Labels: Bad-Cinema, Movie Review, Movies, X-Files

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Bad-Cinema, Ben Stiller, Movie Review, Tropic Thunder

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

“Did they look like psychos? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires. Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are!”

-- Seth Grecko (George Clooney)

It’s not a good sign when your vampire movie begins to suck donkey balls when the vampires show up.

But that’s the unfortunate circumstance in “From Dusk Till Dawn” (1996).

Make no mistake: “From Dusk Till Dawn” is B-movie camp all the way. Director Robert Rodriguez and Screenwriter Quentin Tarantino embrace cheesy cinema in much the same way that John McCain is now gushing about government regulations: a bit over the top.

B-movies can be artful. Look no further than Rodriguez and Tarantino’s recent collaboration on “Grindhouse” (2007).

But 11 years ago, they didn’t quite have the recipe down yet. The result is that “From Dusk Till Dawn” is an uneven effort that tumbles down the rat hole of fantastically bad cinema right about the time the strippers turn into blood suckers.

The first half of the film is downright good: a gritty, hard-boiled crime caper featuring odd-ball personalities and crisp, crackling dialogue. It starts out with bank robbers Seth (George Clooney) and Richard (Tarantino) Gecko on the run in southern Texas. Richard, a sociopathic killer, has rescued his older brother from a courthouse – leaving behind a blood bath.

The two outlaws – dressed like they were part of the “Reservoir Dogs” (1992) crew – have kidnapped a bank teller and speed off into the desert. They end up at Benny’s Liquor Mart for the best scene of the movie.

The liquor store clerk, Pete Bottoms, is chatting with Texas Ranger Earl McGraw who has come in for a beer. They babble on a bit before the Ranger mentions that the Geckos are coming through and if he sees them – “pay back.” He goes to use the toilet and we find out the Geckos are already in the liquor store – holding two female customers hostage.

Of course, it turns into a blood bath – but not before we get some patented snappy dialogue from Tarantino. The Geckos end up at a sleazy motel with the kidnapped cashier. The second best part of the movie is when Seth leaves the poor woman alone with misbehaving brother, Richie. When Seth gets back – well, only chunks of the woman are left.

If only the movie continued with the story of the Geckos and their run from the law.

Alas, it does not.

Instead we’re introduced to Harvey Keitel as Jacob Fuller, a minister on a trip with his two teenage children (Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu). Fuller has lost his faith after the death of his wife and he’s decided to ride his Winnebago into the sunset.

The Fuller family has the misfortune of meeting up with the Geckos – and, well, a kidnapping ensues. The Geckos (with Fullers in tow) escape to Mexico and Seth is ready to meet his criminal friends at a stripper, biker bar called “Titty Twister.”

Here’s the catch. At the “Titty Twister” the strippers and staff are vampires that use the bar as a lure to unsuspecting truckers and bikers (we never get any explanation). Here the movie stalls -- badly. It transforms from crime spree flick into a cheap, not-very-frightening horror movie. The special effects are terrible, the campy nature of film slides into the ludicrous, and the one-liners become groan inducing.

The transformation from one movie genre to another is jarring. There’s no segue at all. Suddenly, we’re in a cheesy horror movie. Wham-O!

There are so many stupid things happening in the second half that its enough to make you vote Republican: one of the characters is named Sex Machine (he has a gun at his crotch that fires when erect); the characters actually stop and converse while in the middle of a vampire melee; and then there’s Harvey Keitel eye-rolling monologue trying to convince his kids to kill him when he transforms into a vampire after being bit. It hurts.

Add to this pap the miserable vampire make-up – I’ve seen better Halloween costumes – and the clunky new characters and you’ve got some seriously bad film making.

Do yourself a favor. Watch the first half – then turn it off.

More Fantastically Bad Cinema:

Rambo

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

3:10 to Yuma

Labels: Bad-Cinema, From Dusk Till Dawn, Horror, Movie Review, Movies

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

The fourth installment of the Rambo series – simply titled “Rambo” (amazingly that wasn’t taken) – has an uncomplicated message:

Non-violence is for pussies.

That’s why more than 230 people are killed – on screen – in this blood lust of a movie. The violence is graphic: limbs blown off, skulls crushed under boots, throats torn out, and heads decapitated.

