerous instances where they refused to be present together for filming.

“Red Planet” was thoroughly loathed by critics and audiences upon release in 2000: Rotten Tomatoes has it at an abysmal 14% for critics, and an only slightly higher 28% for audiences. The box office didn’t fair much better: in total, the movie failed to rake in even half of its estimated 80 million dollar budget, making it a massive financial flop. However, opinion on the movie may be softening with time: its IMDb rating is up to a 5.6, and I’ve heard from a number of people who feel that it was unappreciated. Phil Plait of “Bad Astronomy” offers one of the few positive reviews out there:

“I was expecting a really bad movie, both plot-wise and astronomy-wise. What I got was an enjoyable movie. It is not very fast paced, which may be why the critics didn’t like it. The plot was not great, but good, and I thought the pacing was just fine. I expected Val Kilmer to chew up the scenery, but his character was actually a rather modest, likable fellow, and Kilmer played him very well. The special effects were also really good.”

First off: I definitely agree on (most of) the effects. AMEE, the killer robot of the story, is primarily done with CGI, but looks absolutely fantastic for being from 2000. Some other things in the story look less impressive (the oxygen bugs), but AMEE is undoubtedly the centerpiece.

Speaking of which, the design of AMEE is damn cool. The monoeye design of the infamous HAL is incorporated into a complex, impressively thought-out convertible robot that functions in both bipedal and quadrupedal modes. I’m not a big fan of the kung-fu bipedal mode, but the quadropedal mode is really unsettling: AMEE’s motions are modeled after those of large, predatory cats, and the sense of cat-and-mouse in the plot is really punched home with that detail. It is also worth pointing out that some of the most recent robotics developments at Boston Dynamics bear some resemblances to AMEE’s quadropedal mode, which is interesting to see. Another bit of sci-fi technological foresight here is the inclusion of a helicopter drone on AMEE, a solid year or so before the recognized inception of the modern UAV program in the United States military and CIA.

Staying on the topic of science and technology, Phil Plait of the “Bad Astronomy” blog, who typically tears movies asunder for technical inaccuracies, actually had some good things to say about “Red Planet”:

…they used spinning wheels on the ship to simulate gravity, which would work. I was amazed to see two wheels, spinning in opposite directions. This is exactly what you want to do!

…

I did like this movie. While not action packed, I liked the pacing and the thoughtfulness of it. There were a few plot devices: (1) the gamma flare (2) why didn’t the military disable AMEE’s military mode before giving it to civilians? and (3) the bugs making oxygen. However, this is a factor of ten fewer plot devices than in most movies.

…

…it is my great pleasure to say that “Red Planet” is vastly better than “Mission to Mars”. Of course, the stomach flu is better than “Mission to Mars”.

That is pretty high praise coming from Plait, who is quite the stickler in the realm of depicting science accurately on screen.

So, why was “Red Planet” such a huge failure? One of the most common criticisms I saw of the film over a cursory glance of the Rotten Tomatoes critics blurbs was a perceived lack of originality, a complaint that I think justifies some context.

“Red Planet” released in November of 2000, placing it 8 months after another Hollywood Mars expedition Sci-Fi flick: “Mission to Mars.” The two movies are rarely discussed separately, and are often a go-to example of similar movies racing to the box office, right next to “Armageddon”/”Deep Impact” and “Volcano”/”Dante’s Peak.” I can understand critics feeling over-saturated on the premise, and not giving “Red Planet” a fair shake on its own merits on the heels of “Mission to Mars.”

Another criticism of the film I have seen is the perceived lesson of “faith > science”, arguing that the movie has some concealed Luddite tendencies. I mean, there is a killer robot and a lot of wayward technology, so I can definitely see where that criticism comes from. There are also some painfully cringe-inducing lines of dialogue about faith that just feel strange and out of place: I have to wonder if this popped out of a rewrite or something, because the moments seem to pop out of nowhere, and don’t really contribute anything to the story. Val Kilmer’s extreme Christian Scientist beliefs have popped up recently in the news, proving that he is almost certainly devout to a fault as far as his personal health is concerned. I’m a little curious if he had any sway on the inclusion of these lines, which isn’t something that would be unheard of. In any case, they are a distraction and a weakness to the movie if you ask me. There isn’t anything strictly wrong with “science gone too far” stories, but it didn’t quite work here. I thought the more interesting line to follow would have been the “Jurassic Park” ‘life finds a way’ route, given that life manages to pop up despite all of the odds against it on Mars. Oh well.

Another frequent comment that I saw about “Red Planet,” which was treated as a positive or a negative depending on the critic, was how much the movie felt like a 1950s B-picture. Check out this excerpt from Roger Ebert’s positive take on the film:

“Red Planet” would have been a great 1950s science fiction film. It embodies the kind of nuts-and-bolts sci-fi championed by John W. Campbell Jr. in his Astounding magazine–right down to the notion that a space mission would be staffed by research scientists, and although there would be a woman on board, she would not be the kind of woman depicted in an aluminum brassiere on the covers of his competitors. This is a film where much of the suspense involves the disappearance of algae.

In contrast, here is the summary of a negative review from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Feels a lot like a B-movie from the 1950s.

I actually think the biggest problems with this movie were external. The release of “Mission to Mars” and its negative reception was beyond the “Red Planet” team’s control, as was the apparent public disinterest in the style of movie they made. “Red Planet” doesn’t feel like a movie that went wrong at any point in its creation, but rather like a movie that became exactly what it was meant to be, only to find that no one wanted it. I think that “Red Planet” is a 1950s B movie that was trying to compete in a field of early 2000s techno-action, and it was not what people wanted or expected. It isn’t sophisticated enough to be “Contact,” but also not entertaining enough to cut it as a summer blockbuster. It may just be a project that was doomed from inception. That’s really a shame, because I don’t think this is a particularly bad movie: it isn’t great, but I think it is worth a solid “C.”

As far as the plot goes, I appreciated the bit of mystery element included around the terraforming. It reminded me of the similar mechanic used recently in “Interstellar,” which I think served well in that film as well. I wish that the oxygen bugs made a little more sense and some more time was spent on it, but the tension wasn’t ultimately built on that mystery when it comes down to it, so that might have been the right decision. “Interstellar” put weight on saving Earth, whereas there isn’t the same urgency with “Red Planet”: these astronauts are just trying to survive.

I mentioned a few members of the art and production design team earlier. I specifically read into them, because the work on this movie is nothing short of fantastic. I love all of the gadgets, the equipment, the ship, the set: all of the trim in this film is top notch without a doubt. Everything seemed vaguely futuristic, but not so far that it was beyond belief: that can be hard to pull off in sci-fi, which I think any creative futurist could tell you. The near future is tricky business, because you are never quite sure when/where the big technological jumps are going to come in.

As I mentioned before, I think “Red Planet” merits a pretty solid “C,” but I’m still going to recommend it, if only because this deserves a second, retroactive look by more people, unpolluted by the context that surrounded its release. Also, the visuals of the robot and the production design are just cool, and are worth giving it a watch alone.

Uncategorized

“Sharknado”

February 16, 2015 Gordon Maples 3 Comments

Sharknado

Wednesday, Rifftrax’s live take on “Sharknado” from July will be available for download and streaming on their website. It was a damn good show (as all of their live ones typically are), and I highly recommend giving it a watch.

Of course, this Rifftrax release gives me a fantastic excuse to talk about the burgeoning franchise of centrifugal carcharadons, and whether these “Sharknado” flicks are worth the attention that they are garnering.

For those unaware, The Asylum, who creates the Sharknado movies, has been around since the late 90s, distributing and producing B-features. Over the past few years, they have made a name for themselves making two specific kinds of B-movies. First, they do a wide array of monster flicks: the “Mega Shark” movies, “2-Headed Shark Attack,” “Shark Week,” etc. Second, they have essentially created their own quasi-genre of the “mock-buster”: films designed to resemble current Hollywood releases as closely as possible, in order to parasitically feed on DVD sales. These have included such titles as “Snakes on a Train,” “Transmorphers,” and “Atlantic Rim.” Unsurprisingly, this has gotten them into a little bit of legal hot water here and there, particularly with 2012’s “American Battleship,” whose name was eventually changed to “American Warships.” “Sharknado” obviously follows in the vein of the first type, clearly drawing inspiration from the outlandish “Mega Shark” series, which saw success similar to “Sharknado” a few years back, though not on the same scale.

Most of the movies put out by “The Asylum” are of pretty low quality by Hollywood standards, but are certainly leagues above Troma movies as far as production qualities go. They have particularly relied on cheap CGI in recent years to carry their films, which doesn’t enthrall today’s hardcore horror fans by any means. I mentioned in my “Lake Placid” review that I felt like the CGI used there really set the precedent for these Asylum monster movies, for better or worse. “Deep Blue Sea,” also from 1999, deserves some credit/fault as well for the first major modern CGI showcase of sharks on the big screen.

It is worth noting that while The Asylum’s movies are all of similarly low quality in regards to production values and CGI, they are not all equally entertaining. “Sharknado” is without a doubt one of the most genuinely entertaining products that they have put out, and I don’t think many would argue otherwise. Most of their movies are poorly paced, dull, and unmemorable, all of which are criticisms that I don’t think are valid to level at “Sharknado.” I will say that one of my favorite Asylum movies (maybe more so than “Sharknado”) was “Sherlock Holmes,” a mock-buster which was released just after the first Robert Downey Jr. / Guy Ritchie blockbuster. However, instead of just being satisfied with taking on a Holmes story, Asylum managed to wedge in an Iron Man suit, hologram dinosaurs, robots, and a hot air balloon battle. Really.

