CTS-1 Reviews

The Neighbors (2014–2016)

Well, It Is What You Expect...

[1/10 · 15 December 2016]

Let's be honest: nobody comes to "The Neighbors" as a Tommy Wiseau virgin. People come to "The Neighbors" because they have seen "The Room," and, because they feel an innate need to be punished and can't afford to have a really attractive person do it for them, they want more.

Well, it has everything you would want. Tommy Wiseau plays several characters- badly. Especially off-putting is his attempt to play an "all-American boy" about 1/3 his real age. The other performances vary from incompetent, to lazy, to "just mailing it in," although an all-time list of best acting talent ever couldn't make anything out of the writing.

And what the Hell is going on with those bizarre bumpers between scenes? Also: every single scene feels like one of the "acting" scenes in a porn film. It takes rare anti-talent to do that. Contributing to that vibe is the single-camera shots with no POV cuts, combined with sets that scream "dollar store." Or the number of times that the scenes really do involve sleazy attempts by one character to get it on with another, but done in such a robotic way as to be off-putting. Or the pizza delivery guy who takes his shirt off for no apparent reason.

Okay, here's the game for viewing "The Neighbors": load up every bad porn film plot trope on "bingo" cards, and hand them out before watching three episodes. Wiseau uses them all! Oh, and people yell a lot.

See it with your friends that you took to see "The Room," and were still your friends after the experience.

Dreams from My Real Father (2012)

An Embarrassment For Legitimate Critics of Obama

[1/10 · 1 October 2013]

At first, this brain-damaged hatchet job seems like an example of Poe's Law gone way too far. It is so outrageous that even most reasonable Republicans walk away in disgust, secretly hoping that this is either a failed parody/satire, or even better, an action by a Democrat Agent Provocateur type designed to make everyone to the right of Obama look like a lunatic.

But, instead, it is the work of a conspiracy theorist, and has been adopted by the "Obama is a secret Muslim/Communist" crowd. Every time a so-called conservative cites to this trash with approval, intelligent conservatives should hang their heads in shame, or better yet, take conservatism back from these imbeciles.

For those who are criticizing the GOP as "the party of stupid," they can point to this as Exhibit A.

Hero (2002)

Insidious

[1/10 · 23 August 2009]

Those who talk about the lush cinematography, well-blocked fight scenes, and other visual details of this film are correct. Visually, it is a stunning film.

However, this is a pretty film with a deeply suspicious message at its center. The Emperor, who conducts offensive wars of genocide against neighbor kingdoms in the name of unity, and rules his own populace with cruelty and an iron hand in the name of order, has all of his actions rationalized and even glorified. The Emperor is also an unapologetic nationalist. In other words: having the streets run red with the blood of innocents is perfectly acceptable, even noble, as long as it is done in the name of unity and order.

It is probably no coincidence that a highly authoritarian government noted for brutal crackdowns on dissent and offensive wars against neighbor states in the name of "unity" (like Tibet) financed a film that glorifies its most egregious behavior. Unlike so many in the West, this insidious message was no doubt not lost in Tibet or Taipei.

Flip That House (2005– )

Could This Be- the Most Evil Show Ever?

[1/10 · 1 January 2009]

Just what the world really needed- a show that glorified the idea that anyone could get rich quick by buying houses, throwing a few improvements in them, and then turn around and sell them at a huge profit! Get in on all the fun, after all, everybody is doing it and you can, too! Don't worry, this is the 2000's. Nothing can go wrong. After all, housing prices are going to go up at least 20% per year, forever! Aren't they?

Actually, this show should have served as a warning about just how insane the feeding frenzy of the housing bubble had become. It did nothing except glorify the idea that anybody, even the most rank amateur, could get rich quick off of house flipping. Only time will tell how many actually saw a profit, and how many got burned and lost their savings on what should have been seen as a bubble. However, this show should never be forgotten- it is a relic of the stupid optimism and a warning for those who want to participate in the next "can't miss" asset bubble, whatever that is.

Brideshead Revisited (2008)

Does not stand up to the miniseries

[5/10 · 6 August 2008]

Naturally, comparisons to the classic 1981 miniseries are unavoidable. Because of the choice to use the same location (Castle Howard) for Brideshead in the film as the mini, they become even more obvious.

With just over two hours, a lot of the story gets chopped out, along with a lot of the minor characters. In fact, the film is basically about a fifteen year long love triangle: Sebastian, Charles, and Julia. All of the aspects of the Flytes as a dying class (replaced by the Rex Mottrams of the world) and the Catholic themes are practically written out.