But all in the name of truth and justice!

“Rambo” (2008) exploits the deplorable situation in Burma – the country’s military junta has been in the process of ethnic cleansing the Karen natives for more than 60 years. But even worse is the film’s simple-minded and cynical solution – the only way to counteract violence is with more violence. All the peaceful characters in the movie are either killed or see the violent light (a Christian doctor, for example, who deplores the taking of life finally bashes the brains out of a Burmese soldier with a sharp rock).

"Rambo" is a bad film. But it wants to be more than the sum of its parts. It wants to be an "important" action film -- blood, sweat, and bullets with a message. But it ain't.

“Rambo” features a lumbering Sylvester Stallone reprising his role as the conflicted, ultra-violent ex-Green Beret John Rambo. Stallone resembles the giant from Jack in the Beanstalk as he thuds heavily across the screen grunting and muttering gems like: “They would've raped her 50 times and cut your fucking heads off” and “Fuck the world.” He's supposed to be the wise old warrior -- but he comes across as a retarded oaf.

As the movie opens, we find a sweaty, bloated Rambo living in Thailand as the owner of a river boat. He makes his living ferrying passengers, collecting poisonous snakes for a modest tourist attraction, and sweating profusely. A group of clean-cut Christian missionaries in bright colored outfits shows up and asks Rambo to take them into war-torn Burma so they can administer medical aid and bring humanitarian supplies to the victims.

The missionaries, with the exception of the pretty blond Sarah (played by Julie Benz), are portrayed as a bunch of sheltered, self-righteous wimps. When a perspiring Rambo mumbles that the only way to help the victims is to smuggle in weapons, the missionaries become aghast. Rambo, oozing like a sponge, scowls at them.

It’s amazing that the Christian Right didn’t go ballistic over “Rambo” because the underlying message of the film is that the Christian approach to conflict resolution: humanitarian aid, peaceful co-existence, etc. is crap. The movie portrays these do-gooder Christians as arrogant, weak-kneed morons.

As one of the mercenaries later growls at the leader of the church group: “God didn't save you, we did.”

Rambo reluctantly takes the missionaries into Burma and drops them off at a peaceful village of Karen natives. This idyllic situation lasts all of five minutes before the Burmese military – under the direction of a ruthless Colonel (who sports large, oval sunglasses and ends up being a pedophile homosexual) – attacks and kills as many villagers as possible. The scene is not for the faint of heart (lots of special effects enhanced blood sprays and flying body parts).

The missionaries aren’t killed, of course, but taken prisoner so they can be tortured in creative ways (such as being devoured alive by starving hogs). Rambo, dripping wet after a rain storm, is hired by the missionary group’s reverend to lead a pack of mercenaries into Burma for a rescue mission. These jokers are bad news – and out for themselves – so it is up to Rambo to reel them in.

“There isn't one of us that doesn't want to be someplace else. But this is what we do, who we are. Live for nothing, or die for something,” Rambo mumbles at one point (wetness dripping from his forehead).

Now the real blood sport begins. The movie makes sure to justify all of the ruthless violence administered by Rambo – because the bad guys have already committed so many atrocities that the audience can only root for Rambo to kill them all.

And he does a damn good job. In fact, it's fantastically bad cinema at its finest (and dampest).

Unfortunately, “Rambo” doesn’t elevate much beyond the gore and the eye-for-an-eye mentality. What the movie does best is show the results of human growth hormone on the body of a 61-year-old actor (visualize: waterlogged).

M. Night Shyamalan: I See Bad Director

Is Indiana Jones a Misogynist?

Labels: Bad-Cinema, Movie Review, Movies, Rambo, Sylvester Stallone

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

There are lots of grimy fingernails and blackened teeth in “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.” Unfortunately, the blatant lack of hygiene may be the best part of this hopelessly terrible movie – which has no point, no plot, and will make you despise pirates for the rest of your natural born life.

The first “Pirates of the Caribbean” (2003) movie revived the concept of the pirate movie – mostly because of the inspired performance of Johnny Depp as the foppish pirate captain Jack Sparrow. The film – based on the Disney amusement park ride – was a mediocre affair, but Depp played Sparrow with such delight that the movie became a hit.