There is a really good video that circulated a bit last year that ruminated on the concept of good-bad (“nanar”) movies, and whether one could be made intentionally, a question that was clearly aimed at “Sharknado.”

The video did get me thinking, and I responded to it last month with a lengthy analysis of “The Producers” and “Springtime for Hitler,” in which I posit that there is a way to intentionally craft a bad movie. But, right now I want to dig into something that the video neglects to cover: the long tradition of intentionally made bad movies, which I believe deserves its own classification.

I mentioned Troma earlier in this post: in a lot of ways, they operate the same way that the Asylum does, but with a more tongue-in-cheek disposition and fondness for practical effects. They definitely have a cult following, and some of their films are regarded in the highest echelon of good-bad movies, but I don’t think anyone honestly believe that Troma goes into any of their movies aiming to create something conventionally “good.” “Surf Nazis Must Die,” “The Toxic Avenger,” “Tromeo & Juliet,” etc. are all clearly intentionally made bad movies, yet they have a loyal following of people who swear by them. They are still undoubtedly a divisive entity in the B-movie world though, so lets look at another example: Roger Corman.

troma2 — Lloyd Kaufman, mastermind of Troma

Roger Corman is the undisputed King of the B-movies. Even beyond that, he is one of the most renowned fosterers of filmmaking talent in history, giving first breaks to people like Peter Bogdanavich, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese, Jack Nicholson, and James Cameron, among many others. His career has spanned the better part of a century, and he, without any doubt, creates intentionally bad movies that are often widely adored. Recently, his producing credits have included the “Sharktopus” movies, the next of which is slated for 2016. On the other end of his long list of credits is 1955’s “The Beast With a Million Eyes”: he’s been doing this for a long, long time, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would claim that Corman movies don’t deserve recognition in a “good-bad” movie discussion.

When it comes down to it, I think this video misses the category that “Sharknado” really belongs in. Here is a Venn diagram shown at 1:32:

I think that this diagram merits another circle. As he mentions, there are a few different definitions of what a “B-movie” is out there, and not all of them are made with the same sort of intentions of a Troma or Roger Corman film: to be outlandish for the sake of outlandishness. I’m going to include this category as a green circle on a modified version of the above graph, with the acknowledgement that not all of these intentionally made bad movies are “nanar”-style enjoyable, but some definitely are.

So, I would claim that “Sharknado” gets the rare distinction or being in the intersection of the green and blue circles, alongside a handful of the more enjoyable Corman movies, treasured B-movie flicks like “Chopping Mall,” and a debatable selection of Troma’s filmography.

Getting back to “Sharknado,” I do not think is as bad as it is by design alone. Particularly after seeing it on a big screen for the Rifftrax event, I believe that this is an incompetently made film beyond just the outlandish concept and writing. I think “Sharknado” is kind of like someone laughing at themselves to try to cover up a genuine weakness. As we all should know, laughing at it doesn’t make a flaw magically go away.

The CGI sharks and, more noticeably on a big screen, CGI weather effects look damn awful throughout this movie, and are probably the biggest weaknesses to the whole thing. Given how often the sharks and weather need to be shown on screen for this film to work, it is a pretty big issue that they look so poorly done. To be fair, they aren’t “Birdemic” birds, but they still look pretty awful.

Something else that stands out more upon re-watching is the cinematography of “Sharknado,” in the sense that it is just god-awful. The camera movements are frankly nauseating, far more so than is ever justified. It isn’t like there are people out there who find bad cinematography hilarious, this is just honest incompetence in the film-making showing through.

So, I suppose my point with all of this is that “Sharknado” 1) follows in a long tradition of outlandish concept films, 2) is incompetent beyond just the concept, and 3) is still an entertaining film. I understand the detractors that aren’t fond of The Asylum’s brand of B-movies, but I do think that the success of “Sharknado” isn’t an accident: despite being an incompetently crafted movie, it is fun, and is almost certainly the result of a boiling down of The Asylum’s past successes. It isn’t the same kind of fun that “Troll 2” or “The Room” offers, but it is definitely similar to the old Corman-esque tradition.

“Sharknado 3” is slated for debut in July 2015, and it looks like it will mark yet another change of venue for the franchise, this time to the nation’s capital. After the second film’s location of New York, NY, I hope there are some more twists in store for this third flick apart from new monuments to level. It is going to be hard to compare with a shark assault on the Big Apple.

And, again, Rifftrax’s take on Sharknado will be available on Wednesday, February 18th at Rifftrax.com. It was a fun show to watch, and if you enjoyed Sharknado, it is sure to enhance the experience for you.

Uncategorized

Jason X (Friday the 13th Part 10)

February 13, 2015 Gordon Maples 15 Comments

Jason X (Friday the 13th Part 10)

Happy Friday the 13th everyone! Given I have already covered parts VIII and V of the treasured horror film series that has so popularized the holiday, I figured that this would be an opportune time to take a look at one of the other much-maligned later entries into the franchise: specifically, the futuristic, sci-fi infused “Jason X.”

“Jason X” was written by Todd Farmer, and was his first major writing project. He has since gone on to write the “My Bloody Valentine” remake and the Nic Cage movie “Drive Angry,” which has a similar tongue-in-cheek tone to “Jason X.” The director of “Jason X,” James Isaac, doesn’t have many other directorial credits, but has worked in special effects on movies such as “Gremlins,” “Virtuosity,” and “eXistenZ.”

The cast of “Jason X” is headlined by Kane Hodder, who plays his famous role of Jason for the last time in the film. The rest of the cast is made up of various bit players and television actors, but lauded director David Cronenberg makes a brief cameo in the opening sequence of the film.

“Jason X” is perhaps best known for being widely hated by critics and audiences alike. It currently hold a critic score of 20% and an audience score of 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is decidedly in the realm of the rotten. The film made just under 17 million at the box office on an estimated budget of 11 million, making it at least a profitable venture in spite of the poor reception.

“Jason X” was initially pitched because of developmental issues with getting the next planned movie in the series, “Freddy vs. Jason,” off of the ground. While that crossover was stuck in development hell, it was decided that another “Friday the 13th” movie should be made to keep the character of Jason in the public consciousness. And thus, the hockey-masked killer was sent into space.

In an attempt to keep the series fresh, “Jason X” is a film that tried a lot of new things. Unfortunately, most of them didn’t work out very well. The new, futuristic look for Jason wasn’t warmly received, and neither was the stilted attempt to make the movie a partial parody of the series. To make matters worse, “Jason X” was also one of the first major horror movies to rely heavily on CGI effects, which is something that still doesn’t sit well with horror purists. After all, this is a series that once claimed one of the kings of practical horror effects, Tom Savini. The writer and director tried to replicate some of the successful elements of “Alien” into the movie, but all of those attempts fall pretty flat and barely break out of being shallow, hollow pastiches. All of that said, at least the movie marked an attempt to try something new, and that is worth some credit. You can only terrorize campers at Crystal Lake so many times.

While most of the attempts at humor in “Jason X” are really poorly executed, there is at least one segment that I thought was pretty great. At one point in the film, Jason is trapped in a holodeck. In an attempt to distract him, a simulation is produced of Camp Crystal Lake, complete with promiscuous, pot-smoking teenagers. Jason reacts by, of course, killing them, but does so in a way that nods to one of the most memorable deaths in the franchise up to that point:

That’s a pretty good way to nod at the history of the franchise, and poke at how over the top it had become. If only the whole film were so clever…

The acting and dialogue in “Jason X” is unarguably awful, but it is possible that this was done by design for the sake of self-parody. I think that might even be likely, but it unfortunately doesn’t make the movie any more entertaining, despite the best of intentions.

It is interesting to note how much “Jason X” differs from the 2009 reboot of the franchise. Effectively, the reboot goes in the opposite direction stylistically, favoring a very dark and serious tone over any kind of camp. Interestingly, this approach also failed to resonate, earning scores just barely higher than “Jason X” from critics and audiences. This brings up an interesting question: what kind of “Friday the 13th” would satisfy audiences today? I suppose it would have to find a median between “Jason X” and “Friday the 13th” (2009), but I wonder if anyone will ever be able to find that balance. The entire reason that “Jason X” took so many chances is because the premise and the character of Jason have just been done to death, and there aren’t many places left to take it. I suppose we’ll see if Jason will ever be left dead indefinitely.

“Jason X” surprisingly saw a number of sequels in the form of paperback books that were marketed for young adults. I never read any of them, but I have a hard time believing that Jason translates particularly well into the written word.

The good folks at MythBusters took on one of the more infamous scenes in the film, in which a character’s head is dunked into nitrogen and then smashed to pieces. In case you were curious, it was busted:

“Jason X” has the distinction of being the most lethal installment in the “Friday the 13th” franchise, clocking in with 28 deaths in total. Here they are, all handily compiled into a YouTube video:

So, how does “Jason X” hold up with the rest of the franchise? I know a lot of people who say it is the worst, but I don’t think that is quite fair. It definitely missed its mark with audiences, but the film itself isn’t poorly made. I think “Jason X” just took on too many (arguably poorly advised) risks that failed to pay off. The movie is at least watchable and has moments of entertainment when it comes down to it. “Jason X” certainly deserves to be considered as on the lowest tier of the franchise, along with V, VIII, and IX. However, I don’t think it can quite claim the bottom slot. I haven’t gone back to watch IX in a good while, but I’m leaning towards V being the worst in the franchise, and I think both of those films merit being ranked lower than “Jason X.”

Personally, I would only recommend “Jason X” for “Friday the 13th” fans that want to burn through the entire franchise. I know that there are some people who appreciate “Jason X” as a good-bad flick, and I will admit that it has some good moments, but overall I don’t think that it is particularly noteworthy. It doesn’t quite deliver on its ambitions, and the result is an unfocused movie that isn’t quite sure what it is supposed to be.