Perhaps the single most pernicious edit was the fact that Charles' conversion to Catholicism was edited from the film. Without that conversion, the whole Catholic element becomes just an impediment to the Charles-Julia relationship. Possibly the worst effect coming from this choice is that the film kind of drifts to a close without any closure, when it returns Charles to Brideshead in 1944.

On the plus side, Emma Thompson is appropriately manipulative and domineering as Lady Marchmain. Also, the cinematography is top-notch. Curiously enough, however, there is far less star power in the film than in the miniseries. Granada TV was supposedly using the mini-series to flagship their "quality" programming right before a license renewal, and they got some names: John Gielgud, Lawrence Olivier, Jeremy Irons. The new film has Emma Thompson.

Another problem with the short time involved is that the characters are not allowed to develop the same way they were in the 1981 mini. The character who suffers most from this is Sebastian. Anthony Andrews' Sebastian was a brat who got away with being a brat because he could turn on the charm and make anybody love him, at least in the beginning. Ben Whitshaw's Sebastian is still a brat, but he is not shown as the great charmer. The funny thing is, sometimes when they say the same lines, Andrews came off as witty, Whitshaw comes off as whiny.

Along those lines, Bridey is essentially a non-character. Simon "Arthur Dent" Jones' magnificently understated performance as an upper-class twit is sorely missed.

Also, in the miniseries, it is obvious that Charles falls first for Sebastian, and then for the entire Flyte family (except Bridey). In the film, one could get the impression that Charles is more in love with the building, than either Julia or Sebastian.

This isn't to say that Brideshead Revisited was a bad film; it was a good (but not great) film. However, not unlike film versions of Pride and Prejudice, there is too much Waugh for 135 minutes. In the case of this film, dropping both the class and Catholicism aspects in large part makes a good film, but not necessarily one fully in touch with Waugh's themes.

I Know Who Killed Me (2007)

Not "Gigli" bad, but still really awful.

[1/10 · 1 July 2008]

I'm sure a lot of you have heard of this film.

This was known as "that Lindsay Lohan film that died at the box office." Well, some of us watch badfilm so the rest of you don't have to.

Let's start with Ms. Lohan herself. In a lame and obviously telegraphed "plot twist," Ms. Lohan plays identical twins separated at birth. One is raised by a WASP-y upper middle class family, and she becomes a glasses-wearing virginal artistic prodigy. The other is raised by a crack whore and is a stripper at the age of 17.

This gives Ms. Lohan the opportunity to fail miserably at playing two radically different characters. Many would expect Ms. Lohan to fail at being a frigid prodigy, but curiously enough, she also fails at being a sleazy stripper.

Which brings up an obvious topic in the film: Ms. Lohan's strip club scenes. Yes, they do exist. Naturally, they beg a comparison to that other classic badfilm with strip club scenes, Showgirls. Elizabeth Berkeley had an "enthused but hopelessly inept" vibe to her scenes as she did an uncoordinated naked strut about the stage with the pole. Ms. Lohan, by comparison, just didn't care.

First, the producers must have had just enough money to hire Lindsay Lohan to play a stripper, but not enough money to actually take off her kit and flash her boobies at the camera. So, while we get to know Elizabeth Berkeley way too up close and personal, Ms. Lohan keeps her outfit on. A complete lack of dedication.

This total lack of dedication is made all the more obvious by the fact that all her strip club dance scenes are in slow motion! Peeking behind the curtain of ultra slow-motion and lots of colored filters (and, gentle reader, if you watch this film ever, you will be sick of colored filters), the "sexy strip club" scenes are nothing but Ms. Lohan walking around a pole and crawling on the ground, slowed down in a lame attempt to make it look more sensuous. Is Ms. Lohan the only actress who can "mail it in" in a strip club scene? While we are on the subject of "mailing it in," let's talk about the scriptwriters. When not recycling clichés from every slasher pic since Halloween, they are, you guessed it, blatantly ripping off David Lynch and Twin Peaks! Note the significance, and endlessly repeated theme, of blue roses (ripped off from Fire Walk With Me). Also note the incessant cutting away to Owls in all outdoor night scenes (if you don't know where that is from, get off your stupid computer and watch "Twin Peaks" now). My compatriot, in fact, was of the opinion that even if Ms. Lohan tried, she couldn't have risen above the lame script.

No matter how bad Ms. Lohan's performance, it was eclipsed by the bad acting of the Jullia Ormund, who played her mother. Julia Ormond's descent into Hell is now complete. Either that, or she was just got lucky for a couple of years there in the 1990's.

There were torture scenes. The genius of Joss Whedon is that, in "Firefly," he made a torture scene funny. The anti-genius of this film is that it manages to make a torture scene boring. And the less said about the villain, the better. Jason and Freddy are characters of Shakespearean depth compared to this one. One would think that one could wring some sort of emotion out of seeing Ms. Lohan tortured, whether it is disgust or perhaps even Schadenfreude. No such luck here.