While flawed, the first “Pirates” movie at least had wit and energy and nice mix of acting and special effects. This mix was abandoned with without prejudice for the next two. Nothing can kill a movie faster than an overproduced sequel – except maybe two overproduced sequels.

The success of the first film led hyper-active producer Jerry Bruckheimer (who should also be punished for giving us the “Bad Boys” and “National Treasure” franchises) to make two more pirate movies. They were filmed at the same time – the dreadful “Dead Man’s Chest” (2006) and then “At World’s End” (2007).

Let us pray to every pagan god imaginable that there will not be a fourth.

“At World’s End” is so overloaded with special effects, action sequences, and a booming, steroid-laden musical score that the only outcome for viewers is a headache.

The movie is simply a mess. There’s some kind of plot about the pirates banding together to fight a corrupt English Baron who has taken control of the ghost ship, The Flying Dutchman, run by Captain Davy Jones. The pirates have to save Depp from Davy Jones’ locker (the plot of “Dead Man’s Chest”) because he’s a member of the pirate lords or some nonsense like that.

They rescue Depp from a desert (no really) and then all get together to fight the bad guys (although they’re pirates – so, in fact, they are the bad guys – so maybe they fight the good guys). But it’s difficult to keep track of all the alliances – who is good, who is bad, who is cursed, and, quite frankly, who is on what pirate ship. And in the end, it really doesn’t matter. If the producers, writers, and director don’t care: Why should you?

What’s most disappointing is Depp – who seems to be mailing in his Jack Sparrow performance from a hidden location. The edge is gone. The fun is gone. Admittedly, he doesn’t have much material to work with, but the performance seems strained – as if Depp realizes that enough is enough all ready.

Lost among the clutter are Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom – the star-crossed lovers. Knightley, now a full blown pirate captain in her own right, and Bloom have one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie. As they battle the bad guys (we think they were bad guys – or they might have been good guys who became bad guys – whatever), they decide to get married – while fighting.

Their swords dance and between kills they embrace, kiss, and hug, as Captain Barbossa (played by Geoffrey Rush) performs the ceremony – also while engaged in battle. The scene is tedious beyond measure and makes you want to remove a shoe and throw it at the screen.

But that’s how the action sequences work in “At World’s End.” They are so cartoonish and unrealistic that they all become pointless. And they’re non-stop – so one starts before another ends.

In the end – you hope the world will end. Or at least this franchise.

It’s like a bad amusement park ride.

Hmmmm!

Read why "3:10 to Yuma" makes us want to take a bullet in the head

The 5 Best and the 5 Worst Superhero Movies

Labels: Bad-Cinema, Movie Review, Pirates of the Caribbean

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

10 Blockbusters That Make You Want Your Damn Money Back

(Can you say blockbuster? Or at least they were supposed to be. These were the movies with big potential, big budgets, big stars, big directors – and, well, they were terrible. God awful, in fact. Join us in a journey through shattering dreams and missed opportunities.)

The Truth About Charlie

Director: Jonathan Demme

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Thandie Newton,

Year: 2002

Box Office Take: $5.2 million

Plot in a Nutshell: A thriller without thrills. A woman discovers that her recently deceased husband may have been a criminal – and his buddies want their take of his $6 million and think his wife knows where it is.

Biggest Annoyance: Mark Wahlberg wearing a fedora through most of the movie. He looks like a buff version of Boy George.

Really Bad Quote: “Reggie, I hate that you're caught up in this. But at the same time I'm glad, because it means we've met.”

The Lowdown: The only redeeming thing about this disaster of a remake is that it bombed at the box office so most people were spared the agony. The original “Charade” starred Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant – so even trying for a remake of this classic was risky business. The worst part of this movie is Walhberg who was still trying to find his way as an actor here. He can’t pull off the Cary Grant thing – at all. He stumbles and bumbles his way as a con man and come off as more of a clown. His worst asset as an actor is his naturally high voice and it’s on grand display in “The Truth About Charlie” where he’s at his squeaky best.

Fallout: Jonathan Demme, who won an Oscar for “The Silence of the Lambs” hasn’t had a good movie that wasn’t a documentary since.