Uncategorized

Interview with “Bad Movie Nite!”

February 13, 2015 Gordon Maples Leave a comment

Bad Movie Nite! is a monthly showcase of classic bad movies shown in a handful of theaters around the country. I first came across them at Studio 35 Drafthouse and Cinema in Columbus, OH, and had to know more about the folks behind the madness. I recently caught up with Scott, the mysterious figure behind the programming, and ran a few questions by him.

—

“Bad Movie Nite!”: The title might be self explanatory, but what is it that you do?

Scott: The name “Bad Movie Nite!” to me means these are not good movies we’re showing, but only not good by conventional standards. I also mean bad as in Baaaaad. Movies your Mom and Dad wouldn’t be happy you’re watching. Wait ’til they go to bed and keep the sound low. Bad in that way. As long as the movies entertain, they can never be all bad, right?

—

What can you tell me about the mysterious (and, I assume, cloaked/hooded) figures behind “Bad Movie Nite!”? What inspired you to start doing these shows?

Scott: BMN! is the brainchild of me. I grew up watching Nite Owl Theater, USA Up All NIght, and TNT Night Flight. This show just basically recreates fond memories of my childhood. I started watching some of my favorites with a few friends on a weekly basis maybe 10 years ago as a way to ensure we get together consistently. Many of my friends had never heard of any of these. We loved cracking up watching them, but also getting caught up in the world of b-movies. We were getting exposed to any of the same actors, directors, stock footage, etc.

Missing a BMN! became sacrilege. I’d play some trailers or a cheesy educational/social hygiene short beforehand. Shortly thereafter we started watching two movies and making a clip show of youtube clips in-between the movies like and intermission we call FILLER (to this day we call the clip show FILLER). The FILLER would get more and more elaborate. People took turns making it. Sometimes we would call in sick to work just to get it done. Over time, friends of friends would come over and either be baffled or engaged with BMN! I started getting the idea that what we were doing would be something others might be interested in seeing. 90% of the shows have been made by me, but early on and increasingly lately a few of my friends (including my wife) have been getting more and more involved. My wife designs the graphics for the show and the buttons we give away.

—

The BMN logo has a definite Svengali vibe to it. Is there a reason for that? Are you subconsciously controlling our minds with your show?

Scott: Thank you! That’s exactly the feeling I was going for. Become intoxicated by the insanity of BMN…

—

A handful of theaters have shown your stuff around the country now. Where are they? Do you attend the shows? How did you wind up with multiple venues?

Scott: We have about 6 theaters all across the country. Just small theaters similar to S35 [Columbus, OH’s Studio 35] that we’ve known over the years for various things. We contacted a majority of them, but a few sought us out. Have never been to another location, but the Pittsburgh locale is on our to-visit list.

—

Do you consider what you do akin to “horror hosts”? Or is this something that you think of as totally different?

Scott: I don’t really see myself / ourselves as a horror host. I see BMN! as a more of a secret broadcast that you tune into. I secret, sinister channel between the regular channels. A broadcast you’re not supposed to see. Goes back to the Svengali aspect of the logo you mentioned…

—

Part of the charm of your shows is definitely the editing. How much time do you spend on each new show?

Scott: Oh boy. Usually about 3 weeks from inception to finished product. It’s not really enough time. Every other month involves at least one sleepless night. The concrete showtime is the only thing that gets the show done each month. We’ve scraped entire shows the week of (The Hard Ticket show a few months back was made in less than 3 days). Long time… It’s never perfect, but I suppose that’s part of the charm too. The extremely gracious and loyal fans (BMNers) is ultimately what the drives the show to get finished. Disappointing them is not an option.

—

The first time I saw your show, I was reminded in some ways of “Everything is Terrible” (particularly your amazing pre-features). Are you fans of theirs?

Scott: I do like EIT. Also Found Footage Festival. There was a public access show in Albuquerque, NM a few years back called Forbidden Transmission. I loved that so much…

—

You’ve shown a lot of love for old VHS cover art in your pre-shows. What are a couple of your favorites?

Scott: Hmm… Let me peruse some. BRB… (Frantically looks at VHS tapes)

DOLLS

FUNLAND

KILLER PARTY

HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT 2

PHANTOM BROTHER

SLASH DANCE

WIRED TO KILL

MY MOM’S A WEREWOLF

Too many to list really…

—

What was your introduction to the world of “bad movies”?

Scott: Again, watching late night shows like Nite Owl Theater and USA Up All Night. These cheesy movies, along with the hosts, and the late night commercials… I was seeing a whole different world. Taudry, violent, gratuitous… Loved it.
—

Are you MSTies (fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000)? If so, Mike or Joel?

Scott: I do enjoy MST3K. Don’t have a fave host.

—

What is your favorite “good-bad” flick that people probably haven’t heard of?

Scott: #1 with a bullet for all-time: DR. ALIEN

—

Do you have a particular favorite “good-bad” movie director?

Scott: Jim Wynorski is probably too obvious. Adam Rifkin has made a couple legendarily bad b-movies that I love…

—

What do you think is the most important element to a “good-bad” movie?

Scott: FUN. A movie that delivers the goods on a variety of these fronts (lasers, aliens, nudity, teens, drug use, cheesy dialogue, explosions). A movie that feels like it wasn’t just a cash grab. Something unique…

—

What has been your favorite movie covered so far in your show, in terms of entertainment value? Related: what do you think your best show has been so far? Is it the same?

Scott: Hard to say. I think the absolute show-stopper was DEADLY PREY. I really enjoyed showing STAR SLAMMER. The crowd liked that one too.

—

Are there any “bad movies” that you absolutely will not cover for BMN?

Scott: THE ROOM / BIRDEMIC / SHARKNADO The b-movies I love come from a by-gone era. Although there are redeeming qualities to all of these, there’s something missing, something hollow that I’m never totally on board with.

—

You’ve recently booked a second monthly show at Studio 35 in Columbus, OH, where you are doing shows dedicated to specific actors.The inaugural show, Nicolas Cage-a-thon, was a blast. Who can we expect to be featured in the future? (If you don’t do a Christopher Walk-a-thon, I will be disappointed)

Scott: HELL YES Walken will be a subject. Norris, Stallone, Busey are all in the pipeline. Arnold is the next one on February 27th.

—

What, in your opinion, are 5 movies that every bad movie lover absolutely must see?

Scott: Chopping Mall, Prom Night 2, Hard Ticket to Hawaii, Star Slammer, Frankenhooker

—

Do you have any upcoming shows to plug?

Scott: The Real Arnold Classic on 2/27 and our Gettin’ Unlucky in Space themed show on March 6th.

You can follow Bad Movie Nite! on Twitter and Facebook, and catch them every month at Columbus, OH’s Studio 35.

Uncategorized

The Midnight Meat Train

February 12, 2015 Gordon Maples 14 Comments

The Midnight Meat Train

Today’s movie is a bit of deep cut (ha!): “The Midnight Meat Train,” starring Vinnie Jones and Bradley Cooper.

“The Midnight Meat Train,” which was written and produced by Clive Barker of the “Hellraiser” series, went through a brutal post-production and release process: between mandated cuts from the MPAA, budget limitations, and a major executive transition at Lion’s Gate (the departure of Peter Block), the movie hit significant delays, and only would up releasing in 100-odd theaters. Barker has described the experience of distributing the movie as “a journey into the real underbelly of Los Angeles.”

meattrain5 — Apparently this is what distributing through Lion’s Gate is like

I first came across “The Midnight Meat Train” after it released On Demand through FEARnet (R.I.P.), and was of course hooked by the title. However, this is a film that goes far beyond just a catchy title: there is, perhaps surprisingly, a whole lot to like about this film.

“The Midnight Meat Train” was directed by Ryuhel Kitamura, a Japanese director who created “Godzilla: Final Wars” and the recent live-action adaptation of “Lupin III.” Kitamura was brought on after Patrick Tatopoulos, a creature creator and special effects guru who worked on “Underworld,” “I, Robot,” and “Trick ‘r Treat,” backed out of the production before filming began.

Kitamura described his vision for “The Midnight Meat Train” as being “the 80s way”: putting an emphasis on practical gore effects and tension, citing influences such as “The Hitcher,” “Hellraiser,” and “Friday the 13th.” In the commentary track on the film’s DVD, Kitamura specifically complains about the lazy and ineffective use of CGI gore in more recent horror movies, lamenting the days when practical effects were the only option. However, there is at least one distracting instance of CGI gore in “Midnight Meat Train,” which seems to be somewhat hypocritical.

The cinematographer on “Midnight Meat Train,” Jonathan Sela, has recently received acclaim for his work on the cult action movie “John Wick.” His previous credits include “Max Payne,” “A Good Day to Die Hard.” and the remake of “The Omen”: none of which have quite the same flair or punch of “Midnight Meat Train” or “John Wick.”

The cast features most prominently character actor Vinnie Jones (“Snatch,” “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels,” “X-Men United”) towards the beginning of his down-slide, and Academy Award nominee Bradley Cooper just as his stock was growing (he was coming off of the antagonist role in “Wedding Crashers”). Cooper’s character is not unlike Jake Gyllenhaal’s in “Nightcrawler”: he is a scummy photographer who observes the dark side of the city, without ever positively interacting with it. Unlike Gyllenhaal’s character, though, Cooper’s has a slowly growing conscience that inflates over the course of the story. It makes the character a little more likable as he starts to make more moral choices as the movie goes on.

Vinnie Jones plays a stoic subway murderer and butcher named Mahogany, whose purpose and motivations are kept veiled throughout the film. This sort of “heavy” role is what has essentially made Vinnie Jones’s career, going all the way back to his Guy Ritchie crime movies. His dialogue is minimal, apparently based on input from the actor himself. It is hard to argue that the muteness doesn’t make his character more menacing.

