Category Archives: bad movies

Skip’s Quips: Criticizing Crummy Movies Is Fun!

~

Blog Sketch 082813Is it so wrong that I sometimes like lampooning films more than watching them?

I tell ya: There are thousands of bad movies out there that just beg to be criticized. And I’ve only broached the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, I do enjoy viewing great (or even good-enough) cinema. I love to talk about these pictures, too. But there’s nothing like making fun of a terrible piece of celluloid. It provides a satisfaction that can’t be beat.

Granted, I’m not really a fan of sitting through bad films … I prefer to critique them. So getting there is the hard part. Watching such junk can be grueling.

The rewards, however, are the gifts that keep on giving. Awful motion pictures last as long as quality ones. They’re just as resilient. So they’re just as worthy to discuss.

Thankfully, I don’t feel guilty about doing just that. And I don’t think anyone else should, either. As long as we have crummy cinema in this world, we should have people to make fun of it. It’s part of our critical fabric. It’s innate.

Let’s not let it go to waste.

Skip’s Quips: What Happened to ‘The Angriest Man in Brooklyn’?

~

Blog Sketch 082813Most movies that start viewers off with narration bother me.

The Angriest Man in Brooklyn is no exception, and I had to turn it off last night before getting past the first half hour or so.

Narration is a crutch frequently used, it seems, to offset the fact that a story somehow isn’t told traditionally through the action onscreen. The problem is, it usually winds up being tiresome and suspense-killing, which you don’t want in a movie. That’s what happened in TAMiB.

But what really happened there? A lot of talent was wasted in this film – including Robin Williams, Peter Dinklage and Mila Kunis – which had something to do with a very peeved lawyer (played by Williams) being told erroneously that he has 90 minutes to live. Oh, goody, that plot device. No wonder I couldn’t watch the picture.

The script was a mess, to say the least. It was hard to say what it was going for: a comedy or a drama. Or perhaps both. It didn’t matter; I lost interest. And I don’t expect to resume watching it soon.

If only there wasn’t any narration. Maybe things would’ve been a little better.

Maybe.

Skip’s Quips: Nothing Funny About ‘Penguins of Madagascar’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I didn’t find the original Madagascar amusing. It was broad, forced, in love with its own smugness.

Now we have a spinoff: Penguins of Madagascar. To that, I say: “Humph.”

Those not-so-adorable penguins. Full of comic mischief. And little to no humor.

I realize this kind of thing isn’t geared to grown-ups with elevated tastes and sensibilities, but why must Hollywood insist on spouting out sequels to movies that weren’t very good to begin with? It’s a rhetorical question; I know it’s to make money. But the industry could at least try to put forward a strong project … not one that’s easy to dismiss.  And I suspect Penguins will be the latter.

Some things you don’t have to see to know they’re of low quality. This film is one of them. And as I’ve already suffered through Madagascar, I have no doubt that the avian addition to its dreary family will be just as bad.

I’m gonna miss its debut. On purpose. My prediction is: I won’t be missing much.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Lamenting the Career Path of Johnny Depp

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Once in a blue moon, I wonder why certain actors have made professional decisions that have taken them away from one career route and toward another.

Take Johnny Depp. About 20 years ago, he starred in the intriguing, Jim Jarmusch-directed independent film Dead Man. Now, however, he stars in big-budget spectaculars such as the forthcoming Into the Woods, as well as Tim Burton-helmed duds such as Alice in Wonderland.

Was Dead Man an anomaly? Is Depp really just a Hollywood actor who doesn’t take cinematic risks anymore?

This is a talented performer we’re talking about here, but I’m concerned that celluloid experimentation is no longer of interest to him – that he’s riding on the coattails of his eccentric, tiresome performance in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl and, as such, doesn’t feel the need to try something new and inventive. I lament that.

Hopefully, there will be more challenging roles in his future. Although in seeing that he’s reprising his role as the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass, I am not convinced that’s the path he’s traveling down.

Sad.

