Some Really Bad Movies

My moviegoing philosophy is to try to find something to like in every movie I watch. Here, in no particular order, are seven films that made that extremely difficult.

Torque

torque

Whenever I think about the worst movies I have ever seen, Torque is always one of the first that comes to mind. Talk about not being able to find anything to like in a movie. This movie isn’t even fun in a silly-action-movie, so-bad-it’s-good sort of way. It’s so bad it’s just really, really bad. It’s a braindead, plotless, terribly executed, mind-numbingly stupid Fast and Furious rip-off. Just watch this video and tell me that isn’t some of the stupidest crap you’ve ever seen. In the immortal words of Roger Ebert: “I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated it. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.” Ebert wasn’t writing about Torque, but he might as well have been.

The Core

The Core poster

Why, Aaron Eckhart, why? You’re such a good actor, why do you keep making crappy movies? You were so good in The Dark Knight! I haven’t seen Olympus Has Fallen, but you’re a perfect choice to play a movie president! Hell, I’d vote for you in real life! You wouldn’t even have to have a platform! You could just say, “Hey, I’m Aaron Eckhart!” and I would say HELL YES and commit some kind of voter fraud on a massive scale to give you a couple million more votes! That’s how much I like you! But The Core is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen! You did your best to make it watchable, but even you couldn’t save this crapfest!

Please Aaron, I’m begging you.

Come back to us.

Please.

Stealth

 stealth poster

Speaking of Fast and Furious rip-offs, here’s the director of the original The Fast and The Furious film trying to rip off his own damn movie. Hey, let’s make FF again, but with PLANES!! Great idea, right?

No dude, it wasn’t.

It really wasn’t.

Batman and Robin

batman_and_robin_frgrand

Now here’s one that really, truly needs no introduction. This movie was so infamously bad that director Joel Schumacher freaking APOLOGIZED for how bad it was!! Bat-nipples!! Ice puns!! Everything in this movie was so inconceivably bad I have to use two exclamation points to express how bad it was!!

Perhaps even worse is that I loved this movie when I was a kid. It came out when I was ten so I think that says a lot about its target audience.

I was young and naïve!

Please don’t judge me too harshly.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

transformers-2-movie-poster

This obviously isn’t even the actual movie poster, and yet it sums up so perfectly what this movie is all about.

megan-fox-leather

Whoops, where did that come from? Honestly, I have no idea.

I will defend the first Transformers movie, but Transformers 2 represents bloated Hollywood blockbuster filmmaking at its absolute worst. This and Batman and Robin are hands-down the two worst big-budget summer blockbusters I’ve ever seen. In both films, the characters are grating and obnoxious, the plots nonexistent, the action boring, the…

 2335-megan-fox-transformers-2

Gah!! How does this keep happening??

What was I saying? I don’t even remember anymore. I hate Transformers 2 so much. Ebert called it “a horrible experience of unbearable length,” which couldn’t be more accurate.

Transformers2Wallpaper31280x1024

LEAVE ME ALONE MEGAN FOX!!

Miami Vice

 miami vice

Getting a bit more serious for a second, it really pains me to put this one on here. Michael Mann is one of my favorite directors. Collateral in particular is one of my top-ten favorite films. Heat is a modern crime classic, and Mann’s adaptation of The Last of the Mohicans with Daniel Day-Lewis is thoroughly epic. I even enjoyed Public Enemies, as flawed as it was. Miami Vice even has the distinction of being the first R-rated film I ever saw in a theater by myself, which makes it something of a milestone in my film-going career.

If only the movie itself were as memorable. I really couldn’t tell you anything at all about the plot, because there really wasn’t one. As good of a director as he is, Michael Mann’s main priority in this film seemed to have been to give every one of his main cast members multiple shower scenes. It’s just a boring-as-hell movie, which is really disappointing since it could have made for some good trashy fun. Instead it was just overly long, overly complicated, overly serious, and ultimately forgettable.

Sucker Punch

 sucker-punch-movie-poster-01

Zack Snyder is one of the more polarizing directors working these days. The man has his share of strengths and weaknesses to be sure, but for the most part I’ve liked his movies well enough. His remake of Dawn of the Dead was actually pretty good as far as modern remakes of classic horror movies are concerned. 300 is something of a guilty pleasure and I thought Snyder’s adaptation of Watchmen was about as good a film of that book as anyone could realistically be expected to make. I’ll even defend Man of Steel against its (surprisingly many) haters, but even I have to admit that HOLY CRAP SUCKER PUNCH WAS BAD.

The plot is utterly nonsensical in ways I don’t have time to explain here. The characters have stripper-sounding names like Baby Doll, Rocket, Amber, Blondie, and Sweet Pea. The action scenes admittedly look pretty cool, even if nothing in them makes any sense. Why are these stripper-sounding gals suddenly fighting dragons, robots, giant samurai, and World War I steampunk German zombie soldiers? Who the hell knows? Because Zack Snyder directed this movie with a part of his anatomy other than his brain, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, there are seven really, really bad movies. It’s my birthday today, and my gift to myself is that I don’t have to watch any of them.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a (good) movie to…

megan_fox_transformers_2-wide

AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Advertisements

Within and Without

I don’t think there’s an English major alive who hasn’t read The Great Gatsby at some point in his or her life. There probably aren’t many people out there generally who haven’t read it. It’s such a familiar story that it has almost become a cliché.

This is unfortunate, because it’s a great story. Things become clichés because they are based in truth, and get repeated so often that they almost seem to lose some of that truth that made them so memorable in the first place.