The accessory cast includes horror stalwart Ted Raimi (brother of writer/director Sam Raimi), Leslie Bibb (“Iron Man”), Brooke Shields (“Endless Love”), Peter Jacobsen (“House, M.D.”), UFC fighter “Rampage” Jackson, and Tony Curran (“League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”). “Rampage” Jackson and Bradley Cooper would reunite only a couple of years later for the film remake of “The A-Team,” which might be worth a second look here on the blog.

Clive Barker wrote the short story source material of “The Midnight Meat Train” based on an experience he had after first moving to New York City, in which he got lost while riding on a subway. The film manages to use the subway setting astoundingly to create tension and fear: everything from the screeching electrical sounds, to the sporadically flashing fluorescent lights, to the claustrophobic car space helps build the atmosphere for the film.

Another one of my favorite aspects of “The Midnight Meat Train” is one that I think has gone particularly under-appreciated: the score. Music is absolutely crucial for building atmosphere effectively in horror movies, and the work done on “The Midnight Meat Train” is absolutely knocked out of the park. Robb Williamson and Johannes Kobilke deserve a lot of credit for this score. Here is one of my favorite tracks, “Leon Jumps on A Train”:

It is worth noting that the production design on “The Midnight Meat Train” is really fantastic, particularly given the budget restraints eventually leveled on the film. The set at the end of the film, which appears to be a cavern, is actually ingeniously made out of paper to keep costs down. Also of note, I personally think that Mahogany’s chrome hammer and meat hook are just damn slick, as is his simplistic, professional costuming. Everything down to his haircut is made to look rigid, pristine, and cold. You can just imagine how chilling that chrome hammer has to feel.

Something else I appreciate about “The Midnight Meat Train” is that the audience gets to see the reactions of the locals to the series of murders. You see security tighten up on the subway as the film goes on, and there is even a great sequence where a vigilante Guardian Angel takes on Mahogany on the subway, and just about defeats him. You don’t usually get that kind of public anxiety coming through in horror movies, at least not done well. I was reminded a little bit of “Maniac Cop,” which also manages to pull off this public anxiety effect really well. It makes sense, though: a lot of people are afraid of using subways, which is something brought up in the film. Nothing makes a horror movie like laying the plot on top of a setting that is already terrifying to many people.

The film’s story offers a handful of pretty good twists that I don’t particularly want to spoil here. I will say that there is a sudden and unexpected turn that reminded me a lot of the cult classic “CHUD.” As strange as it is, the turn turn is pulled off pretty well through the use of creative editing, though there was also a financial motivation for not revealing the monsters too much. I actually think, much like with “Jaws,” that keeping the creatures scarce maintains their mysteriousness, and doesn’t ultimately hurt the movie. The writers and director still managed to come up with an impressive ending without their inclusion, which is worth checking out.

As far as weaknesses go, the plot of “The Midnight Meat Train” goes in circles a little bit, and is definitely a slow burn as far as pacing goes. That doesn’t work for a lot of people, but overall I think that this is a really surprisingly good horror flick, and one that puts most recent entries into the genre to shame. I do wish that the handful of CGI gore sequences were replaced with practical effects, but there are also moments where the CG is pulled off excellently: notably, all of the external sequences of the subway cars in motion.

The critical reception for “The Midnight Meat Train” was pretty good for a horror movie, racking up a 71% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. The audience reception wasn’t quite as favorable: it currently has a 50% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.3 rating on IMDb. That doesn’t particularly surprise me, though: I feel like this movie is pretty well catered to horror die hards, and doesn’t have much in the way of mass appeal. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, though.

Overall, this is an outstanding horror movie with only a handful of minor issues. The CG blood is disappointing and the pacing can be off-putting for some, but the atmosphere, style, score, and acting are all so fantastic that I think they make up for it. Even the story is far better than you would expect for a movie like this, even given how incredibly strange it is towards the end.

My recommendation, for horror fans particularly, is to seek this one out. “Midnight Meat Train” got a raw deal on release, which meant most people didn’t get an opportunity to see it. The film relies on its cult status, word of mouth, and the secondary market for building a fan base, and it is totally worth the pick up in my opinion. It isn’t a fun movie though, and probably isn’t great for a group watch (as the title might lead you to believe). It isn’t a good-bad movie, but rather it is just a good horror movie. You should absolutely just know what you are getting into with this one ahead of time: if you do, I’m confident that most will enjoy it.

Uncategorized

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

February 11, 2015 Gordon Maples 42 Comments

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Today’s feature is best known as the movie that made Sean Connery quit acting: “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.”

“LXG” is an adaptation from an Alan Moore comic series, who you might recognize as the guy behind “The Watchmen” and “V For Vendetta.” As is the case with most adaptations from graphic novels, the fan base of the source material of “LXG” is hard to please, and was pretty much guaranteed to bemoan any minor changes to the story that they have so cherished (see: criticisms of “The Watchmen” film ending). Personally, I treat those sort of adaptation criticisms with a grain of salt: a fan base should be considered when making a movie, but they shouldn’t dictate it. Director and screenwriters need the freedom to make a work their own. Sometimes the fans love the outcome of this creative freedom (“Guardians of the Galaxy”, “The Dark Knight”, “Iron Man”), but sometimes (most times) they hate it with the burning passion of 1000 suns (“Super Mario Bros”, “Howard the Duck”, “Batman & Robin”, “The Watchmen”, “Daredevil”, etc). This is what I call “nerd rage”: it is frequent, usually excessive, and often unreasonable. And it is powerful.

So, why does Hollywood so often take the risk of dealing with fickle fanbases? Well, partially it is because fanbases exist, and will buy tickets to see movies regardless of how they feel about the quality of the product on screen. How many “Transformers” fans do you know that went to go see those movies in spite of the quality? Film producers and studios know about that. Also, and of probably equal importance: Hollywood is “creatively bankrupt.” I put quotes there, because original ideas do exist in Hollywood and in the film business as a whole, but big studios are generally unwilling to take chances on them when their alternatives have existing fan bases waiting to flock into a theater. That is why you can expect a whole lot more Marvel movies than “John Wick”s.

In the case of “LXG,” however, both creators of the source material (Moore and illustrator Kevin O’Neill) were incredibly unhappy with the final product of the film, and weren’t afraid to let the public know: so it wasn’t just the fans this time. Moore is quoted as saying, on the topic of the film adaptations of his works: “I have a dwindling respect for cinema as it is currently expressed.” On the specific topic of the experience of dealing with the eventual lawsuit against “LXG,” he was a little more colorful:

“They seemed to believe that the head of 20th Century Fox called me up and persuaded me to steal this screenplay, turning it into a comic book which they could then adapt back into a movie, to camouflage petty larceny.” This led to Moore giving a ten-hour deposition – he believes he’d have suffered less if he’d “sodomised and murdered a busload of children after giving them heroin.”

Yikes.

Anyway, rage aside, let’s dig into “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” The film is directed by Stephen Norrington, whose film career was effectively destroyed by it. His only other major directorial work was “Blade,” a comic book adaptation that managed to not infuriate everyone in the known universe. He previously worked special effects on “Aliens” and “Alien 3,” which is pretty impressive stuff. However, the production process of “LXG” apparently burned him out entirely: not just the poor reception, but the difficulty of working with the producers, the studio, and the dealing with large acting personalities (Sean Connery). It sounds like the perfect storm of all of the elements ultimately did him in. He has gone so far as to publicly state that he will never direct a film again.

“League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” cinematographer Dan Laustsen has worked on a number of other notable productions, mostly in the horror genre. These include Guillermo Del Toro’s “Mimic,” both version of “Night Watch,” and the film adaptation of “Silent Hill.”

The film was written by a guy named James Robinson, whose other credits include…not much. The thing that kills me is that the few credits he does have seem to be related to comics on the whole, so I am willing to be he was a big fan of “LXG” going into it. I’m willing to bet that the reception was not pleasant for him.

One of my favorite B-movie writer/directors, Larry Cohen, was involved in a lawsuit against the “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” production, claiming that the film plagiarized a script he and Martin Poll pitched to 20th Century Fox multiple times called “Cast of Characters,” which included a number of characters that wound up in the film but were not present in Alan Moore’s source material for the movie. To say the least, that is pretty suspicious, as is the fact that the matter was settled out of court (which stinks of a payoff to me). The fact that such an inexperienced writer was solely trusted with the writing of this major studio project is also a wee bit suspicious.

The cast of “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” is highlighted, obviously, by the last hurrah of sorts for Sean Connery, who plays the famous fictional adventurer Allan Quatermain. The rest of the cast includes Richard Roxburgh as the primary villain (more on the similarities to “Van Helsing” in a minute), Jason Flemyng as Dr. Jekyll / Mr Hyde (again with the “Van Helsing” flashback…), Tony Curran (VIncent Van Gogh in “Doctor Who”, the conductor in “Midnight Meat Train”) as an invisible man, Shane West as Tom Sawyer, and a host of other minor actors playing various literary characters.

Much has been made of Sean Connery’s role in “LXG”: it is said that he only took it because he regretted passing on two other major roles (Gandalf in “Lord of the Rings” and Morpheus in “The Matrix”), and didn’t want to miss a potential franchise winner. Sean Connery is also reported to have been somewhat of an intimidating presence on the set, making other actors uneasy and being a general nightmare for the director, Stephen Norrington. He also went do far as to demand major script changes to make his character more likable.