Skip’s Quips: ‘Wild’ Trailer Makes the Movie Look Really Bad

~

Blog Sketch 082813Yes, I realize I’m jumping the gun when complaining about the trailer to a movie. But the preview for Wild, the based-on-a-true-story Jean-Marc Vallée film starring Reese Witherspoon as a woman who takes up hiking as a road to self-improvement, doesn’t look all that wonderful.

I’m not a huge fan of Witherspoon’s acting anyway, so that’s another hurdle. But in general, this picture looks manipulative, frustrating, like Dallas Buyers Club, which Vallée also directed. That flick also has a star that I don’t care for from a performance perspective: Matthew McConaughey.

There’s a trend here, though, and it’s the trend of trailers that don’t sell their movies as well as they should. If a preview doesn’t entice me, there’s something wrong with it. It should tout the picture’s best qualities, not make it look irritating. That’s how Wild came off. And unfortunately, that’s what it left me with.

There’s a chance that this film might be a good one. There is. I’m not expecting that, though. In this case, the trailer tells all. I’m buying that for now.

Skip’s Quips: A Little Complaining Can’t Hurt Now and Then

~

Blog Sketch 082813I just realized something: I think I like kvetching about movies more than watching them.

That definitely holds true for bad films. But what about good ones? I infrequently complain about those, though I do whine once in a while about some overacting here and there, a cut that should’ve been sooner.

I’ll tell ya, however: I think lousy pictures were put on this planet so we could gripe about ’em.

For some reason, I love coming out of a theater and whining about the picture I just saw if it’s particularly crummy. I’ve done this on countless occasions with friends and relatives. I think people do get sick of it; most, I feel, would rather talk about good movies than bad ones. But the latter really make me excited. I feel they should be discussed, dissected, analyzed – to ensure all facets are covered.

All right, so going to the flicks with me may not be everybody’s bowl of popcorn. I understand that. Still, the process helps me digest what I’ve just seen, and I love talking about it. And when I go with like-minded people, the conversations are quite lively.

The moral of the story: In my opinion, bad movies are just as worthy of discussion, if not more so, than good ones. Some people would rather forget them. I’d rather keep them top of mind – at least for the time being. That way, you can identify what you don’t like about them … making the next film, hopefully, more enjoyable. And if it isn’t, well, you can kvetch about that one, too.

I can’t complain about that.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: ‘American Wine Story’ Almost Drives Me to Drink, Er, Think

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I’ve seen so many good documentaries that sometimes it seems bad ones don’t exist.

Well, it’s not true. Case in point: American Wine Story, a tedious, unfocused attempt to look at a number of American winemakers who left unrelated jobs to pursue their dream of crafting vino. Written and directed by David Baker, this film features unnecessary animation, stilted narration and some of the worst incidental music I’ve ever heard in a documentary – a droning, repetitious sequence of sonorities that doesn’t belong anywhere near a movie reel.

Yeah. I think it’s clear that I didn’t like this picture.

The subject itself can be intriguing, and the flick tries to show how fascinating the talking heads onscreen are, but it doesn’t succeed. At one point, if I recall correctly, one of them even indicates that she has never had an uninteresting conversation with a person in winemaking … at which I suggested to the television that she should watch this movie. When you hear about five people recount the best wine they’ve ever tasted in wistful tones, you know you’re in for a dreary hour-plus of film watching.

So, in sum: not a well-done documentary. Which is an anomaly in a month during which I’ve viewed more compelling pictures such as Tabloid and Searching for Sugar Man. I guess every time period is bound to have its cinematic disappointments. The only thing to do is watch a better movie to clear my mind of the worse one.

That I can easily do.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Your Seats Won’t Make a Bad Movie Better

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613It’s nice to know there are movie theaters out there that are trying to make the film-consumption process more palatable than the tired popcorn that’s churned out every day before being drizzled with slimy butter topping.

I recently had the experience of sitting in such a theater, which featured a kind of stadium seating that might be found in the first-class cabin of an airplane … if such flights featured cinema-oriented stadium seating. Composed of soft padding, the chair had a bit of a recline thing going on, as well as lots of space for me to shift my tuchas when my position became the least bit uncomfortable. The requisite cup holder added convenience; extra leg room added area.

Unfortunately, it didn’t improve the movie I was seeing: This Is Where I Leave You.

That’s too bad. I only wish the theater concentrated more on providing a better film than it did on offering cushy seating. For a good picture, I’d sit on hard wooden benches. I’d sit on the floor. I’d sit in the smoking lava of the Mount Doom caldera.

Well, maybe I wouldn’t go that far.

My point is that the quality of the seating in a theater is less important to me than the quality of the filmmaking. I prefer to see movies based on how good they may be, not how comfortable the space is. And I just don’t think a huge number of mainstream theaters consider that.

I understand numbers are important. I understand luring eyeballs is essential. But I just would like to see more of a focus on bringing great pictures to the theaters than one geared to bells and whistles. I don’t know if this will happen; it’s probably not a realistic hope. It’s the wish of a moviegoer, though. The wish of an individual.

That should factor in somewhere.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Staying for All of ‘This Is Where I Leave You’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I should’ve left early before I finished This Is Where I Leave You. But no – I stayed for the whole thing.

My loss. It was absolutely horrible, as glib and smarmy as I didn’t predict it would be. So much for my capacity for prediction.

And so much for enjoying the two hours I spent in the theater. The film – directed by Shawn Levy and concerning, in a nutshell, the gathering of a group of semi-Jewish (the question does, self-consciously, arise during the proceedings as to whether they are of this religion) siblings at the family home after the death of their father – strained credibility to the nth degree in its attempt to blend coarse humor with heartfelt sensitivity. Neither worked, and the fact that this ensemble piece featured quite a few ill-defined characters made it all the less credible.

A number of good actors worked on this project. Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Adam Driver, among others. They couldn’t save it, however, and despite their innate charm, the picture went to pieces. The script, adapted by Jonathan Tropper from his novel, was snarky without being believable and showcased plenty of less-than-credible situations, including what seemed like an endless series of fights, arguments and couplings that never went anywhere plausible. Couple that with a time span that was way too long, and you’ve got a rambling, tiresome picture.

So why did I see this? Why did I pass the time watching this flick when I could’ve exited with my dignity intact?

I don’t know. All I can say is I’m only human. It was a lapse in judgment. I could’ve saved those two hours for something productive.

On the other hand, if I didn’t see it, I wouldn’t have written this review. Maybe it was meant to be.

Mysterious ways. If only there was a bit of that in This Is Where I Leave You.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Retelling the Story of ‘Dracula Untold’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613If I never had to watch another vampire movie again, I would be a happy man.

Not that I’m generally forced to watch vampire films. In fact, I generally avoid them, as they’re about monsters that, as a rule, don’t inspire me – unlike, say, snarky, misanthropic, hobbit-hating dragons, which often do.

I have to say something about Dracula Untold, the upcoming fang-o-thon slated to hit theaters next month, however, and that is: Do we really need another movie about these long-lived bloodsuckers? Really? I mean, come on. This is the umpth incarnation of the Dracula story. Why, Hollywood, why?

Vampires, like zombies, are easy subjects. You’ll always find an audience for flicks concerning them, methinks. I just wish horror/fantasy moviemakers would mine less superficial subject matter, though, instead of gravitating toward the same ol’ thing. It’s hard to top the F.W. Murnau Nosferatu when it comes to vampire stories on the big screen, anyway, you know? So why try?

I suspect there will be no reason to tell, again, the story of Dracula Untold and that it will be comparable, in terms of cinematic quality, to a pile of bat guano. That probably won’t stop the hordes of vampire-loving viewers from seeing it. It will, though, serve as sufficiently preventative garlic for me. I’m avoiding it … while lamenting the dearth of good, non-vampire horror films out there.

Dracula Untold? Too many times told, if you ask me.