I LOVE bad movie reviews. Not bad reviews, but reviews of bad movies. While checking out RT this morning I found a true gem, a review of a movie so bad that the critic gave it a fresh rating. Here's what William Bibbiani had to say about "Alex Cross".
That's just flat out funny. In his preceding thoughts, he ponders the chance that this movie will be so bad it will go down in camp history as a must see flick.Could very well be the funniest film of the year. It's so, so bad, that I totally recommend you see it.
A quick perusing of the web offers up a number of sites dedicated to bad movies, and most have reviews of those said films...but I don't see any that catalog the fun "this movie really, really sucks so bad that I left the theater with one eyeball still stuck staring at the top of my skull" reviews. So here's your chance. If you find any good ones, paste a snippet here with a link.
For a group that seems to enjoy moviedom as much as this DBR crowd does, this could be fun.
Teen Wolf and Road House are two of the cheesiest, worst movies ever made... and I think most of us love watching them!
-Jason "the basketball scenes in Teen Wolf, most of which are so obviously staged, are priceless!" Evans
Add my name to the list of those who enjoy reading vicious, negative reviews.
I also enjoy some bad movies -- I treasure the two "Bill and Ted" movies, even though they are absolutely awful. And "Xanadu" -- I know it stinks, but I can't help watching it.
But I think my favorite bad/good movie is Clint Eastwood's "Heartbreak Hill". I have to explain -- I love war movies and there's this entire subgenre of firlms about the young troops in training ... their tough, seemingless heartless drill instructor ... and the payoff when they go into combat and learn that that tough DI was teaching them how to survive and triumph. The genre dates probably dates to to "Sands of Iwo Jima", although you can find elements of it in earlier films (it's a main theme of Leon Uris' novel "Battle Cry"). Eastwood follows the formula perfectly -- but the payoff comes, not against the dug-in Japs of Iwo Jima or the Nazi troops on the bluffs overlooking Omaha Beach or even against the Chinese hordes in Korea or the sneaky Viet Cong in the jungles of Vietnam. After all his unit-building/bonding, the payoff is the invasion of Grenada (an action that a group of girl scouts could have pulled off ... well, maybe not girl scouts -- but well armed boy scouts would have had no trouble). The subversion of the cliche -- which I don't think was intentional -- is delicious (and that doesn't even include the truely awful subplot with Marsha Mason or the conflict with the stupid company commander).
The one thing I don't like are movies that are intentionally camp -- something along the lines of "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". The wonderful awfulness of Ed Wood's terrible movies ("Plan Nine from Outer Space" or "Glen or Glenda") stemp from the fact that he actually thought he was making good movies.
"By the way, speaking of Bill Murray, every time "Road House" is on and he or one of his idiot brothers are watching TV— and they’re always watching TV — one of them calls my husband and says [In a reasonable approximation of Carl Spackler (Murray’s character in "Caddyshack")], ‘Kelly’s having sex with Patrick Swayze right now. They’re doing it. He’s throwing her against the rocks,’" Kelly Lynch said in an interview. "Mitch was just walking out the door to the set, and he said that Bill once called him from Russia."
Demented and sad, but social, right?
There are movies that are so brazenly stupid that they require new methods of critical interpretation. Like Scientology or Ron Paul, their disavowal of reality and its conventions is so inescapably complete, so utterly confident, that these films approach a sort of ludicrous grandeur. ... Road House is one such movie, and Patrick Swayze is its Christ.
Frustrated by repeated typecasting in “beefcake” roles, Swayze somehow found himself in this epic showcase of well-oiled manliness, playing a dour warrior-sage who is forbidden from ever fully buttoning his pants. ...
Ben Gazzara, smiling his way through the role of chief villain Brad Wesley as if bravely soldiering through a hemorrhoidectomy, appears to have prepared for his role by smoking pharmaceutical grade Mary Jane before every shot.
Even Kelly Lynch, sex object and token female presence, is demoted from emergency room doctor to whining, table cloth-trussed piece of [tushy] in just three scenes. ...
On the scale of homo-erotic American cinema, Road House ranks well above Brokeback Mountain (2005) for sexual tension, but the lack of catty flirting keeps it from being quite as openly gay as Top Gun (1986). ...
... Like all true myths, Road House is bound by an internal logic. It operates at a level above our understanding, and we judge it at our own peril.
A side note, for years (decades), I was oblivious to the homo-eroticism of Top Gun. As an avid volleyball player, the sand volleyball scene (with Kenny Loggins singing Playin With the Boys) remains my favorite scene, despite 5'7" Tom Cruise elevating from sand to spike over the net - which links in Teen Wolf!
My favorite recent snarky review came from a video game rather than a movie, but I think the same principle applies: "Tolerable With Friends … but So Is Dying of Bowel Cancer."
i laugh out loud at this page.....
"Either we're going down, or they are....... Kirk out!"
People seem to want this to be a different thread than originally intended. Maybe change it to "Good Reviews of Bad Movies"?
Roger Ebert compiled a book on this very subject: I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie.
More here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...tHatedFilmListBaby Geniuses
"Bad films are easy to make, but a film as unpleasant as Baby Geniuses achieves a kind of grandeur. And it proves something I've long suspected: Babies are cute only when they're being babies. When they're presented as miniature adults (on greeting cards, in TV commercials or especially in this movie), there is something so fundamentally wrong that our human instincts cry out in protest."
Mad Dog Time
Mad Dog Time is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time. Oh, I've seen bad movies before. But they usually made me care about how bad they were. Watching Mad Dog Time is like waiting for the bus in a city where you're not sure they have a bus line.... Mad Dog Time should be cut into free ukulele picks for the poor."
A critic colleague of mine named Eric Snyder specifically does reviews of "bad movies" for film.com. He has a column called Eric's Bad Movies. Here are some of his more recent ones.
any of you guys remember Joe Bob Briggs and his reviews of drive-in movies? He was a Vanderbilt grad with a fine sense of humor.
For a good, humorous, slashing kind of review, Anthony Lane at the New Yorker does a great job when the occasion arises.
I love getting on Rotten Tomatoes and scanning through a few reviews of those wonderful sub-10% movies that I have no interest in seeing...but I really want to see what certain critics have to say about just how bad the movie is. Yet it always reminds me of the following pearl of wisdom from my favorite critic...Mr. Anton Ego.
Anton Ego: In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.
Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."
Road House is indeed, deliciously bad and I usually stop and watch for a while when it shows up on tv simply to enjoy its indelible awfulness.
But the topic reminds me of a line from years and years ago, I have no memory of either the crtic or the movie in question, but the line went like this: The only way this film could have been worse was if it had been turned into a musical."
I have a slight problem with R/T aspect of the theme started here, bad movies that get good reviews.
Not that I care much what critics say (sorry J, you know all I need is something in color), but RT critics scores that are really high (outside of animated films) get my attention, especially if the movie is definitely NOT built for critics.
In that mode, we traipsed off to see Piranha, which scored somewhere between a 93 and a 97.
I felt like leaving 30 minutes in (and I NEVER leave movies). When we got home, I pulled up RT to see what it was that I missed.
Evidently, I missed the entire cadre of reviewers reviewing the movie AS A B MOVIE! That's just not right. When you're on a mobile device, you're not reading the individual reviews. You look at the score (on your Flixster app) and you go from there. You can't slam one movie for sucking, then saying another movie "was supposed to suck, so it's a good movie."
That's just wrong.
It is also worth noting that there is nothing wrong with critics reviewing movies within their genre and what they are trying to be. Heck, I think that is far preferable to pretending that every movie is striving for Oscar-winner standards. By that logic, The Avengers and The Hunger Games, which will not even begin to be in the running for any non-technical Academy Awards, would get bad reviews.
You need to know what kind of movie you are getting yourself into before you buy a ticket. I believe people should look at what critics (and friends and other people) are saying to gauge whether a movie is of quality WITHIN THAT GENRE. Heck, most critics are falling all over themselves over The Master, but if you are someone who likes action, sci-fi, and horror films you probably are not going to like it. Just because the critics say it is good, does not necessarily make it a good movie for you unless it falls into the realm of films you seem to like.
Of course, to me the irony of all this is that I know CF quite well... we were at Duke together... and Piranha is his kind of movie. I am sorta surprised you did not like it at least a little bit. If you left early, you got to miss the gratuitous scenes of the little toothy fish gobbling up Jerry O'Connell's... well... member... as well as his character's reaction to said munching. It is one of the finest schlock moments in recent movie history.
-Jason "if you want to see a good Piranha movie, check out the 1978 one. If noting else, it served to launch the careers of John Sayles and Joe Dante" Evans