“LXG” was absolutely stomped by critics upon release, and the audience reaction wasn’t much better. The film currently holds a 17% critic score and a 44% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Financially, the movie made a reported 179 million on a budget of 78 million, which is certainly profitable. However, aspirations were clearly much higher for the film. A sequel was reportedly planned that would be based on “War of the Worlds” by H.G. Wells, but the poor reviews and not-good-enough box office performance meant that this potential space epic never quite managed to get off the ground. It probably didn’t help that the director and star both rage-quit the industry as a result of the production, either.

Personally, I feel like critics were way too harsh on this movie at the time. I remember liking it well enough as a kid, and I still found plenty of positives to enjoy upon a re-watch. For most of the movie, the CG stays pretty reserved: I still think that the invisibility effect looks pretty solid. Also, the practical effects used for Mr. Hyde (when they are used) look great. I’m also a big fan of the production designed, which has garnered the film a bit of a cult following due to its steampunk aesthetic. I particularly adore the interpretation of Captain Nemo’s Nautilus. It is just cool.

All of that said, there are a fair share of issues with the film, to say the least. The CGI gets way out of control as the film goes on, climaxing in a ridiculous battle between Mr. Hyde and a…bigger Mr. Hyde? It looks absolutely awful. The plot also starts to unravel after the twist, and pacing goes completely awry heading into the third act. When Sean Connery starts staring at a tiger for a few seconds in the snow, and you can’t help but wonder where the hell the story went.

In a recent post on “Van Helsing,” I mentioned a lot of similarities between that one and this one. So, how do they compare? Let’s start with a few of the similarities.

First: is RIchard Roxburgh a better villain in “LXG” or “Van Helsing”? I think this one has to go hands down to “LXG”: Roxburgh’s Dracula is just plain awful. He’s hammy, but not hammy enough, and doesn’t come off as threatening in any way. Q in “LXG” is at least mysterious, and I liked his costume design pretty well.

Second: which has the better Jekyll/Hyde? I have to give this one to “LXG” as well: while the CG bits of Hyde do look awful, there are also a few moments of really solid-looking practical effects on the character. In “Van Helsing,” it is all bad. However, he also isn’t a central character to that story, which is worth noting.

Third: which has the better cast of characters? Both movies are built on the concept of throwing a bunch of existing characters together. As far as appearances go, this go to “LXG” again. As fun as the Universal monsters are, Frankenstein’s monster is the only one who looks any good in “Van Helsing.” On the the flip side, “LXP” offers better execution on the team members: the invisible man effect, Nemo’s costume design, and the moments of practical Hyde all particularly stand out. However, it is also hard to argue that the League is more fun in concept than the Monster Mash bunch.

“Van Helsing” is overall a more fun movie to watch. However, it isn’t nearly as polished across the board as “LXP.” On a quality level, I think “LXP” gets the nod, but not by a whole lot. It is still a bit of a train wreck, but it is at least occasionally passable. However, “LXP” is also way too subdued, touching on being outright boring. There is a lot of standing around, which doesn’t happen in “Van Helsing.” There may be awful CGI and horrendous accents, but things are consistently happening in that movie. Overall, I think it is too close to call.

If it weren’t for all of the interesting background, I wouldn’t recommend the “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” to people. Again, there are things I like about it, but the product on the whole is a bit south of mediocre. I don’t think it is the legendary failure that some critics hail it as, but it is certainly not good.

Uncategorized

Lake Placid

February 10, 2015 Gordon Maples 27 Comments

Lake Placid

Today’s review is on “Lake Placid,” a 1999 movie about a gigantic killer crocodile terrorizing a remote lake in Maine.

“Lake Placid” was directed by Steve Miner, who has been working as a director in television and movies since the early 80s. His biggest credits outside of “Lake Placid” are probably “Friday the 13th Part 2,” “Friday the 13th Part III: 3D,” “Halloween H20,” and the 2008 remake of “Day of the Dead.” “Lake Placid” was written by David E. Kelley, who has had significant success creating and writing television shows such as “Boston Legal,” “Chicago Hope,” “Ally McBeal,” “LA Law,” and “Doogie Howser,” but hasn’t done a whole lot of work in movies. Cinematographer Daryn Okada had previously worked with Miner on “Halloween H20,” but most of his experience is interestingly in comedies, such as “Black Sheep” and “Captain Ron,” and has since worked on larger productions such as “Mean Girls” and “Let’s Be Cops.”

“Lake Placid” marks the third film I have covered to feature work from legendary creature creator Stan Winston (the other two being “Small Soldiers” and “The Bat People”). Most seem to consider “Lake Placid” to be one of the lesser entries in his career: he is only creating a crocodile, after all, and most of the heavy lifting is done through CG. However, I still think it looks pretty solid. Even the CG used has held up a lot better than I expected it to, and looks more or less on par with today’s “Sharknadoes” and the other Asylum monster flicks. That isn’t too shabby for 1999.

“Lake Placid” was unsurprisingly a critical failure, currently holding a 40% critics score and 36% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. However, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com, “Lake Placid” grossed just under 57 million dollars on a budget of 27 million, making it a financial success. The movie eventually got 3 direct-to-tv sequels that received significant airtime on the Sci-Fi / SyFy network, which I think have kept it in the public consciousness longer than it would have otherwise. I personally consider “Lake Placid” to be one of the primary forerunners to the Asylum monster movies that make up the mainstay of SyFy’s original movie lineup today, including “Mega Shark,” “Sharknado,” and “Supercroc.”

The cast of “Lake Placid” is made up primarily of B-list actors, led by Bridget Fonda, who was coming off of starring in Sam Raimi’s 1998 movie “A Simple Plan.” Bill Pullman co-stars, following up on a handful of successful roles in the mid-1990s (“Independence Day,” “Lost Highway”). The rest of the cast includes Brendan Gleeson, Oliver Platt (one of my favorite character actors), and Betty White, who essentially defined her modern persona with her role in this movie.

Essentially, “Lake Placid” follows the formula of “Jaws”: something is killing people in the waters off a small town, but it is unclear what it is. The local police (Gleeson and Pullman) are stumped, which leads to a big city, out-of-towner expert being called in (Fonda). An eccentric hunter then shows up who gives the impression that he can solve the situation (Platt), and off the story goes a-hunting the monster.

Apart from Brody being split in two, there are a few other differences in the formula for “Lake Placid.” Firstly, Hooper is replaced with a woman character, which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. This allows for a romance subplot, but also unfortunately opens the door for a lot of lazy, shitty comedy, which I will delve into in a bit. The setting of a lake, as opposed to the ocean, doesn’t allow for the same kind of isolation and character developmental opportunities during the hunting process that is allowed for in “Jaws.” This winds up being a pretty big weakness for the movie: the characters don’t get much depth, because they don’t spend enough time together outside of the action for the audience to get to know them.

For me, the biggest problem for the movie is in its attempts to be funny. I didn’t remember this as a horror comedy, because honestly, it just isn’t. Most of the humor is lazy, dull, or just off the mark in general. Instead of poking at the weaknesses of the genre or the ludicrousness of the plot (see: “Hot Fuzz,” “Shaun of the Dead”), it tries to find humor in the fact that one of the characters is a woman, and can’t handle camping outdoors. It just doesn’t work, because it isn’t funny. There is a way to make a funny movie out of a “Jaws” scenario, but “Lake Placid” just isn’t it. Honestly, I think someone knew this, because the movie is not marketed as a comedy in any way. On a shelf, it just looks like another monster movie, and that is what it really should have been. Even “Jaws” itself is funnier than this movie, and all of the comedy in that movie is done as relief. There isn’t a single moment in “Lake Placid” (without Betty White in it) that is as funny as any of the comic relief moments in “Jaws,” which is pretty bad for a movie that is trying to be a comedy.

To the movie’s credit, there are a number of things I like in it. Stan Winston’s effects are fantastic as usual, and there is also a pretty cool action sequence or two in which the crocodile takes on a helicopter. Oliver Platt manages to stay charming despite the issues with the dialogue and writing, and is the biggest highlight in the movie outside of Betty White. The ending also taken an interesting turn in that the characters decided not to kill the crocodile, which is unusual for the genre. Over the credits, there is a shot of the tranquilized crocodile being hauled via a semi-truck to Florida, I would assume to be placed in a zoo or preserve. Just from skimming the IMDb boards, this seems to have elicited a mixed reaction from audiences.

As a side note, I can’t help but feel that “Lake Placid” suffers from the “Pacific Rim” effect of having an incredibly poor title that fails to convey the plot of the movie. Surely they could have done better than that, right? Even “Crocodile” or “Croc” would have worked better if you ask me.

placid7 — “Crocodile vs Helicopter” would have sufficed

I have seen a good number of comparisons between “Lake Placid” and “Deep Blue Sea,” another 1999 movie that has developed a bit of a cult following. I personally have a more vivid memory of “Deep Blue Sea,” but on my last re-watch I don’t recall the CGI holding up quite as well as it does in “Lake Placid.” That said, the dialogue and acting seems much better in “Deep Blue Sea,” and it doesn’t try to hit the comedy angle in the way that “Lake Placid” does. Personally, I think that is a weakness in the “Lake Placid” script, so I’m generally on Team “Deep Blue Sea,” but I think it merits another re-watch. It does have an LL Cool J rap, which I don’t believe “Lake Placid” can claim. Point: “Deep Blue Sea.”

Overall, I was surprised at how bad “Lake Placid” is in retrospect, in particular because the things that were bad were not the things I expected. A lot of the problems are in the dialogue and writing: it half-heartedly tries to be self-aware and counter-genre, but the attempts at humor aren’t executed very well. Oliver Platt is a great comedic actor, but even he couldn’t make the dialogue for his character actually funny. In general, I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s assessment of the film: it is “completely wrong-headed from beginning to end.” He hilariously also calls it a “sort of failed Anaconda,” which is an arguably equally awful movie, which Ebert adored for reasons that I don’t think anyone truly understands.