Planet of the Apes

Director: Tim Burton

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, Helena Bonham Carter, Paul Giamatti

Year: 2001

Box Office Take: $180 million

Plot in a Nutshell: An astronaut crash lands on a planet where apes rule and men are slaves.

Biggest Annoyance: It’s hard to determine who to hate more in this movie: Tim Roth overacting his role of Thade or Helena Bonham Carter hamming it up as Ali. Two usually excellent actors reduced to utter embarrassment.

Really Bad Quote: “Can’t we all just get along?”

The Lowdown: The remake of the original Charlton Heston sci-fi classic has been turned into a long chase movie with absolutely no redeeming qualities – except for the excellent make-up work. The movie simply can’t figure out what it wants to be: a social satire, an action movie or a comedy. So it turns out to be a mess. The usually creative and daring Burton gives us a vanilla ice cream cone.

Fallout: No one has yet paid the price for this movie. In fact, it was a blockbuster.

St. Elmo’s Fire

Director: Joel Schumacher

Starring: Emilio Estevez, Rob Lowe, Andrew McCarthy, Demi Moore, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Mare Winningham, Andie MacDowell

Year: 1985

Box Office Take: $37.8 million

Plot in a Nutshell: A tight-knit group of college friends has a difficult time handling life after college and begin to drift apart.

Biggest Annoyance: The most annoying scene is when freelance writer Andrew McCarthy pens a story about “The Meaning of Life” and gets it published on the front page of the New York Times. Yeah, right. And then, of course, there’s Rob Lowe with blown dried hair and headbands.

Really Bad Quote: “Jules, you know, honey, this isn't real. You know what it is? It's St. Elmo's Fire. Electric flashes of light that appear in dark skies out of nowhere. Sailors would guide entire journeys by it, but the joke was on them... there was no fire. There wasn't even a St. Elmo. They made it up. They made it up because they thought they needed it to keep them going when times got tough, just like you're making up all of this. We're all going through this. It's our time at the edge.”

The Lowdown: “St. Elmo’s Fire” fails because the characters are shallow, obnoxious, and self-centered. None of the friends are worthy of having friends. Rob Lowe’s Billy Hicks character takes the cake as a blowhard saxophone player who is basically a sociopath (who wears leg warmers). So bad – it hurts.

Fallout: The movie that symbolically ended the reign of the Brat Pack and killed the career of Emilio Estevez.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Director: Tim Burton

Starring: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Christopher Lee, David Kelly

Year: 2005

Box Office Take: $206 million

Plot in a Nutshell: An eccentric chocolate factory owner opens his magical factory up for a group of children to see which one of them is worthy of becoming the new owner.

Biggest Annoyance: Johnny Depp’s teeth or, perhaps, his hair?

Really Bad Quote: “Candy doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's candy.”

The Lowdown: An unnecessary second adaptation of the beloved children’s book. Depp’s performance is the worst of his career as he channels Mark Wahlberg’s squeaky voice for the entire movie.

Fallout: None. It’s amazing how the overrated Tim Burton isn’t made to pay for the crap that he puts out.

Wild Wild West

Director: Barry Sonnenfeld

Starring: Will Smith, Kevin Kline, Kenneth Branagh, Salma Hayek, M. Emmet Walsh

Year: 1999

Box Office Take: $113 million

Plot in a Nutshell: Two federal agents investigate a possible assassination of President Grant and discover a super villain who wants to destroy the United States.

Biggest Annoyance: There are too many, but the overacting of Kenneth Branagh may take home of the first-place ribbon.

Really Bad Quote: “Gordon, when you tell this story to your grandkids, you be sure to leave this part out.”

The Lowdown: “Wild Wild West” is on the varsity squad of bad movies. It fails on every single level – writing, directing, acting, and producing (even the catering sucked on this movie – which is rumored to be a comedy). The movie was completely overrun by special effects – which seem ridiculous as the movie takes place in the Old West. Yet it has more explosions (and even a gigantic mechanic spider) than a science fiction movie. This is a movie that went horrible out of control and no one could get it back. But at least Will Smith got a pretty good rap song out of it.

Fallout: Director Barry Sonnenfeld has become a TV director and producer.