On the bright side: it is a fairly short film. It lacks the six fake 'em out endings of Gigli. Still, a film for veteran badfilm watchers only. I give it 2 1/2 martinis that you will need to make it through.

The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978 TV Movie)

It Isn't a Train Wreck- it Moves too Slowly

[1/10 · 23 August 2006]

OK, if you are reading this, you have probably already heard about the nightmarish details of this film. Carrie Fisher sings, badly, an "inspirational" version of the Star Wars theme. Art Carney shows way too much skin. Mark Hammill looks like a drag queen, and Harrison Ford looks like he was dragged on set against his will by a gang of thugs.

The "musical numbers" are bizarre, irrelevant, and bear no resemblance to anything else. I think I speak for everyone when I say that I hope that mysterious orifice on the top of Harvey Korman's head has one, and only one, use.

But, gentle reader, I do not criticize the painful individual moments of this disaster, no matter how many there are. I do not even criticize the fact that Wookies are made to look like either obnoxious twits or creepy perverts. No, I want to talk about pacing, or in this work's case, p-a-c-i-n-g...

Taken as a whole, there was about enough plot here for a 30 minute network special. But, that would not be long enough. So, the viewer gets 20 minutes of wookie-speak, which goes nowhere. And dance numbers, which go nowhere... And Bea Arthur singing, which might go somewhere we don't want to know about... The fact is, amazingly little happens during this thing's excruciatingly long running time.

Having a martini handy is a must. Just do not drink every time you get bored.

Braindead (1992)

Oh, God, I Love This Movie!

[10/10 · 22 August 2006]

This film is truly the finest hour of the young, aggressive, full-speed-ahead Peter Jackson. Check your squeamishness at the door and get ready for proof that splatter can be played for laughs.

Not all the laughs are splatter-based. The opening scene shows a zookeeper waving a permit to a tribe of hostile natives about to kill him, shouting out "per-mit! Per-mit!" From there, the film descends into the inspired, amused lunacy of the splatstick. Look for the cameo of a young, thin Peter Jackson as a mortician's assistant. Also look for the minor hilarious characters- the Nazi vet, the idiot football player, and most famous of all, Father MacGruder, he of the film's best one-liner.

Timothy Balme is excellent as the nebbishy mama's boy who ends up taking on the whole undead world by himself, with a couple of mechanical aids. He out-Ashes Ash! Like any good zombie film, the end features waves of zombies, but many with unique and twisted personalities of their own. The best is, of course, zombie baby. It is shocking and yet hilarious to see what zombie baby endures, and yet survives (perhaps to live on in the long awaited sequel?) Ten stars, and five out of five blood splats thrown up against the wall (during the last half hour).

King Arthur (2004)

A Bit of a Waste

[4/10 · 16 July 2005]

What can I say? Well, for starters, I no longer think Kingdom of Heaven is that badly done.

Let's start with how this film gets rolling. In the "plot convenience theatre" department: Arthur and all his knights need to be sent out on a mission to rescue this VIT (very important teenager), a mission so important that getting him back is the last thing the Roman army will do before departing. So, this kid is hanging out at some isolated plantation on the wrong side of Hadrian's wall??? Ladies and gentlemen, our human McGuffin is in place.

And, in the same scene, what is it with the way Christians are being portrayed in these films? Is it some attempt to balance the fact that, fifty years ago, Christians were always portrayed as superior to Pagans, so now it is some kind of payback?

In Kingdom of Heaven, a lot of the Christians were portrayed as venal, violent, and dim. How could King Arthur do worse? Venal, violent, cowardly, dim, and to top it off, pointlessly sadistic! How sadistic? Well, they do this dorky "torture Pagan children just because" routine. How pointless? Well, they have Keira Knightley in a dungeon, and all they can think of doing is breaking her fingers. How pathetic- and uncreative. This is Keira Knightley...