I might recommend this movie for the sake of nostalgia, because there are some ok bits here and there in the film. The characters and writing is generally just so awful though that it is difficult to sit through any sequences in which a crocodile isn’t actively attacking something. Luckily, the movie doesn’t bother with the human element too much, so you might be able to bear it. (speaking of bears…)

Uncategorized

Van Helsing

February 9, 2015 Gordon Maples 30 Comments

Van Helsing

For those who have been paying attention to the Hollywood craze of creating combined cinematic universes, the upcoming reboots of Universal’s treasured monster movie franchises comes as no surprise. The first installment in the line-wide reboot was 2014’s “Dracula: Untold”, which wasn’t a promising start, but the Universal Pictures upper brass certainly aren’t giving up on a potentially ludicrously lucrative combined universe.

What most have forgotten, however, is that this latest foray isn’t the first time Universal has attempted to resurrect the intersecting classic monster franchises in the modern era of film. Back in 2004, “Van Helsing” was released in an attempt to spur a line of films based on the “Monster Mash” bunch, featuring Hugh Jackman as the eponymous vampire hunter.

Despite being a financial hit, grossing over 300 million on a reported budget of 160 million, “Van Helsing” was generally loathed by critics and audiences alike (Rotten Tomatoes critic score is 23%, audience score is 57%), and thus failed to kick-start the lofty cinematic rebirth of the Universal monsters. Much like Dracula’s impish computer-generated spawn in the film, all of these aspirations of future box-office and world domination imploded before they had a chance to inflict any real havoc upon movie-going audiences.

Most people are aware of the cinematic tradition of the Dracula character, but Van Helsing has an impressive history on screen in his own right. Such diverse actors as Peter Cushing, Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Plummer, Malcolm McDowell, Jon Voight, Casper Van Dien, Mel Brooks, Peter Fonda, Bruce Campbell, and Laurence Olivier have all played the vampire hunter character in one form or another, in addition to Hugh Jackman’s 2004 portrayal of the character. I’ve even covered one of Peter Cushing’s performances of the character in “Dracula A.D. 1972” here on the blog, as well as Bruce Glover’s IMDb Bottom 100 worthy take on the character in “Die Hard Dracula”. Hugh Jackman’s version of Helsing certainly stands out amongst all of the others though, given the more action focus and superhero tone of “Van Helsing.” I’m also pretty confident that 2004 marks the only time where Professor Helsing has become a werewolf at any point in the story.

helsing7 — The werewolves look pretty awful, by the way

Writer/Director of “Van Helsing” Stephen Sommers hasn’t done a ton of work since the film, outside of 2009’s “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” and 2013’s “Odd Thomas,” both of which he directed and co-wrote. He does have an upcoming project called “When Worlds Collide,” but isn’t any information available yet as to when it will be released. The cinematographer on “Van Helsing,” Allen Daviau, actually has some solid credits on his resume from his long history working with Steven Spielberg, including work on “The Color Purple,” “Empire of the Sun,” “E.T.” and the short film “Amblin.”

One of the biggest criticisms of “Van Helsing” was that it overused computer generated images, something that is still an issue with the horror genre today. While the CG in the movie is definitely overboard, it holds up better than I expected. Typically, because of the rapid improvements in computer technology, CGI becomes rapidly and notably outdated in films. In “Van Helsing,” however, most of the effects are still holding up pretty well for being over 10 years down the line. They are definitely too cartoony and will continue to age poorly, but it still holds up moderately ok. Some scenes undoubtedly look better than others, and the few practical effects present (notably the interpretation of Frankenstein’s Monster, which I think looks awesome) blow the CG away, but overall I was impressed that the movie didn’t look much worse in review.

Something that I still can’t decide is a weakness or strength to the story is the presence of a lot of seemingly superfluous supernatural technology. In the film, Van Helsing has a sidekick who functions about the same as “Q” in the James Bond franchise: he is a friar who specializes in the development of technology for fighting monsters. As amusing as it is to think of a supernatural military R+D department at the Vatican, the character and technology seem to mostly exist for either comic relief or aesthetic reasons, and aren’t particularly necessary for the story. Although, there are moments where they are the only redeeming and entertaining aspects of the film, so I can hardly complain too much.

The score to “Val Helsing” is certainly interesting, and one of the better aspects of the movie. Composer Alan Silvestri is all over Hollywood, and has provided scores to movies such as “The Avengers,” “Captain America: The First Avenger,” and the “G.I. Joe” films. It isn’t a score that will necessarily stick with you, but it does a good job of serving its purpose in the film.

One of the reasons I remember “Van Helsing” so well is because of its similarities with the Sean Connery-led film “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,” which came out the previous year. Both feature super-teams made of fictional characters, were moderate financial successes, and massive critical failures. They even have a moderate cross-section in that they both feature the character of Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde. I am planning to readdress that film soon, so we will see how it holds up in comparison to “Van Helsing.”

When it comes to the cast of “Van Helsing,” Jackman is the obvious centerpiece. By the time that “Van Helsing” came around, he was already established as a major action star with the first two “X-Men” movies, as well as leading credentials in “Swordfish” and “Kate & Leopold.” Co-starring in “Van Helsing” is Kate Backinsale, whose previous year featured the first installment in the eventual “Underworld” supernatural action franchise, as well as the astoundingly abysmal “Tiptoes” with Matthew McConaughey and Gary Oldman: an indie drama/comedy about a family of dwarves. It is beyond awful, as Daniel O’Brien of Cracked.com can explain:

The accessory cast of “Van Helsing” features a good number of character actors, including Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid from the “Harry Potter” movie franchise), Richard Roxburgh (star of the Australian TV show “Rake”), Kevin J. O’Connor (“The Mummy”), and David Wenham (“300,” “Public Enemies”). They don’t have much in the way of name recognition, but they all have a fair amount of television and movie experience. That said, a lot of the performances in “Van Helsing” are awful, particularly anyone trying to don a Transylvanian accent (Richard Roxburgh is particularly wretched in that department). I think that is probably less of a complaint about the actors as much as it is about the direction and general tone of the film, which is pretty cartoony out of the gate. I doubt that Roxburgh’s Dracula performance would be waltzing around a room chewing scenery without some degree of direction from Sommers.

In general, I think I understand why “Van Helsing” failed to live up to Universal’s expectations for it. In 2004, Blockbusters were just about to turn in the direction of the “gritty reboot”, with “Batman Begins” popping up in 2005. “Van Helsing” I believe was too cartoony in execution for what audiences were really wanting at the time: for a movie focused on horror icons, it wasn’t scary in any way, and didn’t have a very dark tone either. The “steampunk” style I think would have looked better with a little more emphasis on practical effects over CG: the coolest thing in the movie is Frankenstein’s Monster, and he is the only one of the monsters portrayed consistently without extensive CG. The emphasis on hammy, over-dramatic antagonists just didn’t work either: Dracula’s wives are just groan-worthy to listen to now, and Dracula himself just isn’t menacing enough.

I don’t think I can recommend “Van Helsing,” as it is one of those movies that isn’t quite bad enough to be on a good-bad level, and is still well out of the realm of being good. It might be worth a watch if you are curious what a “Avengers”-esque Universal monster movie might look like, but you will probably be disappointed in the result. It also sounds like we could very well see a remake of “Van Helsing” by the end of the decade, so it couldn’t hurt to look back to see what we might be in for. It is a generally watchable flick, but not an excessively fun one if you ask me.

Clerk's Pick

Carnage

February 6, 2015 Gordon Maples Leave a comment

Clerk’s Pick

Clerk:
Hannah, Video Central (Columbus, OH)

Movie:
Carnage

Pitch:
“The casting is really great. You would think it would be a dark comedy from looking at it, but it is almost more…physical? It is about two couples whose children get into a fistfight on a playground, and they start teaming up against each other over the course of the movie. It is one of those movies where a minor thing winds up becoming a really big deal. I think it was adapted from a play, because it definitely feels really stage-y. I really love the tagline: ‘a comedy of no manners.’

Background:

“Carnage” is a 2011 movie directed and co-written by Roman Polanski, the once-lauded director (and noted scumbag pedophile-on-the-run) who was behind such classic movies as “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby.” “Carnage” is an adaptation from an award-winning French play called “God of Carnage” by Yasmina Reza, who shares co-writing credit on the film with Polanski.

Outside of the opening and closing scenes that are set in a Brooklyn park, the entirety of “Carnage” takes place in a single apartment. The bulk of the scenes were shot in France by Polanski, while the few exteriors and the playground scenes were shot by a second unit in the US (given Polanski is a fugitive and all).

The cast of “Carnage” is very small, and is primarily comprised of notable actors Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, and John C. Reilly. Foster and Reilly play a couple whose son is attacked by the child of Waltz and Winslet, and the story picks up with the parents meeting to talk over the situation and the consequences for the children.

The music in “Carnage” is done by french composer Alexandre Desplat, who has recently scored critically-acclaimed films such as “Argo” and “The King’s Speech,” and previously worked on movies such as “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Desplat has worked with Polaski on a number of films besides “Carnage,” including on “The Ghost” and “Venus in Furs.”

“Carnage” was nominated for a litany of awards, primarily in Europe. Winslet and Foster both earned Golden Globe nominations, however, but neither of them took home the prize.

Despite the many awards it accrued, the film’s ratings are only moderately above average. It currently holds a 71% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, a 66% audience score, and a 7.2 rating on IMDb.