Hook

Director: Steve Spielberg

Starring: Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman, Julia Roberts, Bob Hoskins, Maggie Smith

Year: 1991

Box Office Take: $119.6 million

Plot in a Nutshell: What if Peter Pan grew up into a corporate titan with little time for his children and then was forced to go back to Neverland because Captain Hook kidnapped his kids?

Biggest Annoyance: The strained script filled with forced dialog and unfunny lines.

Really Bad Quote: “I have waited long to shake your hand with this. Peter Pan, prepare to meet thy doom!”

The Lowdown: This must have looked great on paper – but the execution was terrible. This was a rare misstep for Spielberg – who gives us an overly produced movie that looks like an amusement park ride instead of a fantasy movie. The performances are a struggle, especially Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell and Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook.

Fallout: Generally considered a bomb despite the box office numbers.

Van Helsing

Director: Stephen Sommers

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh

Year: 2004

Box Office Take: $120 million

Plot in a Nutshell: Legendary monster hunter, Van Helsing is sent by the Pope to Transylvania to hunt down Dracula. One the way he also meets the Wolfman and Frankenstein’s monster.

Biggest Annoyance: Van Helsing’s one-liners. Can you say fish out of water? Can you say random?

Really Bad Quote: “Some say you're a murderer, Mr. Van Helsing. Others say you're a holy man. Which is it?”

The Lowdown: They put so much effort into a creating a movie where Dracula, Wolfman, Frankenstein’s monster, and Mr. Hyde could appear together that they forgot about a plot. That’s the problem with “Van Helsing.” It plays like a series of sketches slapped together and none of it really makes sense when it’s sewn together like the corpses that make up Frankenstein’s monster.

Fallout: Where the hell has Stephen Sommers been? He hasn’t directed a real movie since “Van Helsing.”

I, Robot

Director: Alex Proyas

Starring: Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Alan Tudyk, James Cromwell, Bruce Greenwood

Year: 2004

Box Office Take: $144.7 million

Plot in a Nutshell: In the year 2035, a Luddite cop investigates the possible suicide of a robotic scientist. The cop discovers that the scientist was killed by one of his robots – despite the fact that they are programmed not to kill humans.

Biggest Annoyance: The walking, talking cliché that is the character of Del Spooner played by Will Smith.

Really Bad Quote: “Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony?”

The Lowdown: More often than not – Will Smith’s action movies are bad. This one is no exception. The movie is recycled from every science fiction and cop action adventure movie ever made. But the worst part of the movie may be the fake looking robots.

Fallout: Alex Proyas has vanished off the fact of the earth.

Pearl Harbor

Director: Michael Bay

Starring: Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jon Voight, Alec Baldwin, Tom Sizemore, Jennifer Garner

Year: 2001

Box Office Take: $198.5 million

Plot in a Nutshell: The attack on Pearl Harbor made boring and uninteresting.

Biggest Annoyance: The acting or lack thereof.

Really Bad Quote: “Rafe I'm pregnant. I didn't even know until the day you turned up alive and then all this happened. I haven't told Danny. I don't want him to know. All he needs to think about is how to do this mission and get back alive. Oh Rafe, all I ever wanted was for us to have a home and grow old together, but life never asked me what I wanted. Now I'm going to give Danny my whole heart, but I don't think I'll ever look at another sunset without thinking of you. I'll love you my whole life.”

The Lowdown: This is one of the most trite war movies ever made. The love triangle at the center of the story is about as hot as cold tap water.

Fallout: Started the long drought of duds for Ben Affleck.

Twister

Director: Jan de Bont

Starring: Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Cary Elwes, Jami Gertz, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alan Ruck

Year: 1996

Box Office Take: $241.6 million

Plot in a Nutshell: Husband and wife researchers on the brick of divorce keep running into each other as they chase tornadoes across the Midwest.

Biggest Annoyance: The idea that you can successful outrun tornadoes – several times.

Really Bad Quote: “Killing yourself won’t bring your dad back. I'm sorry that he died, but that was a long time ago. You got to move on. Stop living in the past, and look what you got right in front of you.”

The Lowdown: This movie is just an excuse to blow things up.

Fallout: Jan de Bont’s next movie was “Speed 2: Cruise Control.” Need we say more?