Gatsby_1925_jacket

Put down that rock, F. Scott Fitzgerald fans: the key word in that last sentence was ALMOST. I love The Great Gatsby, even though I haven’t read it since junior year of high school. Even if it does feel sometimes like the book has become a cliché, it doesn’t diminish the beautiful melancholy of Fitzgerald’s story.

But since I mainly write about movies on this blog, this brings us to the latest film adaptation of the novel, directed by Baz Luhrmann of Moulin Rouge fame.

moulin rouge poster

It’s no secret how much I love Moulin Rouge, and Luhrmann’s interpretation of Gatsby bears a number of similarities to it, in terms of the visuals, the music, and the storytelling.

the-great-gatsby- poster

Luhrmann, first and foremost, loves spectacle. In Luhrmann’s estimation, the bigger and more grandiose, the better. Luhrmann’s turbo-charged approach to filmmaking seems to clash a bit with Fitzgerald’s melancholy tale, and Luhrmann makes a number of stylistic choices that didn’t all go over particularly well in the eyes of viewers.

There’s the soundtrack, which features a number of tracks from current rap and hip-hop performers. The soundtrack album even has a Parental Advisory sticker, which is somewhat surprising.

There’s the casting of Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby, a casting choice which many folks were none too pleased with.

There’s also Luhrmann’s visual style, which takes Fitzgerald’s prose and turns it into this…

the_great_gatsby party 1

Or this…

the-great-gatsby-party2

The film is rated PG-13 for “some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language,” which sums it up pretty well, even though for some reason I always find it amusing when things like “smoking” and “partying” appear in descriptions of a film’s content. (For a really hilarious MPAA rating, see Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, which is rated PG for “fantasy/action violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar”).

Reception to the film was mixed, as it currently holds a 49% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, although it has a solid 7.3/10 user rating on IMDb.

Most immediately noticeable are the film’s sumptuous visuals. In one of Roger Ebert’s reviews, he said that there are some films where you drink in the visuals, Luhrmann’s Gatsby is a textbook example of such a film. The sets, the costumes, the special effects, the production design, the people, all of it looks scrumptious and provides plenty of eye candy (kind of like visual soda pop, to combine metaphors).

The problem with all of this visual splendor is that it can, of course, be pretty distracting. It’s tempting to just lose yourself in the visuals and lose track of the story. And everyone who has read Fitzgerald’s novel knows how great of a story it is, and how memorable the characters are.

The confounding thing about Luhrmann’s Gatsby is that it sometimes seems on the verge of losing its grip on the viewer, only to grab hold again a few minutes later. Luhrmann’s lavish style threatens to drown out the movie at times, but something keeps saving it, and I’m not entirely sure what.

Maybe it’s the actors. I thought the film’s casting was very good. I’ve liked Leo DiCaprio in several of his previous films (Blood Diamond, The Departed, Inception, Shutter Island), but I wasn’t sure if he would make a great Gatsby (get it?) or not. But, somewhat surprisingly, he really did. He did as good of a job with the role as could reasonably have been expected of him. He does great work conveying the many different aspects of Gatsby’s character. There’s actually quite a few similarities Jay Gatsby and Bruce Wayne, in that both characters have this extravagant public lifestyle that is really just a smokescreen that masks a deeply troubled soul. One minute you think Gatsby is the biggest cad in the world, the next minute your heart breaks for him.

The rest of the cast is also really good. The eternally likable Tobey Maguire makes a great Nick Carraway, and provides a solid foundation for the film, since Nick is the novel’s narrator. Carey Mulligan is lovely as Gatsby’s long-lost love Daisy, and Joel Edgerton is appropriately villainous with his slicked-back hair and pencil mustache.

great_gatsby_characters

Baz Luhrmann creates films that take place in a sort of heightened version of reality. Everything and everyone is candy-colored and beautiful, and there’s a somewhat exaggerated sense of drama to everything that happens.

I’m kind of torn as to how well this represents the book, really. I haven’t read the book in seven or eight years, but something I remember from the book is how real it felt- Fitzgerald’s characters always seemed very grounded, like maybe he had hung out with the sort of people that populated his stories. Fitzgerald’s groundedness (is that a word?) and Luhrmann’s heightened sense of style don’t always mesh, and for that reason I don’t really think it’s the best version of the novel.

But as a movie it works pretty well. When it comes to film adaptations of books, I am of two minds. On the one hand, a film adaptation of a book (or TV show or comic book or whatever) is just that, an adaptation of an already existing work, and as such people have a right to expect some faithfulness to the source material.

On the other hand, I also think a film adaptation of an already-existing work should be able, in some sense, to exist on its own. And taken on its own terms as a movie, Luhrmann’s Gatsby works pretty well. It’s certainly never boring, the acting is really good, and there are a number of moving scenes. Kind of like with World War Z, it works as a movie even if it doesn’t work quite as well as an adaptation.

I feel conflicted about that last statement, since the movie still retains at least a sense of the novel’s melancholy beauty. So maybe it works better as an adaptation than I’m giving it credit for.

I guess the bottom line is that I still enjoyed the movie and I think it’s worth seeing, and not just for F. Scott Fitzgerald groupies. Fitzgerald created a story that is truly timeless, and Luhrmann’s stylized film is a good reminder of that.

There’s a lot more to be said about the characters and specific plot points in the story, but I feel like that sort of a discussion would be better suited for a group setting. So watch the movie, then maybe dust off your old paperbacks of The Great Gatsby, and have at it.

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.