Review:

“Carnage,” unfortunately, is kind of forgettable. There is nothing particularly bad about the movie, but nothing much stands out about it either. All of these actors are better in other things, and at times it feels like they are just trying too hard to stand out *cough*Jodie Foster*cough*. It seems like they are acting at each other at times, which doesn’t make for a very compelling watch.

All of that said, the casting is pretty great. These are all generally good actors, but none of them put up their best performances for this one. The best thing I can compare this to is “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf?”, but “Carnage” doesn’t seem to be or feel like it is as heartfelt or genuine as that cinema classic.

I would wager that this is a great play to see on stage, but something just doesn’t gel quite right with this as a film. I’m not sure what the issue is, but the movie feels really run-of-the-mill. I would expect this sort of film from just about any indie director out there, but not Roman Polanski. It just feels oddly…sterile? It is like all of the right elements are being heated in a beaker, but the reaction just isn’t happening.

“Carnage” interestingly feels like it drags on too long, despite being a pretty short movie (80 minutes). There isn’t a lot of motion to the film, and the characters mostly talk themselves into concentric circles through the story, which is almost certainly why it feels so much longer than it is. After a while, the only interesting thing about the film is watching Academy Award winners pretending to get progressively drunk.

“Carnage” reminded me a little of an earlier Clerk’s Pick, “It’s A Disaster”, but I think that movie was actually pulled off better. It has the same sort of bottle scenario and rapidly degrading sanity that are both present in “Carnage”, but it just seems to move along better. I would wager that “Carnage” offers the better performances of the two, but it just doesn’t feel quite as entertaining.

After all of the meandering conversation, argumentation, and outright yelling, “Carnage” comes to what feels like a really abrupt ending that doesn’t feel earned or justified. It bookends pretty nicely, but nothing seems to be resolved or changed as a result of the story. I’d also say that no one really learned anything or grew as a result of the story, so it all ultimately feels kind of pointless. Then again, that might have been the point. In any case, I didn’t come out of it feeling entertained.

All of that said, “Carnage” has a very interesting concept. I don’t think it was pulled off particularly well, but there are undoubtedly good elements to it. Although, I will say that I have no idea how either Winslet or (especially) Foster got Golden Globe nominations out of this. That is just boggling my mind, because Foster is just downright chewing scenery in this thing, and Winslet spends a non-trivial part of the movie fake-vomiting.

Recommendation:

I think that some people would really enjoy this movie, but that most would be better advised to skip it. I even like this kind of bottled-setting drama, but I wasn’t particularly impressed with “Carnage.” At times it feels both overacted and excessively preachy, and neither of those things do the movie any favors. If this is the kind of movie you are looking for, I would think that there are a lot better ones to find with very similar setups.

Maybe if you are a big fan of Foster or Winslet, this will be a better watch for you. I am not particularly high on either of them, and their performances in this didn’t change my mind. They certainly look their parts and were cast well, but they just didn’t quite do it for me.

Uncategorized

Groundhog Day Marathon Recap

February 5, 2015 Gordon Maples 2 Comments

This past Sunday, I participated in a 24-hour “Groundhog Day” marathon at the Gateway Film Center in Columbus, OH. To keep things interesting and lively, I decided to do a review between each of the 12 consecutive screenings of the movie.

Yesterday, I picked up a DVD copy of the movie, and went through Harold Ramis’s commentary while doing some research. Below are each of the reviews I wrote during the 20 minute intermissions, with some follow-up comments based on my research in italics.

“Groundhog Day” Review #1

I haven’t watched this movie in years, so it was good to get a fresh start. Bill Murray has a great way of delivering dialogue (of course), but I think the power of this movie is in the periphery cast: they are the control, and their performances have to be meticulously detailed for the story to work. If you don’t notice an aberration, then everything is working perfectly. Might be Tobolowski’s best role, and he is a dude who has been around the block.

Ramis made a specific note of the careful attention to continuity on the part of the crew. He also spoke at length about the casting process, noting that Tobolowski earned the role straight off of his audition. Of course, Murray did a fair amount of improvisation on the film, both in his physical acting and his dialogue.

Next thing: Phil creeps me out. Not just when he is supposed to, but the whole time. He is still obsessively catering his life to fit the desires of his “love interest,” even after he supposedly learns his lesson. Take the piano lessons: not something he did in earnest. I also wish they delved a little deeper and darker: the side plot with mortality, the homeless dude, deification, etc. doesn’t actually go anywhere: where is his epiphany from that, other than to refocus and re-obsess on attaining a specific mate? Creepy creepy creeptown. I would love to see some earlier drafts of the script…

All right, one down. Good thing I haven't seen "Groundhog Day" in a while, was fresh into it. 11 to go! pic.twitter.com/931MjEa7pD

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #2

I frequently watch movies twice in succession, so this isn’t too weird. However, I usually have time to research in between, which wasn’t the case here.

What stood out this time was how fucking awful Andie MacDowell’s character is. They tried to write what they thought was an ideal person: the result of which is inevitably boring. Characters need little flaws and tics to be interesting (beyond just not liking fudge, ffs). The only thing notable about her other than being “nice to people” is that she comes off as incredibly pretentious on a number of occassions. There should have been a glass-shattering moment where Murray realized she is human and has flaws, and learns to accept them. But nope. She also doesn’t exactly react realistically or consistently, which is kind of a problem for a character who ONLY REACTS TO THINGS.

As the marathon wore on, the audience became increasingly hostile to the character of Rita and MacDowell’s performance. Her in-and-out South Carolina accent, consistent breaking of character in scenes (noted by Ramis: Murray kept cracking her up), and increasing pretentiousness became more grating than anything else about the film after about 5 or so screenings.

I think I’m going to hate the shit out of this movie by midnight. Stay tuned.

I surprisingly don’t hate it, but it is hard to look at it objectively after being so saturated with it. I kind of consider it middle-of-the-road in content, but with a incredibly clever premise and structure.

Rolling on along, "Groundhog Day" marathon continues. I'm slightly ornery as the defects are standing out in bold… pic.twitter.com/U8tEnfp7ef

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #3

I’ve reached the point where background details are starting to stand out. Not the typical stuff, like Michael Shannon in his first film role, but like the dude in the background of the Gobbler’s Knob sequences who looks exactly like a young James Earl Jones. The amount of applause in the movie is astounding and rapidly becoming surreal. Why is there so much clapping in this movie? Is it intentional? Last but not least, there is a shocking amount of incredible “white people dancing” moments. Just everywhere.

The quantity of applause in the movie is surely the most surreal detail that came to the surface after multiple viewings. There are just a lot of crowd shots and group events in the movie, which means you rarely go a couple of scenes without some kind of applause break. The white people dancing moments never got less funny.

There are still more editing and pacing details that are bugging me that I’ll cover on the next round, but I’m generally far less grumpy now than I was after Round 2. Let’s see how the next one goes.

The @GatewayFC "Groundhog Day" marathon continues. Outside, I imagine the sun is coming up. No matter. pic.twitter.com/yuwnsRlTUI

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

Kermit is love. Kermit is life. @GatewayFC "Groundhog Day" Marathon continues. pic.twitter.com/KdH8sZd4jO

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #4

I’ve started using sectional divisions to make the screenings go by faster. The cyclical structure of GH makes it more difficult to sit through, because the script beats are a bit unconventional, so the sectioning has been helping me pace it personally. It has always helped on long drives, and this isn’t so different from that in principle. The sections are 1) introduction 2) indulgence 3) “romance” 4) depression 5) renaissance 6) conclusion.

This sectional breakdown is about the only way I made it though 24 hours of this movie. Interestingly enough, Ramis noted that the structure was inspired by the Kubler-Ross model (Five Stages of Grief). Mine is really similar, only really differing in a few spots. The Introduction covers denial, indulgence covers anger, “romance” is bargaining, depression is the same, and then I broke the acceptance into the renaissance and conclusion.

Section 3 is when Murray is at his creepiest and MacDowell’s character’s lack of depth really shows. Consistently, this has been when the literal chorus of snores has started, every time.

Every showing, this is where the audience disappeared. Until Murray started getting slapped in the face, at least.

Section 2 has a specific sequence that really encapsulates the hit/miss nature of the film. Murray robs a banking truck by memorizing the habits of the guards, which shows you his crooked nature and that he is getting more meticulous and experienced with details.

The second half of the sequence, however, serves no purpose at all. Murray is shown to have spent the money on a Benz, a prostitute, and a replica Clint Eastwood outfit. The sequence introduces a character that never returns, a location that never returns, and a number of objects that have no importance. It also establishes that characters don’t retain memories of previous days, but that is already laid out. Did Murray just really want in on “Three Amigos?” Anyway, the only attempt at a joke is an uncomfortable reference to the prostitute being underaged. Was Murray blackmailing Ramis to include his Eastwood impersonation? Why is this in the movie?

I hit the nail on the head on this one. In the DVD commentary, Ramis noted that this was entirely Murray’s idea, and that he did the Clint Eastwood impression “because he could.” We all have hits and misses, Bill Murray included. Ramis did mention that a lot of sequences were cut, so maybe this was supposed to tie in somewhere else? More importantly, how did this get through the final cut?

Anyway, more to come.

And it continues…"Groundhog Day" at @GatewayFC pic.twitter.com/BUeOjcnT7c

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #5

GH is, in many ways, a time travel movie. So, consequently, you have to talk about consequence! (Hurr)

GH tries to keep things simple, and evades what it can. However, there are some issues that can’t be skipped over. On day 3, Phil, in a panic, skips two conversations that he had on both previous days. This puts him at, underestimating, 30 seconds to 1 minute ahead of pace. However, that change fails to affect his subsequent encounter with Ned. That may seem petty, but I’d recommend looking at how a similar film dealt with the issue of temporal consequence: “Run Lola Run.”