Labels: Bad-Cinema, Movie Review, Movies

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Back in December, we listed our “8 Coolest Sci-Fi Flicks” and got some heat for not including “Blade Runner” (1982) on the list. We remembered Ridley Scott’s adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s science fiction classic “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” as being a disappointment – as well as a bit heavy-handed.

We recently revisited “Blade Runner” to see if the sands of time had softened our opinion of the movie. But we also wanted to see if Scott’s director’s cut version of the film would improve it.

It did, but our opinion of “Blade Runner” remains mediocre.

We agree with film critic Roger Ebert: “Watching the director's cut (of “Blade Runner”), I am left with the same overall opinion of the movie: It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story.”

Ebert gets this one right. “Blade Runner” is slick on production. The special effects are so impressive that Scott lets them take over parts of the movie as he pans the camera back to take in breathless shots of his futuristic version of Los Angeles. The movie, at times, is in awe of itself.

We’ll give Scott credit here. He does a magnificent job in crafting his world. It’s a bleak one, but it resonates as realistic: the driving, black rains, the pollution-scarred skies, the blinking, moving billboards, the strange fashions, and the crowds of vampire like citizens.

But this is all background.

The rest of the movie doesn’t live up to the set. The plot is achingly mediocre and stolen from half-a-dozen film noir movies. It relies on characters hand-picked from central castings old stereotypes closet.

The usually dynamic Harrison Ford is wasted here. Ford sleepwalks through the role of a world-weary police officer who quits to crawl inside a whiskey bottle. But predictably his crusty, insensitive boss calls him back for one last job. Then there is Sean Young as the femme fatale – smoking cigarettes and looking both confused and earnest at the same time.

Ford plays Deckard -- a blade runner (a police officer assigned to hunt down and kill “replicants” also known as cyborgs). The replicants are illegal on earth and only used on other planets for jobs too dangerous for real human beings. It’s never explained why the replicants are not allowed on earth (can’t we all just get along?).

The movie carefully avoids another major problem: if they are illegal on earth then why are the replicants designed to look exactly like human beings? They are also designed to look differently from each other – no two are alike. In fact, the only way to tell a replicant from a real human being is to take a complicated oral exam which takes about 45 minutes to an hour to administer.

Wouldn’t it be easier to design the replicants with blue skin, for example? Or make them all look exactly alike? That way they couldn’t escape and hide among the population of real humans. Seems like an easy fix especially since the replicants have become such a dangerous nuisance that it’s necessary to create the job of blade runner to hunt down and kill them.

But then, of course, we wouldn’t have a movie.

Another problem with the replicants is that they only last four years –but no one – not the replicants or their creators – seems to readily know the expiration dates. Given that the replicants are used for dangerous off-world work wouldn’t it be prudent to know when they “die”? After all wouldn’t it be a disaster to send replicants on a mission and have them start expiring halfway through?

Deckard is assigned to kill four replicants that murdered a shuttle full of people and now are hiding out in LA. His investigation is riddled with holes and convenient consequences that only happen in movie scripts (he finds a tiny snake scale in the bathroom tub of an old haunt which lead him, of course, to a stripper who uses a snake in her act. She happens to be one of the replicants). He even calls them at their secret hideout and… they answer the phone.

We were also amazed at how Deckard never ever calls for back-up – even when he finally locates the replicants’ hide-out and knows he will be up against two super powerful androids that have already murdered more than 20 people.

“Blade Runner” wants to be a film about the definition of humanity – an action flick with a philosophy. But it fails in both aspects. It spends too little time exploring the idea of manufactured life being real life because the characters don’t really care about the answer. And the action sequences aren’t even as good as the average fare on TV.

Fantastically Bad Cinema: "3:10 to Yuma"

Labels: Bad-Cinema, Blade Runner, Movies, Science Fiction

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

(Warning: spoilers ahead)

“3:10 to Yuma” is an insufferably terrible film. Its sins are numerous, but the most glaring is characters that disregard logic and commonsense because if they didn’t there wouldn’t be a plot. In fact, if any the characters possessed a lick of sense “3:10 to Yuma” would be 10 minutes long.

Remarkably, movie critics chose to ignore this gaping chasm of a problem and turned “3:10 to Yuma” into a critical darling when it was released last year. Audiences, however, aren’t always so gullible and the film collected a paltry $50 million – barely breaking even. Audiences, it turns out, can sometimes be wiser than the critics.