Which brings to our film's antagonists: the Saxons. Let's play "You are the Saxon commander!" Despite apparently getting lost on the sea crossing and landing several hundred miles north of all the other Saxons, you have just come across a hastily abandoned Roman plantation. The plantation's carts and draft horses are gone, and the serfs have fled, but a fully furnished large luxury villa, outbuildings, tilled fields, and livestock remain. Do you say to yourself:

A. FREAKING GREAT! THIS is why we invaded England: free pre-built fiefdoms! They even left the tableware, excellent. Now for the hard decision: keep it for myself, or give it to one of my successful captains instead of having to pay him? OR,

B. WE HATE BUILDINGS! Burn! Burn the blasted thing to the ground. Kill everything that moves! We're Saxons- that's what we do! Sure, it is winter in Britannia, and the livestock we are pointlessly killing might come in handy to feed my army, but us Saxons prefer sleeping outside, on the ground, and eating- well, whatever. That's what makes us superior…

Most historical Saxon commanders, in fact, chose option A. But, I guess Bruckheimer and company didn't think that invading land to take over and run things was eeeevil enough. So, the producers brought in the gang from "The Road Warrior," took away their dune buggies, and called them the enemy. Frankly, I suspect that their behavior would leave most historical Saxons going "huh?"

One thing a lot of Saxon commanders would have liked, though, was all the groovy crossbows they had. Did someone time travel to eleventh century Genoa and buy them all? If they did, it would seem easier to come back with Lee-Enfield rifles and solve all their problems. Must be one of those time machines that only allow for the transport of non-gunpowder weaponry.

The "am I watching a Godzilla film?" moment came after the rescue of teen McGuffin from the Saxon marauders and right before a battle on a frozen lake. Clive Owen gives an "inspirational" speech. The whole scene was re-dubbed from what Owen was originally saying, however, and the synchronization is horrible. Clive's lips start moving a full half second before we get any words. When I see that, I expect to hear Godzilla sounds or Hong Kong Martial-arts film sound effects immediately following. Hard to believe this film was done in English. Since Owen's speech was pretty cheesy, I shudder to imagine what Owen was saying originally, to be dubbed over with that cheese.

The "battle on the ice" itself- it is just like Alexander Nevsky, except for the fact that it isn't good. Just a badly shot muddle of people on the ice more reminiscent of the "Monty Python Women's League" battle re-enactments than Eisenstein.

After the Nevsky homage, we are treated a the most awkward, painful so-called "love scene" featuring Clive and Keira. There was a time in film when they would have just faded out when it was obvious what would happen. That would have been such an improvement. With these sort of scenes, do it right or don't do it at all! Poor lighting, camera angles straight out of "Battlefield Earth" and the old Batman TV show, enough camera movement to give some viewers motion sickness- even a porn film director could have done better.

Of course, any film like this needs a final, climactic battle. Okay, so you have the best fortification in Britannia in the form of Hadrian's wall, and you let them through, supposedly as part of a trap. It appears that for this plan to work, the Saxons had to charge past the fortress and into battle, instead of thinking that maybe they would want to keep the fortification and let the natives attack them while they had the nice building; it is a good thing these road-warrior Saxons hate buildings and fortifications. And where did all the petroleum for these fire-traps come from?

Lancelot was impressive, though. Why use a crossbow, if you can throw your sword forty feet and have it stick? And then, of course, the final wedding scene with the flaming arrows being shot into the sea (winner, 2004's most retarded Freudian image in film). But anyway, we have this great image of the wedding of Christian and Pagan, on the rocks. It just has a certain "love boat" kitschy quality to it which ruins any alleged message.

"Kingdom of Heaven" looked like a mish-mash when I first saw it. But, compared to this, it is a masterpiece.

84 Charing Cross Road (1987)

A very pleasant , very intimate film

[9/10 · 27 June 2005]

I recently saw this film for the first time, as a chance to see an Anne Bancroft film I had not seen before. Bancroft and Hopkins are both excellent in this. And, more than almost any other film, they have to be excellent; their performances are the only thing this little film hangs on.

Everything about this film violates almost every "screenwriting 101" type rule. The two main characters communicate primarily through letters. Characters address the audience directly. There is no real conflict. Change occurs only with the natural passage of time in the characters' lives. No heroes, no villains. No romance, no violence, no adventures- just two people (one a writer, the other a rare-book dealer) living their lives and caring about how the other leads theirs.

And yet, the film works. Over the span of the 20+ years portrayed in the film, the audience gets to know and like both of the main characters, and their compatriots as well. And just getting to know them and their unique friendship makes it all worthwhile.

Also, the portrayal of the privations of the post-war U.K. of rations and food shortages is done very well. Michael Palin, amongst others, have addressed the tragicomic aspects of postwar rationing in the U.K., but in this film, it is poignant how even a poor American managed to make the entire bookstore's Christmases worthwhile with a well-timed shipment of Danish food.

The Panama Deception (1992)

Only Those Who Really Wanted To Believe Any Propaganda...

[3/10 · 11 June 2005]

...could swallow this film wholeheartedly.

I am not living in a polyanna-ish world where the US administration's motives for invading Panama were absolutely pure. However, any valid criticism of the US administration that might have been in this film was lost amongst the bizarre, unbelievable paranoia the so-called documentary filmmakers chose to adopt as a viewpoint. Some of this material (like the bit about the US Army using random Panamanian civilians to test Area 51-type secret beam weapons on) landed somewhere between comic book and schizophrenic dementia. Oh, and the "everything was great until the US got involved" viewpoint- classic.

Sadly, I remember seeing this film with the kind of zombies who would cheer the filmmakers at every statement, no matter how outrageous or out of touch with reality. Goes to show that the hardcore religious right is not the only political orientation with a cadre of zombies willing to ignore facts or even the slightest contact with reality, as long as what they are being told fits in with their preconceived notions. One thing the far left and far right have in common: they will pay to have people tell them what they are already convinced is true!

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

A good but underachieving film that should have been great

[6/10 · 6 June 2005]

I suppose that the best word for how I feel about Revenge of the Sith is "frustrated." Not that it was a bad film, because it was a good film and I certainly do not regret seeing it in the theater.

ROTS had flashes of brilliance. The plot developed well, the effects were fantastic, the fight scenes were done very well in general, both the individual battles and the fleet-type actions. Lucas avoided the obvious "for the kids" stuff that plagued TPM and AOTC. This film should have been a world shaker.

But, the parts that clunked, really clunked.

First, for everyone who claims Hayden Christiansen is a bad actor, watch Shattered Glass. That was a tough to pull off, nuanced performance (he had to let the audience know that his histrionics and explanations were fraudulent and he didn't believe them, but make them believable enough so that the audience would believe that the other characters, who were bright people, would buy them until the very end), and he did very well- last year's overlooked 'best actor.' But, any scene between him and Natalie Portman lacked any real emotional gravitas. He even went into that petulant child routine he was doing in AOTC. Which meant that, for me, the whole "turning to the dark side to save Padme" bit rang a little hollow from the lack of emotional depth (an aside here- did anyone else notice that Padme sleeps in her regular, pearl- and-brooch decorated clothing? That has to be uncomfortable).

Second, the whole "Natalie Portman is dying" bit. If a character has lost the will to live, maybe that information should not be delivered to the audience via a robot. I could see that this was supposed to be an important emotional counterpoint to Anakin's fall from grace, but it just didn't have the impact that it should have. Whether or not it was consistent with her character as it had been developed, is a matter for debate. In any event, the juxtaposition of this and Anakin being put in the famous black suit should have been two equally powerful halves of the same coin. Anakin's part had power; Padme's didn't.

Third: the Jedi council could "sense darkness" all about Palpatine, but didn't really come up with any contingency plans? For the wise guardians of the good, that seemed like a real lack of due diligence...

It was a very good film, despite all of that, and it was fantastic when it was firing on all cylinders. My frustration is from the feeling that it should have been more. All in all, it is probably the third best of the six, ahead of ROTJ and the other prequels, but not good enough to redeem the prequel series as a whole.

Oh, and I agree with those who have talked about the lack of a Han Solo "good rebel" kind of character. That might have added some color and some adult levity (as opposed to the Jar-Jar 8 year old kind of levity) to the film. The lack of a similar character is missed. Sure Yoda kicks tail, but his dime-store Buddhism is no substitute for the much more empathetic Solo.

Highlander (1986)

A Good Film Whose Reputation Has Been Dragged Down By Poor Sequels

[8/10 · 9 March 2005]

When I first saw this film, I thought it was great. Connery is good, Lambert does passably well, the effects are good, the idea of a bunch of special individuals who had known about each other (and in some cases, liked each other) for centuries being drawn together, knowing that only one could come out alive. The effects were, at the time, good and had not been flogged to death. I even enjoyed the introductory clan-on-clan warfare.

Then came Highlander 2, a film which deserved its place on the Bottom 100 and the nadir of Sean Connery's career. As someone else said about that film: "don't break every rule you set up in the first film." Even the series didn't do that. And the reputation of the first good film suffered.

Separating the first film from the bad sequels, and a series that a lot of people can take or leave, it is still a good film. Unfortunately, a good idea was taken and flogged to death afterward.

Triumph of the Will (1935)

Thought-provoking, and scary

[8 March 2005]

This is the thinking person's horror film. Zombies? Ghosts? Lunatics with hockey masks and chainsaws generating gallons of fake blood? Not a tiny bit as scary as thousands upon thousands of people lined up in squares, gleefully losing their individual identities and glorifying in the group, willing to perform some of the most evil deeds imaginable for the perceived benefit of that whole.

If this film was done badly, it would be something to laugh at or study as a historical artifact, a relic of a past we left behind. However, its power, and why it can disturb to this very day, is the fact that it was done beautifully. Anyone who talks about equating "truth and beauty" should think about this film. It is certainly beautiful, but it is also in the service of a lie, and an evil one at that.

Sadly, I suspect that the types who make modern political propaganda and advertising get on their knees at night and pray for some of the inspiration that made this film. Stars? This film defies a star rating.

Gigli (2003)

A Flat, Lifeless Lump of a Movie

[1/10 · 3 January 2005]

A truly cynical person might think that the whole J-Lo/ Ben Affleck relationship was a publicity stunt designed to help this movie along. After all, if a couple was in the midst of a passionate affair, it is reasonable to expect some on-screen chemistry between then, right? That kind of chemistry is sadly lacking in the J-Lo/ Affleck interactions.

Ms. Lopez appears to be either in over her head as far as acting ability, or realized that she was in a "take the money and run" failure; I did not buy her as the character she was supposed to be. Affleck was just leaden, although he had nothing to work with in terms of character or dialogue. He has not always been bad (I liked "Chasing Amy"), but here, his scenes crawl along at a painfully slow pace. The "retarded kid" (and that is all he deserves to be called) is playing a high-school play version of "Rain Man" with all the annoyance but none of the nuance, complexity, or charm. The less seen, the better. Forgettable cameos top the mess.

The worst thing about Gigli is the endings. Imagine a painfully bad film, where you want to sit it through to the end, just because of all the pain and suffering it has put you through ("this film is NOT going to defeat me"). You get to the end. Then, there is another ending. Then, another ending; then, an ending involving the retarded kid. Then, an ending not involving the retarded kid. Then another... You get to a point where you sincerely believe that the editor should be forbidden from ever working in film again. Along with the director and the choad who did the bizarrely inappropriate music, as well.

The colorful, in-your-face awfulness of "From Justin to Kelly" was a picnic compared to the leaden, meandering awfulness of "Gigli." And, to think of how much this film cost, for so little...

Team America: World Police (2004)

Well Worthwhile, But Not For The Squeamish

[9/10 · 2 January 2005]

Fans of Parker and Stone's prior efforts will both love this, and know what to expect from this. Politically, no group is left unsatirized: from the idiotic faux-country patriotic music, to know-it-all leftie actors being portrayed as goon puppets (the more self-important members of the Tim Robbins and Sean Penn fan clubs may want to skip this), no group escapes without being ridiculed.

Of course, what one would expect besides savage social commentary is gross-out humor, and that is present in droves. This has the best puppet vomiting scene since "Meet The Feebles." In addition, there is: puppet "marital relations," puppets being blown up, puppets being fed to cats, puppets being fed to sharks... All the puppets are done in the style of "Thunderbirds" (the old TV show, not the dismal failure of a live-action movie). And the songs are hilarious too! "'Pearl Harbor' sucks and I miss you" is one of the funniest songs you will ever hear.

From Justin to Kelly (2003)

Awful. Simply awful.

[1/10 · 7 July 2004]

Yes, it finally came on cable. And, in order to keep up my credentials as an expert on badfilm, I had to deal with this monstrosity sooner or later. So, without further ado...

Oh...my...God...

Who thought this was a good idea? Trying to make a quick buck off of a flavor-of-the-week TV show I can understand, but who thought this had any chance of success? Too retarded for anyone over 14; too campy and too much like a "Gidget" remake for the 9-14 set; too much skin for the "Barney the Dinosaur" crowd. Not enough plot for a 30 minute sitcom, and every teensploiter movie cliché ever, without either the humor (the saving grace for the good ones) or the nudity (sometimes, the saving grace for the bad ones). Anyway, a few random notes:

1. One of the first songs was Kelly Clarkson's remake of "Vacation" by the Go-Go's. I always considered this to be a light, bouncy pop song. That was, of course, until Kelly and her overproduction team sucked the life out of it. Now as bouncy as a Complin Service, this one made me wish for a brief return of the early, punk, Go-Go's, who probably would have roughed up anyone who did one of their songs this badly.

2. Justin, teen heartthrob? He is so thin I might be able to tie a string to him and fly him on a high wind day! With that 'fro, he looks a little like a pipe cleaner. Note to the Director: having Justin wear a black shirt when all the other guys in a song set are shirtless is not hiding anything; he sticks out like, well like a black pipe cleaner in a sea of artificial tan.

3. Aw, look: the obvious backstabbing friend/ nemesis slut girl with the hee-haw southern accent is trying to steal Kelly's scenes away from her by overacting in contrast to Kelly's underacting! Sorry, young lady obviously chosen for your ability to pack a small swimsuit: nobody who cares is watching.

4. Justin's "nerd" friend/ sidekick: you can almost see the lineage trace lines, going back through far superior nerd/ sidekicks ("Better off Dead," "Ferris Bueller's Day off"), all the way back to the early "Beach Party" movies and Rebel Without a Cause. In fact, his clothes seem to be lifted from the outfits from the early "Beach Party" movies' nerd/sidekick wardrobes; if they actually date from the early 1960's, they might be considered retro/cool in some circles and thus worth more than the rest of this film.

5. Oh, the intense chemistry between Justin and Kelly... Really, I am serious. Oh, yes. Alan Rickman and Kate Winslet, in Sense and Sensibility, were an overflowing cauldron of unrestrained sexual passion compared to these two. If Justin was trying to dispel those "man's man" rumors, this did nothing to help.

How to get the movie to go from sluggish to dead in the water: Justin and Kelly, alone, in a scene for more than five seconds.

6. Kelly's nice black friend is being taken to a ritzy Latin nightclub, which is located in...an abandoned corrugated metal shack??? I need to check that abandoned building on the next block; the Cotton Club might have started a branch there. Mitigating factor: the Latin dancers were way more talented than the blandly white beach dancers in the other scenes.

7. OK, Kelly, so you admire Bjork. I can see you appreciate her independence, willingness to go her own way, and most of all given your situation, her career longevity. If you want to do a homage to Bjork, altering your bland, middle-of-the-road song delivery would be a good place to start. Your hairdo was, in fact, not a good place to start.

8. Hee-haw girl does a bad impersonation of Madonna's "Material Girl" video. Which means, of course, she is doing an even worse second-derivative impersonation of Marilyn Monroe. This has no purpose other than to satisfy some requirement in her contract that she got to be the lead in one song number.

9. Telepathic singing? Oh, no- "Glitter" flashbacks!

10. Justin in a game of hovercraft dodge-ball? The stunt double must be a girl to get the sizes right. Oh, look, the danger: he has lost control of a motorized inflatable hovercraft in three feet of warm water!

11. Hee-haw evil girl is proud of notching up various studs, and now she is hitting on- Justin???

12. THAT was how evil hee-haw girl's plots were discovered? Did the budget get pulled, and they needed a way of wrapping up the plot faster than you could say "Deus Ex Machina?"

13. The final massive musical number: a K.C. and the Sunshine Band cover! While deeply painful on so many levels (including watching nerd-boy dance), at least they mangled an already bad song, rather than torture a once respectable song.

Anyway, yes, this movie is just as bad as you have heard.

Shanghai Surprise (1986)

"Gigli" for the 1980's!

[1/10 · 14 November 2003]

OK. So someone took an A-list actor and his famous singer/ part time kind of-sort of actress wife and decided that the movie would be carried on the weight of the names alone. Substitute "fiancee" for wife and one has Gigli.

But it is not- it is Shanghai Surprise, possibly the most ill-conceived movie of the 1980's (and yes, I have seen "Hobgoblins.")

This movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Ridiculous plot, painfully bad acting (Madonna as a missionary? She didn't buy it either, so she says her lines in a flat tone which just screams "get me out of this costume and get me my check"), cinematography worthy of an old episode of "Fantasy Island," lame ending.

If, by some chance, you stumble across a copy of this in an unused corner of your local video rental store, call your local hazardous waste disposal hotline- do not rent it.

But do not forget that this horror exists. Some people forgot- and thus "Gigli" was born.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978)

What Were They Thinking?

[1/10 · 25 August 2003]

Someone must have noticed that "Yellow Submarine" made money. That same person also noticed that the Bee Gees were popular. Put a popular disco group and popular Beatles songs together, and: magic???

Well, not really. This film hurts. It hurts all the more if one likes the Beatles' originals of these songs (OK, Aerosmith did a decent version of "Come Together," but that is not enough to mitigate the damage caused by the rest of the performances).

There are certain films that seem to be made just to put the tolerance of a badfilm watcher to the test. This film has its place in that pantheon, right between "Can't Stop the Music" and "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians."

Coupling (2000–2004)

Raw and hilarious...

[10/10 · 22 August 2003]

Some people have compared this show to "Friends," mostly because it involves three men and three women of approximately equal age. However, that is where the similarity ends. In comparison to the middle-of-the-road sitcom writing of "Friends," this show features its characters in very R-rated situations. The writing is sharp, bordering on vicious at times (e.g. Jane showing up at a dinner party not properly dressed because she expected a more intimate setting), and the acting is very good all around.

I question whether the US clone of this show will be any good, or whether it will die a quick, unlamented death like the dismal US clone of "Absolutely Fabulous." One can hope for the best, but in the interim, BBC America and this show are the most compelling reason for an expanded cable package.

Glitter (2001)

Mariah Carey cannot be excused from this wreckage....

[1/10 · 14 February 2003]

...because, as her vanity project, she undoubtedly had the final yea or nay on what went into this mess. The inexplicable glitter strip (note: watch for continuity errors in its location)? The longest-lived cat ever? Telepathic songwriting? The most unsympathetic cast of characters since "A Clockwork Orange?" Ms. Carey knew, or should have known.

Mariah's acting is, well.... zombified. Her screen presence would actually be explained by her being under the influence of some medication designed to help with her later well known breakdown. Ms. Carey proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that bad over-acting makes for more entertaining badfilm than bad under-acting, which just leaves the viewer wondering why the movie was made. I couldn't tell for sure whether the rest of the cast's tepid-to-annoying performances were due to their own bad acting or from trying to perform across from the lifeless Ms. Carey; after 45 minutes, I couldn't care either. A well-deserved 1.

Batman & Robin (1997)

Who Green-Lighted this disaster?

[1/10 · 25 December 2002]

I saw this movie in a second-run theater at a resort with its own brewpub. This was important, as I was allowed to: A. bring in beer with me to the theater; B. buy more beer as the movie became more painful; and C. since I only paid $1.50 for admission (really about $5.00 too much- and yes, I understand the math), I could spend the money I would have spent on a first-run ticket on the aforementioned beer. I have the utmost sympathy for those who sat through this film without such mental shielding.

At this date, it is obvious that this film killed a previously profitable franchise. It managed to have the cheesiness of the Adam West TV series, but yet lacked any of the humor which made the TV show watchable. What wa s left was a poor mish-mash: were Uma Thurman and Ah-nold supposed to be humorous villains? Genuinely evil villains? Misguided anti-heroes? Can anyone tell, or does anyone care after 45 minutes? This was the first movie to show that putting Uma Thurman in kinky outfits cannot salvage a mess of a film (yet, it was tried again- see "The Avengers"). Give me Julie Newmar anyday, instead...

As a dark film, this film fails. As special effects brain-candy, this film fails. As camp, this film fails. As an attempt to develop any characters, this film fails. This may very well be the least cost-effective film ever, in terms of the amount spent to make a useless pile of ____. A few suggestions as to how this "film"'s budget would have been better spent:

1. Endow a film school. Enroll Joel Schumaker.

2. A retirement annuity for Michael Gough. Really, he has been a great actor, and should not have to spend his older years appearing in this sort of embarrassment.

3. Give the money to Peter Jackson and tell him to do something, anything, with it. Definitely bound to get a better film, or more likely, two or three better films.

4. Give the money to any random person on the street and tell them to make a film with it. Highly probable to get a better film, or more likely, two or three better films.

5. Endow an MBA program. Enroll whoever green-lighted this.

6. Therapy for the people who thought this film was a good idea.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

All Oversaturated Color, No Substance

[1/10 · 4 August 2002]

How did this film ever become so acclaimed? Take a couple of stars, mailing it in, add oversaturated color backgrounds (possibly ripped off of the much-maligned "200 Motels"), toss in a few bizarre minor characters and non-sequitur scenes (again, done 30 years ago in "200 motels" without the self- indulgent pompousness), regurgitate as many lame top-40 songs of the last 20 years as possible (wait, that isn't ripped off of "200 Motels"- Frank Zappa made the effort to write new songs for his movie)- and, voila! A movie that is all obnoxious smoke and mirrors with no substance whatsoever.

Baz Luhrmann is downright lazy- tossing back pop culture and lame comments about "love" without adding anything is profoundly unoriginal. At least when John Waters throws pop culture back at us, he has the creativity to put his unique satirical spin on it. Luhrmann just puts a couple of stars over his lazily produced dreck, tosses in a lot of color, and then throws it against the wall and sees if it sticks. What surprises me is that, for so many people, it did stick.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

This Movie Stays With You....

[10/10 · 30 July 2002]

I find it peculiar that some people claim that this is a "stupid" movie, or "a waste of 2.5 hours of their lives." Mr. Lynch has created a fascinating puzzle-box of a film. The beauty of it is, it actually takes some thought to get to the resolution of the issues (and, yes, there is a resolution- at least to the largest of the loose ends). Perhaps it is not for everyone- afterr all, that is why "Crossroads" sold tickets.

The film style is appropriately dark, and the music perfectly matches the noir- meets- Kafka feel of the film. The saddest part is that, had Mr. Lynch been given the chance, Mulholland Drive could have been the perfect antidote for the "Friends" clones which were plaguing television at the time of the filming of the original pilot. If there is any justice, Naomi Watts' career should take off after her spectacular performance.