In “Lola,” the beginning of her story cycle is affected differently each time it starts. The difference is only a handful of seconds each cycle, but it proves vital to the story. A few seconds is the difference between missing traffic, being impeded by it, or being nailed by a car. Looking at it from that angle, a minute being gained or lost is a lifetime.

Elsewhere, the film also dodges the consequences of Phil’s inaction. The finale focuses on the positive effects he has on townsfolk, but it is never shown what the consequence of his inaction is for them. Does a child break a bone because Phil didn’t catch him? Does a man choke to death? The thing is, Phil knows: he lived through it all. But we aren’t shown any of these potentially compelling interactions. BTTF managed to thread these things in subtly, so it isn’t impossible.

I spotted one background instance of the consequence of Phil’s inaction later on, which is mentioned in a future review. But, in general, there isn’t much.

Let’s not even start in on how GH deals with the butterfly effect…I have another screening to get to.

I still don’t want to go into this. Let’s just say that the film is inconsistent on Phil’s ability to influence future events.

"Groundhog Day" marathon @GatewayFC approaching halftime. How do I look? pic.twitter.com/JqBhXTpHMe

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #6

Let’s take a little Tarantino-esque turn, shall we?

Early in the film, Phil steals a large amount of money from a bank car. He clearly researched it out, and memorized people’s patterns to execute the plan flawlessly. However, it is only shown once, when he is still exploiting his “power.”

In the second showing, I started wondering if he made the heist part of his daily routine, like the piano lessons. I initially dismissed it because it appears to be in the afternoon, and Doris, the diner waitress, is already off – duty (she is an unwitting accomplice). But still, Phil throws out a lot of money in the movie, all the way up to the finale. 1000 dollar piano lessons, multiple insurance policies on a whim, handing hundreds in cash to the homeless…is it unreasonable to think he is commiting a daily, perfect heist?

If that’s true, then Phil walks out of the movie with a literal fat stack o’ cash. Surely enough to rent a small place in a Pennsylvania town…?

Is it Marcellus’s briefcase or Mr. Pink’s diamonds? Nah, but it is fun to think about!

I mentioned this in an interview at one point in the night. I’ll be sure to post it if I ever come across it on YouTube.

“Groundhog Day” Review #7

Apparently, GH was intended as a curse movie according to early drafts. Even if you count that as apocryphal, there is some supernatural force at work in the story, and those are always bound by their own internal logic. The rules weren’t divulged, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist!

Ramis spoke at some length about the decision to ultimately omit the background on the curse, but he did mention that one draft involved a spurned ex-lover.

So, what actually broke the GH curse? True love? I don’t think so. I would argue that he already “had the girl” before the last cycle, and that also isn’t much of a lesson (I expect a little more from Ramis). If that was all, surely it would have broken earlier. Was it learning the value of good deeds? Nope, he had clearly been through the motions on every divulged good deed in the film, and knew them by heart to the last detail. I think the real game – changer / curse – breaker was entirely internal: in the last cycle, Connors finally accepted his conditions, and was content with them. I think love and good deeds were learned and done as means to the end of Connors learning contentedness with the world around him.

Ramis mentioned that his co-writer on the script, Danny Rubin, is a bit of a Zen Buddhist, which seems to support this theory.

I think this is a sort of anti-ambition, anti-corporate message as much as it is a love story. Connors goes from being a perpetual climber with no love or need for little things or little people to being appreciative and happy with his current station and his environment. Makes sense for late 80s early 90s, yeah?

Still rolling! "Groundhog Day" marathon @GatewayFC pic.twitter.com/G5TkqPas5Q

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #8

Finally managed to do a little research on production history, so how about some casting factoids? Before Murray got the part, Tom Hanks was considered, but it was eventually decided he was too nice in the public mindset. Kind of a shame, because he has solid comedy upside (“The ‘Burbs” = ♥). Michael Keaton turned down the role, and I can definitely picture that choice. Interesting that most of the considered leads were drama – heavy with comedy bonus, as opposed to vice versa (which Murray certainly is).

Ramis mentioned that Andie Macdowell was always the first choice for her role, and that she asked permission to use her (arguably mangled) South Carolina accent. The rest of the cast features a bunch of Second City players brought down from Chicago, as well as a couple of SNL alum (Brain Doyle-Murray, Bill’s older brother, among them).

Definitely pushing into the final stretch, and my body is starting to feel it. I think I’m the only one who has been awake the whole time…bunch a cheaters, these folks.

YOU GOT SPOTSBALL, I HAVE BILL MURRAY. GROUNDHOG DAY MARATHON INTO FINAL THIRD @GatewayFC pic.twitter.com/MUXo39hjzf

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #9

There are so many goddamn groundhogs in the background of this movie. I just noticed a six foot carved groundhog in a top hat prominently featured in the auction scene. On the 9th consecutive show. It is gigantic, and I have been looking for details. Really. They are everywhere. Dancing mascots. Wall art. Everywhere. To the point of saturation.

groundhog2

In other small details, I was pleased to find one instance of the consequence of Phil Connor’s inaction! The kid who falls out of the tree is in the background of a wide shot earlier in the film (in a hospital) with a broken leg in a cast. He is only identifiable by his distinctive red and blue striped jacket, or else there would be no way to catch it otherwise. I might have missed a few other background details, but I doubt anything else that interesting or semi-prominent.

Three showings left. @GatewayFC "Groundhog Day" marathon. Still operational, despite mirage (?) pic.twitter.com/zusSV7yNbL

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

*Determined, angry groundhog noises* @GatewayFC pic.twitter.com/RIN954kNHV

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 1, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #10

One of the things that has stuck out with multiple viewings is the soundtrack / score. It has to do a lot of work, and manages to fit the variety of tones required of it. It definitely feels dated now, but it manages to do what it needs to. I particularly liked how music was used to accentuate on-screen surprise, discomfort, and confusion. I feel like a weak score could have sunk or seriously harmed a film that delicately balances its tone.

Ramis brought on Academy Award nominated composer George Fenton in to do the music, who worked on movies such as “Gandhi.” He instructed Fenton to imitate the style of Nino Rota, a renowned film score composes who worked on movies like “The Godfather.”

Speaking of which, I imagine this wasn’t the easiest film to market. I can see why so much deliberation went into casting the lead, because that had to be their biggest selling point for general audiences. Difficult to classify almost always means difficult to market. Anyway, It made a fair amount of money, particularly given it was competing in 1993, which was one hell of a deep year.

Adding to the marketing issues was the fact that “Groundhog Day” is uniquely American, meaning alternate titles had to be cooked up for foreign markets.

Kermit is holding on, but only just. @GatewayFC "Groundhog Day" marathon in the home stretch. pic.twitter.com/OiNCqLqcPk

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 2, 2015

“Groundhog Day” Review #11

Gotta specifically call out the bit parts that I have come to love in this movie. Freddie Mercury Lumberjack? Yes. 1992 hair in the background of every scene? Of course. Highway patrolman who acts exclusively by emphatically pointing? Love em. Hilarious dancing white people everywhere, enough to explode the internet? Hoo boy.

Last but not least though: the bartender who exists solely to shake his head in disapproval and clean glasses. He has maybe three lines, all a variation of “what are you having?”. His unimpressed, dismissive glass washing and head shaking, though…his performance ties the whole movie together. Astounding. Inspiring.

Can you tell that I was completely exhausted at this point? It turns out that the police officer / highway patrolman’s dialogue was completely unusable due to the amount of wind on set, so all of his dialogue is dubbed in after the fact by an entirely different actor.

OH YEAH, THIS IS HAPPENING. I CAN GO HOME SOON AND NEVER WATCH "GROUNDHOG DAY" AGAIN. UNTIL NEXT TIME. @GatewayFC pic.twitter.com/TqITvUkLvR

— Dr. Gordon Maples (≥🍁🍁) (@GordonMaples) February 2, 2015

Conclusion

So, I made it through the whole 24 hours. Surprisingly, I don’t hate “Groundhog Day” after all of that. Certainly there is nothing out there that is meant to be consumed in this way, but the structure of “Groundhog Day” makes it almost ideal for this kind of viewing.

A lot of details and issues popped up after so much repetition, but it stayed generally watchable the whole time. I still love Bill Murray’s improvisational sharpness and the unique concept behind the film, but the romance elements are definitely weak. I think people are very selective in what they remember about this movie: there are a lot of hits, but also a lot of misses here. The Clint Eastwood scene is very weak, the lack of thought put into the temporal consequences of actions, Andie Macdowell’s performance and writing: there are flaws scattered throughout. It is still good without any doubt, but a long shot away from great.

I have had a couple of days to sit on it, but I’m not sure if I’ll ever be able to totally look at “Groundhog Day” with a conventional critical eye after all of this. So, take it all with a grain of salt.

Misan[trope]y

Tag Archives: film

Killer Robot Week: “Red Planet”

Red Planet

“Sharknado”

Sharknado

Jason X (Friday the 13th Part 10)

Jason X (Friday the 13th Part 10)

Interview with “Bad Movie Nite!”

The Midnight Meat Train

The Midnight Meat Train

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Lake Placid

Lake Placid

Van Helsing

Van Helsing

Carnage

Clerk’s Pick

Groundhog Day Marathon Recap

“Groundhog Day” Review #1

“Groundhog Day” Review #2

“Groundhog Day” Review #3

“Groundhog Day” Review #4

“Groundhog Day” Review #5

“Groundhog Day” Review #6

“Groundhog Day” Review #7

“Groundhog Day” Review #8

“Groundhog Day” Review #9

“Groundhog Day” Review #10

“Groundhog Day” Review #11

Conclusion

Reviews/Trivia of B-Movies, Bad Movies, and Cult Movies.