Bruce Westbrook, movie critic for the Houston Chronicle, actually called “3:10 to Yuma” the best western since “Unforgiven.” Mr. Westbrook should be banned from reviewing movies for a year and be forced to watch all of the Police Academy movies in a row. Don’t be duped by the enormous marketing budget now touting the release of the DVD. “3:10 to Yuma” is bad movie making; achingly bad.

However, like all of our fantastically bad cinema selections, “3:10 to Yuma” is so god awful that there’s some delight to be had – especially watching Russell Crowe turn in his most overwrought, overacted performance yet as Ben Wade, a notorious outlaw with an intellectual heart of gold. Wade likes to make pencil sketches of birds and people before he goes off robbing and killing. The cad!

The plot is straight forward, but its execution is preposterous. Meet struggling rancher Dan Evans, played with seething intensity by Christian Bale (Bale needs to do a light romantic comedy). Evans is on the verge of bankruptcy and losing the faith of his wife and two sons.

So when Wade is captured after robbing a train company’s payroll coach (and murdering at least four men), Evans volunteers to be part of the posse that will escort Wade to the Yuma prison train. The movie plods along up until this point (most viewers will be hugely disappointed in the paint-by-numbers action scene that is the stagecoach robbery), but there’s hope for something more.

Be prepared for your hopes to be dashed.

The posse falls asleep around a campfire and Wade – using a fork pilfered from Evan’s ranch – proceeds to hack one of the posse members to death with it. This is the first instance where you slap and your head in disbelief. Why didn’t the posse tie Wade up? Isn’t he a ruthless mass murderer? If they couldn’t manage that no-brainer shouldn’t one of them have stayed up to guard him?

Another member of the posse – a bounty hunter – beats Wade senseless and – get this – the other posse members stop him. “That’s enough!” Huh? Didn’t Wade just stab one of them to death while they slept? Aren’t they escorting Wade to Yuma to be hanged? Why don’t they just shoot the bastard in the head and go home?

Not this posse. They continue on their merry way to Yuma – with Wade only wearing handcuffs (they tell him to shut-up so many times you wonder if they’ve ever heard of a gag). Wade then jumps the bounty hunter and throws him off a cliff to his death.

The rest of the posse manages to get the drop on Wade before he escapes – but do they kill him? Nope. Not even after the bastard has murdered two of them in cold blood. And neither do they tie and gag him. So, of course, Wade escapes again.

This time Wade is captured by railroad thugs guarding the Chinese workers as they build the transcontinental railway. One of the thugs recognizes Wade because Wade killed his brother. So the thugs torture Wade with the intention of killing him.

Guess what? Risking their lives, the posse, lead by Evans, rescues Wade. They shoot it out with the railroad thugs and another one of the posse is shot and killed. Can you believe this? This is the dumbest goddamn posse in the world. By this point you’re rolling your eyes so much that you have a headache.

The posse finally gets Wade to Contention – the town with the train to Yuma. There are only three posse members left, a railroad representative, Evans, and Evan’s son. They need to hide Wade somewhere until the train comes. What better place than the local hotel and saloon? Who would look there? And even better – its half a mile away from the station.

The railway man hires the local marshal and his men to help guard Wade, but when Wade’s gang of cutthroats ride into town to rescue him – well those cowardly lawmen flee (only to be shot down unarmed by Wade’s gang).

The railway man tells Evans its time to it give up and offers to pay him the money he needs save his ranch and get out of debt. He tells Evans that it’s over that they are outnumbered and outgunned. So does Evans quit to save his life and son’s and live to bail out his family?

Nah! Why give up after you’ve gotten seven men killed so far? Evans decides he’ll take Wade to the train station alone and get him on that blasted train if it is the last thing he does (although he probably was kicking himself for not hiding out at the train station in the first place).

Evans and Wade – clock ticking toward 3:10 p.m. – share a moment in the hotel room. Here’s the brilliant analysis of that scene by movie critic Roger Ebert: “Crowe and Bale play this dialogue so precisely that it never reveals itself for what it really is, a testing of mutual insight. One trial of a great actor is the ability to let dialog do its work invisibly…” Yeah, I’m a huge fan of invisible dialog.

So what happens? Inexplicably, Wade decides to help Evans deliver him to the train station. They’ll do it together (against Wade’s loyal gang of cutthroats)! Why Wade just doesn’t order his men not to shoot at them and then stroll down to the station is, well, stupid.

So they dodge, duck, run, and fight against Wade’s gang all the way to the train station. And if you were expecting action? Forget it. This is one of the worst gunfights in cinema history – with thousands of bullets flying and only bad guys being shot (because everyone knows they can’t aim).

Evans ends up dead – shot by Wade’s loyal lieutenant. He is, after all, trying to rescue his boss. Psycho killer Wade, distraught that his men have actually had the audacity to succeed in freeing him, guns them down in revenge for Evans’ murder.

Unbelievable? Completely.

Do yourself a favor and only rent “3:10 to Yuma” if you’re ready poke it with a stick. Otherwise rent “Unforgiven.” That’s a real western.

Labels: 3:10 to Yuma, Bad-Cinema, Movie Review

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

He did physical comedy, mostly complicated pratfalls. While perusing his biography in the program, I found this nugget: Eisenberg appeared in “The Jewel of the Nile” as the jewel.

What? I thought, is it even possible that I never watched the sequel to “Romancing the Stone” (1984)? But I had no memory of the movie –none. So when I got home, I rented it.

And it all came back to me – like a horrible nightmare.

“The Jewel of the Nile” is proof that you can’t always return to the well. Because sometimes the well water turns into putrid sewage and if you drink it: you will die.

My first reaction was to track down Eisenberg and beat him with a rubber chicken.

“Jewel” is an epic disaster – a sequel so ill-thought out, poorly directed, horribly written, and featuring performances so lackluster one could argue that Michael Douglas wasn’t even aware that he was in the movie. And I had seen it before – but had purged the memory from my brain.

I actually turned it off, but the next night, I was drawn back to it like a moth to a candle. The movie was so damn bad that I couldn’t help myself. It’s unfortunate because “Romancing the Stone” was such an unexpected pleasure. It brought a refresh to the old-fashioned romantic adventure – with some laughs thrown in.

What made “Romancing the Stone” a hit was the chemistry between Kathleen Turner’s Joan Wilder and Douglas’s Jack Colton. She was the repressed writer and he was the wild, roguish adventurer. The way the two actors played off each other made for a funny, delightful escape.

However, the success led to the rushed making of the sequel the very next year.

And sometimes speed kills.

The biggest problem with “Jewel” is the writing. The script is so improbable that it borders on the ridiculous. We’re supposed to believe that Wilder – a bestselling romance novelist – would agree to write a biography about a Middle Eastern dictator she knows absolutely nothing about (he turns out to be a deranged tyrant).

Never mind the outrageous probability that said dictator, Prince Omar (played without irony by Spiros Focas), would even consider personally traveling halfway across the world to recruit a romance writer as his official biographer. The question viewers want answered is: “Why?” Unfortunately, there is no answer.

Then there’s an attempt at a plot where Eisenberg – playing an oafish, but lovable religious leader – must be killed by the dictator so he can become the ultimate ruler of this fictional Middle Eastern kingdom before Eisenberg can be. Who this “Jewel” is and how he became a powerful religious icon is never explained. In fact, we’re not quite sure what religion we’re even talking about.

But forget all the plot holes and the lapses in reason that riddle the script. Hell, forget about the bloated budget and the unnecessary explosions and camel chases (but most of all forget about Danny DeVito, who delivers one of his worse performances ever).

The real problem with “Jewel” is that Douglas and Turner spend the majority of the movie separated.

Amazing, isn’t it?

But how can that be, one might ask. Wasn’t the success of the first movie the tit-for-tat exchanges between the actors? Wasn’t it the super-charged romantic chemistry that ignited the screen the first time?

Apparently, the producers, director and writers forgot about that.

Like most of the movies we feature in Fantastically Bad Cinema – “The Jewel of the Nile” has to be seen to be believed. Just suspend any notion that you might be watching a real movie and dive into one of the most disappointing busts of the eighties.

Labels: Bad-Cinema, Jewel of the Nile, Movies

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail