The 2nd MoFo Hall of Infamy : Son of Infamy

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/pXk3WqMX/2nd-Hall-of-Infamy.jpg

Enter if you dare!

Welcome to the 2nd MoFo Hall of Infamy - otherwise knows as :

THE HALL OF INFAMY II : SON OF INFAMY

What is Son of Infamy all about? It's about nominating a film for us all to watch so that our hatred and disgust for it means you win! Instead of nominating a film that's likely going to be voted the best, you're nominating a film that we are certainly not going to like. So nominate a film you despise - whether it be a film well known to be one of the worst of all time, lowest rated on the IMDb, something you personally can't stand, or even a film that has been generally well recieved that you think deserves our derision. The choice is up to you. Then it's up to you to watch all the films that have been nominated, and write a review for each one. The size of review is up to you. At the end we all vote for the films in order of least liked/most hated on down to most tolerable.

Please note : nasty or argumentative behaviour won't be tolerated, and persistent offending will result with your expulsion from the Hall of Infamy

So, what are the rules? What conditions? Any restrictions? Just a few :

1 - Make sure your nomination doesn't exceed 150 minutes in length. None of us want to watch a 310 minute bad movie, even for a fun exercise such as this. It's also a good idea to check and see how available the movie you're nominating is. It's not good to nominate something like American Flatulators 2 if it's not available online and the only copy is going for $400 on eBay.

2 - You can't nominate any previous Hall of Fame or Hall of Infamy winner - as for the latter, this only includes our inaugural winner : Going Overboard (1989) which is now infamous.

3 - All of the usual Hall of Fame rules apply :


PM me your nominations and include: film title & year of release. Keep your nomination a secret until the unveiling of the films at the reveal.

Open Door Policy: For one week after the reveal of the movie nominations, new members can still join. This is also the time period in which to withdraw from the Hall of Infamy if you've changed your mind. I suggest people review the movies that are nominated and make sure they can watch them, if not you can withdraw during the Open Door week.

Length of HoF: There will be 5 days of viewing time per movie. So if there are 12 movie nominations the HoF will be about 2 months long. The deadline to finish will be posted after the HoF starts.

During the HoF: Everyone watches the nominated movies and will discuss them in this thread. You need to write at least a few sentences about your thoughts on each movie after you watch it. Part of the process is a shared discussion of the movies, as a group.

Note: If you've seen a movie recently or have seen it many times you can skip watching it, otherwise you have to watch all nominated movies. But you will still need to post a review about it.

Requesting help to locate movies: If you have trouble locating a movie make a post and ask for help in the HoF. When responding with a movie link send it by private message, don't post links or embed films in this thread.

Dropouts: Members who don't finish will be disqualified and their movie nomination removed from the HoF. Please make sure you have the time to complete this. It helps to start watching the movies right away so that you don't have a bunch of movies to watch at the end. If for any reason you do need to drop out make sure and let me know that you can't finish.
***Withdrawing during the Open Door week is not considered Dropping Out.

Participation: An HoF is about participation, you can go at your own pace with one caveat: If a member is inactive with no movies reviewed for long periods of time, I will contact them to see what's up. Depending on the situation I might place their movie in 'undetermined status' meaning the movie is not out of the HoF but is not required to watch at that time. Basically we don't want a situation where someone joins but never participates as that's not fair to the other members and we can't tell if that person has dropped out or not. As long as someone finishes by the deadline then all will be good.

Ballots: When you're done watching the nominations PM me your ballot. Once you've sent in a ballot it's not changeable so make sure you're happy with your rankings before sending it in. Keep your ballot private until after the reveal of the final voting results, then it's customary to post your ballot (voting list) once the HoF is all done.

IMPORTANT : No personal disputes or harassing, no labeling a member or their nom as trolling, no accusing members of not watching the movies. If you have a difference of opinion regarding a film be respectful to other's viewpoints and debate the topic with an open mind and respect. Movie reviews can't be used to belittle another person via slamming their movie with snarky comments. Negative reviews are of course allowed and are part of the HoF, but using a review to pay someone back isn't allowed. If such reviews are posted the member will be messaged and asked to take out the snarky comments before linking them and flagging them as official.



SO SEND ME THOSE NOMINATIONS!!


Our previous winner :
https://i.postimg.cc/Jz7bc5Fg/going-overboard.jpg

Past Main HOF Archives (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1836290#post1836290)........ Past Specialty HOF Archives (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1836291#post1836291)

DEADLINE : 1st JANUARY 2023

Please note : I'm operating under Australian Western Standard Time, which will feel a little unusual compared to other hosts. If you ever want to quickly check how it compares, then :

If you're on the West Coast of the U.S.A. add 15 hours
If you're on the East Coast of the U.S.A. add 12 hours
If you're in the U.K. add 7 hours

Participants :

PHOENIX74 - 2 nominations received
TheUsualSuspect - 2 nominations received
Allaby - 2 nominations received
KeyserCorleone - 2 nominations received
Takoma11 - 2 nominations received
ueno_station54 - 2 nominations received
Siddon - 2 nominations


NOMINATIONS

https://i.postimg.cc/VvCYx8pY/bane.jpg
Bane (2008) - Nominated by Takoma11

https://i.postimg.cc/j2bxY9bP/airplane-mode.jpg
Airplane Mode (2019) - Nominated by TheUsualSuspect

https://i.postimg.cc/tTzf7m6h/candy.webp
Candy (1968) - Nominated by Allaby

https://i.postimg.cc/BvBNCPv3/titanic.jpg
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (2000) - Nominated by KeyserCorleone
(Titanic - La leggenda continua) - Not to be confused with Legend of the Titanic (La leggenda del Titanic) - (1999)

https://i.postimg.cc/d1XHx7zx/talking-cat.jpg
A Talking Cat!?! (2013) - Nominated by PHOENIX74

https://i.postimg.cc/s26mnVcJ/leaprise-of-the-beast2.jpg
Leap : Rise of the Beast (2011) - Nominated by ueno_station54

https://i.postimg.cc/pXsBJc9D/Wild-90.jpg
Wild 90 (1968) - Nominated by Siddon

https://i.postimg.cc/PxzKVJgN/Carnival-of-Souls-Film-Poster.jpg
Carnival of Souls (1998) - Nominated by Takoma11

https://i.postimg.cc/rmJCCb4r/Loqueesha-Poster.jpg
Loqueesha (2019) - Nominated by TheUsualSuspect

https://i.postimg.cc/d1bkCjHy/kinky-coaches.jpg
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (1981) - Nominated by Allaby
Also Known As : Heartbreak High

https://i.postimg.cc/vHMDdBpb/legend-of-the-titanic.jpg
The Legend of Titanic (1999) - Nominated by KeyserCorleone
(La leggenda del Titanic) - Not to be confused with Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (2000)

https://i.postimg.cc/D07hRWmN/inredible.jpg
The Incredible Petrified World (1959) - Nominated by PHOENIX74

https://i.postimg.cc/vH12bY92/the-misty-green-sky.jpg
The Misty Green Sky (2016) - Nominated by ueno_station54

https://i.postimg.cc/Y9HjqCh6/you-d-be-surprised.jpg
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (2019) - Nominated by Siddon


REVIEWS

TheUsualSuspect - 14/14 - Ballot sent :
A Talking Cat!?! (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2332887#post2332887)
The Misty Green Sky (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335176#post2335176)
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2336237#post2336237)
Airplane Mode (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2336241#post2336241)
Carnival of Souls (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359239#post2359239)
Bane (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359240#post2359240)
Candy (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359242#post2359242)
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359620#post2359620)
The Legend of the Titanic (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359623#post2359623)
The Incredible Petrified World (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359626#post2359626)
Loqueesha (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359635#post2359635)
Leap : Rise of the Beast (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359865#post2359865)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359866#post2359866)
Wild 90 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2359867#post2359867)

Allaby - 14/14 - Ballot sent :
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2332123#post2332123)
Airplane Mode (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2332157#post2332157)
A Talking Cat!?! (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333138#post2333138)
Leap : Rise of the Beast (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333699#post2333699)
Bane (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333874#post2333874)
Candy (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334064#post2334064)
Loqueesha (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334146#post2334146)
Wild 90 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334236#post2334236)
The Misty Green Sky (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335050#post2335050)
The Incredible Petrified World (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335275#post2335275)
The Legend of the Titanic (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335454#post2335454)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335485#post2335485)
Carnival of Souls (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335797#post2335797)
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335915#post2335915)

KeyserCorleone - 14/14 - Ballot sent :
Titanic : The Legend Goes On... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2331756#post2331756)
Bane (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2332192#post2332192)
The Misty Green Sky (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333988#post2333988)
Loqueesha (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334746#post2334746)
Airplane Mode (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334958#post2334958)
Candy (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335198#post2335198)
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335398#post2335398)
The Legend of the Titanic (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335456#post2335456)
A Talking Cat!?! (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2336592#post2336592)
Leap : Rise of the Beast (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2340385#post2340385)
Wild 90 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2340527#post2340527)
Carnival of Souls (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2346095#post2346095)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2350093#post2350093)
The Incredible Petrified World (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2352029#post2352029)

Takoma11 - 14/14 - Ballot Sent :
Candy (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2331754#post2331754)
Airplane Mode (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2331768#post2331768)
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2331784#post2331784)
A Talking Cat!?! (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2332194#post2332194)
Bane (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2332561#post2332561)
Leap : Rise of the Beast (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333520#post2333520)
Wild 90 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333744#post2333744)
Loqueesha (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333942#post2333942)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333962#post2333962)
The Legend of the Titanic (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334266#post2334266)
The Incredible Petrified World (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334276#post2334276)
The Misty Green Sky (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334461#post2334461)
Carnival of Souls (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334935#post2334935)
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2342987#post2342987)

PHOENIX74 - 14/14 - Ballot finalized :
Wild 90 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333307#post2333307)
Airplane Mode (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333809#post2333809)
The Misty Green Sky (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334977#post2334977)
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335574#post2335574)
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2336033#post2336033)
The Legend of the Titanic (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2337340#post2337340)
A Talking Cat!?! (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2341891#post2341891)
Loqueesha (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2342917#post2342917)
Carnival of Souls (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2344452#post2344452)
Bane (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2346108#post2346108)
The Incredible Petrified World (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2347340#post2347340)
Leap : Rise of the Beast (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2351606#post2351606)
Candy (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2351969#post2351969)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2353365#post2353365)

ueno_station54 - 11/14 :
A Talking Cat!?! (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333064#post2333064)
Airplane Mode (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333182#post2333182)
Leap : Rise of the Beast (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333237#post2333237)
Carnival of Souls (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334402#post2334402)
The Misty Green Sky (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2334458#post2334458)
Wild 90 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335342#post2335342)
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2335581#post2335581)
Bane (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2336525#post2336525)
The Legend of the Titanic (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2347264#post2347264)
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2347522#post2347522)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2351339#post2351339)

Siddon - 14/14 - Ballot Sent :
Wild 90 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333306#post2333306)
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333850#post2333850)
Bane (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333853#post2333853)
Airplane Mode (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2333858#post2333858)
Leap : Rise of the Beast (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2354961#post2354961)
The Misty Green Sky (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2356829#post2356829)
The Legend of the Titanic (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2356835#post2356835)
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2356873#post2356873)
The Incredible Petrified World (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2357090#post2357090)
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2357705#post2357705)
A Talking Cat!?! (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2357760#post2357760)
Loqueesha (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2357779#post2357779)
Carnival of Souls (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2358272#post2358272)
Candy (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2358274#post2358274)

[SpelingError]

I know I said I was taking a break from Halls, but since the last Hall of Infamy went well, I might join this one regardless. I'll have to think about it.

[Allaby]

This sounds like it will be delightfully terrible and terrifically awful. I'm in and I already know what piece of trash I will force everyone to watch.

[CosmicRunaway]

I don't like to join multiple Halls at once, but I only have 3 films left in the Personal Recs one, so at the rate I've been going, I might finish that before the end of this HoF's open door period anyway.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Do I want to torture myself with these horrible movies again?

There's a terrible movie I had in mind, but it is only 55 minutes. So people might actually use that as a positive!!!! So I can't do that, right?!?!?!

[John Dumbear]

The first one was fun to be a spectator. So you know I'm going to be tuning in again, as a spectator. Since I'm a seasoned ticket holder, my seat has moved to the 50 yd line.


I shall enjoy...

[TheUsualSuspect]

Submitted a movie that I haven't seen in over 15 years. I hope it holds up as bad as I remember.

[PHOENIX74]

I have to say, an intriguing few movies so far - and I'm sure my rampant curiosity will be punished.

I know I said I was taking a break from Halls, but since the last Hall of Infamy went well, I might join this one regardless. I'll have to think about it.

A few people regretted not joining the last one, but I'm leaving this one open for quite a while, so there's no hurry on making a commitment.

[rbrayer]

I sure hope this is awesome bad stuff as opposed to just unwatchable stuff...I've got sooo many possible noms

[Takoma11]

I'm probably in. Will decide by the end of the week.

[Rockatansky]

I will not participate, but will follow along, speaking up only to offer halfassed defenses of the movies I actually like.

[SpelingError]

I won't join this one, but I'll definitely be following along and I hope for this thread to go as smoothly as the last one did. See you all in the 3rd Hall of Infamy.

[John Dumbear]

To Rock & Speling: You ain't bumpin' me from those 50 yd seats!

[SpelingError]

To Rock & Speling: You ain't bumpin' me from those 50 yd seats!

I'll try using reverse psychology to get you to join.

"You know, I think John Dumbear is too much of a coward to join the Hall of Infamy. In fact, if he doesn't join, I'll bask in the knowledge that this is true. The only way I can be convinced otherwise is if he joins, but I don't think he has the guts to do that."

[PHOENIX74]

I'm sensing the Hall of Infamy is a Hall that heaps and heaps of people want to watch but not so many want to join.

[Allaby]

Come on, people! Join the fun! The first one was a blast and the second one will be even more epic!

[Takoma11]

Sorry, just realizing that I could technically make you all watch Krampus again.

[Allaby]

Sorry, just realizing that I could technically make you all watch Krampus again.

There are several Krampus movies so we could all make each other watch different Krampus films.

[KeyserCorleone]

That would have to be the spinoff, Son of Infamy vs. Krampus.

Btw I am so joining. Bring me your worst, and don't disappoint me.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoVVMs5iidk

[PHOENIX74]

Another kind of fascinating nomination comes in.

[SpelingError]

I'm sensing the Hall of Infamy is a Hall that heaps and heaps of people want to watch but not so many want to join.

I think this is a really fun idea. I just need a break from Halls for the time being.

[Rockatansky]

To Rock & Speling: You ain't bumpin' me from those 50 yd seats!

Don’t worry. I got us the best seats in the house. 88777

[Rockatansky]

I'm sensing the Hall of Infamy is a Hall that heaps and heaps of people want to watch but not so many want to join.
Speaking for myself, I don’t really join the Halls due to the effort involved, but the kinds of films and genial atmosphere in the last one made it fun to follow along.

[MovieGal]

I told PHOENIX74 about one of the worst films I have watched but sure in the heck not watching anyone else's. You want to nominate a film, anyone can have mine. 2.5 on Imdb. Never been rated on RT and I think Letterboxd is same rating on IMDB.

[PHOENIX74]

I will just ask, TheUsualSuspect Allaby KeyserCorleone and Takoma11 - how do you all feel about having the ability to nominate 2 films for this Hall of Fame? I'd be very kind with the deadline.

[Allaby]

I will just ask, TheUsualSuspect Allaby KeyserCorleone and Takoma11 - how do you all feel about having the ability to nominate 2 films for this Hall of Fame? I'd be very kind with the deadline.

I would be cool with that.

[Takoma11]

I will just ask, TheUsualSuspect Allaby KeyserCorleone and Takoma11 - how do you all feel about having the ability to nominate 2 films for this Hall of Fame? I'd be very kind with the deadline.

You mean if there's a relatively low turnout for this round?

I'd prefer not to have to watch more than about 10 films for this Hall.

[PHOENIX74]

You mean if there's a relatively low turnout for this round?

I'd prefer not to have to watch more than about 10 films for this Hall.

Yeah, if the turnout doesn't reach the magical '6' - but it wouldn't be a compulsory 'you have to nominate 2' rule. Just to beef the number of films from 5 to, say, 6, 7, 8 or 9.

[KeyserCorleone]

I will just ask, TheUsualSuspect Allaby KeyserCorleone and Takoma11 - how do you all feel about having the ability to nominate 2 films for this Hall of Fame? I'd be very kind with the deadline.

Sounds like an interesting turn of events. In that case, I've already got a couple options.

[Allaby]

I already know what my 2nd pick would be..and it's awful.

[beelzebubble]

Sounds like an interesting turn of events. In that case, I've already got a couple options.
Say no people. Wait for the unholy six to come together.

[KeyserCorleone]

Say no people. Wait for the unholy six to come together.


Boooo!

[beelzebubble]

I will just ask, @TheUsualSuspect (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=9280) @Allaby (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=110465) @KeyserCorleone (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=94296) and @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) - how do you all feel about having the ability to nominate 2 films for this Hall of Fame? I'd be very kind with the deadline.
Just wait the evil will coalesce given time.

[PHOENIX74]

Okay - here's the drill for this Hall of Infamy. In another 48 hours I'll reveal the nominations so far.

People will have 7 days to join from that day forward.

If the number of people joining doesn't get to 6, then on the 6th day I'll throw open the doors for 2nd nominations.

[Allaby]

Okay - here's the drill for this Hall of Infamy. In another 48 hours I'll reveal the nominations so far.

People will have 7 days to join from that day forward.

If the number of people joining doesn't get to 6, then on the 6th day I'll throw open the doors for 2nd nominations.

I object!!! :mad::mad::mad:

No, not really...I'm cool with that. :cool:

[PHOENIX74]

THE NOMINATIONS
(Here, and on the first post)


Please Note : I'm now accepting second nominations, which will be revealed when the deadline for joining reaches us. If we meet our quota, then these second nominations won't be included.

https://i.postimg.cc/VvCYx8pY/bane.jpg
Bane (2008) - Nominated by Takoma11

https://i.postimg.cc/j2bxY9bP/airplane-mode.jpg
Airplane Mode (2019) - Nominated by TheUsualSuspect

https://i.postimg.cc/tTzf7m6h/candy.webp
Candy (1968) - Nominated by Allaby

https://i.postimg.cc/BvBNCPv3/titanic.jpg
Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (2000) - Nominated by KeyserCorleone
(Titanic - La leggenda continua) - Not to be confused with Legend of the Titanic (La leggenda del Titanic) - (1999)

https://i.postimg.cc/d1XHx7zx/talking-cat.jpg
A Talking Cat!?! (2013) - Nominated by PHOENIX74

.

[Allaby]

I sent in my 2nd nomination, if it ends up being needed. It's as terrible as the first!

[SpelingError]

I've only heard of one of these.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdailygrindhouse.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2FCANDY-1968.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Candy, 1968

Yes, yes, give me some more you blue-eyed b*tch!

Candy (Ewa Aulin) is a high school girl who is lusted after by every man over the age of 30 who lays eyes on her. After being assaulted by the family gardener (Ringo), Candy's father (John Astin) takes her to New York to start over. But at every turn Candy finds herself in the sights of a different man.

It's hard to rate a movie like this, where what works on purpose and what is just a fascinating trainwreck starts to blur together. At the very least I can say that I was never bored.

As I see it, this film has two things going for it. The first is a weirdness that seems to actually work at times. At one point a radical man with a hunchback climbs the walls to escape the clutches of the police. At another point, a doctor (James Coburn) performs surgery on Candy's father, producing grindhouse levels of blood splatter.

The other thing that I appreciated about the film was that part of the humor came from how ridiculous the men were and how pathetic it was that they were using their power to sexually abuse and coerce Candy. Whether it's Richard Burton as a poet who always inexplicably has hair and clothing fluttering in the wind forcing himself on Candy in his car, an aspiring filmmaker cornering Candy in a bathroom, Walter Matthau as an army general who expects Candy's sexual service in exchange for saving her father's life, or Marlon Brando as a "guru" who exploits Candy in the name of enlightenment, the way that all of these men are drawn to Candy's innocence and inexperience seems like a decent commentary on the inherent insecurity that underlies a lot of the virgin girl fantasy. One of my favorite moments actually doesn't involve Candy at all---it's the source of the quote at the top of this review. Two police officers go into a gay club and begin beating up several men who are either transgender or in drag. One of them kisses one of the officers, and the officer responds with anger, hitting the person with his baton. "You want more?" he asks, and his victim preens on the stairs, delivering the line at the top. It's a moment where the violent use of authority is turned back on its perpetrator, and the film could have used more of it. There's an almost subtle joke about the fact that Candy herself is always blamed for her sexual encounters that's a bit too real for the ultimate direction that the film takes.

The problems with this film are two fold. The first is that it contains a lot of racist, homophobic, sexist sentiments without the distinction of whether or not the characters have those view or the film does. Ringo playing a Mexican gardener--who shouts "Viva Zapata!" as he assaults Candy--is just the tip of the iceberg.

But the real problem with the film is Candy herself. I have nothing bad to say about Aulin's performance. She brings a guileless delivery and aura to Candy that actually becomes a bit funnier as the film goes on. (Around the third time she acts surprised by a man wanting to have sex with her it feels like a joke, something that isn't true the first time). Candy is actually quite likable in her own way. She just wants people to be happy, and sees no reason why she shouldn't offer them her body or sex if that's what they need.

But this means that Candy doesn't grow as a character at all. Her sweetness is very flat and one-note, something that is a problem with the writing, not the performance. Candy reacts with the same degree of passion whether someone's buying her a Coke or operating on her father's brain. It also blurs the lines of consent in the film in a way that is uncomfortable to watch. Candy is constantly cornered or coerced, and then her reaction is kind of a shrug. Obviously this movie wouldn't be fun if she were distressed by these various assaults, but at the same time she doesn't seem to derive much pleasure from her encounters. By not developing her character, the movie ends up objectifying her just as much as the pathetic middle-aged men who lust after her. There's an unpleasant sense that a bunch of A-listers just signed on to grope an actual teenager (Aulin would have been 16 or 17 at the time of filming). A rumor that Brando actually tried to have sex with Aulin adds a nauseating dynamic to this.

So visually interesting, but conceptually very problematic in a lot of ways.

2.5

[KeyserCorleone]

Just gonna get my nom out of the way.


Titanic: The Legend Goes On

OK, there are two versions of this movie. One is a 90 minute version I can only find online as a riff (some YT channel that specifically riffs bad musicals). The other is a 75 minute edit. I know what you're thinking: go for the 75 minute version to get the pain out of the way more quickly, right?


EEEEEEEH nerp. Truth is, I recommend the 90 minute version, because the movie is so packed with horrific DIsney-knockoff subplots that it's not even funny unless you riff it, and the horror of the 75 minute version is that the edit does NOTHING to relive the movie of subplots, which means it's more quickly paced and confusing, and the worst part? It's not actually a 75 minute edit! It's an hour-long edit with 14 minutes of credits! And the editing is so much worse!


The 75-minute edit is the worst movie I've ever seen. However, I still find the original 90 minute version absolutely unwatchable without the riff. We still have countless characters ripping off DIsney movies with only slight variations, sometimes more than one per character! And I'll also admit that the songs on the 90-minute version are worse than the replacements on the 75 minute version (although I'm in the minority when I say the rap song on the original is slightly better than "Party Time." And let us not forget that the animation sucks, the jokes are shit, half the cast is pretty ugly and the story is hardly a story. You can choose which version you want to watch as far as I'm considered. Both are a 0 of ten. The only reason I'm not counting the edit as the version I'm counting as my OFFICIAL review is because I have a rule concerning my list of every movie I've seen ranked from best to worst: always put the best version of the movie on the list to be fair. This means I'm also giving the other movies a chance to post something worst. I decided not to nom the second worst movie I've ever seen, anyway, because I was thinking more in terms of what others would hate instead of what I would hate.


0/10.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FBBVhkPXmLbnazxz-w1_0f6woipn8o3ZSwRp5-TWOaEL_n7gv1d0xD-8osEZcmkJ5Gq-eWZEBeIc4vpGZEUF4YO3as6m7wuQCEoZMrFDcTGKUlkjVTrM9CwSByw%3Dw720-h405&f=1&nofb=1

Airplane Mode, 2019

You're a basic b*tch, now get out of my liquor.

Logan (Logan Paul) wants to have sex with his internet girlfriend who lives in Australia, and so seizes on the opportunity to attend a convention in Australia, despite being afraid of flying. But when the pilots are accidentally electrocuted, Logan and a charming woman he met on the plane, Jenna (Chloe Bridges), must safely land the plane.

Okay.

Okay.

I think that this movie perfectly encapsulates the philosophical difficulty I have with figuring out my own personal definition of infamy. For me, there's something about the gap between expectation (even if those expectations are relatively low) and reality that makes a film truly upsetting/repulsive/infamous.

Is this movie unbearable? Yes. Did I expect it to be unbearable? Also yes.

Look, this is an extended skit full of half-hearted edgelord humor. At the center of it all is the smirking Logan Paul, a man whose real-life repulsiveness only adds to the difficulty of sticking with the film. Then you throw in below basic jokes about a man breast-feeding a baby, a man being racially profiled by the TSA, or a character always waking up with an erection.

There were three minor blessings in this film. The first is that it's only 80 minutes long. The second and third, respectively, are Chloe Bridges and Stephen Guarino (playing Bruce the flight attendant), who are actual actors who can deliver a line. It's easy to spot the various YouTube personalities who populate this mess, because they only know one way to deliver a joke, and that's screaming at the top of their lungs. Bridges and Guarino, however, at least have some charisma and timing. (Though he is saddled with truly terrible dialogue, I may have carried over some affection for Guarino from his role on Happy Endings as Derrick.)

There's really not much to say about this film. It's shrill and deeply unfunny. At the same time, it doesn't seem like it aspired to be anything other than that. It's awful. But infamously so? I'm still working on that part.

1

[SpelingError]

There's a Logan Paul movie? Yikes, good luck with that one everyone.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmexport.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2F39-1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Titanic: The Legend Goes On, 2000

Quit kvetchin', Gretchen!

Angelica (Lisa Russo) boards the Titanic with her awful stepmother (aunt?), dreaming of one day finding her long-lost mother. She meets the charming William (Mark Thompson-Ashworth) and the two begin a tentative romance amidst a variety of dramas and intrigues involving the people and animals aboard.

My students in my classroom will often be charged with drawing something . . . and then head straight to their iPads to trace an image from the internet.

This film looks like every single character design was lifted from a Disney film, like to the point that I'm surprised there weren't legal ramifications. There are literally two Dalmatians, a dog that IS Lady from Lady and the Tramp, almost exact copies of the mice from Cinderella and numerous other profiles that are shockingly familiar.

And outside of the copying, the animation is just clunky. Maybe my favorite weird animation moment is when William bumps into Angelica, leading her to drop the basket of laundry she's carrying. William picks up one of the dresses that she's dropped, remarking something like "I bet you look lovely in this." Only the dress he's holding up has been drawn to look like it's the size of a ship's sail. (Okay, yes, it's meant to belong to one of Angelica's less svelte step-sisters (cousins?), but it's still a bizarre, formless image).

There are numerous---way too numerous!--subplots involving the ship's chef, a family of thieves, Angelica's story, William's story, a lusty French waiter, and so on. About a third of the way into the movie I honestly lost track of it all.

For all these complaints, though, this film veers into that can't-look-away trainwreck territory. I actually laughed out loud when the dog started rapping. It's bad, but kind of compellingly so. The overt plagiarism alone makes it kind of interesting viewing. The only thing that the animators really seemed to care about were a handful of times they were called on to render some impressive breasts for characters in low-cut dresses (and Angelica in her wedding dress, LOL!).

1.5

[Allaby]

So I watched Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (2000). This is an animated comedy with talking animals set aboard the titanic because the sinking of the titanic is of course a cute, lighthearted event... This was bad, but not unwatchable. The characters are obvious rip offs of characters from Disney movies. The rapping dog was ridiculous, but made me laugh. The animation isn't very good and the voice acting is pretty flat I did sort of like that song though. Thankfully, this is pretty short. 2

[Takoma11]

I'm paying $1 to watch A Talking Cat?!.

Just putting that out there. Would I like to pay $2 to watch it in HD? NO THANK YOU, AMAZON!

[Allaby]

I just finished suffering through the awful "movie", Airplane Mode (2019). I think this is our early frontrunner to "win" this hall. Logan Paul is annoying and unlikable and his "performance" here is terrible. The screenplay is stupid, juvenile, and derivative. I will admit I chuckled a couple times. The best performance in this is from the baby. 1

[KeyserCorleone]

Bane

Watched this out of eagerness. See, Takoma's last pic was some of the best dogshit on Earth, so I was hoping her next nom would live up.

I... kinda liked this, though. It's obvious that the sets and actors were B-movie level, but the story kept me intrigued. Yes, it was a generic rehash, but it kept its mystery vibes powerful throughout, and the villain was really easy to hate. Some of it was kinda scary, too. I mean, I still prefer Saw whenj it comes to this kinds of movies, but I want a remake of this. And I wasn;t too disappointed in the end, either. It kinda felt real in a way.

I'm watching another James Eaves movie now, The Witches Hammer. This is way worse, laughably so.

6/10.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Diq18V8gBLw%2FUmlk-aPhFUI%2FAAAAAAAAAxQ%2Fk973bfztBog%2Fs1600%2FATC-CatBandage.png&f=1&nofb=1

A Talking Cat?!, 2013

Ya, so you're a chef?

Phil (Johnny Whitaker) is a retired coder living with his son, Chris (Justin Cone). Chris has a crush on Frannie (Alison Sieke), a classmate he tutors. Nearby, Susan (Kristine DeBell) is trying to find investors for her catering business, getting help from her kids Tina (Janis Valdez) and Trent (Daniel Dannas). Both families are visited by Duffy (Squeaky, voiced by Eric Roberts), a talking cat who gives them valuable life advice.

I'd suggest that it could be a fun drinking game to take a shot every time a character in this film says "Ya" or "Weird", but the deaths by alcohol poisoning would weigh heavily on my conscience.

Like the Titanic animated movie, this one was bad in a way that got quite a few chuckles out of me, definitely veering into so-bad-it's-enjoyable territory. Everything about it is so haphazard that it seems designed to be riffed mercilessly.

The dynamic of the film is such that the writing is terrible and the acting just sinks right down to that level. It's hard to single anyone out, as it's varying shades of stilted, but Whitaker comes off particularly rough. I have to say, though, that the film gives the impression that everyone got exactly one take and, you know, whatever happened happened. But the hair, the goatee, the ill-fitting clothing----they all take Whitaker's Phil over the line into uncomfortable absurdity. Like could no one tell the man in that one scene that he had a huge wedgie? No? Just gonna let him walk away from the camera? That's cold man. That's really cold.

The writing, as mentioned, is so bad. It's a movie where every character, regardless of age or gender or emotion, speaks with the same limited vocabulary. "Ya" seems to start every sentence. Everyone and everything at some point or another is classified as "weird". The characters are also incredibly one-dimensional. A sequence where Susan badgers her daughter into cooking pans and pans of cheese puffs for her investors is just bizarre. Shouldn't Susan, the person who own the catering business, be the one doing the cooking?

This leads into the topic of, like, general incompetence. In one of my favorite LOL sequences, Phil comes over to flirt with Susan. Susan takes a hot pan of cheese puffs out of the oven with her bare hands, and then hands them to Phil. Phil, shocked by the sight of Duffy at their home and not the scalding hot pan of baked goods, drops the pan on the floor. And yet the camera refuses to pan down to show us the ruined cheese puffs. Probably because someone cooked exactly one batch and they were being saved to pay certain cast and crew members. Then there's the scene where Duffy is hit by a car. Normally an injured pet would get me going, even in such a dumb film, but then we see Duffy, clearly happy or high on catnip with a single stretch bandage wrapped around his head, and I just laughed. The "special effects" used to make the cat appear to talk (but only in certain scenes?!) has to be seen to be believed.

So on the topic of Duffy: adorable! Roberts' voice over sounds like it was recorded in a tin can, but while the dialogue is painful it never crosses the threshold into annoying. The cat is very cute and I enjoyed watching it lounge around the various locations.

Very silly. This is a very silly film.

2

[Takoma11]

Bane

Watched this out of eagerness. See, Takoma's last pic was some of the best dogshit on Earth, so I was hoping her next nom would live up.

I... kinda liked this, though. It's obvious that the sets and actors were B-movie level, but the story kept me intrigued. Yes, it was a generic rehash, but it kept its mystery vibes powerful throughout, and the villain was really easy to hate. Some of it was kinda scary, too. I mean, I still prefer Saw whenj it comes to this kinds of movies, but I want a remake of this. And I wasn;t too disappointed in the end, either. It kinda felt real in a way.

I'm watching another James Eaves movie now, The Witches Hammer. This is way worse, laughably so.

6/10.

Yeah, I went kind of easy on ya'll this round (both this one and my second nom). I'll talk more about why I disliked this film so much when I review it.

[rbrayer]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Diq18V8gBLw%2FUmlk-aPhFUI%2FAAAAAAAAAxQ%2Fk973bfztBog%2Fs1600%2FATC-CatBandage.png&f=1&nofb=1

A Talking Cat?!, 2013

Ya, so you're a chef?

Phil (Johnny Whitaker) is a retired coder living with his son, Chris (Justin Cone). Chris has a crush on Frannie (Alison Sieke), a classmate he tutors. Nearby, Susan (Kristine DeBell) is trying to find investors for her catering business, getting help from her kids Tina (Janis Valdez) and Trent (Daniel Dannas). Both families are visited by Duffy (Squeaky, voiced by Eric Roberts), a talking cat who gives them valuable life advice.

I'd suggest that it could be a fun drinking game to take a shot every time a character in this film says "Ya" or "Weird", but the deaths by alcohol poisoning would weigh heavily on my conscience.

Like the Titanic animated movie, this one was bad in a way that got quite a few chuckles out of me, definitely veering into so-bad-it's-enjoyable territory. Everything about it is so haphazard that it seems designed to be riffed mercilessly.

The dynamic of the film is such that the writing is terrible and the acting just sinks right down to that level. It's hard to single anyone out, as it's varying shades of stilted, but Whitaker comes off particularly rough. I have to say, though, that the film gives the impression that everyone got exactly one take and, you know, whatever happened happened. But the hair, the goatee, the ill-fitting clothing----they all take Whitaker's Phil over the line into uncomfortable absurdity. Like could no one tell the man in that one scene that he had a huge wedgie? No? Just gonna let him walk away from the camera? That's cold man. That's really cold.

The writing, as mentioned, is so bad. It's a movie where every character, regardless of age or gender or emotion, speaks with the same limited vocabulary. "Ya" seems to start every sentence. Everyone and everything at some point or another is classified as "weird". The characters are also incredibly one-dimensional. A sequence where Susan badgers her daughter into cooking pans and pans of cheese puffs for her investors is just bizarre. Shouldn't Susan, the person who own the catering business, be the one doing the cooking?

This leads into the topic of, like, general incompetence. In one of my favorite LOL sequences, Phil comes over to flirt with Susan. Susan takes a hot pan of cheese puffs out of the oven with her bare hands, and then hands them to Phil. Phil, shocked by the sight of Duffy at their home and not the scalding hot pan of baked goods, drops the pan on the floor. And yet the camera refuses to pan down to show us the ruined cheese puffs. Probably because someone cooked exactly one batch and they were being saved to pay certain cast and crew members. Then there's the scene where Duffy is hit by a car. Normally an injured pet would get me going, even in such a dumb film, but then we see Duffy, clearly happy or high on catnip with a single stretch bandage wrapped around his head, and I just laughed. The "special effects" used to make the cat appear to talk (but only in certain scenes?!) has to be seen to be believed.

So on the topic of Duffy: adorable! Roberts' voice over sounds like it was recorded in a tin can, but while the dialogue is painful it never crosses the threshold into annoying. The cat is very cute and I enjoyed watching it lounge around the various locations.

Very silly. This is a very silly film.

2

I've seen this and it's only watchable with Rifftrax. I also met Eric Roberts last year and asked him about it and he said his kids loved it.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.reelgood.com%2Fcontent%2Fmovie%2F3e6e8ed2-04fe-4d92-a040-4178333b06a5%2Fbackdrop-1920.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Bane, 2008

*This review will contain out-in-the-open spoilers, including the end of the film*

Four women---Katherine (Sophia Dawnay), Jane (Lisa Devlin), Natasha (Tina Barnes), and Elaine (Sylvia Robson)--have been abducted into a strange underground facility. Their memories erased, they suffer relentless interrogation and torture at the hands of a doctor named Murdoch (Daniel Jordan) and a mysterious man (Jonathan Sidgwick). At night, they are terrorized by a masked surgeon (Sam Smith, no not that Sam Smith).

For maybe the first 20 or so minutes, I thought, "Man, maybe I was too hard on this film." I haven't seen this movie in about 10 years, and I tend to be pretty generous when scoring films that are obviously low-budget affairs. It is rare for me to score independent films--especially those that seem to be trying--less than a 5. But as the film went on, it became pretty clear to me why this one ended up on my crud list.

Going back to what I wrote about Candy and Airplane Mode, infamy to my mind has something to do with a gap that exists between what a movie could have been or wants to be and what it actually is. That space between expectation and reality is, for me, what makes something frustrating.

So Bane.

This is a film that raises some interesting questions, only for the answers to be either completely obvious and stupid or incredibly frustrating and nonsensical. Anyone who has ever seen a single dang film in their lives would easily guess that one of the women is somehow involved in what is happening. The film even weirdly tries to lampshade this by having Natasha be oddly instantly suspicious that Jane is part of it all.

The longer the film goes on, the more the torture and torment feels random, and the twist at the end that it was basically all random just to generate fear is the kind of "answer" that makes me incredibly annoyed as a viewer. It's the kind of plot element that allows a writing team to just sit around coming up with random stuff. I'm not saying that some of the situations aren't kind of creepy. Natasha waking up and finding that her kidney is gone is icky, and a scene where Jane either remembers or dreams being confined in a tiny cage while surrounded by hostile men is adequately claustrophobic and awful. But something about the pace of the movie never gets the tension and fear to build in the right way. It's all stop and go, with little or no new understanding to keep you engaged.

One thing I can compliment the film on is the lack of sexual exploitation in the film. It's pretty rare to find a film where a woman hostage isn't a victim of rape or attempted rape, and I appreciate that this film doesn't go there. On one hand, given what we ultimately learn about the objectives of their torturers, this actually seems like something that would have happened. But on the other hand I think that including such content would have veered the film into unwatchable territory for me.

What really irked me, ultimately, about this film is the combination of where we end up and just how long it takes to get there. I paused the film at one point when I was getting antsy, only to discover there was still an hour of runtime left. How? Why?! Why is this film so long. When I think back to what happens in it, I can't account for the 100 minutes. And the final scenes? Just really not a fan. Everything feels clunky, from the fact that a character has a literal exposition video to show a character to the declaration at the end that love was what saved everyone. I'm sorry, but maybe you are not watching the same movie I'm watching. That wasn't love, sweetheart, it was guilt. Not quite the same thing. It's the kind of finale that raises a lot of questions, many of which make you reflect more negatively on the content that came before. (My main question: can anyone explain how the surgeon was able to stab such neat numbers into their bodies? Was this guy a pointilist painter in a former life?)

There are some not-terrible ideas here, but there are way too many of them and they are explored in a way that is a huge let-down. The nerve of this film being two hours long.

2

[ueno_station54]

oh damn i love A Talking Cat!?! it better lose

[Takoma11]

oh damn i love A Talking Cat!?! it better lose

Do you love it with the fire of a thousand dropped cheese puffs?

Or merely with the teenage exuberance of a college senior who doesn't know how to swim?

[Rockatansky]

I haven’t seen A Talking Cat, but David DeCoteau seems like a good dude. There’s a decent Important Cinema Club episode on him (and I think one of them even interviewed him). I haven’t delved super deep into his work, but I had fun with Nightmare Sisters and Dr. Alien.

[crumbsroom]

Clearly I need to see A Talking Cat

[Takoma11]

Clearly I need to see A Talking Cat

I have to say, friend, if you're already mis-punctuating the title, I'm not sure you're in the spirit of the thing.

[crumbsroom]

I have to say, friend, if you're already mis-punctuating the title, I'm not sure you're in the spirit of the thing.


And hear I was feeling good and rad that I had spelt everything right

[Takoma11]

And hear I was feeling good and rad that I had spelt everything right

Don't feel bad. If A Talking Cat?! taught me anything, it's cheese-puffs toupee reading lamp play stupid so he likes you glowing orb.

[TheUsualSuspect]

A Talking Cat!

Boy, this is my first one to watch, and it's in the running for the top spot. Talk about a poorly produced crap fest. Bad flat lighting in every scene, shot on what I can only assume was someone's JVC camcorder from the 90s. Writing that makes me want to cut my ears off and throw them miles away. Acting that is...my God....some of the most wooden delivery I've seen in a long time.

Let's not forget the laughable talking CGI bits with the cat. Something someone probably did with a phone app. If someone paid money to watch this, they need to have their bank account taken away from them, maybe put into conservatorship. This is a movie where a group of random people decided...hey, let's just do whatever. No attempt to be good, no attempt at entertaining or...anything really.

Damn, this one sucked.

[PHOENIX74]

Okay, so here we are and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say even if someone new joins, those second nominations are looking set to be revealed to join the current nominations. I currently have 4. The 2nd Reveal and Deadline for joining comes in 3 days time.

[ueno_station54]

oh didn't realize there was still time to join. guess i'll jump in then :)

[PHOENIX74]

And just like that! We have a new nomination :


https://i.postimg.cc/s26mnVcJ/leaprise-of-the-beast2.jpg
Leap : Rise of the Beast (2011) - Nominated by ueno_station54

.

[ueno_station54]

i noticed we didn't have any christian propaganda yet so i had to remedy that

[TheUsualSuspect]

Okay, so here we are and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say even if someone new joins, those second nominations are looking set to be revealed to join the current nominations. I currently have 4. The 2nd Reveal and Deadline for joining comes in 3 days time.


Sorry I missed this, am I to nominate a second film?

[ueno_station54]

since i already let the cat out of the bag in regards to my feelings towards this film i guess i'll start here:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjA4MDNmYjItYTA3Ni00MWY4LTlkOTMtMTlhOGU5MDc4ZDlkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDA5NjA1MA@@._V1_.jpg
A Talking Cat!?! (David Decoteau, 2013)

So I quite enjoyed this when I'd first seen it years ago, probably not too long after it came out, mostly as a lolcow but i thought it had a hint of genuine charm as well. Obviously the very low budget, lack of locations, excessive stock music, nearly non-existent stakes, probably shot on a DSLR, drunk Eric Roberts recording his lines into a tin can and of course the talking cat effect make it a prime candidate for mockery and to have some fun in the process. This time around things were a bit different though. This time I enjoyed the film in a far more sincere way. Its such a nice, sunny film, the vibes are just immaculate. the music, despite obviously being royalty free, really pressed the nostalgia button in my brain as it reminds me of like late 90's-early 2000's PC games. A lot of it sounds like you could find it in a Barbie or Nancy Drew game and it hit me with a remarkable amount of warmth and comfort. I had such a genuine smile on my face the whole way through. There's some real magic to this film and it really turned around the kind of blah mood I was in today. You could do a wonderful triple feature with two other films that deal with a magical stranger waltzing into a family's life and changing things for the better, Teorema and Visitor Q :p. I never expected to enjoy this so genuinely but my heart has been warmed and my day brightened.
4

[Allaby]

I watched A Talking Cat!?! today. This wasn't that bad. The acting was pretty poor for the most part. I thought it was a cute and interesting story. Some of the dialogue and scenes were a little cheesy, but I have seen worse. Squeaky the cat who played Duffy the cat was clearly the best actor in the film. Eric Roberts was fine as the voice of the cat. I chuckled a couple times. I've only seen one other film by this director, which was Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama (1988). I enjoyed that one and it was a better film than A Talking Cat. But this one was tolerable and mildly amusing. Meow! 3

[ueno_station54]

Well, couldn't let myself go to bed happy so I decided to watch this instead:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/01/29/11/9124504-0-image-a-18_1548760182771.jpg
Airplane Mode (David Dinetz & Dylan Trussell, 2019)

Okay so the first scene, someone did a wrestling move (big plus) followed almost immediately by an especially lame transphobic joke (big minus) and boy it sure would've been nice if one of those was a reoccurring thing instead of the other and even though I'd just prefer their not also be racist jokes at all, you'd think racist TSA joke technology would have evolved at some point in the last 20 years. Despite this, the film was at least moving along briskly enough... for a bit at least. Once the actual premise starts the film loses any momentum it had and I can't believe that was only 80 minutes. I could say it felt like an eternity but realistically it probably felt about 20 minutes longer than it was, which is still absurdly bad. I felt my brain going numb by the end. It's maybe still not as bad as I expected but that's because it couldn't have possibly been worse than I expected. Its just rapid fire jokes from the most annoying people imaginable which, since there is so many jokes a couple of them are bound to work. I don't remember any of them but it probably happened. Yeah this was quite bad, good chance of winning.
1.5

[Takoma11]

since there is so many jokes a couple of them are bound to work. I don't remember any of them but it probably happened.

You've already forgotten the instantly iconic moment where the love interest threw pudding at another passenger?

[ueno_station54]

You've already forgotten the instantly iconic moment where the love interest threw pudding at another passenger?
the best bit in the movie is clearly just Logan Paul awkwardly scooting away on a hoverboard after the kid breaks his femurs, but that's probably just because the movie ended immediately after.

[PHOENIX74]

Sorry I missed this, am I to nominate a second film?

Only if you want to.

I threw the idea out there, that if we didn't get many joining I'd open the doors for second nominations - but I made it a non-compulsory aspect of the Hall. Since ueno joined I reached my minimum number of participants, and we reached 6 nominations, and 5 second nominations - but I'll ask everyone one last time (this is especially for Takoma11 who didn't want to review any more than 10 films) does anyone have a problem with adding the 5 extra second nominations to this Hall of Infamy?

Allaby KeyserCorleone ueno_station54

[Allaby]

Only if you want to.

I threw the idea out there, that if we didn't get many joining I'd open the doors for second nominations - but I made it a non-compulsory aspect of the Hall. Since ueno joined I reached my minimum number of participants, and we reached 6 nominations, and 5 second nominations - but I'll ask everyone one last time (this is especially for Takoma11 who didn't want to review any more than 10 films) does anyone have a problem with adding the 5 extra second nominations to this Hall of Infamy?

Allaby KeyserCorleone ueno_station54

I'm fine with adding the extra noms, if everyone else is okay with it. If anyone has an issue with it, I'm also okay with not adding the second noms.

[ueno_station54]

i'm cool with it either way. i'm gonna end up sitting through my second pick either way lol.

[Takoma11]

Only if you want to.

I threw the idea out there, that if we didn't get many joining I'd open the doors for second nominations - but I made it a non-compulsory aspect of the Hall. Since ueno joined I reached my minimum number of participants, and we reached 6 nominations, and 5 second nominations - but I'll ask everyone one last time (this is especially for Takoma11 who didn't want to review any more than 10 films) does anyone have a problem with adding the 5 extra second nominations to this Hall of Infamy?

Allaby KeyserCorleone ueno_station54

It's fine with me to add the second nominations. I already watched everything except Leap. I appreciate that most nominations this time around were pretty short. (Yes, my own film was an exception. I think I'd repressed the fact that it was two hours long).

[ueno_station54]

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/165431_170633216306872_6821891_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=cdbe9c&_nc_ohc=cs-06E9ezXUAX_1mrvu&_nc_ht=scontent-yyz1-1.xx&oh=00_AT8jHTJRkmvBP1ZW9Xbw6GAgfinXJLdN4t0uHyfiEQrSPQ&oe=63478CB4
Leap: Rise of the Beast (Chris Tempel, 2011)

Okay a bit of preamble. I kind of cheated a bit with this nomination (as well as my second pick if we do those). I had recently found a great list on Letterboxd that just had a ton of just unhinged shit (not all bad but mostly bad) on it and threw a ton of it on my watchlist. Once I saw I could still join this hall I had to pick something from that list, it would have been a waste not to. The reason I say I cheated a bit is that I picked films that, though by all accounts are terrible, were things that had a chance for me to actually enjoy which might be kind of not in the spirit of this thing.

Fortunately, this wasn't good or fun in the slightest and I don't have to feel guilty about the pick :)

This really sounded like it was going to be a good time. Christian parkour action movie about the entire Vatican (as in the country) being the antichrist?? What a pitch. That sounds so bonkers in concept but sadly it did not bonk and a only serves as a reminder that parkour is actually really boring unless its at the absolute highest tier. Its got all the bad movie stuff we expect. Bad acting, badly shot, no oomph to the action, a bit of terrible green screen here and there. Tragically none of it ends up being fun even by accident. Its just kind of boring. Completely unremarkable. I think the funniest aspect of the film is just that everyone in the film is the most christian looking person you've ever seen. Also there's a cliffhanger ending and no follow up ever happened, that's kind of funny too. There's a fight scene that's at least choreographed I guess? It's not good but they planned something at least? idk I'm grasping at straws here but its at least not bad enough to like, affect my mood or anything it just came and went.
rating_2

[Siddon]

If anyone has a link for Wild 90!(1968) I join this Hall....I can't find it and the person running the hall can't either.

[SpelingError]

If anyone has a link for Wild 90!(1968) I join this Hall....I can't find it and the person running the hall can't either.

It wasn't easy, but I found it (it's also on the Criterion channel).

[PHOENIX74]

And with that, there were 7 :

https://i.postimg.cc/pXsBJc9D/Wild-90.jpg
Wild 90 (1968) - Nominated by Siddon

.

[PHOENIX74]

Siddon - you have the option to nominate 2 films in this Hall of Fame if you wish

I'm watching Wild 90 right now, before it's taken down by the powers that be!

[ueno_station54]

ayyy something i actually want to watch lets goooo

[Siddon]

https://criterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com/carousel-files/e992f9d92c1286f5e795c19c0e476848.jpeg

Wild 90 (1967)

Often times I wonder to myself what makes a film terrible and three things come to mind. First is the film is boring....and Wild 90 tells the story of three guys held up in a single run down apartment after robbing a grocery store. We never leave the location...people come in and out of the apartment for little to no reason and the film ends with Norman Mailer saying it was all about the CIA. The second part is the film poorly made...and this is a film that is so bad you have to wonder just how many of the people working on the film were sober. 50-70% of the dialogue is incomprehensible. Mailer shouts and screams and puts on a WC Fields or racist accent who knows it's just terrible. The film isn't in focus at times. And the third part is the film just stupid...and listening to Norman Mailor drunkenly rant, bark at dogs and try and get laid on camera...is really dumb.

Fun Fact: one of the many non-actors to show up in the film is future honorary Oscar and cinema verite trailblazer DA Pennebaker who plays I think a cop....can't really tell. I hope you all enjoy listening to a babbling drunk moron for 80 minutes and think Criterion wanted this film to be seen.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/jqgmy75k/Wild-90-poster-2.jpg

Wild 90 - 1968

Directed by Norman Mailer

Starring Norman Mailer, Buzz Farbar & Mickey Knox

It helps to know straight off the bat what Wild 90 is about and what it was meant to be to gain some understanding of what happened and why it's what it is. It started as an acting exercise - three friends pretending to be gangsters. Buzz Farbar, Mickey Knox and Norman Mailer had so much fun, and so much funny banter came out that it was decided on the spot to make a film of the three of them doing just this. By the time these three were at their location - a bare, sparsely furnished room with D.A. Pennebaker set to record them on camera, they were drunk and must have been in a completely different headspace with the pressure on. What we get is 82 minutes of improv that stinks - and just to rub salt in, the sound recording is atrocious. A lot of the time, these guys are just interrupting each other or all talking at once - but even when they do get some clean air, you can hardly make out what they're trying to say. As the film continues, Mailer becomes far too drunk to be understood in any case.

There's no story so the banter just goes nowhere. Mailer spends much of the time grunting and trying desperately to project some kind of primal masculinity. He breaks things and bangs things. He's playing "The Prince" and is the hardest to understand clearly. Nothing he says is clever, and most of what he thinks up is painfully inane. But he's not alone in that department. Buzz Farbar is playing "Cameo" and spends an inordinate amount of his time playing around with a switchblade knife. He seems to be the lowest in the pecking order, and so most of the insults are aimed at him. Mickey Knox plays "Twenty Years", which is possibly the worst or best (I can't tell) name for a character I've ever heard. I can't remember much about him, because my most vivid memory of sitting through this embarrassing improv is Mailer's barking and grunting. Throughout the film these three get various visitors, but these people can't end the pain, and just get sucked into the flailing act which never really gets going.

Yes - embarrassment. It's palpable throughout the entire "performance", and it makes one wonder just why this wasn't scrapped. Perhaps Norman Mailer's ego wouldn't permit an admission of failure, so this had to play out to it's inevitable end. Pennebaker was the one who tried to persuade him to just forget it - the sound glitch was reason enough to not release it, but Mailer insisted. The film received overwhelmingly negative reviews - the only positive notice coming from Mailer himself in Esquire. To sit through and watch it makes for a very painful 82 minutes - the last 10 of which had me counting down on the 'time remaining' counter so I could blissfully be released. If I was forced to say something positive about it, I'd say that it accurately reflects what being sequestered in a room of testosterone-fueled and drunk gangsters for 21 days would be like. We get a very ugly reflection of their world, with the constant need they have to assert their manliness and physical superiority over each other. It's not long before we hate all three characters and wish to be as far away from them as we can possibly be.

The way the three (and others) are filmed, by Pennebaker, isn't overly awful, and serves it's purpose. He stayed very mobile, and was able to adapt to his actors' unpredictable movements and actions. We get sawn-off shotguns, machine guns and pistols as props, along with a cornocopia of various booze bottles - most of which have been emptied. It's bare minimum kind of stuff, but it's there. The only thing that isn't is the ability of our three main performers to think up anything that's worth hearing. Everything they say feels forced - and nobody has even one small moment of inspiration. Buzz Farbar would later recount the fact that the three of them had been very ingenious and funny when doing their gangster thing at a restaurant in New York, but that in the film this wasn't the case. I'm willing to let this film have a little more leeway, for I've seen some arthouse films in my day that can frustrate and cause pain - most notably from Yoko Ono. It was a failed experiment, but experiment is what it is, and the end result was full of obscenity and posturing. This would probably be what three real gangsters are actually like - especially inebriated. They'd be just as stupid and incoherent. It's just that watching Norman Mailer and two of his friends be stupid and incoherent is no fun.

1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

I thought I already sent my second nom.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fo11PEovBwwc%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

LEAP: Rise of the Beast, 2011

They're letting gays and women preach!

Shane (Alexander J. Bonds) is part of a crew of rebellious underground Christians fighting against a Vatican-controlled society in which everyone is microchipped and forced to attend alternate religious masses. A Vatican enforcement squad works to track down Shane's crew to keep them from distributing their street preaching videos on the internet.

It was hard to find a still for this film that doesn't make it look much more exciting than it is. As it was, with a not-awful run time of 75 minutes, I thought that this was pretty funny as a raw look inside the hyperbolic prosecuted Christian complex.

Just to be very clear, I know and love many people who are practicing Christians. And most of them are completely not threatened by the existence of other religions, women, or they gays. But we all know that there exists a subgroup of Christians who genuinely seem to believe that Christians are the most persecuted people in the world. This film was like a demented peek inside what they imagine as the end game of Christians not dominating political and social power.

Probably the best-worst element of this film is the "action". And believe me when I say that those quotes cannot possibly convey the sarcasm I intend. The best shot may simply have been a shot from behind of the four teens (are they teens? early 20-somethings?) running away across a lawn, inspiring absolutely zero faith that they can actually climb walls. The film uses the old bend your knees and say "Oof!" to imply having jumped down off of a building. There is a wonderful awful training montage, including advanced moves about on par with what my fifth grade students do on the playground.

But there also has to be a special note about the acting, which is flatter than a pancake. The bad guys repeatedly refer to the crew as a cult, and frankly their line deliveries make that accusation sound more real. Take the blonde actress's delivery of the line "Anything is possible with God," using a tone more appropriate to observing "It's cloudy outside." Or the strange lack of emotion as Shane relates the story of a child asking about the truth only to be forced underwater by a priest.

Finally, the settings. For a world power, I'm surprised that the Vatican's control room consists of five dudes sitting in front of a corrugated metal wall. And please someone explain why toward the end Shane and the ex-girlfriend were sitting in the most poorly CGI rendered room!

Wait, not finally! Ueno, you sick puppy, this film ENDS WITH "TO BE CONTINUED"?!?!?! With the riveting and suspenseful scene of them walking up a woodland trail?!

Wowza. I can't say I liked anything about this movie, but it did get several laughs out of me.

1.5

[beelzebubble]

I am so glad I am not in on this..:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Takoma11]

I am so glad I am not in on this..:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Honestly, this time around most of them are falling into "enjoyably bad" territory for me.

[beelzebubble]

Honestly, this time around most of them are falling into "enjoyably bad" territory for me.
Thank goodness! That has got to be a relief.

[CosmicRunaway]

For a world power, I'm surprised that the Vatican's control room consists of five dudes sitting in front of a corrugated metal wall.
Did they at least use gold spray paint on the wall? That would enhance the believability by a lot haha.

[Takoma11]

Did they at least use gold spray paint on the wall? That would enhance the believability by a lot haha.

LOL, if only.

It looks like they filmed their "operations center" inside of a pre-fab shed or something. But it's really the scene in the CGI "prison cell" that has to be seen to be believed. At first I thought the idea was that they'd put the hero into some sort of virtual reality to extort information from him. Nope.

This scene can be seen at 58:35 below.

https://youtu.be/jZd-J7Ucn-c?t=3514

[CosmicRunaway]

But it's really the scene in the CGI "prison cell" that has to be seen to be believed.
Wow, they didn't even try to get the lighting on the actors to fit with the background, or even do some minimal colour correction to make it appear less jarring. I hope they were just being lazy, and didn't genuinely think that looked fine.

[Takoma11]

Wow, they didn't even try to get the lighting on the actors to fit with the background, or even do some minimal colour correction to make it appear less jarring. I hope they were just being lazy, and didn't genuinely think that looked fine.

It's the clearly drawn door that seals the deal for me. When they "walked out" of that door I was like "BWAAAAAA?!?!?!?".

This morning some missionaries dropped by my house. I should have asked them for a parkour training montage.

[CosmicRunaway]

It's the clearly drawn door that seals the deal for me. When they "walked out" of that door I was like "BWAAAAAA?!?!?!?".
The what?!? I didn't watch the whole scene, but now I have to. :lol:

The door was indeed very fake and incredibly flat looking, but honestly, I was kind of expecting something like what we got in The Amazing Bulk:

https://bubbawheat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/bulk-background.png

[Allaby]

So I watched Leap : Rise of the Beast (2011). This was terrible. The acting is really bad, completely wooden and the lines are delivered in the most stilted and flat way possible. You don't get to know or care about any of the characters. The film is pretty boring for the most part. Score, editing, cinematography, and direction are poor too. I did laugh a few times though. They obviously had a low budget and their intentions were good, but this is terrible. 1.5

[Takoma11]

They obviously had a low budget

For sure they didn't spend any of it on a sports bra for that one actress. Every time she was booking it down the street I was like, wow, I can almost hear the chest wall trauma happening right now.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcriterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fcarousel-files%2F2f9982880e7165ad15905b1eede670a1.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1

Wild 90, 1968

You don't even know a good tuna sandwich on rye.

A trio of gangster types (Norman Mailer, Buzz Farber, Mickey Knox) are holed up in an apartment where they have apparently been laying low for a while. They have meandering conversations and take a series of visitors including a boxer named Kid Cha-Cha (Jose Torres), two police detectives, and a trio of women.

Can we take a moment to just appreciate that for all of the mocking of Millenials posting Instagram pictures of their breakfast or whatever, this film proves that over 50 years ago, someone still thought that a rambling, incoherent exercise in improvisation would be worthy of viewing?

Part of the fun in this Hall is the different kinds of bad that you get. Some films are just purely incompetent. Others are abrasive. Some are uninteresting failures.

This film is kind of its own breed. Don't get me wrong, it is incompetent, abrasive, and uninteresting. But it's kind of---in theory---interesting as a warning about the perils of ego. The nerve, the absolute nerve, that it takes to ramble through a mostly-unstructured improvisation is pretty staggering. And because it's so poorly executed, even the motivation stays obscured. Is this meant to be funny? Like, a parody of tough guys? Is this meant to be actually interesting and dramatic?

I will say that the level of ineptitude on display here does keep it from being actually offensive. In fact, weirdly it almost serves as a useful exhibit for why they find a certain kind of person/artist intolerable.

I did get a few laughs out of this one. The accidental glances into the camera. That one part where they close a door and a stack of cardboard slowly falls down one piece at a time. And the trainwreck element that the people in this movie even for a minute thought that what they were doing was entertaining enough to put in front of an audience.

1.5

[crumbsroom]

Wild 90 is a great movie for those who can't stand Norman Mailer, but also can't help watching him continually embarrass himself.



Dreariness and self-importance have never been more closely entwined in one human being. The worst thing that ever happened to Norman Mailer is that someone told him he was a great intellectual. And he never forgot it, applying it to every god awful stupid and unfunny thing that ever came out of his mouth.


The end of his Maidstone though is still one of the great moments in cinema history, a moment that nearly completely erases the line between documentary and fiction. And that is bloodily satisfying and horrifying in equal measure.

[Takoma11]

Dreariness and self-importance have never been more closely entwined in one human being. The worst thing that ever happened to Norman Mailer is that someone told him he was a great intellectual. And he never forgot it, applying it to every god awful stupid and unfunny thing that ever came out of his mouth.

There's a certain subset of people---some of them talented, some of them not---who have come to believe that everything they say is worth sharing out loud. And this film is a cautionary tale for those people.

[crumbsroom]

There's a certain subset of people---some of them talented, some of them not---who have come to believe that everything they say is worth sharing out loud. And this film is a cautionary tale for those people.


Mailer's Naked and Dead and The Executioner's Song are both brilliant books.



If only he had learned to never speak in public. I recently watched the Penebaker documentary about him debating women's rights with Germaine Greer, and I don't think there is one thing he says that can be considered better than what some all-caps second rate internet troll might blurt out.



And he just seems so smugly satisfied when he unleashes one of his zingers, which leave his mouth like so many garbled turds. And almost never make a lick of sense. He's an unbearable twat. And, yes, sadly also very talented. Just not at movies.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/ncVqZ0Dd/airplane.jpg

Airplane Mode - 2019

Directed by David Dinetz & Dylan Trussell

Written by David Dinetz, Dylan Trussell, Logan Paul
& Jake Paul

Starring Logan Paul, Juanpa Zurita, Chloe Bridges
Vitaly Zdorovetskiy & Lauren Swickard

Lets get this out right at the start - Airplane Mode is stuffed full of comedic material that is pathetic in it's preening need to elicit laughs from people who love racist and sexist comedy. People from different races and sexual orientations aren't in on the jokes - they're squarely aimed at, and broadside shots are taken in the hope that the sheer deluge of horror and bawdy slime will disguise the fact that they're there. The people that write the material don't do it on purpose. They're under the impression that they're so inclusive that they have license to blast away, while in all actuality they probably have a limited experience beyond their own culture and orientation. Offensive jokes that were never going to be funny anyway, because they just fall flat, kill a person's mood for comedy, and irritate the person watching to the extent that they're at odds with something they need to be in tune with. At least that's the way I see it.

Judging this film, apart from the offensive aspects, feels like watching a collection of Logan Paul YouTube videos one after the other at a fast pace. Once every so often, there's something a little funny - it's unrefined, and hasn't been worked on, but it's funny in the same way your friend's offhand quips might be. Of course, if that friend told you 5 or 6 offensive, disgusting and unfunny things in between every quip, you'd probably keep your distance and they wouldn't be your friend anymore. It might seem amazing, but I've actually seen many comedies that I consider worse than Airplane Mode just by the fact that they fail so consistently at making me laugh. At least here, once in a while, I admired when the film let loose and decided to really trash the culture that made it what it is to begin with. How meta. At times the film is really wild and silly. Of course, not far around the corner there's some awful humour that just ruins the whole mood and reminds us that the people making this don't know what they're doing.

Logan Paul (playing himself) has an Australian girlfriend, and has to conquer his fear of flying if he's to meet her in person and be physically intimate with her. When all of his friends decide to attend a "Hashtagacon" in Australia, Paul and a large group of influencers find themselves on a Koalair flight with serial prankster Vitaly Zdorovetskiy (playing himself). Unfortunately for the pilots, when they ask all of the passengers to switch their mobile phones to "airplane mode" they all refuse to do so and actually go crazy using them to blog, take selfies and post picture of themselves. This fries the cockpit, kills the both pilots and leaves the plane in the hands of Zdorovetskiy, who relishes the chance to rid himself of the various internet personalities he hates. Logan Paul has to conquer his fears and try to land the plane himself, all the while fighting the prankster and winning the admiration of the girl he ended up being seated next to in first class, Jenna (Chloe Bridges). Meanwhile, his "foreign exchange brother" Juanpa (Juanpa Zurita) frantically tries to lose his virginity before the plane crashes and they all die.

Airplane Mode is what would have happened if you had contacted a guy of around 13 years of age in high school, and had given him a budget, crew and ability to make any film he wanted. It immediately goes for masturbation - and I was kind of amused at the film for not including much of a preamble or setting. Crude. From there on out it juggles pot shots, gross-out humour, call-outs, racist jokes, sexist jokes and quite a few references to Airplane! I was interested in how well qualified the people who made this film from a technical standpoint were. Cinematographer Colt Seman was green, and had worked mostly in television. Editor Mitch Rosin had been second, third or fourth fiddle on many big films like Bridesmaids and Get Him to the Greek, but Airplane Mode was a rare venture as actual editor. Composers Simon Heeger and Christian Vorlander (known as 2WEI) had limited film experience. Special Effects Coordinator Josh Hakian had done good work on big films, such as Coverfield, Logan Lucky and The Last Stand. Production Designer Martina Buckley had been working in the industry since 1996, but only on second-tier type films.

This film had "been in the can" quite a few years before it was eventually released - so what delayed that release? Logan Paul's antics. Before Planeless Pictures could begin to recoup some of what they'd invested in him and this odd film, Paul released a video on his YouTube channel which featured him in Aokigahara (Japan's famed "Suicide Forest") and which also depicted him reacting to an actual suicide victim. Being a step too far, the reaction was negative and did considerable damage to Logan Paul's image. Releasing the film right at that moment was considered pointless, but Paul's image never really improved enough to matter - and Planeless Pictures sued the YouTuber for $3 million, claiming that he'd done it on purpose to try and permanently shelf the movie (which seems to suggest the film's producers admitting that their movie was pretty bad.) Watching it felt like a strange experience. I had the feeling that I was watching a comedy inspired by Airplane! where amateurs were in charge and professionals were doing the work. There didn't seem to have been enough oversight and thought put into Airplane Mode, and it plays about as well as you'd expect.

Oh, and the Australian accents? Perhaps they were as mangled and exaggerated as they were for "comical effect" - but only the voiceover during the credits sounded anything like an Australian.

1.5

[PHOENIX74]

Here they are - the other half of what we have ahead of us. The deadline is December 31st - good luck everyone!

https://i.postimg.cc/PxzKVJgN/Carnival-of-Souls-Film-Poster.jpg
Carnival of Souls (1998) - Nominated by Takoma11

https://i.postimg.cc/rmJCCb4r/Loqueesha-Poster.jpg
Loqueesha (2019) - Nominated by TheUsualSuspect

https://i.postimg.cc/d1bkCjHy/kinky-coaches.jpg
The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (1981) - Nominated by Allaby
Also Known As : Heartbreak High

https://i.postimg.cc/vHMDdBpb/legend-of-the-titanic.jpg
The Legend of Titanic (1999) - Nominated by KeyserCorleone
(La leggenda del Titanic) - Not to be confused with Titanic: The Legend Goes On... (2000)

https://i.postimg.cc/D07hRWmN/inredible.jpg
The Incredible Petrified World (1959) - Nominated by PHOENIX74

https://i.postimg.cc/vH12bY92/the-misty-green-sky.jpg
The Misty Green Sky (2016) - Nominated by ueno_station54

https://i.postimg.cc/Y9HjqCh6/you-d-be-surprised.jpg
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (2019) - Nominated by Siddon

.

[Captain Terror]

https://i.postimg.cc/D07hRWmN/inredible.jpg
The Incredible Petrified World (1959) - Nominated by PHOENIX74


I coincidentally watched this two days ago and my prayers are with all of you.

[CosmicRunaway]

Well at least you guys don't have to worry about watching the wrong Titanic animated film, since they're both nominated now. :lol:

[Siddon]

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/c89682e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1024x576+0+0/resize/1024x576!/quality/80/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F96%2Ffb%2F3bc24f20dbac09444f28bab16876%2Fla-1558020086-an90w3ovtv-snap-imageBrendan Schaub You'd Be Surprised (2019)

I know Brendan Schaub is, he's a failed MMA fighter who was middle of the road but left the sport due to head trauma and the use of his friends (Joe Rogan(News Radio), and Bryan Callen (MADTV). This is an hour long special of a man trying to find a joke and failing horribly. I knew the people he was talking about you likely won't. Schaub's particular brand of humor is incredibly dated he tries to put himself as the butt of the gay jokes...he's not gay and it just comes off as tone deaf.

While his stories ramble he never figures out where the punch line is. The Audience laughs at weird parts and most of the bits just fall flat. The worst parts of the set are when he tries to do physical comedy in his stand up act...it's awkward and uncomfortable. I wonder if Showtime was that desperate for content that they needed to release this but this was pre-COVID though you'll feel like you have a disease watching it.

[Siddon]

https://www.undergroundfilmjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/BANESTILL2.jpg

Bane (2008)

Bane is a good idea executed as a bad movie. A group of four women wake up in a room where a crazed Surgeon picks them off one by one. I'm going to get into spoilers because what I could and could not understand from this film might in fact be spoilers. The scene by scene plots I couldn't follow I was shocked when the girl I assumed was the lead was killed off and the blandest of the four was the final girl.

What sticks out most about this film is the pretentious film making. Dutch Angles, flashbacks, quick cuts, playing with light and shadows, and close-ups...good lord this film loves closeups. The other thing that really sticks out to me is this is a body horror film...but the blood is I guess Tomato soup someone gets his head crushed and water comes out. The whole thing is just weird.

The pacing is also completely out of whack the ending goes on for what feels like 40 minutes. It's like it has three false endings and then the real ending keeps cutting back and forth to images and it's nauseating. Not based on what's on the screen rather all the jump cuts, shaky cam and close ups.

[Siddon]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8xdUpb9SeLc/maxresdefault.jpg

Airplane Mode (2019)


Airplane Mode blends two comedic styles the gross out comedies of the early 00's and the slapstick hijinks of the 1980's told with irreverent humor. And while many of the jokes didn't land and sheer volume of the jokes and amount of humorous people in the film elevated from being a terrible film.



The film is relatively competently shot, Logan Paul is a fully realized and deeply flawed character. He's a decent lead at points as his Ace Ventura style shtick works at times. While the person is detestable and his friends are horrible still I didn't hate this film like the other one's I've watched so far. It's a cheap homage to better films that always takes shots at the lowest hanging fruit but still it was watchable.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Damn, that's a lot of movies.

[Allaby]

I watched Bane (2008). This is a poorly made horror film that doesn't work as a horror film or as a good movie. It feels derivative of other better films and the dialogue is weak. Acting is not good, at all. Bane is not thrilling,exciting or entertaining. It is far too long and drags on at times. This needed to be shorter. It also needed better writing and better acting. Not much redeeming value here, so a good pick for this hall. 1

[KeyserCorleone]

We actually got a stand-up movie? I'm honestly more curious about that than anything.

[Siddon]

I watched Bane (2008). This is a poorly made horror film that doesn't work as a horror film or as a good movie. It feels derivative of other better films and the dialogue is weak. Acting is not good, at all. Bane is not thrilling,exciting or entertaining. It is far too long and drags on at times. This needed to be shorter. It also needed better writing and better acting. Not much redeeming value here, so a good pick for this hall. rating_1


Decent score though

[Allaby]

Decent score though

I didn’t really like the score.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2Fpresto%2F2019%2F05%2F13%2FPDTN%2F3d14f4cb-aea7-4cfa-b5c9-7bfd172124af-Loqueesha.jpg%3Fcrop%3D1664%2C936%2Cx27%2Cy0%26width%3D3200%26height%3D1680%26fit%3Dbounds&f=1&nofb=1

Loqueesha, 2019

As a Black woman I think I know a bit about integration.

Joe (Jeremy Saville, who also wrote and directed) is a bartender who doles out pearls of wisdom to his clientele. When a grateful customer, Rachel (Tiara Parker), tells Joe about an opportunity at a local radio station, he applies but is rejected. Inspired one night by watching two Black women arguing on a Springer-esque talk show, Joe applies again for the job, this time pretending to be a Black woman named Loqueesha. The ruse works and "Loqueesha" is hired. But when the show becomes incredibly popular, Joe is forced to hire an actress, Renee (Mara Hall), to be the public face of Loqueesha. As the deception goes on, tensions arise.

I knew that the title of this film sounded familiar, and it's because I have previously watched a video about it by MacDoesIt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvs3fJ9z06g&ab_channel=MacDoesIt

So . . . yeah. This movie is racist (and sexist, homophobic, and transphobic). Unlike other films we've watched---like Airplane Mode---that contain racist content, this one's racism is just front and center the entire time and it is exhausting.

It's funny to watch this movie after Wild 90, because here is another case of a guy's ego inflicting some truly terrible stuff on us. Can we all just agree that Saville decided that his "Black woman voice" was hilarious and wrote a movie around that impression?

I don't really need to list the film's sins on this front, as I'm sure they are obvious to anyone with eyes and ears. The name and the voice are the big ones, but it's layered into everything. And who is the villain (and main point of mockery) in this movie? Yes, a Black woman. It's just absolutely tiring. And the stuff that isn't directly racist is incredibly weak. Joe's advice is incredibly non-specific---except for the part where he calls Rachel a "f*cking idiot" and tells her that the problems she's had with men are her fault because she enables their bad behavior. Oh, and just an FYI: if you are having thoughts of self-harm it's because you want attention and people treat you poorly because you don't love yourself enough.

The only real interest I had in this film, the only thing that kept me even slightly engaged, was marveling at how much run time is devoted to trying to deny the film's racism and misogyny. There are multiple, multiple scenes of people calling Joe out for what he's doing. And every time he gives an impassioned speech about empathy and it diffuses the situation. At one point Joe even says "And what does a Black woman even sound like?"---but he says it in his incredibly stereotypical Black woman voice, like my god! The film makes multiple Black characters complicit in Joe's activities, using their approval as a screen for Joe.

Ironically, Tiara Parker and Mara Hall are probably the best actors in the film, aside from the woman who plays Joe's ex-wife. Somehow it seems like adding insult to injury that Hall has to stand there and deliver the line "You were just a better Black woman than I am."

I think that this film deserves its infamy. It's a special kind of depressing.

0.5

[SpelingError]

A rare half-star rating from Takoma. That one must be really bad.

[Takoma11]

A rare half-star rating from Takoma. That one must be really bad.

It is, indeed, really bad.

It's racist and sexist and homophobic, while at the same time being smugly certain that it isn't any of those things. And it goes back to the well over and over of "truth telling", which at this point just seems to be a code phrase for people who want to say offensive things without dealing with the consequences.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Frarefilmm.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F08%2Fcrunch.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats, 1981

Two rival football teams are scheduled for a big match, and one of the teams is willing to go to extreme lengths to mess up their rivals. Chris (Christine Cattell) is caught between her attraction to the quarterbacks from each team.

Okay, after Loqueesha it was almost a relief to get back to a film that is merely terrible and incompetent as opposed to one that hurt my soul.

From the title, I was expecting some kind of sexist raunch-fest, but what we get instead is something almost as bad. It's just . . . boring. All of the "thrills" are incredibly mild. A guy leaps onto a pie topped with whipped cream so that it sprays over the opposing high schoolers. Yawn. A team steals the lucky underpants from the rival coach. Yawn again. The film manages one moment of almost madcap comedy, as a police car arrives and runs into one of the team's mascots, before also crashing into the goalposts where a referee is clinging to one of the post's arms. But this all resolves in about 20 seconds, and there's no real build up or conclusion.

The big problem is that all of the characters lack definition. Some of the bad guys are annoying, but that's about it. There are two sequences of sexual harassment/assault (which bothered me more than I expected, probably because of the way that one of them was shot with all of the men piling into the back of the van and not seeing the girls but just hearing them scream), but aside from getting you to dislike the characters a bit more, even they don't create a sense of stakes. Largely because after these events happen there aren't any real consequences. The strongest emotion we see isn't from Chris--who was nearly assaulted by the rival quarterback---but rather from her boyfriend who rankles at the rival's leering remarking implying that he slept with Chris.

It's all just so very mild. Like a soup that's been diluted with a liter of water. I couldn't tell you the names of any character other than Chris (which I looked up on the IMDb), and I finished the film just 15 minutes ago!

So how do you rate a film like this? Do movies earn popcorns through their merits, or do they lose them because of their flaws? This is a largely inoffensive, but totally flavorless 90 minutes of movie. I'm not mad at it, necessarily, but I have nothing very nice to say about it.

1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

The Misty Green Sky


So right from the beginning it's so bad it's funny. It runs on every dystopian trope from the most politically-minded cyberpunk stories and handles it religiously like THX-1138. Obviously, it was gonna get really predictable really easily. What I didn't predict, however, were scenes of direction so ugly and horrifying that I had to question if this wasn't intentional, especially when we got to the heavy-breathing scenes and the sudden kung fu moves during the espace scene. Characters will make weird ugly faces during completely inappropriate times, which only makes the movie funnier. Unfortunately, when it does TRY for a plot, it forgets this so-bad-it's-good factor and just ends up being just another generic sci-fi movie. And then we get to the scream. Yep. No doubt in my mind this was intentional, right from the dorky kissing scenes to the random piano to the misplaced shadows to the bad sound effects from the game F-Zero GP Legend. Seriously, there were times where I was just ****ing losing it over how funny it could be. Nevertheless, it didn't reach Springtime for Hitler heights because not EVERYTHING about the movie was funny. Much of it was a slow-moving plot where practically nothing was happening, and sometimes the movies use the same bad animation (or joke) too often. Still, the ending was a LITTLE interesting. I found myself actually desiring to know how it ends instead of just waiting for it. And in the end, I was pretty pleased with that damn twist.


So, not a FAILURE but certainly not the worst movie I've ever seen. Still worse than my second nominee, Legend of the Titanic, which is miles ahead of my first nom IMO.


3/10.

[Allaby]

So I rewatched my first nomination, the terrible 1968 comedy, Candy. I remember when I first watched it, how disappointing it was. I had expected a reasonably fun, sexy 60s comedy but instead got a poorly made film that was not enjoyable or entertaining. The movie is genuinely offensive on several different levels. And there's not a lot of movies that I would label as offensive. It is not funny and the acting is atrocious. The dialogue is terrible too. Ewa Aulin is gorgeous, but the film feel exploitative, taking away from any fun or sex appeal. I've seen other films that are considered exploitation and some I have liked, but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. 1

[Allaby]

So today I suffered through Loqueesha. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I think it could easily win this hall. Jeremy Saville is an awful director, writer, and actor. I did not like or believe his performance at all. For something like this to possibly work, the lead character would have to be sympathetic and likeable and Saville is neither. The screenplay is poorly written and the film is offensive and unfunny. The story isn't believable at all and the film is a disaster. How did this film get made? Why did anyone agree to be in it? 0.5

[Allaby]

I just watched Wild 90 (1968) on the Criterion Channel. Directed by Norman Mailer, the film stars Mailer, Buzz Farbar and Mickey Knox. The film consists of the three of them in an apartment drinking and arguing. This was painfully boring. Seriously, one of the most boring, dull, and uninteresting films I have ever seen. The characters and the actors playing them are not interesting. There isn't much of a story and the film drags on pointlessly. This felt a lot longer than it was. I didn't see any artistic value or merit in the film. 0.5.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fvignette.wikia.nocookie.net%2Ftitanic%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fd8%2FThe_Legend_of_the_Titanic _Tentacles_grabbing_the_Titanic_keeping_it_together.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20190623212221&f=1&nofb=1

The Legend of the Titanic, 1999

Especially the women! They just raise a ruckus and get in the way!

Aboard the Titanic, a group of men are engaged in a conspiracy to begin whaling in the Atlantic. A plucky group of mice and a young couple, along with some friendly sea creatures, try to foil the evil plot.

"You know how to draw an octopus, right?"
"An octopus, yeah, yeah."
"What . . . what do you think an octopus looks like?"
"You know, kind of like a bald dog?"
"Sounds right."

Anyway, yes, this movie is totally ridiculous and somehow manages to be bad in ways that the other film we watched about cartoon animals on the Titanic wasn't.

The animation is basic and lacks personality. The characters are likewise bland and make no impression.

But what's most offensive here is maybe the blithe way that the film plays with the real tragedy of the sinking. In the very first scene, the mouse telling the story asserts that people weren't really missing or dead after the sinking. Bwah?! As the plot---and I use that term really loosely--unfolds, the sense of gentle blasphemy never goes away. The iceberg? Panted there by an octopus who was tricked by some no-good sharks. Why didn't the ship steer away? The rudder was stalled by those same no-good sharks. Also, some characters for no apparent reason are able to talk to animals. This includes one of the bad guys and the two main characters.

It must be said, I'm not sure I've ever seen an animated character who was more unintentionally nightmare fuel than poor, dumb Tentacles. He looks like what would happen if a puppy, an octopus, and a bodybuilder went through the portals from The Fly together.

I love that the cover says "an animated classic." Talk about trying to manifest your destiny!

1.5

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-zOw5iSD1vSo%2FVCndNqFV9nI%2FAAAAAAAAEWk%2FnhlbLsMRGHg%2Fs1600%2FThe_Incredible_Petrified_World.avi_0 02241808.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Incredible Petrified World, 1959

There's nothing friendly between two females! Never was, and never will be!

Two men and two women go on an expedition to explore the "phantom zone" in the ocean, but when their diving bell breaks off from the ship they sink down and end up in a series of underground caverns. Alone with just a single madman--a castaway from a previous wreck--they must figure out a way to get back to the surface.

It's amazing how many movies there are out there that are just sort of . . . nothing.

I let myself be optimistic for a few minutes at the beginning of the movie. There are lots of fun underwater shots of fish swimming by and, hey, some stock footage of pretty fish wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

But alas, this is a sit-around-and-talk movie. And what they're talking about isn't at all interesting. The characters are pretty much non-entities. The only one who really stands out is Dale (Phyllis Coates), who is bitter over being abandoned by her fiance and single-handedly manages to embody the worst stereotypes about women. She's catty! She's inexplicably deferential to the men! She needs to learn a lesson so someone tries to rape her!

The problem is that this movie doesn't have the budget to be the kind of sci-fi adjacent adventure it wants to be. This film just begs for some large creatures, real or fictional. And at the same time, the writing is so weak that it doesn't work as a drama. The whole thing is a limp noodle, lacking anything outrageous (good or bad) to make it noteworthy.

The only nice things I can say about it are: it was only 70 minutes long, and I liked the fish at the beginnning.

1.5

[Captain Terror]

The Incredible Petrified World, 1959

Two men and two women go on an expedition to explore the "phantom zone" in the ocean, but when their diving bell breaks off from the ship they sink down and end up in a series of underground caverns. Alone with just a single madman--a castaway from a previous wreck--they must figure out a way to get back to the surface.
I watched this 4 days ago and I'd already forgotten what it was about. What an endurance test this thing is.

[Takoma11]

I watched this 4 days ago and I'd already forgotten what it was about. What an endurance test this thing is.

LOL. At one point it went back to the characters on the surface and I was like "Ah! Who are these people?!?!?!?!" . . . it had only been about 30 minutes since an extended sequence with them in it.

[ueno_station54]

https://theschlockpit.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/carnival-of-souls-1998-banner.jpg?w=750&h=400&crop=1
Carnival of Souls (Adam Grossman, 1998)

I don't really think this is any dumber than any other psychological thriller (the dumbest genre outside of maybe the whodunit) per se but this is really just a series of tropes presented with no flair, energy or even really attempts at intrigue. Production-wise it feels like its straight out of one of those horror anthology series' from around this time (maybe this was made for TV? I didn't look into it) and there's not even any decent ideas for imagery let alone any imagery that actually hits. The only even kind of interesting shot is the one where the guy is in the mirror behind the bar and he's like, way too big? and that's only interesting because of how poorly done the effect is. Not much to mention with this one, just one of the blandest things I've ever seen and normally I wouldn't give this low a score to something this inoffensive but idk this sucks lol.
rating_1_5

[ueno_station54]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Edyn4wXXgAEezyO?format=png&name=large
The Misty Green Sky (Jack Foster, 2016)

So I picked this one because its apparently one of the worst things ever (of course) but also because janky 3D animation appeals to me more than probably anyone here so I figured I might have something that will do well in this hall without killing me to watch lmao. And yeah, this didn't kill me but it is still far from enjoyable. Obviously put together by one person with stolen assets (allegedly, I didn't really look into it that much), stock music of varying quality and some very not good voice acting and is clearly some kind of fetish thing for the director, despite being weirdly sexless. Then again, sex would probably be too complicated to animate so we just have a regular transport ship that jizzes on the main character until her clothes melt off I guess? The plot itself is also weirdly not horny in nature outside of some mentions of polygamy, the film just has all of its models wearing almost nothing and having absurd jiggle physics. There's also a bunch of weird rendering issues like frame rate drops and some stuff that I can't tell if its the actual film or the upload I watched was just messed up. Also there's a scene that just has no sound? Like a scene that should clearly have lots of sound. I watched this on youtube so idk if they cut some copyrighted music from the upload or if its just like that lmao. I guess some of the camerawork is okay? Like there's angles and stuff. Its gotta be the strongest aspect of the film, which isn't saying much, but that combined with a somewhat brisk pace it at least goes by pretty quick and I did get a couple laughs out of it, so there's that. Also, absolutely insane that this goes for the ending that it does. Like why does this borderline porno have an ending this bleak?? This is extremely not good at all but at least its kind of weird.
2

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.UcyZmnp9W54l0w5xiVmLcwHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1

The Misty Green Sky, 2016

I'm a good looking young woman!

In an unspecified future, Emma (Maggie H. Taylor) discovers a terrible secret about her home: she doesn't live on Earth but rather some other strange outpost planet. With only a computerized "God" to answer her questions, and often evasively, Emma becomes determined to find out the truth behind her situation.

Okay, so this film is basically porn, but like, porn for cowards. (And maybe for those who have the wisdom to not try to look up the short-shorts of un-animated teenage girls?)

The story itself is dime-a-dozen sci-fi stuff, and if the film had any storytelling skills, I probably wouldn't bag on the plot too much. I think that if you said the plot to someone ("A girl realizes she's living on some random outpost planet instead of Earth, so she smuggles her way onto this strange space station that's orbiting her planet") it would actually sound decently interesting.

But really the only interest this movie generated for me was sort of a horror-fascination with its perviness and overall incompetence.

Let's talk about the perviness. Do we know how old Emma is meant to be? I don't remember. And frankly it doesn't super matter to me splitting hairs about whether she's 16 or 18 or whatever. The character looks like someone animated a blow-up doll, finding any excuse to shoot her character looking up into her crotch. I mean, very early on she takes a weird lateral step and I was like "Wup, okay. Yup. That was her vulva. Thanks, but no thanks." Things get more overt as they go on (Oh, no! A strange liquid melted off my clothes and now my heaving breasts are bare and I have only this little bikini bottom on!). As the character breathes, her breasts don't just rise and fall to an absurd degree, they, like, pulse? Expand and contract? Anyway, young this woman needs to speak to a doctor. The ickiness of this is slightly alleviated by how crappy the animation is. If I felt like I was looking at realistic bodies, I'd be pretty squicked. But this is like a cheap cut-scene in a video game had their clothing removed.

The only so-bad-it's-good element here is the extreme shoddiness of the production. At times the animation seems to shudder and stall, like these strange little moments of unintentional slow motion. The compositions are bland and uninspired, and they lack literal texture. Everything looks and feels flat. There's also the way that Emma's clothing just randomly changes in the middle of scenes. There's her bikini bottom and then there are these short-shorts, and sometimes within the same scene she alternates between them randomly. It really, honestly feels like no one actually cared about what was happening on screen as long as it gave you a chance to ogle the main character (or any of the other porn-bot female characters).

Can I give this film one little teeny-tiny scrap of praise? There was a scene that felt like it was heading for sexual assault territory, and I was relieved it didn't go there.

This whole thing has very sad "If I draw her, she has to take her clothes off when I say so!" vibes. You can't tell me that anyone actually enjoyed this film outside of the titillation. Just go pay for some ethically-produced adult films, ya pervs!

0.5

[Takoma11]

despite being weirdly sexless.

I actually found the lack of direct sexual content almost more disturbing.

Like, two people having (poorly animated) sex would have been less bothersome than "Oh, no! A girl fell down! Let's zoom in on her crotch!" or the near-naked Emma pleading "Oh, no! Don't punish me!" from the ship's floor.

[ueno_station54]

I actually found the lack of direct sexual content almost more disturbing.

Like, two people having (poorly animated) sex would have been less bothersome than "Oh, no! A girl fell down! Let's zoom in on her crotch!" or the near-naked Emma pleading "Oh, no! Don't punish me!" from the ship's floor.
Yeah I can see that for sure. Personally, I got more second-hand embarrassment from it than anything. Like I'd want to bully the nerd that made this if I didn't think he'd be into it lol.

[Takoma11]

Yeah I can see that for sure. Personally, I got more second-hand embarrassment from it than anything. Like I'd want to bully the nerd that made this if I didn't think he'd be into it lol.

LOL. There's a scene in The Devil's Backbone (I Think?) where one of the kids has drawn a naked women, but he has drawn her vulva sideways.

Anyway, that's what I thought of every time they showed topless Emma's nipples-pointed-upwards, expanding-and-contracting breasts. The person who made this film must have seen a woman's body, right? Like, at least once?

[Captain Terror]

I guess some of the camerawork is okay? Like there's angles and stuff.

Can I give this film one little teeny-tiny scrap of praise? There was a scene that felt like it was heading for sexual assault territory, and I was relieved it didn't go there.


Yall are really making quite a pitch for this thing. :lol:

[Takoma11]

Yall are really making quite a pitch for this thing. :lol:

We've set the bar pretty low.

I can confirm that there are angles in The Green Misty Sky, if only because it's hard to look up someone's shorts without moving a camera down and then angling it up.

[John Dumbear]

Out of sheer curiosity, I just finished "The Green Misty Sky". First thought was this is just bad computer animation, the type you see in cookie cutter kids shows that my granddaughter watches. Second thought was the "Barbarella" approach to intergalactic fashion statements. Constantly changing, just for the sake of changing. Sometimes in mid-scene, nice touch.


Other noteworthy tidbits were the constant pulsating of breasts. Actors reading from a script, as if reading from a high school book report. Swore I could actually hear the pages turning. Lifeless eyes, odd expressions, random "Holy Motors" type bizarro world nonsense.


Yeah this was really bad. Kudoes to the nominator, I think.

[KeyserCorleone]

Loqueesha

OK, first, lemme admit that I grew up around a bunch of center-right Christian conservatives who valued African American culture, and one of them taught me about racism and shared my opinions on how ridiculous it is. Because I have a family of conservatives, liberals and neutrals who all get along pretty well, I naturally look at things from a neutral perspective. Also, lemme just point out that Rob Paulsen is one of my favorite people so I have a different interpretation of the ideals of mimicing accents than some people would.

I DID NOT LIKE THIS MOVIE.

First of all, It goes without saying that its attempt at handling the argument of reversing the White Chicks scenario came off as too strong to the point where it was preachy. Of course, Saville would cast himself as the guy with all the answers, so many that he could pick Kira out of Japan just by taking one look at Light Yagami. See, I DO believe in equality in every way, shape and form. I also believe in due process. Do I believe that in the context of a dumb comedy movie a guy can pretend to be another race for the sake of a plot? It depends on the scenario. If it's something less racially-centered like in White Chicks where they only pretended to be two white girls to spy on some people, that;s one thing.

On top of that, despite the fact that the character learns his lesson about being himself and not trying to be anyone else or else all hell will break loose, its ending was EXCEPTIONALLY hokey. If I wanted to rite the hokiest movie on Earth, that's ho I would have done it. Once Saville proves he can mimic a specific sassy African American accent, the joke gets old.

You could probably get away with a similar, less politically-fronted film in the 80's and maybe the 90's, but this was obviously a political movie done by a guy fed up with the millennial world and wanting to say a few things to the teenagers who annoyed him.

Having said that, there are some things I need to say in comparison to other politically-minded movies. I've seen a few political documentaries myself, and I will say that this came as less angry than most. I'm sorry, but I've seen hateful people on both sides of the political spectrum, and I've been treated poorly by them online and in the real world. I don't believe that this movie was "hateful," just annoyed at modern society. Saville's problem is just that he's really annoyed, and it would brush anyone the wrong way. I know because I'm annoyed most of the time.

Other than some of the things he said on radio making some sense, like the bridge scene, let me just say that I know a couple people who lost out to great jobs regardless of higher scores due to minority preference. No one here is saying that minorities shouldn't have jobs, but I think anyone would be upset if they lost out because they were white. It's not a "major economic practice" or some government ploy or anything, but companies have done it before. It would've been nice to see a movie address that issue if it wasn't so preachy and obviously too conservative-minded. Seville tried to handle the discussion carefully and he didn't. He came on too strong.

Somewhere between 15-20 / 100

BTW, my mind immediately goes to how I'd do things differently whenever I watch a movie, so I can rate it better. Basically, the idea behind this is, if a guy who;s never written a movie before just knows he can do a better job, this movie's got a problem. I confess I did that with Loqueesha, too. I've read on a few websites "Loqueesha was made at the wrong time," like Letterboxd which seems to be mostly liberal-central. So I wanna bounce what I thought of off of MoFo, if they'll let me. It'll be less political and less offensive.

Forgive me, but one of my favorite movies is White Chicks, and I always get tempted to make a better version of something.

[PHOENIX74]

Let's talk about the perviness. Do we know how old Emma is meant to be? I don't remember. And frankly it doesn't super matter to me splitting hairs about whether she's 16 or 18 or whatever. The character looks like someone animated a blow-up doll, finding any excuse to shoot her character looking up into her crotch. I mean, very early on she takes a weird lateral step and I was like "Wup, okay. Yup. That was her vulva. Thanks, but no thanks." Things get more overt as they go on (Oh, no! A strange liquid melted off my clothes and now my heaving breasts are bare and I have only this little bikini bottom on!). As the character breathes, her breasts don't just rise and fall to an absurd degree, they, like, pulse? Expand and contract? Anyway, young this woman needs to speak to a doctor. The ickiness of this is slightly alleviated by how crappy the animation is. If I felt like I was looking at realistic bodies, I'd be pretty squicked. But this is like a cheap cut-scene in a video game had their clothing removed.

It really, honestly feels like no one actually cared about what was happening on screen as long as it gave you a chance to ogle the main character (or any of the other porn-bot female characters).

Below is a picture of Jack Foster, the sole creator of The Misty Green Sky - and now I kind of wish it had of been some 14-year-old attempting some kind of early teenage wish-fulfillment. Creepy.

https://i.postimg.cc/QNyQS3kG/jack-foster.jpg

[Takoma11]

Other than some of the things he said on radio making some sense, like the bridge scene

I thought that scene was pretty gross. Suicidal thoughts are an attention grab, and the reason people treat you poorly is because you don't love yourself enough?

That woman could have been suicidal because of having lost a baby or having been a victim of an assault or abuse. Lecturing her without knowing why she was thinking about self-harm was incredibly callous.

But, of course, since the writer of the film created the scenario, it's shown to be the right thing.

It's like his advice to the love interest (the one he called a "f*cking idiot"). He says that she's treated badly by men because she enables their bad behaviors. Yeah, that can be true. But some people are in relationships with crappy people and it has nothing to do with enabling.

No one here is saying that minorities shouldn't have jobs, but I think anyone would be upset if they lost out because they were white. It's not a "major economic practice" or some government ploy or anything, but companies have done it before.

When a company puts "women and minorities are encouraged to apply" that usually means that company does not have any significant number of people from those groups and/or that those people have in the past faced discrimination at those kinds of workplaces. When I was in high school, I got a lot of material from the Coast Guard making really specific requests for women to apply--and it wasn't because the Coast Guard was full of ladies!

Also, we watched the main character's audition tape as "himself" and it was awful!

Also, it was two white, middle-aged radio executives (not exactly the progressive forefront if you've spent any time in radio) who loved Loqueesha.

The *sad trombone* idea that the main character was being disregarded because of his gender and race just looked incredibly silly as presented. He clearly was not the more qualified out of the two personas he presented.

Like you say, I think that a film could grapple with contemporary hiring practices and it could be interesting. But the way this film presents the argument is just bizarre.

Below is a picture of Jack Foster, the sole creator of The Misty Green Sky - and now I kind of wish it had of been some 14-year-old attempting some kind of early teenage wish-fulfillment. Creepy.

https://i.postimg.cc/QNyQS3kG/jack-foster.jpg

The film has a strong middle-aged man vibe.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftheschlockpit.files.wordpress.com%2F2021%2F06%2Fcarnival-of-souls-1998-banner.jpg%3Fw%3D750%26h%3D400%26crop%3D1&f=1&nofb=1

Carnival of Souls, 1998

Alex (Bobbie Phillips) experienced trauma as a child when she caught her mother's boyfriend, Louis (Larry Miller) sexually assaulting and then murdering her mother. Years later Alex is running her mother's old bar, supporting herself and her sister, Sandra (Shawnee Smith). But one day Alex seems to have an encounter with Louis, and from that point on she experiences strange visions and ominous hallucinations.

Oh, the shame, when you type in "Carnival of Souls" to the Tubi search engine and it says, "Hey, so we have these two movies called that, which one did you want?" and you scroll over the 60s version to . . .this.

It's been well over a decade since I've seen this movie, and part of me wondered if it was as bad as I remembered. I has literally only one memory of this movie and that was the implication that a little girl was forced to paint a clown face on a man's penis, a memory I'd always dismissed as being too ridiculous. Well . . .

Part of what stinks about this movie is that it steals the premise from the 60s film and reimagines it in just the dumbest way possible. After various films from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the trope of "And they were dead all along!!!!!!!" is hardly new, but it's done with so little finesse and such an obvious outcome that it sucks the fun out of it.

The acting is unremarkable, without the kind of hammy performance that can at least add a bit of unintentional humor to a crummy film. Larry Miller is a familiar face to anyone who watches Christopher Guest movies. His character of Louis, the child-molesting clown, is certainly upsetting in principal, but there's something off about the kind of menace he seems to be trying to exude and the way that the character is written. Like I've said about many films in this Hall, it's sometimes hard to separate the bad acting from the bad writing. The worst is probably Anna McKown as the girls' mother, Elaine. Elaine just stares semi-vacantly at her viscerally uncomfortable children and then just, you know, leaves one of them alone with Louis. Paul Johansson is on hand as a character who is, what, Death? Like, a sexy Death that you have sex with on his Death boat?

There is one sequence I sort of dug, toward the end, where Alex imagines herself in an oversized version of her childhood bedroom. A balloon appears which then pops and wraps itself around her head. If the rest of the film had been willing to go this direction, it might have been interesting. Instead it just cycles through endless incarnations of Alex seeing visions of Louis or visions of a strange demon.

Just absolutely uninspired, and it doesn't at all earn the bleak ending it presents us with.

1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

I did say "some" sense. Really it was the convincing her not to kill herself that did it for me. Other than that, I wasn't a fan of how he could practically mind-read. But I'm glad we're on the same page of a movie about contemporary hiring practices. In the case of two white guys hiring Loqueesha, it's no surprise that there are company owners who find some morale or marketing potential in the practice, so no matter what their skin color was, the practice comes as no surprise. It's not "evil," it's just not "perfect." Then again, most good things aren't.

The real issue with the fimmaking perspective is that a plot about economics probably needs to be handled less like an argument and more like a dramedy.

Watching Airplane Mode right now. I thought I would hate it, but the middle act has some funny moments.

[Takoma11]

I did say "some" sense. Really it was the convincing her not to kill herself that did it for me.

I guess.

I mean, it was written that she'd be like "Oh yeah! You're right!". Also loved how apparently when he was done neither of them actually stayed on the line with her.

To hear someone say they want to kill themselves and say "Do it!" is just such a sociopath move. The fact that the writer couldn't apparently be bothered to, like, Google how to help someone who is threatening self-harm is nuts to me. There's an alternate version of Loqueesha where she goes on trial a la that girl who told her boyfriend to kill himself.

[KeyserCorleone]

I think that was more of a "shock-value building up to the end" thing more than anything.

Airplane Mode

Like a lot of other comedies, this movie is a pack of Ben and Jerry's ice cream. There's a lot in there and it's just packed with no air in between, so maybe that's why this flavor never took flight. Joke after sex joke after joke after sex joke, the majority of this movie is either unfunny or just gross. Having said that, there were a few times I cracked up, but I don't want to ruin that. But whatever story it's going for is severely half-assed, despite occasionally having some chuckle-worthy moments because of that fact, like the final resolution with Jenna and her old boyfriend. So, dumb comedy with a few gags, nothing more.

3/10

[KeyserCorleone]

"Candy... Beautiful name, it has the spirit, the sound of the Old Testament."

This is gonna be so much fun.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/13nd8m4K/the-misty-green-sky.jpg

The Misty Green Sky - 2016

Directed by Jack Foster

Written by Jack Foster

Starring Tiffany Lindstrom, Jeremy Harkless & Maggie H. Taylor

This is bad - in so many ways. First of all - The Misty Green Sky should not be available on Amazon Prime to buy or rent. It doesn't meet the professional standard any person would rightly expect when paying for film content - and it doesn't even come close to it. The "film" has been created by one man, Jack Foster, by way of Daz 3D and Poser, with characters and animations cribbed directly from those applications. That's right, the director of The Misty Green Sky hasn't even done his own animating, and all of the hairstyles and costumes have also been provided him from those sources as well. Even so, the entire work feels unfinished, glitchy and very rough around the edges. If you're not bothered by that, then perhaps the fact that Foster has gone the "erotic sci-fi" route will - especially since he's used young teenage girls to overtly sexualize. The way he does it deeply concerns me, and if there was any one person from which I thought the police should be checking the hard drives on their computers, it would be this Jack Foster - whose name simply couldn't be his own.

Emma, a young schoolgirl, has lessons while living in a compound on what she thinks is Earth - her teacher a humanoid entity called 'God' who warns her never to wander over to the "old village" (an abandoned set of ruins) outside the compound's outer boundary. Emma's curiosity is far too strong however, and she searches the ruins and finds a secret that shocks her - she's not on Earth at all, but a planet called Rythar, which was once touted a paradise. To find out more, she purposely gets a job loading transport ships, and stows away on one - hitching a ride to a space station which orbits her planet. She discovers that the station is one large medical facility, with scientists working on a specific disease - but why is it in orbit around Rythar? When those on the station find out about Emma, panic ensues, and in the chaotic events that follow the entire station is destroyed, with only Emma managing to free herself of the catastrophe to find herself an escape ship which will take her to Earth. While on the ship, Emma discovers the devastating secret about herself, Rythar and what she's done.

Jack Foster's creation, Emma, has large breasts (as do all the females on Rythar) and appears to be approximately 16-years-old. His most favourite way of presenting her is from a low angle so we get a good view up her shorts - aided by the way she often falls over giving us glimpses of her genitals. He thinks up as many excuses as he can for baring her breasts - or those of her cohabitants on the planet - at one stage having her clothes somehow disintegrate when sprayed with a mystery substance on the transport ship to the space station. This result is a near-nude Emma exploring the station's confines. He's also done something very peculiar to the breasts of all the girls in the film - they kind of pulsate - they expand and contract, as if Foster is under the impression that breasts and lungs are the same thing. It strikes the viewer as bizarre for this to be happening - unnatural, distracting and puzzling. Too fast and too great to be breathing. The animation is sketchy enough as it is (Foster loves to have his creations simply glide through space - making everything much easier) - it doesn't need this added strange effect to further distance it from normality.

Aside from those drop dead obvious aspects to what has gone wrong, there are hundreds of small errors that needed cleaning up. All of the perspectives are wrong - when Emma's transport ship appears from over the horizon of the planet Rythar it appears to be far too large, which would make the ship nearly as big as the planet itself. This happens again when we see the space station escape ship appear through the rings of Saturn - from the distance we see it, through the rings, the escape ship must be as big as Earth itself. Another strange occurrence is Emma's constant change of clothes and hairstyles - clothes can be explained, but why does Emma's hair change from scene to scene? Even if hairstyles can be changed as easily as profile pictures on the internet in the future, would you really change your own hairstyle three or four times a day? Everything that's written in the film uses the same cheap 'Impact' font, which is just lazy and unforgiveable for someone making an animated film they expected to be distributed and paid for.

The sound effects have obviously been taken directly from typing "sound effects" into Google and using one of a plethora of sites which provide them - they don't fully mesh, and give another example of the lazy and amateur construction that produced this effort. Same goes for the public domain pieces of music. Animation-wise, the background moves at a different rate to the could-patterns on the sky, making the viewer disorientated if they're watching that. Effects like fire are sometimes cut off mid-effect - an egregious error, even for a film that would be free on YouTube, let alone paid content on a streaming service. The voice acting is flat and unappealing - and the script they read from is rife with logical inconsistencies and dialogue that sounds trite. When stating that the colony they live on has a "70 to 30 female to male ratio" is should either be a 7 to 3 female to male ratio or else the entire compound has a population of 70 females and 30 males - the way it's said sounds silly. It also makes no sense for Emma to be surprised that some guy has hooked up with another girl if it's common knowledge that this is a polygamist society. These things have to make sense. Facial expressions never work for the entirety of the film.

Jack Foster (whose real name is probably closer to Jayse Feedlebreem) set up an account on Indiegogo.com to raise money for what he said would be an animated sci-fi trilogy of films (I can't wait for the next two.) He managed to raise $285 for his budget - and I expect this is far closer to the real budget for this film than the $50,000 the IMDb estimated. His Hollywood Rocks! documentary from 2008 hasn't been seen by many people (I can't find evidence of a single one) and when you watch the trailer for it you find it more interested in really grimy sex anecdotes than music - every quote you hear relates to these rockers having intercourse with groupies and nobody mentions anything much else, aside from drugs and maybe one reference to music. Whatever's lower than trash - then that's what Hollywood Rocks! is. The only other directorial effort from Foster is 2010's White Lion Concert Anthology 1987 to 1991, and it's something else that has absolutely no internet footprint. Letterboxd lists Three Dramas from 2020 as a Jack Foster-directed piece of work. It has accrued one "watched" logged to it, and one rating by a viewer - and that rating was a half star - the lowest possible.

Hollywood Rocks! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCAaaEtfCIc)
Jack Foster's smutty Hollywood Rocks! failed to live up to it's billing as entertainment.

The Misty Green Sky throws up a lot of strange elements, which are the only entertainment we can glean from it as we're slowly tortured by a low-tech kind of boredom. When a robot directly copied from the Cybermen in Doctor Who plays Emma a classical piano tune, a gorilla slowly lifts the robot up from underneath - and it's as random and meaningless as you can get. A rotating gorilla holding up a Cyberman from Doctor Who who is playing classical piano for Emma? That's The Misty Green Sky for you. My personal favourite moment though, was the screaming woman on the space station - whose run and scream can only be seen to understand what I'm getting at. As a single moment, it outstripped all others (pun kind of intended.) This animated effort throws in many bizarre and incongruous things. Was it worth watching? Of course not. Only a crazy person would go out of their way to watch The Misty Green Sky, but once seen, it provides much to think about. Jack Foster's hard drive, which would probably land him 30 years. The fact that Amazon Prime is charging non-subscribers to watch or own it - which really cheapens Amazon Prime in my eyes. The gall - of releasing someone's animated doodles as if it's worthy of being called a "film". Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to call 1-800-PREVENT to report a probable sex offender.

0.5

[crumbsroom]

Why are you people making me clearly have to see The Misty Green Sky?

[KeyserCorleone]

Why are you people making me clearly have to see The Misty Green Sky?


www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhAvCI9Kolw

[SpelingError]

I'll probably end up watching a couple of these films as well once the final results come in. Judging from your reviews, it looks like this selection is worse than the prior selection.

[Allaby]

I watched The Misty Green Sky (2016) today. This feels like it was based on someone's fetish and the story came afterwards. That might have still worked, if it had been a half decent movie. But it is not. This is very poorly made. The animation looks terrible. The story feels generic and cliched. The film is boring for the most part and feels longer than it was. Voice acting is bad. The voices feel wrong for the character and the performances are flat. There are a couple slightly interesting moments and I chuckled a couple times, so there's that. 1

[Captain Terror]

Everything that's written in the film uses the same cheap 'Impact' font
Is it wrong that this bothers me more than anything else yall have mentioned?

When a robot directly copied from the Cybermen in Doctor Who plays Emma a classical piano tune, a gorilla slowly lifts the robot up from underneath - and it's as random and meaningless as you can get. A rotating gorilla holding up a Cyberman from Doctor Who who is playing classical piano for Emma?

This sounds like a Mighty Joe Young homage. Not saying it makes sense or belongs in this film, just throwing it out there.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/18b23fd206c961af5438888dfd8671f9/1f74108e41bbc023-5d/s500x750/dcea4d3b06fe05501e0a68c8c63573bb9cd370bc.gif

[Rockatansky]

Why are you people making me clearly have to see The Misty Green Sky?
Okay, so I’m not the only one having this reaction.

[SpelingError]

What's worse: The Hall of Infamy or Rockatansky messing up Captain Terror's Letterboxd feed?

[John Dumbear]

Is it wrong that this bothers me more than anything else yall have mentioned?



This sounds like a Mighty Joe Young homage. Not saying it makes sense or belongs in this film, just throwing it out there.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/18b23fd206c961af5438888dfd8671f9/1f74108e41bbc023-5d/s500x750/dcea4d3b06fe05501e0a68c8c63573bb9cd370bc.gif

Another laugh I got was the "Emergency Exit" on a door on the space station. With the Spanish version typed right after it.

[Captain Terror]

What's worse: The Hall of Infamy or Rockatansky messing up Captain Terror's Letterboxd feed?

One of my perverted Letterboxd friends was watching autopsy footage the other day. His name rhymes with ErringFeller.

[Rockatansky]

perverted Letterboxd friends
The plural is key here.

[SpelingError]

One of my perverted Letterboxd friends was watching autopsy footage the other day. His name rhymes with ErringFeller.

I'm glad that, in spite of my flaws, you still consider me as a friend.

[Rockatansky]

https://youtu.be/R43dYg_Kuc0

[crumbsroom]

One of my perverted Letterboxd friends was watching autopsy footage the other day. His name rhymes with ErringFeller.


It's got to be Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes, right?


One of the only films I can think of where I had to turn it off because I couldn't take it. And just sat there for two or three hours knowing I had to finish it, and growing more and more upset at having to face it ever again.


That movie is rough.

[John Dumbear]

Why are you people making me clearly have to see The Misty Green Sky?


It's worthy of your thread.

[SpelingError]

It's got to be Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes, right?


One of the only films I can think of where I had to turn it off because I couldn't take it. And just sat there for two or three hours knowing I had to finish it, and growing more and more upset at having to face it ever again.


That movie is rough.
Yeah, that one. It's hard to watch, but it's also shot very well as the camerawork and framing in it are top notch. Due to that, I thought it was very interesting and felt just as much of an urge to turn it off as I did to keep going. Even when art resorts to extreme measures, I still find value when it gets me to feel something.

[PHOENIX74]

This sounds like a Mighty Joe Young homage. Not saying it makes sense or belongs in this film, just throwing it out there.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/18b23fd206c961af5438888dfd8671f9/1f74108e41bbc023-5d/s500x750/dcea4d3b06fe05501e0a68c8c63573bb9cd370bc.gif

Ahhhhh. If I'd seen Mighty Joe Young or known about that scene I'd have picked up on that - yes, it's identical. You can imagine my surprised confusion when that happened in The Misty Green Sky apropos of nothing.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Misty Green Sky

Did I speak too soon about that stupid talking cat movie? I'm honestly questioning if this even qualifies as a movie. It feels like one of those 90's PC games where you "make a movie" with modeled characters and locations. the animation is atrocious, the voice acting is horrible and the film feels like a fever dream. I use the term film loosely here.

The pointless nudity? Wha? Oh no, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was the men's locker room. Then her shirt for the rest of the "film" is see-through. Making it almost as if she isn't wearing one at all. Was this a high school project some kid did? No...no it can't be. That kid would have failed.

The only way I can justify this not being the top spot of infamy, is that it might take more effort to animate something like this than some of the other entries I have waiting before me. So the effort might not be there, but the time is.

Good God. I hate this.

[KeyserCorleone]

Candy

I saw the original two-hour cut. This is the single dumbest movie I've ever seen. And that's why it was so funny. The only only who's performance wasn't humorously overdone or humorously half-assed was Marlon Brando, everybody who wants nookie with Candy is a poorly-acted psychopath, the psychedelic effects are weird and wild, and much of the dialogue was extremely cheesy. This movie also shows more skill in some of the worst aspects of my current pick for worst movie ever: Lust for Frankenstein, and it stands as proof that Brando can play anything, because the Godfather is a far cry from this Indian guru. Yes, the twist ending was very shocking, and probably even unnecessary. But this wack-ass movie didn't bore me. I was always waiting for the next dumbassed thing to happen, and for the most part it delivered.

5.5/10.

[Allaby]

So I watched The Incredible Petrified World (1959) today. Directed by Jerry Warren, the film stars John Carradine, Robert Clarke, and Phyllis Coates. It's listed as action, adventure, and sci-fi on imdb, but isn't really much of any of them. This is a boring film. Not much happens. What happens isn't very interesting. Acting isn't very good or memorable. This is a poorly made film and not fun or entertaining. At least, it is short. 1

[ueno_station54]

https://p4.storage.canalblog.com/49/24/110219/131355409.png
Wild 90! (Norman Mailer, 1968)

So I'd been interested in these Mailer films for awhile. Though I don't know much about the man himself he seems like a weird dude and I'm often curious about films made by people who are primarily known for other mediums. My only actual experience with his work was that a film I like a lot was very loosely adapted from one of his books, so I did have some positive associations with him. Ultimately though, this was definitely bad but maybe not as bad as it should have been. Its like if Tarantino tried to remake The Exterminating Angel. The film is just bombarding you with an unbearable amount of testosterone, like being at a family gathering after your uncle's have had a few too many and like when you're trying to listen to your drunk uncle talk you start to tune it out real quick. Thankfully the camera is at least trying to keep the energy up. Its always moving, spinning around and the snap zooms are pretty fun. It ends on a relative high note at least with the last scene featuring two girls who are just way cooler than anyone else that showed up during the runtime. Also this somehow didn't drag nearly as bad as it should have, so that's a plus.
rating_2

[Takoma11]

Its like if Tarantino tried to remake The Exterminating Angel.

LOL. This, and this alone, should be it's plot description.

[KeyserCorleone]

Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised

This guy's just throwing random stuff around without any real sense of delivery. Honestly, I was so bored that this might be worse than my first nom. At least I wanted to see how the other noms ended, even freaking Loqueesha.

0/10.

[Takoma11]

Yeah, a stand-up comedy special is an interesting beast in the context of this hall.

Like, obviously anything listed on IMDb goes, but it's a very different type of film. The usual conversations about plot, effects, etc don't quite apply. I suppose you can still talk about writing, acting, and camera movement.

I think bad stand-up is actually a pretty savvy nomination. It's less likely to have "so bad it's good" moments, or goofy special effects or whatever. And really there's little that's more painful than bad jokes.

My main reaction, not having watched it yet, is that "You'd Be Surprised" just makes me think of the Mike Birbiglia joke that has that line as the punchline:

I was moving a new bed into my apartment. And this woman let me in the front door with her keycard. She said, "I'm not scared, because a rapist wouldn't have a bed like that."

Now, what I should have said was . . . nothing.

What I did say was, "You'd be surprised."

[KeyserCorleone]

Honestly, I just judged it by how much it bored me in comparison to the others. Now to clean my brain out, I'm finishing up the night with John Woo's The Killer.

[Allaby]

89052

I watched The Legend of the Titanic (1999) today. This animated film tells the "real" story of the sinking of the Titanic, which involves a giant Octopus and some evil sharks. The plot of the movie is inherently offensive and problematic as it tries to rewrite history and put a happy ending on a tragedy. The animation is mediocre, but I did enjoy the design of the octopus (which was ridiculous looking). Some of the voice acting was okay. I chuckled a couple times, but most of the film was fairly boring. 1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

The Legend of the Titanic

I might as well review it, too. I understand that the Italian company wanted to make the ending less depressing for kids by saying "nobody died," but seriously? Rewriting a tragedy is something you just don't do in that way. Nevertheless, this is miles ahead of the other Titanic movie I nominated. The movie has an actual plot, albiet a randomly thrown in one that acts like a mix between a fairy tale and an anime, and that octopus is more creepy than he is cute. Shark mafia? I can kinda get behind that. Magic dolphins? Cheesy as hell and that kind of thing is so "everywhere" at this point that it feels just as typical in this movie as it does thrown in for the hell of it. But who thought of an essentially six-year-old octopus that's as strong and jacked as Hercules? I've seen cuter muscle-kids on Mucha ****ing Lucha.


Still, among all the kiddy stuff they threw in, the tone of the movie was surprisingly consistent. By the time you expect random kids stuff to be thrown in, it's not surprising anymore. And the characters and dialogue aren't plaguing the movie with too many random-ass subplots ripping off kids movies ranging from Disney to Bluth. It's a cheesy kids movie, nothing more and nothing less.


3/10.


Yes I nominated a 3/10 movie. I just felt like pairing both Titanic movies together.

[Captain Terror]

I wonder how much discussion went into the decision to give the octopus a dog's nose.

[Takoma11]

I wonder how much discussion went into the decision to give the octopus a dog's nose.

As I wrote in my review, I prefer to believe that this is how the animator actually thinks an octopus looks.

[KeyserCorleone]

I wonder how much discussion went into the decision to give the octopus a dog's nose.



"Give the octopus a cute face so we don't scare the kids."
"What kind of cute face?"
"I dunno, just take something you think is cute and work with it."


Hmmm, PUPPIES!

[Allaby]

I rewatched my second nomination, Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (1981). The first time I watched it, I was hoping it would be fun and amusing, but it was not. The writing and acting range from awful to mediocre. Performances are not believable and dialogue is cringe worthy. The film is generic, dated, and derivative. Most of the jokes aren't funny and the film is boring. This film needed to be more fun and have better attempts at humour. I did like some of the cute cheerleaders though. The title Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats is more amusing than the actual film. 1

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/FHWswrsJ/titanic2.jpg

Titanic : The Legend Goes On... - 2000

Directed by Camillo Teti

Written by Bozenna Intrator (translation), Jymn Magon & Camillo Teti

Starring Lisa Russo (voice), Mark Thompson-Ashworth (voice) & Susan Spifford (voice)


What we have with Titanic : The Legend Lives On... is basically a cute children's animated film about one of the most horrific and deadly disasters in history. This Italian production also manages to veer very close to Disney animated classics like Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp, adding a kind of blatant and cheap 'rip-off' feel to proceedings. Then you have to add it's very odd moments to the overall impression it gives - one example being the sudden introduction of a rap song from nowhere, with one of the dog characters rapping "It's Party Time!" apropos of nothing. It was originally released dubbed at 82 minutes, but was later completely re-edited with differing story, new musical numbers and a different score - this version running 70 minutes, where the story takes up around 50 minutes, and the credits (including 'happily ever after' stills) just going on and on, including many segments which had been edited out. The first makes much more sense, while the second is kind of a little crazy.

Angelica (dubbed by Lisa Russo) travels by train with her two wicked step-sisters and wicked step-mother, dreaming of one day finding her real mother and father and heading for a cruise on Titanic. Her only clue as to her mother's identity is a locket with a blue gem in it, inside a picture of her. Meanwhile, wealthy William (dubbed by Mark Thompson-Ashworth) boards the ship with his maid, who lost her daughter years ago. Other passengers include a trio of thieves, a police detective, a lady looking for a rich man, a failed banker, William's secretary, a singer and a group of animals - a Mexican band of mice, another group of Yiddish mice, a gaggle of geese, a pickpocket bird, a cat and at least 5 dog characters. Angelica accidentally drops her locket, and from that point forward it passes through many people's hands until it's finally brought back to her, thanks to the help from some of the animal characters. Meanwhile William meets her and falls in love - but, of course, history intercedes and the ship hits an iceberg on a cold, still April night.

There is much that's wrong with this film - especially the second version. The first is a very cheap, lousy knock-off, but the second version is a complete catastrophe, and one hell of a crazy film. It was the second version I watched first - it begins with the sinking, and then flashes back to all of the events which preceded it. Firstly, the tone is all wrong - and perhaps that's why such a deadly disaster should never have been the subject for a cuddly kid's animated film. There's the "It's Party Time!" rap - but also a prodigious amount of cartoon hijinks, with a chef chasing a mouse around, the three thieves continually providing slapstick pratfalls and that rapping dog. When we get to the stage where the ship hits the iceberg, the film blusters through the sinking in a rushed hodge-podge of scenes, because a lot of what's going on at that stage involved human suffering and death. Continuity goes out the window as the ship breaks apart, gets low in the water, is suddenly a lot higher again, breaks up again, breaks up again, disappears, goes back to being low in the water, breaks up again and breaks up again.

The songs lack energy, and sound derivative. I've already mentioned "It's party time!", and in the first version of the film it's still a rap, but this time many of the lyrics are unintelligible. In the second version, the singer goes for "My Heart Will Go On" with a kind of plain number about "Eternity" - and as the ship goes down she suddenly breaks out into her "Eternity" song again. Whoever is singing it sounds like she isn't quite sure of herself, and feels inhibited. The animation is lousy. It's good compared to films like The Misty Green Sky, but set against much else you notice how jerky and unsmooth it all is. It appears like an attempted copy of Disney-type character animation from their early days - and you can see moments taken wholesale from films such as Lady and the Tramp. The story lacks inspiration, and is obviously as unimaginative as you could think of - which includes the dialogue. The pratfalls and slapstick attempt to add energy to the film, but appear to have been constructed by cynical profiteers instead of artists. As the ship sinks, the animators still can't stop themselves trying to elicit a laugh or two.

I had a few laughs watching it. As the ship fills with water, stokers in one of the boiler rooms get buckets and start bailing water - back into the ship. Right back into the boiler room they're standing in. When William jumps into the freezing water with a child, he yells out "We've made it!" A very odd choice of words for the situation. Members of the Titanic crew shift in perspective, and as such suddenly grow three or four times larger or smaller depending on where they're walking, which is always fun. At times dialogue simply can't be understood, or else characters just start making unusual sounds. At times they'll be talking when their mouth is closed, and at other times their mouth will be closed as they're talking. The film will often make the logical seem bizarre, and the bizarre seem logical - and as a whole the project reeks of the most cynical kind of knock-off moviemaking, with the main impetus being the success of Titanic which had been released just a few years prior.

Was there anything good about the film? Well, I'm happy that the ship itself, R.M.S. Titanic, was faithfully reproduced, and the animators didn't simply go for any old ship design - which they could have. 1979 film S.O.S. Titanic was filmed on the R.M.S. Queen Mary, and it's kind of painful to watch. My father has been obsessed about Titanic most of his life, and I have to admit that some of that rubbed off on me, so I recognize the shape easily. The 3D CGI rendering of the ship might look kind of rough at times, and out of step with the more traditional kind of animation that's being used in this film, but I did like that they got that one thing right. Everything else about this reaches a level that's easy to mock. Angelica's locket might not have been The Heart of the Ocean, but it's a little too obvious. The group of Mexican mice might be a little too racist. Rapping "It's Party Time!" is a little too incongruous for one of humanity's greatest tragedies. Watching it all play out isn't all that much fun, until you start making fun of it - so if you're that way inclined I included one of the many webisodes that do just that below. It gave me a few good laughs.

1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghOKU8D-lMY
"It's party time!"

[ueno_station54]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2U5NTJlNjgtZjkyZC00YjllLThjNGYtNmI4YmVkMGYwMDk3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyOTA3MTMyOTk@._V1_.jpg
Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised (Jay Lafayette, 2019)

Yeah I don't really know what to do with this. I don't really have much affinity for even good stand-up let alone, y'know, this but I think I maybe didn't hate this quite as much as most because of that. Like this doesn't seem that much worse than most of the stand-up I've seen (I can definitely think of worse) but its still clearly subpar and like a lot of stand-up is just casually every kind of phobic there is. A plus side to a comedy special as a nomination is that there is next to no visual component which left me free to browse other tabs a little bit here and there and do productive stuff like review the galaxy-brain schedule for the horror movies I'm going to watch during spooky month which I spent like way too many hours working on, sorting the films by runtime then lining them up with my work schedule (longest films for days off, shortest films for day shifts, stuff in the middle for night shifts (there is way more little details and nuances but that's the basic idea)) and going over the next Barbie films I'll be watching; the next one, Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper (idk if that's bad grammar or Barbie is both characters or if those characters are supposed to be the same character idk what that story is about) has a new director so that's intriguing but the same writing duo I've had mixed feelings about in some of the previous entries. Unfortunately, I couldn't completely tune out how annoying this dude can be (being a friend of Joe Rogan that's not the least bit surprising) and I'm baffled that he seems to think he gives off any kind of gay vibes as this is the straightest dude I've ever seen (derogatory). Thankfully his last bit was probably his best and was also probably the longest bit (though the one about the edible also went on forever) and that's only because it was more story than joke and my guy is marginally better at telling a story than telling a joke. This is def not good, didn't laugh, rolled my eyes more than once. No popcorn rating because I don't know how to apply that to stand-up and I also don't know how to rank this on the ballot. I'm sure it only being an hour will factor in tho.

[Allaby]

I watched Carnival of Souls (1998). Directed by Adam Grossman, the film stars Bobbie Phillips, Shawnee Smith, and Larry Miller. Am I going crazy or was this actually not that bad? Granted, it's not very good, but it isn't as bad as most of the other films in this hall. I thought the acting was mostly okay. The story was somewhat interesting, although they could have done more with it. There were some boring parts, but also a couple of sort of cool moments along the way. This is nowhere near as good as the original 1962 Carnival of Souls and I don't plan on ever watching this one again, but it was tolerable. The direction and quality of the film are on par with a mediocre tv movie. Although this could have been a lot better, it could have also been a lot worse. 2.5.

[Allaby]

I watched Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised today. I haven't watched a ton of comedy specials, but I liked most of the ones I have seen. This one is by far the worst stand up comedy special I have seen. Schaub simply is not funny. He is also not likeable. He doesn't have the necessary charisma or charm to pull off a comedy special. The jokes are not funny or witty. His delivery is poor and he just comes across as an obnoxious person rambling on, thinking that he is hilarious, when he is just annoying. I think I smiled once and almost half chuckled. How did this guy get a comedy special? The average poster on MovieForums is funnier than Schaub. Where are all our comedy specials? 1.

[Allaby]

Well, this Hall was torture, but I loved it. The movies were even worse than the first Hall of Infamy. Good job everyone! It is going to be competitive to see which awful film is the most awful. The real winner is the friends we made along the way.

[Takoma11]

Ya'll have a (non pirated) source for You'd Be Surprised, or do I need to get myself a Paramount Plus trial?

[beelzebubble]

Brendan Schaub is famous for the wretchedness of his comedy.
I am sorry you were exposed to that.

[beelzebubble]

https://p4.storage.canalblog.com/49/24/110219/131355409.png
Wild 90! (Norman Mailer, 1968)

The film is just bombarding you with an unbearable amount of testosterone, like being at a family gathering after your uncle's have had a few too many and like when you're trying to listen to your drunk uncle talk you start to tune it out real quick.
This is a classic description of anything to do with Mailer.

[KeyserCorleone]

Well, this Hall was torture, but I loved it. The movies were even worse than the first Hall of Infamy. Good job everyone! It is going to be competitive to see which awful film is the most awful. The real winner is the friends we made along the way.


I kinda disagree. So far, Candy and Bane are my picks for the two best movies nominated on both HoI's so far.


Btw, I'll be reviewing A Talking Cat soon, but since he also directed one of the Puppet Master movies I wanted to get through that first. I try to keep directors I checked out base on marathon behavior so I can work on a sublist of the worst directors ever. I've got a couple other David Schmoeller movies to get through, but a David Allen marathon can wait since he's only directed four movies anyway. I'll likely get to them after A Talking Cat.

[PHOENIX74]

Well, this Hall was torture, but I loved it. The movies were even worse than the first Hall of Infamy. Good job everyone! It is going to be competitive to see which awful film is the most awful. The real winner is the friends we made along the way.

First to finish!

I also thought that this bunch of nominations were refined by our experiences in the first Hall of Infamy and that we're really good at seeking out the absolute worst of the worst - there have been some true shockers amongst this lot.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsG0xsw/surprised.jpg

Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised - 2019

Directed by Jay Lafayette

Featuring Brendan Schaub


So, MMA fighter Brendan Schaub decided he wanted to be a stand-up comedian - and, it's always an easy thing to imagine. He contributes to a few podcasts, and all of his friends think he's a pretty damn funny guy - so he should just go for it, considering it's always been a fantasy of his. Three years after his debut at The Comedy Store in Los Angeles, here his is with his first ever Showtime Comedy Special. Even for the funniest comedians around, that's fast. I have no real idea what this guy is really like - many stand-ups are notoriously difficult and egotistical, and some are really bad people in private (Cosby, I'm looking at you - because you were considered the best) but I assume some are also sweet, and nice guys. Usually when I see someone doing stand-up I really want them to succeed - we both win if they do. Unfortunately for Schaub, his set is made up of a bunch of lead balloons, and for his entire hour on stage I never laughed once. All I did was bristle when an early bit contained far too much naked racism than I could bear to listen to.

Honestly, I felt a bit sorry for Schaub. He doesn't seem to really have it, and I wonder where this man is going to. I just hope he at least thought he was killing out there, and had a good time with his show while it was happening. Of course, he's read the reviews by now, so I hope he had a strong sense of self in case his shattered ego couldn't withstand the embarrassment. People laughed during the show, but it was anything but a raucous audience - and I wonder if Showtime adds a little to make up for quiet stretches. Obviously the show wasn't a hands down success, and Schaub found himself on the outer, and let go. He also found himself on the outer as far as likeability went on the internet as well, and famously saw himself the subject of ridicule on Reddit and YouTube - so he ventured out on his own this year and made his own Comedy Special - The Gringo Papi, which has a 1.1/10 rating on the IMDb. I've never even seen a 1.1 rating before - so I assume that it's been flooded with people that hate Shaub, and that it also stinks. Probably more than You'd Be Surprised does.

All of this isn't going to go well for him - he can't really go anywhere from here. He simply doesn't have the comedic talents to. He could try acting I guess - and who knows how many awful comedians have carved out some kind of niche for themselves, so there's that. I also genuinely think he's gay - and I'm not saying that in a bad way, at all. I simply think he's gay - despite his often homophobic way of kidding around - there are so many signifiers there, and he just sounds gay. He fits the profile of a person that's very homophobic because he's gay perfectly. But he's not funny - at all. He doesn't even have a good sense of what funny is. It's not something you can fake your way through, as his experience with Showtime here illustrated. This was the least successful Showtime Comedy Special of all time, and now Schaub finds himself on a less regal looking stage, doing the shows that are going to be as far as he gets. There are deep shades of Andrew Dice Clay here, who rose to the point where he headlined his own big film after selling out Madison Square Garden two nights in a row. Clay was a horrible person, his film, The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, flopped, and so began his precipitous fall. In the days of the Internet - those falls come faster, and are more thorough. People can see the real you in an instant, and for Brendan Schaub that isn't pretty.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Brendan Schaub: You'd Be Surprised

You all got that friend that constantly tells jokes because they think they're funny, but you always roll your eyes and groan at the dumb delivery. I've seen my fair share of stand-up specials and this one is legit the worst one. It's just unfunny. Bad delivery, bad set-ups, bad jokes...I mean...did no one tell him this wasn't funny?

I had no idea who this guy was and was confused as to why this was nominated. After finding out that he is most certainly NOT a comedian, it made sense to me. Yet, I can't help but feel the fact that this is just a special, factor in my ranking. As bad as this was, I don't expect it to place high on my poop list because of that.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Airplane Mode

I hate Logan Paul, I feel he is the epitome of what is wrong with the internet social media culture of today. Unfunny and offensive and make tons of money.

This movie looks cheap, feels cheap and has a bunch of people I had no idea who they were. A truly annoying film that was racist, sexiest, and homophobic.

[ueno_station54]

https://static.titlovi.com/img/0197/197252-tt0938284.jpg
Bane (James Eaves, 2008)

I guess the first thing you notice about the film is that its shot on a potato and that is easily the least bad part of it. It looks terrible and the version on Tubi is cropped weird but there's some bits that look accidentally interesting while trying to do things that look cool in other films. Often something like that could be a big positive for me but its not doing it for me here, probably because of how mind-numbingly dull the film is and how much of a non-starter that initial premise is. They spend a lot of time on the whole "you're gonna die at this time" gimmick and it feels so irrelevant and underdeveloped, which I guess makes sense since its a red herring anyway but wow is it boring to sit through. Films with this narrative structure where everything hinges on a silly fake out reveal are always crap but especially when both what you're lead to believe is the story and what is actually the story are dumb as hell. At least what the film turns into in the last 25 minutes or so is a bit less boring even if its equally dumb (though lets be honest there was no bouncing back from the most boring 80 minutes of a movie I've ever seen in my life). While nothing is worse than the script, everything else is v. bad too. The lame Saw ripoff editing, the acting, the score especially, the scary surgeon guy carrying around what I'm pretty sure is a dollar store scimitar toy that was in every shop. Figured this would have been an appropriate last film to watch before scheduled spooky month viewings begin, being the one horror movie nominated, but gosh do I wish I just watched another Barbie movie instead. As of now I think this is the worst thing nominated in either of two halls we've had so far.
1

[KeyserCorleone]

A Talking Cat


OOOOOHHH hoy. This was a really good choice for the HoI. This was less funny than Loqueesha and Loqueesha wasn't funny. And I freakin' HATED the cat effects when he was talking. The whole movie was front loaded with the most obvious family movie tropes, and in the end I didn't find myself liking any characters. Hell, Susan's family just plain annoyed me. And let's be honest: magic collar that only allows a cat to talk to a person ONCE? In other words, it's not even a movie ABOUT a talking Cat. And Roberts performance was nothing more than a half-assed Garfield impersonation. Probably worse than the new Marmaduke.


0/10

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/9FKSpZVb/titanic-3.jpg

The Legend of the Titanic - 1999

Directed by Orlando Corradi & Kim J. Ok

Written by Clelia Castaldo, Orlando Corradi & Loris Peota

Starring Gregory Snegoff (voice), Francis Pardeilhan (voice) & Jane Alexander (voice)

We've all heard those stories about the sinking of Titanic haven't we? The way the band took a whole lifeboat to themselves and saved their own lives - everyone else be damned? The way Captain Smith was saved at the last minute when a pink octopus threw him to safety? The miraculous fact that absolutely nobody died? If all of that sounds crazy and disrespectful to the memory of those who died when RMS Titanic sank, you haven't heard anything yet. I honestly don't know where to start with The Legend of the Titanic. It sticks more closely to James Cameron's Titanic in principle plot to start with, but it also gets far more crazy than the other animated film about Titanic released just a year later. It doesn't riff so much on Disney films, but it does bear some striking similarities to An American Tale regarding the many animated mice in it. The animation is a little better than the other one, but still falls short in many areas.

Basically, Elizabeth (voiced by Jane Alexander and our Kate Winslet character), daughter of a wealthy passenger, is engaged to be married to the no-good, dastardly Maltravers (voiced by Gregory Snegoff and our Billy Zane character) but instead falls in love with poor gypsy passenger Don Juan (voiced by Francis Pardeilhan - he's our Leonardo DiCaprio). Maltravers wants Elizabeth's father, who controls global access to the oceans, to sign a waiver that will allow his ships to commence whaling operations, and after failing to win his daughter's hand in marriage he forces him to sign at gunpoint, and devises a plan to sink the ship. His muscle communicates with sharks, who go on to fool a giant octopus named Tentacles to heave an iceberg into it's path. When realising what he's done, Tentacles manages to hold the ship up and keep it from breaking long enough to allow everyone to be saved.

I was very much over Titanic cartoons after watching Titanic : The Legend Goes on... and this contributed to my boredom wading through this. Talking mice, and talking dogs? Seen it. Ship-board romance? Seen it. I hadn't seen a young lady learn how to talk to flying dolphins through the magic of moonbeam tears though, and once sharks wearing prison uniforms came into the picture I could feel everything shifting into a very strange direction. Then came Tentacles the Octopus. An octopus with a dog's face who in this is the silly creature responsible for the sinking of the Titanic - but in this it's no harm no foul because everyone is saved. Now, I know it's been many years since this disaster happened, but we're getting pretty disrespectful by this stage. There's absolutely nothing sacred in this animated feature.

The only problem with the animation is that animals and people either freeze, with their mouths still working, or else they'll talk with their mouth not moving. It just contributes to a feeling that all of this is really sloppy, and rushed. Once again we're plagued with voice acting that feels like it was recorded on a crowded elevator plummeting 100 stories, and some lines are hard to decipher - some of the voice actors really tried to sound as silly and nonsensical as they could, and found a moment here or there where they outdid themselves and can not be understood. The rest is either very silly or very boring - although I will give this version credit for not having as much tiresome pratfalling and not as much blatant stealing from Disney. It's not a very good animated movie though, even if you disregard it's lack of respect towards the Titanic disaster and it's similarity to Cameron's film.

There were moments I had fun - seeing the Titanic's band all in a lifeboat by themselves was a first. I never expected to see that. I never expected to see the Titanic's captain survive after being saved by an octopus. Of course, hearing in the prologue that nobody died on Titanic was a surprise. The whole weird vibe surrounding that pink octopus is enough to be fun as well. But other than that, this was 82 minutes where not much else is worth mentioning, and as such I'm going to leave it at that. It's very slow. It's good for a joke or two, but eighty-two minutes is a very long time for all of this to happen - and not much else. Also - all the kudos I would have given the film for having Tentacles sacrifice himself so that all the passengers could survive goes out the window when Tentacles shows up alive and well during the inevitable wedding scene - this film wanting to eat it's animated wedding cake, and have it as well. Go to hell The Legend of the Titanic - you just go to hell. You can't have a heroic death, just for that character to show up alive and well later.

https://i.postimg.cc/QM5fSySx/band.jpg
And the band played on to the very end. From their lifeboat. Which they'd taken for themselves, and not allowed anyone else on.


This was slighter better than the other Titanic animated film, albeit far more crazy - and much harder to write about. Nothing can accurately describe how boring and silly it is.

1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

Watching the first Leap to prepare for the second one. It amazes me that these late teens and twenty-somethings are part of a biblical study group and don't even know basic biblical knowledge like the mana story. This is all stuff I played church trivia with when I was a kid.

[ueno_station54]

Watching the first Leap to prepare for the second one. It amazes me that these late teens and twenty-somethings are part of a biblical study group and don't even know basic biblical knowledge like the mana story. This is all stuff I played church trivia with when I was a kid.
the first one looks way better based on the handful of clips from it that show up in the sequel.

[KeyserCorleone]

the first one looks way better based on the handful of clips from it that show up in the sequel.

I'm not so sure. This tries to paint itself as a thriller with shit stunts and no plot other than typical youth group activity. It feels more like an overlong school project than anything. If the second's worse, it better be so bad it's hilarious.

[KeyserCorleone]

Oh my God, I'm three minutes in the second and the acting, direction, camera quality and cinematography, mood and storytelling are already better. Not by much, but still. I won't finish it tonight, but I'll absorb what I can just by soaking of the joy of any kind of improvement.

[KeyserCorleone]

Leap: Rise of the Beast

OK, like I said in a previous post, I watched the first Leap before watching this, and I absolutely hated it. I meant to upload this sooner, but I've been binge-watching a show. Even now I'm typing this while watching it.

So, the first movie had some of the worst acting I've ever seen, tried to paint itself as a thriller but had NO thrills, and was basically a bunch of teen youth activities with crappy direction. This was different. Yeah, it was a very predictable movie. But the preachiness level has gone down like 70%, the acting is way better, the action feels like action, there's a plot and the music and atmosphere are improved. I mean, this movie's still very flawed with bad to meh acting and an obviously low budget, but this is a way better movie than the last. Ueno, you better nominate the first movie for the next HoI. If you don't, I will.

25/100

Anyway, Moya's split into four dimensions and one of them is hell on Chiana's brain. Fourth episode of the day.

[Takoma11]

Ugh, I still need to watch the standup special. Do not want. (Mainly because I do not want to start a streaming trial then have to remember to cancel it.)

[KeyserCorleone]

I've got Carnival of Souls, Kinky Coaches, Wild 90 and Petrified World left. In keeping in line with my directors rule, I did want to check out another Norman Mailer movie, Tough Guys Don't Dance. Even though I'm aware of the ratings, it's my kind of plot. I guess I'll watch that with another Farscape tonight.

[KeyserCorleone]

Wild 90

Uuuuuuuugggghhhhhh... This is one of the most boring things I've ever seen. I couldn't make out more than half of what they were saying, and their wild drunken behavior didn't reach me at all. I honestly learned to hate when Mailor speaks on this movie because he's just dicking around without any sense of filmmaking whatsoever. This is nothing short of a dumb fun movie that they made just so they could say they made a movie and they're cool because of it. We have now found a movie with the same mindset as the album I'm Not a Fan But the Kids Like It by Brokencyde. I don't care if this falls under "experimental" filmmaking. This is one movie the Eclipse series should've just left alone. The fact that Mailor made more movies after this debut should scare me, but I can't imagine them being worse than this. This may be worse than that Bigfoot movie I saw a while back.

Congrats, Siddoh, you've beaten my nom.

0/10

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKNm7mJ5/talkingc.jpg

A Talking Cat!?! - 2013

Directed by David DeCoteau

Written by Andrew Helm

Starring Eric Roberts (voice), Johnny Whitaker & Kristine DeBell

How do I give a "movie" like A Talking Cat!?! a proper review? That would mean I consider it on par with, or at the same level of other films I like to write about - and it simply isn't up to it. This sort of stuff has me clutching at my own skull, trying to figure out where to start and what to say. Everything that's wonderful about film is trampled on, and dishonored. It's an abomination. It simply goes and insults the very thing I love - movies as a concept. It doesn't care. There really should be a law - some kind of law, because this is some kind of art crime. David DeCoteau (who has directed 176 awful films* since 1984) should have been arrested. He should have been arrested in 1984. How does someone get away with this? Is this why he uses the pseudonym Mary Crawford? Why does he show such little regard for what he does? Why does he show such contempt for his audience? Did we do him wrong somewhere along the way?

While I'm at it - Eric Roberts. You should be so ashamed of yourself! How much did you get for this 15 minutes of drunken, lazy work? $500? Booze? Why are you doing this to yourself? Your 700 film credits are clogged and littered with microbudget fiascos. You were nominated for an Oscar man! Are you a Lugosi? Do you have a drug problem? It sure sounds like it when you listen to your slurred and muffled words as Duffy the cat. You make Duffy sound like he has brain damage. You should be arrested as well, and put away for life! At least all the other young "actors" and such were basically amateurs who didn't know any better. Okay, there's Kristine DeBell, but she never really made it. She had 5th billing in Meatballs - her career peak. And yes, Johnny Whitaker was Tom Sawyer in Tom Sawyer - but that was a long time ago. Desperation is no excuse, and you're certainly not "back in" by accepting a role in A Talking Cat!?! I wouldn't have accepted a role in A Talking Cat!?! and I'd love to be in a movie. Anyway, everyone in it was terrible.

Now, lets talk about the talking cat effects. Not only does the cheap effect look embarrassingly bad - it doesn't even manage to happen over the cat's mouth half of the time. This opening and closing black hole - I could have done better with features effects that come with any video editing software, and that's obviously where it came from! It's not the cheapness though, it's the laziness. It doesn't even match the syllables of what the cat's saying - his "mouth" just opens and closes rhythmically. We've got a drunk Eric Roberts, and a cheap Adobe effect which is supposed to make it look like the cat is talking. What it all says to me is "we don't care - we just want to wrap this up and sell it." Oh, and talking about "wrapping up" - the injured Duffy effect, which is a small piece of bandage sitting on the cat. That was obviously some kind of joke - and it feels like a joke on us instead of for us.

Well, as you've probably noticed, I haven't gone into the story - I mean, this film has a cat who talks to us via narration and can talk to the characters in the film but one time only. That's the "rule" - as Duffy tells us. So he helps them with their love lives and careers by telling them what to do, but once he's talked to a character - that's it. There are six characters, and the cat - which is voiced by Roberts and played by Squeaky (cute) - Phil (Johnny Whitaker) and his son Chris, who starts tutoring Frannie - but he's shy and awkward. In a house down the road, there's Susan (Kristine DeBell), her daughter Tina and her son Trent. Phil and Susan start some kind of awkward romance, Tina designs an app with Phil's help and Trent doesn't do much in the film but bounce around and swim. Duffy helps everyone along the way. That's it - your 85 minutes in a nutshell.

The only good thing I got from the film was a chance to ogle Phil's house, which I thought had a cool design - it was one I'd like to try out living-wise. It was obviously a real house - perhaps David DeCoteau's - but the sound of people talking in it should have been redubbed, because the echoing was a real problem with the sound recorded live (without professional equipment, it sounded like.) Meanwhile Squeaky (cute) looked very much overfed, and I'm afraid that's going to cause complications later in the cat's life, if he or she is not put on a diet. Of course, it might have just been a pregnant cat - but to me it just looked like a performing cat that had been fed so many treats that it's weight has ballooned out. What can I say about the rest of the movie? It's terrible. It's one of the worst I've ever seen. I've seen worse acting, but only in other "worst of the worst" films. The score was basically musak, the kind you'd hear in a big department store or elevator - it's credited to Harry Manfredini's Big Score Music, which sounds like stock music.

Overall, the feel of A Talking Cat!?! is that it's a movie made by experienced idiots. This wasn't someone's one-time mistake, but an entry from David DeCoteau and cohorts - who make a new movie roughly every week, very roughly and without care and attention. There's no love in what they do - they simply don't care. They're earning a living from this. A Talking Cat!?! is notorious as being one of their worst, but that doesn't mean there haven't been spin-offs. A Talking Pony!?! was made the same year. The title My Stepbrother Is a Vampire!?! shows how much they like that peculiar punctuation - and I think they might have thought it a possible trademark. Not of quality though. I can tell you something - if Edward D. Wood Jnr. were alive today, he'd make hundreds of films, instead of the few classics we got. From DeCoteau, the world seems to have taken A Talking Cat!?! as emblematic of his work as a whole. I couldn't think of a more deserving example.

1

* I haven't seen 175 of them, so it's just a hunch

[KeyserCorleone]

Thanks for telling me about A Talking Pony. Now I got another crap DeCoteau movie to trash talk.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/htFZTFL6/loqueesha.jpg

Loqueesha - 2019

Directed by Jeremy Saville

Written by Jeremy Saville

Starring Jeremy Saville, Dwayne Perkins & Mara Hall


So here we have it. The Misty Green Sky and now Loqueesha - two pieces of evidence which illuminate the fact that Amazon Prime will stream anything. In Loqueesha we get to watch Jeremy Saville commit career seppuku by writing, directing and starring in a film that is so racist and misogynistic that it's trailer will transform those who watch it into shocked silence. Just to help it along in it's quest to be the worst film ever made, it manages to be awful in so many other ways - in a visual and auditory sense, and in a writing and acting sense. This movie is coming from a "just telling it like it is" place, but unfortunately, the place Jeremy Saville is at happens to be a deluded place - one where white men are slaves to a politically correct society where reverse racism has makes life impossible to navigate with ease. It's also a society where, if a guy lies and cheats to his girlfriend, it's her fault for "enabling" him with dastardly trust.

Joe (Jeremy Saville) is a bartender with a knack for giving great advice. I have to interrupt the flow of this plot description though - because we never really hear him give really outstanding advice, despite other characters in the film listening on with awe and gratitude when he pretty much insults them with his "truth dealing" pieces of guidance. When one woman enters his bar, he first tells her to shut up, calls her an idiot and then - without any background - goes on to tell her it's her fault that her cheating and lying boyfriend is doing wrong by her. What can you expect if you trust him all the time! It's her fault because she's let it happen, instead of lifting her game and preemptively stopping it. Instead of getting angry with him, she reacts as if she's just heard something brilliant and tries to pay him cash for the incredible "advice" he has just given her. Another man at the bar declares, "Game, set and match!" as if he's heard a zinger. This leads the woman to suggest he get a job as a radio talkback host - but of course they only want women and minorities, making it impossible for him to get the job. Joe then invents the 'Loqueesha' personality - a sassy black woman, in the most outrageously stereotypical and offensive way. He hides the fact he's white by refusing to interact with anyone at the station when he goes on air.

This is possibly the most extreme example I've ever seen of 'in the script' reactions characters have to something that doesn't exist. This can either be compliments of good looks, where only ugliness prevails, or accolades about physical prowess, singing ability and so forth. Here, it's the 'advice' Joe gives. At no point in the entire film does he give anyone good advice, but what he does say needs to be absolutely brilliant - so people who listen to him smile and nod, or say out loud how incredible it is. Although this is radio and the year is 2019 (a sign that this is a middle-aged guy with no clue making the film) - Loqueesha becomes famous. So much so that Oprah Winfrey sends Joe an email asking Loqueesha appear on her show. Joe has someone to do personal appearances - a real black woman, who happens to be self-centered, non-too-bright and greedy - not to mention duplicitous and egotistical. There aren't really any decent female characters in the film - Joe's ex-wife is your typical nasty, self-indulgent and demanding lady who wants Joe to fork up over $10 thousand to sent their kid to a school for gifted kids (of course the little guy is gifted - Joe gave birth to him!) When the terrible truth gets out - do you think Joe is punished for his horrendous misdeed? Or do you think his advice and manner are so winning that everyone forgives him?

There are many moments that are sloppy. Obviously, in one scene, Joe and another character were talking about him getting an iPhone. How do I know that? Because awkwardly re-recorded audio is inserted into the conversation, so we hear Joe say "I got a *SMARTPHONE*" and the other character says "I thought you hated *SMARTPHONES*." It sounds like a computer is saying the word 'smartphone', with the insertions mistimed and not even sounding like the character who is talking. Legal troubles it seems. It adds an air of amateur folly to the whole proceedings. This cheapness bleeds into the visual effects as well, with one suicidal person calling into Loqueesha's show standing on an obviously green-screened bridge - the kind of green-screen that you or I would manage to cobble together with mid-priced video editing software. Everything looks cheap. Isn't it bad enough that we're talking about a film that perpetrates some of the most racist, stereotypical garbage we've seen in decades? A moment should also be taken to consider the fact that this was meant to be a comedy, and nothing even remotely funny happens. I never even smiled - and I at least did that once while watching Brendan Schaub's terrible comedy hour.

Well - it's hard to smile while watching Saville make heaps of money doing an absurd impression of a sassy black woman. He was at least partially aware he'd be seen as racist, which is why he cast a black man as his closest partner in the film, and why the black woman at the start becomes his fan and eventually girlfriend. How on Earth can Joe be racist when he's got a black friend and black girlfriend? Unfortunately, this guy doesn't realise that this is easily identifiable as one of those "How can I?" gambits - "How can I be racist when I have a black friend?" It stands out a mile. It's much like the fact that misogyny is impossible, because all of us men have a mother. "How can I by a misogynist when I love my Ma?" To me, the casting of black people in these roles just highlighted what was going on even more. It's so painfully obvious that he decided to make these two characters black to deflect the flak that was going to come his way. What Jeremy Saville probably didn't expect was for the entire world to despise his movie. Even if he was aiming this solely at racists - he can't hide the fact that his film is terrible regardless.

I hated this movie so much. I hated watching it. I hate Jeremy Saville - and although I agree that hate is a bad thing, in Jeremy Saville's case I'll make an exception. This guy should never go near a camera again, and should quit the entertainment business entirely. He should admit to himself that he made a massive mistake - and that his "telling it like it is" is in fact "telling it the way Jeremy sees it". He should admit that white men have a pretty cushy ride through life, and that they're not exactly discriminated against when you look at the world as a whole. He should admit that "equal opportunity" situations are only trying to redress a gross imbalance, and that despite this it's still easier for white men to find work - and get paid more than women. He should apologize for making a movie that is deeply offensive, to all of us. What were you thinking?? Are you insane Jeremy? Was making Loqueesha some kind of psychotic episode?

For anyone who wants an eloquent, amusing and very well-written take on Loqueesha - I advise them to read Nathan Rabin's excellent article - "Loqueesha is Somehow MUCH Worse Than It Looks" (https://www.nathanrabin.com/happy-place/2019/6/3/birth-of-a-soul-sister-case-file-127my-year-of-flops-ii-24-loqueesha), which was written only a couple of months ago. It's great reading. Unfortunately, Loqueesha is not great viewing. It was a horror to watch - and surely one of the absolute worst movies ever made.

0.5

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.tmdb.org%2Ft%2Fp%2Foriginal%2FuGNgQU1ivPQRWQ1OdCTZoLaGwTb.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=5d9577bc39af39a9956461c3f559202bb4db63b7ee5d1ab161f20d116b846121&ipo=images

You'd Be Surprised, 2019

In this stand-up special, Brendan Schaub shares jokes and stories about his MMA career.

So this was . . . fine?

Don't get me wrong, this is not a good stand up special. But I spent many years working with a comedy troupe and also know two pretty good stand-up comedians. To me, the worst kind of comedy comes from a place of punching down. What I see as I watch Schaub in this special is someone who honest to goodness doesn't totally understand what makes comedy work and barely takes advantage of the fact that he has a unique experience to draw on for his material. There are even hints of something that could have been really strong.

When you compare this movie to something like Loqueesha, at least here you have someone who is willing to be vulnerable. When Schaub talks about how he can't let anyone see him cry after he loses a fight because he knows he will be memed to death, that's a strong experience to build from.

Unfortunately, this special feels like a series of missed opportunities. Again, this feels like someone who just doesn't get how comedy works. For example, at one point he name drops a show runner, saying "He's the best. Okay, he got fired. He's not the best, but he's the best." Why was this guy fired? Why is he the best? Schaub is even onto something when he talks about the difference between the pre-fight locker room atmosphere and the post-fight locker room atmosphere, noting that they turn off the music, turn off the heat, and for some reason take away all of the special Gatorade. But he doesn't have the skill--or the writing help--to make anything of this.

There's also an overreliance on well-worn stand up tropes, like making gay jokes or doing an "Asian voice". Stand up isn't so much about a story as it is what you do with that story, how you turn it sideways and look at it from a different point of view. Schaub tells way to many of his "jokes" just as stories in the way that you'd tell a story to a group of friends. There are natural laughing points, yes, but not at a performance level. There's just a complete lack of craft here.

It's also kind of telling that Schaub only really mentions three women in like the whole special. There's aunt Linda who's a "b*tch", a woman with large breasts at one of his fights, and his ex-girlfriend. A chance to think about how his ex-girlfriend would feel watching him get throttled in a fight is a glaring missed opportunity in the last part of the special. On the flip side, he name drops a ton of guys like Joe Rogan and a bunch of other dudes I didn't recognize but who got whoops and claps from the audience.

I honestly think Schaub could be a decent stand up if he worked on his craft, leaned less on name-dropping, and leveraged his unique life experiences. I saw hope in his line about how he wouldn't kill a deer because "I like their little noses". He could get there, but he's definitely only got one foot on the road. I also have to say again that I appreciated that this comedy is for the most part not mean or cruel, just dumb, and while his treatment of women is pretty superficial, it doesn't feel misogynist like a lot of other comedians. Likewise his comments about race and even sexuality seem more ignorant and self-centered than malicious.

2

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/ZYH8Db7V/carnival-ofsol.jpg

Carnival of Souls - 1998

Directed by Adam Grossman

Written by Adam Grossman
Based on a story by John Clifford

Starring Bobbie Phillips, Larry Miller & Shawnee Smith

From the six titles remaining I chose one that I thought I might possibly like - or would at least not be so tear-inducingly awful as such hateful garbage as Loqueesha or $2 shop cheap as A Talking Cat!?! This film, Carnival of Souls boasted recognizable names. Obviously, being the executive producer doesn't mean much, so Wes Craven's name being used feels like a cheap name-drop - but this film features Larry Miller as it's villain, and has Shawnee Smith in a supporting role. It's a remake of an established, classic film - so story-wise, I thought I was covered. It appeared to be a horror film - so surely it would entertain on some level. I tried to be so open minded that I was willing myself in naivete - because I didn't know if I had another bottom-of-the-barrel watch in me. Well, Carnival of Souls is a pretty bad film that I couldn't pretend to like. It's the broken dream of a filmmaker who was no good, and on his last chance. It features, as it's lead, an actress who can't really act - or at least glumly refuses to in this.

Writer/director Adam Grossman seems to have recently watched Jacob's Ladder before making this version of Carnival of Souls, because this borrows particularly heavily from that film. Unlike Jacob's Ladder though, we're in on the fact that main character Alex Grant (Bobbie Phillips) is in some kind of dream state, and is either sleeping, dying or dead. She shifts and drifts from one hallucination to another, constantly mistaking each surreal transition and situation for reality. When you're watching the film, you'll notice that this all starts when she drives her car into a river while being held under duress by a nemesis - Louis Seagram (Larry Miller), a man who murdered her mother and abused her - a man who she testified against, sending him to prison for 20 years. Alex is now an adult, and Louis has been released, so when she's held by knifepoint she refuses to let him do what he wants with her. For the rest of the film she's accosted by cenobite-like monsters, nightmare-like occurrences and she drifts from bizarre situation to bizarre situation, often ending up in places like a fairground or the bar she works at. Louis shows up constantly - psychologically torturing her.

Bobbie Phillips is lifeless and terrible in this film - we get absolutely nothing from her, and so she's dreary to watch. Larry Miller injects a little life in proceedings, and is a suitably slimy and disagreeable villain - but he never quite convinced me that the performance was genuine. I was never watching a character, and was always cognizant that I was watching Larry Miller play somebody evil. Shawnee Smith is fine, and therefore seems out of place in this film. Occasionally, familiar nightmare-like moments lifted the tepid mood, but there's a cheap feel to everything, and I don't think Adam Grossman was a good enough director to inject real energy into the scenes as they play out. This would be his last directorial role of any kind - having only directed the straight-to-video release Sometimes They Come Back Again, which was a sequel to Sometimes They Come Back - based on a short story by Stephen King. Grossman would write the screenplay for Sometimes They Come Back For More before falling off the map completely, failing to make it in movies or television.

Carnival of Souls looks really cheap - but cinematographer Christopher Baffa was a pro, and was director of photography on one film I like - Suicide Kings. He hasn't had a huge career, but he's kept working, filming episodes of American Horror Story and dividing his time between television and film. I can't say that the impression of the film's score was a good one, being something that I'd expect from an episode of Freddy's Nightmares rather than a theatrical film. Composer Andrew Rose has a sparse filmography, and not one that's going to impress on a resume. There are even a few transitions that don't work out too well, though it's tough to blame editor David Handman (Jason Goes to Hell : The Final Friday and Jason X) if he hasn't been given footage to seamlessly blend all of these transitions together. The film had a good art director in Erin Cochran and an Emmy Award-winning production designer in Aaron Osborne, who often pairs up with Cochran - though they were both just getting established, and had yet to work on big films like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Keanu.

I believe that most of the blame for this iteration of Carnival of Souls being as bad as it is - derivative and dull - basically goes to Adam Grossman. He's the weak link, he was the writer and he was the director. He was working with a decent crew and aside from his lead had a few talented actors ready to do his bidding. His Sometimes They Come Back Again is regarded as a bad film, and this subsequent one killed his career for good. The entire story is one long gimmick that never ends - so there's not really much plot to speak of, only an endless series of dreams, one after the other. When the one character who dominates the film is disappointingly dull and flat, even freaky dreams can't lift this into an even remotely interesting place to take it all in. It all familiarly feels like one of those horror anthology television shows, except instead of 20 minutes, it lasts over an hour longer - far too long to sustain what it's trying to do. Even 20 minutes of this would have started to grind a little. The monsters look a little silly, and made me laugh once or twice. I can't emphasize enough how much I disliked Bobbie Phillips' performance.

Someone who loved the original 1962 Carnival of Souls, hoping that this would deliver even half of what that film did would have been deeply disappointed in this film. Even angry. Knowing how bad it was going to be, I didn't mind watching it too much. Unlike Wild 90 it at least continually throws things at us in an attempt to be edgy and frightening. Unlike The Misty Green Sky, it had a budget. Unlike Loqueesha, it wasn't overbearingly offensive and exhausting. It was pretty bad though, and not up to theatrical standard. I've seen plenty of stuff like this on television, which often sinks to low standards when trying to bring off high concept ideas in the horror genre. I'm not saying that there was anything brilliant or visionary about this film's narrative, but Grossman's ideas couldn't fully be realised in respect to what he was trying to do - as humble as it was. He seems to have lacked talent as well as experience, and was in way over his head - and when he has nightmares, chances are they're about the reception this film got after turning out the way it did.

1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

Carnival of Souls

I admitted in my review of the original that Carnival of Souls deserved a remake, and this certainly tried to be the one it deserved. The whole movie was about surrealism building up to shock-scares before you realize that the whole scenario is back at some past scene, which means the movie can't get its hallucinations and surreal behavior straight. If it had another director behind the wheel it could've had some organization. In the end, these hallucinations have very little impact. On top of that, no one in the cast is fully convincing. I admit, however, that I liked the subplot in which Alex was aware that she "may have been going crazy," and that addressing the possibility helped her stay straightforward, but that's really the only thing I liked about the movie. Its attempts at subplots were kinda generic and under-realized. Watchable, but still undercooked.

rating_1

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/L6XQmXNz/bane-08.jpg

Bane - 2008

Directed by James Eaves

Written by James Eaves

Starring Tina Barnes, Jonathan Sidgwick & Sophia Dawnay

A group of women find themselves being held captive in some kind of research facility - they've all lost their memory, but are kept under close surveillance and are questioned and tested by people who are seemingly doctors. If they answer simple questions, they are in turn allowed to ask questions of their own - but as time goes by these ladies start dying one by one, victims of what looks to be a crazed doctor with a large knife. Before each murder, they have the exact time of their own demise cut into their flesh when they're asleep or unconscious. What's going on? This extremely low budget sci-fi thriller does end up giving us answers to that question - but the answers are very silly. I don't want to overstate how silly this film's reveal is, but at the same time, it's pretty hard to overstate it. It's the kind of revelation that gets you to lean back in your seat, look at the ceiling and just mutter "Wow."

We've got all the problems a micro-budget film has - bad acting, a very cheap setting (think, fences and sheets), poor make-up effects and a cut-rate, juvenile screenplay. It also goes for a bone-shattering, sanity-testing 107 minutes - and it could easily have gone for, say, 77 minutes. There was absolutely no reason to stretch this nonsense to the extreme lengths it was stretched - unless the filmmakers wanted us to be tortured just as these girls were being tortured. Anyway, as a change I'm going to list all of the films writer/director James Eaves has made, and their respective ratings on the IMDb :

2001 - Sanitarium - 86m -- 2.7/10 from 317 votes
2002 - Alice - 85m -- 6.2 from 24 votes
2004 - Hellbreeder - 85m -- 2.1/10 from 572 votes
2006 - The Witches Hammer - 91m -- 3.1/10 from 353 votes
2008 - Bane - 107m -- 3.3/10 from 594 votes
Segments from 3 'Anthology' films which are rated 3.3/10, 3.4/10 and 2.7/10 respectively
2016 - Neighbors From Hell - 90m -- Falls short of the 5 votes needed to have any rating at all
2018 - 60 Seconds to Die - 94m -- 3.2/10 from 182 votes
2021 - You Might Get Lost - 94m -- 4.9/10 from 412 votes

You might think from that, "Hey, Eaves has taken a long time doing it, but he's getting better" from that last You Might Get Lost rating, but if you look at the reviews they all seem to have been cut and pasted from different films, and all give unlikely high ratings of 8/10 and 9/10. It seems that something fishy has been going on, and that 50 or so votes from whatever source are erroneous. The film looks terrible - not even up to 4.9/10 standard. It seems that this James Eaves has been making some of the worst horror films going around for the past 20 years - and is unlikely to stop. It would be interesting to know how much he makes from them - along with all the other people out there making these extremely low budget movies. I have a personal connection to one filmmaker, but I'm careful about discussing his movies in case he ever sees fit to read what I'm writing. In any case, his movies get more ratings and better ratings than Eaves does.

I could talk about this film's most interesting feature - that reveal at the end, but I'll leave that surprise for people who actually watch the film. I could try to poke fun at it - but it's such a large and easy target and I've found that it's sometimes hard to make fun of something that's fundamentally ridiculous to start with. In the meantime, I hope you love bad actresses screaming and crying, because you're about to endure 100 minutes of it watching Bane, with little let-up and only brief glimpses of anything other than fences and sheets. The only horror to be gleaned from this film is the fact that James Eaves is still out there, making movies. Kind of makes you shiver a little, the idea of that...

1

[ueno_station54]

oh right, i have to start watching these movies again...

https://i.servimg.com/u/f58/15/53/53/54/tm/lzogen15.jpg
The Legend of the Titanic (Kim J. Ok & Orlando Corradi, 1999)

While not a good movie by any means this has some low-budget charms that work for me and some fun ideas here and there. I don't know what to call whatever that zoom in the opening shot is but I was stoked for more cheapo effects like that, and there is some, but I wanted more dammit! Obviously I loved all the 3D animated shots, also wanted more of that lol. The terrible audio recording is also a plus for me, love all the hiss and feedback to it especially during eyepatch villain's lines. This stuff is pretty fun but there's also some wild story ideas like the moonlight bouncing off a woman's tears gives her the ability to talk to animals, but also the dolphins used there magic to also make that happen?? The Titanic actually sank because a giant octopus was tricked into throwing an iceberg at it?? a lot of dumb stuff in this film that I'm here for but like, the bulk of it is still pretty boring. The whaling rights scheme, the love triangle, whatever other plotlines were going on, none of its good and takes up most of the runtime which even as short as it is still feels a little long.

2

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/ZqXTgn3G/incredible.jpg

The Incredible Petrified World - (1959)

Directed by Jerry Warren

Written by John W. Steiner

Starring John Carradine, Robert Clarke & Phyllis Coates

We're in an oxygenated cave below the surface of the ocean. Two women bicker. "You just listen to me, Miss Innocent. There's nothing friendly between two females. There never was. There never will be," says Dale (Phyllis Coates) - always described in this film as a "lady reporter" instead of just "reporter". It seems that being a female reporter is so bizarre and incongruous that the film needs to add to the description to concede that, as incredible as it is, the film realises it and is aware of the fact. Yes, this is the kind of movie when a female character will be reduced to hysterics and have the need to have it slapped out of her. She's talking to Lauri (Sheila Noonan) in this scene, as the two sit in a cave, useless to everybody just by the very fact they're women, as the men go and explore. When Lauri tells her that she's sorry she feels that way, Dale feels the need to add, "You don't need help - neither do I. Not as long as we have two men around us." Coates played Lois Lane in the Adventures of Superman television series, along with the feature, Superman and the Mole-Men - strangely enough as a "lady reporter".

This is Jerry Warren's The Incredible Petrified World, a film that was barely released after spending years gathering dust on a shelf. Anyone familiar with Warren will know what to expect. He was never much of a storyteller, instead having a more blunt way of looking at cinema. Just get as much stock footage, scenes from foreign films, and original material as you can, dub it to at least try and explain what's going on, edit it together, and release it. Sewn together in much the same way Frankenstein's monster was, his science-fiction and horror films have had something of a revival in recent times. The zero cost of public domain films means they proliferate like garden pests. As far as his movie-making philosophy goes, Warren was in 'auteur' mode for this, his second directorial effort. His later efforts would be lazier and more incompetent - preferring to swipe footage from Superman and the Mole-Men (somewhat coincidentally, although he did have a personal relationship with Coates) in an ill-fitting attempt to pad one feature out.

The Incredible Petrified World's big selling point was star John Carradine, and to be fair to Warren he actually features here, with footage shot for this film. Carradine would appear in other Jerry Warren films, which is perhaps the most bizarre fact we'll come across related to all of this. 'The Voice' was certainly prolific, and I could well imagine most of the film's budget making it's way into Carradine's pocket for one or two days worth of shooting. It's simple economics - someone of that stature placates nervous movie-going people. The fact that Carradine is in the film must mean it at least offers something, right? A star's name is worth all the sets, camera-hire, make-up and sound put together. It speaks volumes however, that in spite of all this Warren couldn't see fit to actually release this film after everything was finally done. Instead Petrified World snuck in with Warren's Teenage Zombies on a double-bill years later. You'd be hard pressed to find any contemporary reviews - it nearly doesn't exist at all.

The plot is full of potential. An expedition exploring the ocean deep in a diving bell - further and deeper than any before it - encounters calamity when the cable lowering it suddenly breaks. Considered 'lost at sea', the four members of this exploratory dive must survive long enough in hope of eventual rescue. I could imagine the lights getting lower, oxygen getting scarcer and frightening dents and bangs as the pressure outside starts to crush the elaborate diving bell they were lowered down in. Instead of this, the plot of The Incredible Petrified World goes in a very strange direction. After the break in the cable, the diving bell hits what our explorers think is an uncharted sea shelf - one where the pressure outside is perfectly fine for diving, and light still plentiful. As the two men explore outside, they discover an elaborate series of caves that provide fresh water, abundant sea-food and excellent oxygen. It's these caves that provide the bulk of the film's setting - Colossal Cave in Arizona providing an excellently cheap location for filming what we thought was going to be a deep-sea epic. Petrified World is an addition to the ever-expanding genre we know as the "Unexpected Cave Movie".

Fans of Warren's specific style of filmmaking can see the genesis of his later work. Petrified World's scant 67 minute running time is padded out with around 10 minutes of stock footage - 6 of which include the credits over a heaving sea and what many people think of as the best part of the whole movie : a battle between shark and octopus as a narrator informs us that for all we know, the ocean deep might actually be teeming with squid. It's a mystery. Anything might be down there. A honey-comb, oxygen-rich series of caves even. When our four explorers have walked around Colossal Cave for a length of time that really tests our patience, they're confronted with, of all things, a lizard. Mismatching stock footage of some bored lizard at a zoo tells us that this is what has caused the characters to stop and point. It bothers them, but doesn't really make much of an impression. It's moments like this that actually make The Incredible Petrified World enjoyable for a moment. But those moments are brief and buried under an ocean of exposition and scenes of people walking around in caves. Despite all of it's flaws, the film goes out of it's way to try and explain away plot-holes and inconsistencies. The reason there's light (very bright light) is due to the phosphorous glow of the rocks. The reason they're lost is due to the iron messing with their compass. The reason there is air is due to volcanic vents. But Warren overestimated just how much we'd care - and these discussions are dull interludes on the way to nowhere.

If the aforementioned lizard is one of the monsters we're promised in this film, then the next monster is our character's true nemesis. This 'main monster' is distinctly human - and provides the film with a 'the-real-monsters-are-us' theme which I'm fairly sure was unintended. He is described as 'Ingol - the Old Man in the Cave'. Ingol (sporting a fake beard - fake beards being something all of our technology and advancement is yet to get right, and to this day they're easily spotted) is another lost person. He's been wandering around these caves for over a decade, has a home replete with sea-shell hanging decorations and has also, disturbingly, killed his companion some time ago for no really good reason. Ingol has sex on his mind when our intrepid explorers stumble across him (who wouldn't?), and decides Dale is pretty much as good as he's going to get. When he suggests to Dale that they just kill the others and get it on, Dale is somewhat reluctant to go down that path, but she has to wait for the men, and a fortunate volcanic eruption, to come and help her out - even though Ingol tries to sweet-talk her by telling her he might just have to kill her and take the second-best lady if she's going to be so disagreeable.

At times the scenes inside the caves are grossly over-lit or under-lit, not that this was going to make or break the entire film. The scenes involving John Carradine, as Professor Millard Wyman, are the most competent, and involve at least a scant sense of drama. It's Millard that pretty much gives them all up for dead when the cable breaks - but despite this he's willing to fly around the world getting another expedition on the way - especially after being informed that there are things swimming around down there. This is all as confusing to them as it is for us. Considering that our explorers are in water shallow enough to allow excellent daylight vision, you'd kind of wonder why they don't just swim upwards instead of messing around with caves. You can't really nitpick The Incredible Petrified World though - you just go with it. There is no sense of time or location. It feels like our four intrepid expllorers are down there for hours, but it must be many days, if not weeks. They can't swim up, because they can't, and that's all.

Rounding off a look at a motion picture like this is the bevy of rumours that are most likely not to be true - the favourite of which seems to involve Phyllis Coates being an ex-girlfriend of Jerry Warren - who never ended up getting paid for her work. It's said that she agreed to star in it only on the condition the film not be shown in California. The film was indeed shown in California, and Coates was reportedly shown the door at Columbia for having the nerve to appear in such a shoddy movie. I'm not convinced though. It seems to me that Petrified World had such a small release as to pass by unnoticed - but it's just inside the realms of possibility that the suits at Columbia took note of every movie released in every drive-in and who was involved in them. Another rumour involves the film's cinematographer being a regular 'big picture' director of photography who hid his involvement. Victor Fisher does have other credits - so take that with a pinch of salt. Finally, there is the story of a monster costume so shoddy that even Warren refused to use it for the film.

Jerry Warren would go on to make the "lawsuit headache" film The Wild World of Batwoman in 1966, definitely the film he will be most fondly remembered for. Batwoman is so strange and indecipherable you'd have to seriously consider the fact that there was something fundamentally wrong with Jerry to begin with. The Incredible Petrified World makes more sense, in a relative way, but is a film that can't seriously be recommended to anyone other than the incurably curious.

0.5

[ueno_station54]

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-63sdaeIH0OM/WPgcYW1K7YI/AAAAAAAAD4g/_bWOjHI7UcIUq1st59BifThWUZ-VZlN4gCLcB/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2017-04-19%2Bat%2B9.25.50%2BPM.png
Titanic: The Legend Goes On (Camillo Teti, 2000)

So we have one of those cases of a film that has multiple cuts here, an uncut 82 minute version and a heavily edited 58 minute cut that has 12 minutes of credits to hit an acceptable runtime. Now, it likely would have been much more fair to the film to go with the original cut but I obviously went with the edited version because a) much shorter and b) the changes sounded insane. An altered plot, scenes out of order, different songs, reused shots, sounded like it could have been a complete mess in the fun way. Its not, but the potential was there. The only kind of fun things are the scenes they stretch the length of by adding frames, the "what happened to" type ending for all these characters we're barely, if at all introduced to and just the general incoherence of it. Also, this one has 3D animated exterior boat shots too which I appreciate but are less fun than the one's in the previous film and boy that rapping dog scene certainly happened. Unfortunately, much like the other Titanic movie these fun little aspects are far, far outweighed by just like, a lot of nothing but even moreso this time around.
1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

Heartbreak High

What we have here is a high school sports movie aimlessly wandering about the personal and sexual lives of two football teams before the final game of the season. This movie explores several one-sided characters, including an aggressive but skillful coach who has a longstanding relationship with a pair of underpants, his rival who likes to make football puns during sex, a girl who wants to abstain herself from sexual relations and a bunch of high school football jocks messing around with a bunch of high school girls who suggest strip poker to pass the time.

Does this movie really add anything to the sports movie catalog? Nerp. It was a sorry and messy excuse of a movie that only made me chuckle once. Every freakin' character was a cardboard cutout of characters either from other sports movies or from children's cartoons. The character Pigger, who only speaks in pig grunts, is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in an adult film, and that sorry excuse of an idea belongs in some crap like the 2016 Ben 10. And these sex jokes and plot lines are so derivative that parts of me almost aches just watching it. I found myself drifting onto hanging out on my phone constantly during the third act when the actual football game took place. The football action was so poorly filmed and dull compared to actual football games, and I'm a little bit of a football fan.

This is officially one of the worst sports movies I've ever seen. The only other one that's worse that I can think of right now is BR Futebol from Brazil, and that was a crappy CGI one. Everything about this movie is unjustifiable, save the potential charm a high school jock may get from going back to the gridiron glory days, much like high school films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High or Dazed and Confused except they did it so well that they probably deserve their cult status despite being a little overrated.

rating_0_5

[SpelingError]

I'm tempted to check a couple of these out.

[Allaby]

I'm tempted to check a couple of these out.

Do it!

[SpelingError]

Do it!

I'll probably wait for the results and then watch whichever movie wins this Hall. Well, it wouldn't really be a win, but you know what I mean :)

[ueno_station54]

https://i.imgur.com/HQucwf2.jpg
Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats (Mark Warren, 1981)

aka Heartbreak High, aka Crunch, this movie didn't get even one title that felt appropriate for it. Ignoring the awful title(s), the letterboxd description sounded appealing enough and the film starts pretty well too. The opening bit with the Hick Cup isn't like a good joke or anything but it sets the film up well enough then we get a pretty decent football montage with some fun little football stunts into a nice opening credits song. And then the film was never enjoyable again. A shame because this concept could be done so well (it probably has been at some point idk) but the writing is just consistently embarrassing. Jokes range from just not funny to outright cringe and just never manages to generate any charm. Pretty much spent the whole runtime just waiting for the football game (since the opening montage was basically the only good scene up to that point) and then that was fun for like 10 seconds and ran out of steam. Football isn't really the most exciting sport second-to-second and the film tries to pretend that it is by just showing play after play and ignoring all of the appealing aspects of the game. Like I get its just a dumb comedy but you could still build actual stakes for this game and lean into the tension and suspense that comes naturally to football. I could ignore this easily if the attempts at slapstick were even decent but nah, they couldn't do that either. Definitely a not good film all around but its mostly just kind of boring more than anything else.
2

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/pr70mfHH/leap-2.jpg

Leap : Rise of the Beast - 2011

Directed by Chris Tempel

Written by Chris Tempel

Starring Benjamin Baker & Alexander J. Bonds

So, as usual I guess I should start by saying that 99.99% of Christians are fine no matter how devoted they are to their religion, and there's only a very small minority who become not only fanatical, but needlessly twisted and contorted into awful people. Cherry-picking from the Bible, they stick their noses into people's private lives and try to control what everyone does to their satisfaction. Worse are the paranoid among them, who see people who aren't Christian as discriminating or conspiring against them. Despite the plight of Jews or Muslims, they see Christians as a group that's being persecuted - and the most mentally unbalanced believe in far-fetched tales of Satanic worshippers and conspiracies.

The first Leap film was kind of cute - it was such an amateurish attempt at movie-making that you couldn't really take it seriously, and it indeed looked like writer/director Chris Tempel wasn't too unaware of that. It's focus on parkour was interesting, although the parkour on display was anything but impressive, with kids swinging on railings and crawling on ledges. I'd do that as a kid, and it didn't look all that hard. In it, a couple of parkour nuts run into a bunch of hyper-Christians who become interested in learning the art of PK - and in doing so the male parkour trainer falls in love with religion (although it was quite apparent that he was already there - "Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" - "Of course! Everybody knows that." - dude, you were always a Christian) - making enemies with his then girlfriend, who kidnaps him and another Christian, holding them at gunpoint asking them if they believe in God. Those pesky atheists. Bigger things are afoot though, because an interest in the Book of Revelations reveals that the End of Times is near - the mark of the beast seemingly being a microchip that's to be implanted in people.

The usual peculiarities were on display. Atheists are portrayed as unhinged maniacs full of hatred and violence who really have it in for Christians. Tempel's view of an atheist's life is one full of horrifying violence, corruption, rape and greed. Without God, there's no need at all to hold back on anything - so all the atheists really have is a seething, obsessive loathing for Christians, and an intent to see them undone. On the other side of the coin, someone who has accepted our Lord Jesus Christ as their savior has a life that is good - everything finally makes sense. All of these factors come into play in the first Leap film, but in the second Tempel brings a sense of the bizarre and craziness that plays into an obvious bugbear of his - Catholicism. Even worst than atheists it seems, and in the end times the Pope and Vatican end up becoming the beast itself. It's with this that the Leap films lose their sense of fun, and become dour q-anon-like conspiracy rubbish.

I couldn't count all the times one of the girls in Leap : Rise of the Beast says "That makes sense!" just when the main PK guy has mumbled a bunch of incoherent rubbish. It usually goes something like this :

Tiresome PK kid : "So in Revelation it says that the beast's right hand will reap the ghosts of the past - and what's the acronym of right hand? RH. What is that also an acronym of? Rhubarb Holding. What do old ghosts do? They haunt and rue the fact they're no longer living. Rue - Haunt? RHUbarb HOlding? Right Hand? Holy Ghost? Vatican? Pope? The beast!"

Girl listening intently : "That makes sense!"

No, it never makes sense. It's always some convoluted interpretation that has been twisted and contorted to fit some preconceived notion. What's more tragic is that all the parkour and fun is nowhere to be seen. Mostly what we get in this second film is a bunch of people crammed into a room discussing conspiracy theories, while elsewhere the villains - some kind of new world government that is never very clearly defined, plot their capture. The kids start posting videos online and that means they're target number one, for people are watching their (somewhat convoluted) messages online and presumable learning "THE TRUTH" - no matter that the internet is crammed full of such conspiracy-minded videos. The whole narrative plays like some childish daydream. Chris Tempel has some growing up to do - there's more to life than this.

The powers that be hunt for the PK kids - and there's never a sense that any of it's important. This is really what the Book of Revelation was talking about? God's plan? A bunch of parkour kids and snotty agents chasing them? I thought it would have been something grander. This is where we get people thinking that vaccines are the mark of the beast, or that the government is just trying to control us. The Bible. Conspiracies. Q-Anon. Catholicism and the Vatican. Satanic worshippers and paedophiles. Democrats and Republicans. Parkour. Jesus. God. Every day these people let go of old theories and wholeheartedly embrace new ones with no sense of the irony. Can't they count the hundreds of conspiracies that amounted to nothing? How many failed theories until you realise that the world is more complex than a few acronyms, numbers and whispered secrets? How long before you realise that even if there is meaning to the Book of Revelations, your interpretation is guaranteed to be wrong? Conspiracy nuts - just go live your lives. You're not figuring anything out from your lounge chair - you're just doing mental doodles.

Leap : The Rise of the Beast is the most pathetic interpretation of the End Times I've ever witnessed. All of the painters who envisioned fire and fury would have been very dispirited to see that it all amounted to some power bars, a swing on a railing and some agent chasing some kids around some alleyways. Filmmaking-wise, this was better than the first Leap - but narratively it was so much poorer, and much less fun. Also, who needs green screens for brick walls and empty rooms? You guys couldn't find a real brick wall or empty room to film in? This movie is bizarre. It's so dull even the nutty extreme Christians couldn't find much good to say about it, and the sillier of those praised the first Leap film. There's hardly any parkour in it. At some point Tempel became more enamored with conspiracies, and less with the good old PK that was at least lively and pleasing. When the nuts start walking out of the theatre, you know that you should be getting back to Jesus and crawling on ledges.

0.5

[PHOENIX74]

LEAP: Rise of the Beast, 2011

...

But there also has to be a special note about the acting, which is flatter than a pancake. The bad guys repeatedly refer to the crew as a cult, and frankly their line deliveries make that accusation sound more real. Take the blonde actress's delivery of the line "Anything is possible with God," using a tone more appropriate to observing "It's cloudy outside." Or the strange lack of emotion as Shane relates the story of a child asking about the truth only to be forced underwater by a priest.



I forgot to mention the acting in my review, even though during my notetaking I went out of my way to remind myself that it was the "worst acting I've ever seen in my life" before writing "Bad Acting" in large letters and starting to doodle large exclamation marks after that to emphasise what had become something about the film to make a large impression on me. "Flatter than a pancake" describes it perfectly. Catatonic. Stolidly comatose. Vacantly deadpan. Numb in it's lack of expression. I never knew acting could get that bad.

[KeyserCorleone]

I forgot to mention the acting in my review, even though during my notetaking I went out of my way to remind myself that it was the "worst acting I've ever seen in my life" before writing "Bad Acting" in large letters and starting to doodle large exclamation marks after that to emphasise what had become something about the film to make a large impression on me. "Flatter than a pancake" describes it perfectly. Catatonic. Stolidly comatose. Vacantly deadpan. Numb in it's lack of expression. I never knew acting could get that bad.


The original Leap is still worse in every way, not that this one was a good movie either.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/C54McMwv/candy2.jpg

Candy - 1968

Directed by Christian Marquand

Written by Buck Henry
Based on a novel by Terry Southern & Mason Hoffenberg

Starring Ewa Aulin, Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, James Coburn, Ringo Starr
John Huston, Walter Matthau & John Astin

All of the big stars in Candy believed it to be the worst film they'd appeared in. In Marlon Brando's autobiography, 'Songs My Mother Taught Me', he said that "I was ridiculous in that picture, and everyone else in it was diminished by it." It was meant to be meaningful, side-swiped at being a sex farce, and achieved none of it's aims. Instead of being deep and consequential it was empty, facile and dumb. It played at being weighty and material by throwing images of galaxies and art at us while satirizing poets and artists - but there was nothing at all behind all of that aside from a kind of cynical "it's all about sex" fixation which repeats endlessly, driving the viewer into terminal boredom and despair. It was probably the most boring 124 minutes of film I've watched this year. Even Benny Hill would have probably found it a bit on the nose.

The film follows Candy (Ewa Aulin), who is inexplicably Swedish in the film, despite having American parents (Terry Southern's novel is about an "All American Girl" which makes the choice of actress for the main part all the more puzzling.) She's forced to leave her home and head to New York after being caught in bed with the gardener, Emmanuel (Ringo Starr) after bringing home famous poet MacPhisto (Richard Burton). On the way there, her father (played by John Astin) is injured, and Candy is forced to give sexual favours to Brigadier General Smight (Walter Matthau) in return for his help. Candy's Dad is later operated on by famous surgeon Dr. Abraham Krankheit (James Coburn) who also takes advantage of his patient's daughter. In fact, the film simply sorts through a conga-line of men who desperately want to have sex with Candy and coerce, fool or seduce her to see their aims to fruition. There's a hunchback played by Charles Aznavour, who takes her to a mansion after meeting her in Central Park, and there's a guru, Grindl, played by Marlon Brando.

Director Christian Marquand plays all of the seductions in Candy for their comic potential, but the humour is misplaced, and moments that are meant to be farcical and funny fail to meet their aims. From the very beginning, it's tiresome and more than a little awkward in it's foundering misfire-prone non-fulfillment. James Coburn once noted that "Unfortunately, the director's timing was off a European nature. The jokes were always a beat behind. They were often a beat off. When you do comedy, you've got to be fast." Or else he simply didn't have a good sense of what's funny. I find some filmmakers to be surprisingly immature and stunted - finding sex itself funny as perhaps an 11-year-old child might. Horny poets and gurus aren't by themselves funny at all, especially when they're trying to take advantage of teenage girls (Candy in this has just graduated high school.) Also, commenting on the fact that these people use their stature and esteem to try and get girls into bed isn't exactly going to blow people's minds. But what else is there to Candy?

Candy's psychedelic nature feels forced and insincere. The music from Dave Grusin (who would go on to win an Oscar for the music in The Milagro Beanfield War and be nominated another 7 times) tries to have a certain kind of edge to it - and he was certainly young enough to be part of the generation this film wanted to attract. He'd have been better off working on a different film. Candy also makes use of music from The Byrds and Steppenwolf, notably "Magic Carpet Ride" - all of which is too good for this. The director of photography was the notable Giuseppe Rotunno (once Oscar-nominated for All That Jazz) - he was still basically an Italian cinematographer at the time, taking charge because Candy was shot nearly entirely in Italy. All of it has the feel of people making an intellectual, psychedelic film without themselves really being into that kind of thing. Throw far-out, stoner pictures and music in there with everything else and try to fool everyone into thinking the film is working on a cosmic level.

A lot of the crew were young though, including Art Director Dean Tavoularis (a future Production Design Oscar winner for The Godfather Part II) and Set Decorator George R. Nelson (who would also win an Oscar for his work on The Godfather Part II.) The crew was sizeable, and very professional - all quality people. It's just the the project failed at the very top. There are stories of how Marlon Brando changed his part of the screenplay because he thought his scenes could be so much more funny (obviously that turned out to be a disaster) but overall, everything that happens tries too hard to be funny, and fails ever-so-miserably to be funny. I was surprised by how grotty and porno-like the action was - stopping short of full-on nudity, but only just. Stars would shuffle into the plot, letch onto Candy, seduce her in some uncomfortable manner, have sex with her and shuffle off. All the while, joke after joke fell flat.

Christian Marquand would only ever direct two films in his life - French film Les Grands Chemins in 1963 and this in 1968. It was a project that picked up momentum and more stars after Brando had signed on, and actually got a few favourable reviews at the time. It does have some status as a cult movie - but those who appeared in it loathed it, and I loathe it too. It's not interesting, aesthetically pleasing or mysterious. It's not funny, and even the considerable talent it has at it's disposal can't do anything but waste their time and ours. The best it can do is surprise people that it even exists. I mean - what a cast. Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, James Coburn, Walter Matthau...and cameos from the likes of Anita Pallenberg and Julian Beck? I wanted to like this even a little bit - for that might have eased the boredom. But no. It's simply an amazing collection of talent behind and in front of the screen being directed by some jerk who goes on to let it all go to waste.

1.5

[KeyserCorleone]

The Incredible Petrified World

I was hoping for an MST3K episode on this (I'm never distracted by joking through movies, as I do the same), but none existed. First, lemme just point out that this movie is guilty of every single "lost world" trope in the book. Before this move, the worst movie of this genre I had ever seen was Women of the Prehistoric Planet. But even that movie had a few little OK moments scattered around. This doesn't.

First: randomly discovering this world on an expedition, and where? Undah da See! Second: Bring a single smart woman aboard to fall in love with, and another female to confli8ct with her. Third: a bunch of scientists randomly theorizing as to why this world exists, although this is typically both a con and a pro since this generic trope also provides some decent dialogue and some things to think about. Such was the heart and soul of the novel Journey to the Center of the Earth. Fourth: Big rocky tunnels to get lost in and eventually stumble across number 5: a big lizard. Unfortunately, this lizard does not have the blessing of being oversized and/or animated through stop-motion.

Other problems include drawing out boring scenes such as swimming to the surface with no regard for making the water look beautiful or captivating, and in the end this mistake makes the water foggy. And there's also the lengthy intro giving us basic information on fish that LITERALLY EVERYBODY KNOWS! So is this a lost world adventure or an IMAX documentary for toddlers? And of course, where are ANY real monsters? There are none.

Our so-called "villain," a man who's been living in this unremarkable petrified world has no real threatening traits, and anything that he does as a villain was pretty much predicted upon seeing him. That is our level of originality.

This is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen, and an insult to the lost world genre that only has a few instances of OK dialogue. This should be avoided like the plague, and it's beyond me how this movie never made it to MST3K. I'm sorry, but as a big fan of the lost world genre, I would rather watch Loqueesha five times in a row than ever see this again.

rating_0

[KeyserCorleone]

Forgot to mention, I sent my ballot.

[PHOENIX74]

Forgot to mention, I sent my ballot.

Congratulations, you made it!

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/RCYwj60s/kinky.jpg

The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats - 1981

Directed by Mark Warren

Written by Bruce Calnan, Douglas Ditonto & Richard Sauer

Starring John Vernon, Norman Fell & Robert Forster

The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats is a kind of mix of teenage sex romp and sports movie - of the kind that proliferated in the 1980s. Sexploitation had found numerous outlets by the beginning of the decade, and the previous one was a high water mark for pornography, with the likes of Debbie Does Dallas and Behind the Green Door giving that genre the kind of respectability it hadn't seen before (and would never, seemingly, see again.) High school graduation or college sexual antics were boosted by Animal House in 1978 and Porkies in 1981 along with other films, which were usually misogynistic - and this film came out the same year Porkies did. Some of them are okay - crazy and goofy, but Pom Pom Pussycats gives us it's clearest view of how it sees the world when one of the guys in it says, "There are two things I take very seriously, football and women." It's a bad sound - if he'd even said "sex" it would have been better - the opposite sex not some kind of 'thing' on par with sports and cars. Sexism runs rampant in this.

Mixing football and sex was obviously inspired by Debbie Does Dallas, but it's very tame compared to some 1980s romps. Also, the comedy comes across as fairly vague and ineffectual. Some comedies lay it on thick, and you get to see jokes rise and fall - but in Pussycats you can barely tell what parts are meant to be funny. The fat and nerdy Weasel Wexler (Paul Backewich - one of the IMDb's one-credit wonders) is obviously meant to be comedic, but nothing that he says nor anything that happens to him is funny, and the way he behaves is neither outrageous nor constrained enough to make an impression. "Acting a little funny" in one of these films isn't enough, so when Wexler whines a little or is somewhat bullied it barely registers in an audiences mind. Neither the screenwriters (Bruce Calnan - his sole writing credit, Douglas Ditonto - his sole credit and Richard Sauer - his sole credit) nor the actors know what to do, and as a result the run-time of this 'comedy' just trundles by with the occasional weak attempt at something funny. Norman Fell looks positively pained by what he has to say - unable to squeeze in anything except his below-par banter.

Belushi's Blutarsky in Animal House very obviously inspired "Pigger" Peterson (Terry Swiednicki - another one-credit wonder) - but this version just annoyed me with his disgusting grunting, and shameless copy-cat antics. This is the kind of movie that uses the word "jugs" - something that never made me laugh before, but now does because it's both quaint and inappropriate. It's also another film where the kids are meant to be graduating high school but all look around 30-years-old. It's probably a bit of an embarrassment for Robert Forster, who is the "kinky coach" the film's title alludes to - he excitedly (and I mean excitedly) mixes sex and football when he does it with what I thought was his wife, but might be another teacher or someone else. It wasn't quite clear to me, and this female character only makes an appearance in his sex scene (under the covers - Forster wasn't getting nude for this.) How they got Forster, John Vernon and Norman Fell for this film I'll never know - it's not up to the standards of a film featuring well-known actors.

And then there's the football game. It starts a full 30 minutes before the film's end. That's right. This game goes on for almost as long as a proper game of football does. I ended up writing "They mistook how much we'd want to see the football game" in my notes. But to tell you the truth, it was probably the best part of the film - at least something was happening. Late in the film, when there's a disputed field goal, Weasel Wexler's video tape of the game is replayed. Do we see a video tape of the game played back? No, we see an edited close up of the ball, wide shot and different angles all put together like a movie. It's incredibly stupid - we're meant to think a filmed and edited playback is some kid's video tape. It wasn't done in jest - it was just lazy. Fell plays a journalist, and has maybe one half-decent line. Vernon plays the opposition coach - who becomes obsessed with his lucky underpants to the point where he shoehorns their disappearance into his inspirational speech. Nobody comes out of this unscathed.

So, if most of the actors had never had a role before, and never worked again, plus the fact that all three screenwriters have this as their sole, life-long credit - what of the others who made this film? Director Mark Warren had a career in Canadian television from 1977 to 1992 (with a six-year hiatus near the end.) He only ever directed one other feature film, which also came out in 1981 - Tulips, featuring Bernadette Peters and Henry Gibson. It was produced by the Canadian Film Development Corporation and was co-directed with two others. Musically speaking, Pom Pom Pussycats is one of only two films Richard Cooper was ever involved with. Cinematographer François Protat has 70 credits to his name, including Tulips and also the more well-known (at least to me) Johnny Mnemonic (a 90s Keanu Reeves film) and the very overrated Weekend at Bernies. He won awards for Joshua Then and Now (1985) and Kabloonak (1994) - two of his better films. Meatballs editor Debra Karen put the film together.

We're obviously let down by the writers and actors here, but the editing was also very bad in places (though I can't rule out the possibility it was censored) and overall this was a very sub-par film. Most of the funny stuff fails - but there isn't even enough funny stuff to fill out a 90-odd minute film, even if every joke had of been hilarious. When 100 or so drunk and rowdy men charge two defenseless, practically naked girls I didn't laugh - I was scared for them. This film isn't even an interesting failure. Take 1983 video arcade-related sex comedy Joysticks. It's terrible - but it's so bad that it's kind of fun, and interesting to pull apart. The Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats is a bland, dispiriting failure - it doesn't do much. Even it's sexist attitudes and misplaced humour is mediocre and not worth discussing. If there had of only been one copy of it, and it had of been accidentally erased, the world wouldn't have lost anything at all. Most of the actors and all of the writers must have found that show business wasn't for them, and went on to other careers. Perhaps once a year, Weasel Wexler actor Paul Backewich puts it on to amuse his grandkids with. Grandpa was once in a movie. A bad movie. A really bad movie.

1.5

[Siddon]

Leap Rise of the Beast (2011)

I for one never heard of this Jesus guy so thinking for myself and reading this book really helped me. i kid i kid...But yeah this is a bad film but I was laughing the entire time. I love when these low budget films can only cast people that are the same age. Everything about this film is cheap student level, the dialogue was littered with cliches to the point that I was frankly impressed that god allowed them to do it. I also appreciated how you had a group of nonsense characters constantly showing up and leaving all of which trying to be the cool hip young preacher sort. This one was so over the top I couldn't even hate it I just was laughing the whole time.

[PHOENIX74]

Getting towards the deadline, and 3 participants are yet to finish - two of them a fair way off.

ueno_station54 - 3 films to go
Siddon - 9 films to go
TheUsualSuspect - 10 films to go

I really get that going through these cinematic horrors is a pretty tough job. I'm willing to extend the deadline to a significant extent if people need more time. I'm especially hoping Siddon and TheUsualSuspect hang in there, because two of their nominations are so worthy of winning this.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm off work until the 9th of January. I will have these done before then. Life just got busy and these types of movies became... not high on my to do list unfortunately.

[Siddon]

Getting towards the deadline, and 3 participants are yet to finish - two of them a fair way off.

@ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) - 3 films to go
@Siddon (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=95448) - 9 films to go
@TheUsualSuspect (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=9280) - 10 films to go

I really get that going through these cinematic horrors is a pretty tough job. I'm willing to extend the deadline to a significant extent if people need more time. I'm especially hoping Siddon and TheUsualSuspect hang in there, because two of their nominations are so worthy of winning this.


That number will be cut in half today I need two links for Kinky Coaches and A Talking Cat

[Siddon]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQChXV4TKEpjzdOee2o4Fqxh3ZZGtK-mtnKPg&usqp=CAU
The Misty Green Sky (2019)


I wasn't sure if this was a porno with the sex scenes cut out...or a video game with the game play cut out. This felt like a PSI video game like Silent Hill meets Metroid where a woman with a virus is running around a base. The animation is terrible, it's clearly a cheaply made film but I kinda liked part of it. The music wasn't half bad and it had sort of a tone of a nightmare like The Quiet Earth(1985). Also the ideas for a story are there and interesting but the execution is just so bad. I also was trying to follow the plot and I couldn't because it felt like chunks of story were removed. And then they had all that stuff with god which was weird but no necessarily bad.

[Siddon]

https://assets.mubicdn.net/images/film/47005/image-w1280.jpg?1445903123

The Legend of Titanic (1999)

I can clearly see why this film was nominated. You would not have had seagulls in the middle of the Atlantic it's just not possible. Huge fail on the writers part....

Y'know what this bad but it wasn't terrible...it was stupid but it wasn't dumb. This was the story of a pair of star crossed lovers on the Titanic the girl has magical powers so she can talk to animals. The Killer Whales, Dolphins, Giant Octopus, Mice, Dogs...are the good guys and the Sharks and Cats are the bad guys...genius. The funny thing with this film is it's such a great bad disney movie. I laughed at loud at portions of the story. They made the sinking of the Titanic funny I can't hate on that.

The villains of this film are also top notch...a wealthy one eyed man wants to marry an heiress so he can murder dolphins and whales...and he's working with talking sharks who are like gangsters. I think that stuff is brilliant because once again it's bad but it's amusing I was amused by this film. Also weirdly like Misty Green Sky it had good music.

[Siddon]

https://www.alternateending.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/titaniclegendcontinuesbkgd.jpg

Titanic And the Legend Goes On(2000)


Well the titles a lie because it only had 20 minutes of story when you cut out the credits, introductions and musical numbers. This was the lesser of the two Titanic movies with mouse characters...frankly I didn't get much of a feeling for any of the animals in this one. This focuses more on the romance between Cinderella and Jack but rich also you have a lot of villains like 8 or 9 of them that I couldn't keep track of. I actually think I hated this one more than some of the other ones because it was polished enough with animation and cast but it was so short and uninspired. I don't know if any of the songs were actually written for the film or if they were just bought and jammed in their.

[KeyserCorleone]

https://assets.mubicdn.net/images/film/47005/image-w1280.jpg?1445903123

The Legend of Titanic (1999)

I can clearly see why this film was nominated. You would not have had seagulls in the middle of the Atlantic it's just not possible. Huge fail on the writers part....

Y'know what this bad but it wasn't terrible...it was stupid but it wasn't dumb. This was the story of a pair of star crossed lovers on the Titanic the girl has magical powers so she can talk to animals. The Killer Whales, Dolphins, Giant Octopus, Mice, Dogs...are the good guys and the Sharks and Cats are the bad guys...genius. The funny thing with this film is it's such a great bad disney movie. I laughed at loud at portions of the story. They made the sinking of the Titanic funny I can't hate on that.

The villains of this film are also top notch...a wealthy one eyed man wants to marry an heiress so he can murder dolphins and whales...and he's working with talking sharks who are like gangsters. I think that stuff is brilliant because once again it's bad but it's amusing I was amused by this film. Also weirdly like Misty Green Sky it had good music.

I admit, I didn't think this Titanic was as bad as the other, either. I only nommed this to match the other. Heck, the other's a 0 while this was a 3/10. I mean, this was just a dorky and cute kid's movie, so you can only hate it so much, right? At least it's dorkiness came from originality.

[Siddon]

https://eofftvreview.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/incredible-petrified-world-1.jpg?w=700

The Incredible Petrified World (1959)

Watch order is so important when it comes to certain films. This was a microbudget B picture that while it wasn't good it didn't feel like the incomplete films I had watched earlier. The premise of the film is a group of adventures dive into the sea and end up in a vast underwater canyon.

Well they say it's vast the film is almost like a TV bottle episode where the whole film takes place in a single room redressed for each scene. And yes that's bad but compared to everything else I've seen is it really noteworthy. The group come across another guy under the sea and they start to fracture and panic.

Normally when a third act would come along and the setup would give us some payoff...perhaps a hidden undersea monster or the group would start widdling down it's numbers.

We didn't get any of that they were rescued by characters we saw earlier in the film

[Siddon]

can someone send me a link to HEartbreak High that my virus protection software will allow me to watch

[PHOENIX74]

SpelingError - can you possibly weave your magic here?

[KeyserCorleone]

Pretty sure I saw it on Tubi. Kinky Coaches.

[SpelingError]

can someone send me a link to HEartbreak High that my virus protection software will allow me to watch

It's on Tubi, but I sent another link anyways.

[SpelingError]

Pretty sure I saw it on Tubi. Kinky Coaches.

I think only some countries have access to Tubi. I don't know where Siddon lives though.

[Siddon]

http://rarefilmm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/crunch.jpg

The sex teen film is a fairly tired genre I think the genre really ran from 73' to 84' starting with American Graffiti and ending with Revenge of the Nerds. With each installment trying to outdo itself with it's premise and sex exploits. When done properly you end with something like this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5g6kdlQy7Y

Perfect no notes...or you have a massive cast of relatable and identifiable characters like in Grease


https://www.thelist.com/img/gallery/you-probably-dont-know-how-old-the-cast-of-grease-was-during-filming/intro-1618584480.jpg


A dare I say perfect film....but maybe you don't have a perfect film maybe you have a star and you can use your film to highlight that star...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rAKwVwE-zQ

Kinky Coaches and the Pom Pom Pussycats is just a film of half measures. It's got some jokes a couple of good bits and Mr Roper from three's company taking top billing and doing schtick for about five minutes. But really this is just a whole lot of nothing. A lot of football sex puns that now feel like dad jokes...a group of characters who are on two different teams but you don't who they are only what they do. And some of the jokes feel like ripoffs...like one character is clearly the Belushi of the group but all he makes are pig noises. If you are going to go crazy than go full out crazy this one just kinda layed there and did nothing.

[Siddon]

https://66.media.tumblr.com/bc572976ee7a52ff63500ac85941c7f6/tumblr_muijwxPa5K1s4n0nko1_1280.jpg

A Talking Cat?!(2016)

Yeah I'm pretty sure this was a money laundering scam or an attempt to make a product to sell to a streaming site. Anyways this is a pretty bad film. It's basically a story about a pair of families a rich father/son and a broke mother/twins. The cat is in the woods and travels to both houses...he has a rule where he can only speak once to each person.

This was definitely a failure of a film, like one those titanic films the padding is blatantly obvious where a 45 minute TV is stretched out with long screen saver type shots. The cat talking effects are hilariously bad and you wonder if the cheeseball bit was added to try and get some of that bad movie "The Room" type thing.

You can also tell it's a low budget film because the parents were ugly as hell. Makes you feel like they were working for SAG cards and insurgence. Also Eric Roberts totally ripped off Jason Robards in A Boy and His Dog...I think he's actually doing an impersonation.

[Siddon]

https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc1MTE0OTIyMjU4MzQzNzQ4/loqueesha-2019-an-insane-movie-review.jpg



Loqueesha (2019)

Am I going to get 7 reviews on one page.... SNL did a bit where they mocked those family dramas where the writer is the guy going through a divorce. In the scene the small child looks up and tells his mom that his dad is a good person. Y'know the ego stroking thing no real person would ever say. Well I just watched the unironic version of that story for 2 agonizing hours.

Yeah this was bad....you can tell one man wrote, starred, and directed it because only one person would put out a product this terrible. It's basically a rant and a film made around it. Bill Burr kinda does this but Burr doesn't pretend to be a black woman and doesn't make obvious hackneyed comments. The other problem with the film is that it doesn't know what it is...the second act the main actor starts becoming schizophrenic like he's in Liar Liar and that is just dropped so the film can get a new antagonist.

The concept and acting is terrible but the construction isn't so it's not going to be at the top of my list but it's going to be a bunker type where I can easily picks above it and below it.

[Siddon]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3Q7sttZvitK8dO_qZxELr8DitM-yBIWXM4w&usqp=CAU
Carnival of Souls (1998)


Ah 90's horror the generation of the best and worst, for every Sixth Sense, Silence of the Lambs, Scream you get stuff like this. Carnival of Souls would win this hall as the best film of this group. Fact of the matter is this is a hodge podge of It, Jacob's Ladder, and Carnival of Souls less a remake of the titular original. Larry Miller gets to ham it up as pedo clown taunting some girl. A number of things in this film I actually liked...some of the scares worked and you had proper action sequences.

Really the only thing that sinks this film into the "bad" territory is the score and soundtrack. Which is hilariously over the top everything else in the film is just middle of road. The purgatory element of the story works well and they really hit the twist over the head which makes it feel like Jacob's Ladder for dummies. But the ferryman, the pig creatures, the clowns...all that stuff worked for me. I would give this film two stars.

[Siddon]

https://californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/candy3.jpg

Candy (1968)


I have never been a fan of obnoxious films the whole hey lets grab someone with a bunch of energy and laugh at them. In the 60's a bunch of films like this came out...many of them are good Putney Swope, Mr Freedom, I even like Myra Breckinridge. But this...this was painful.

This is the worst Walter Matthau performance I ever saw...and I watched Dennis the Menace. The worst offenders was Richard Burton whos caterwauling performance made me want to reach for the fast forward button on multiple occasions. Everyone in this film is bad and it feels like they are doing bad sch-tick loud long obnoxious monologues

A movie like this I can understand why it was made but you would think the editors would try and fix it or redo it to make it watchable. This could have been a tight bad 80 minutes but 2 hours...this was just garbage.

[Siddon]

Nice I was able to take up the whole page with my reviews....and I got it done just in time.

[PHOENIX74]

That just leaves TheUsualSuspect and the MIA ueno_station54 - the latter hasn't posted anywhere on MoFo for 19 days.

[Takoma11]

That just leaves TheUsualSuspect and the MIA ueno_station54 - the latter hasn't posted anywhere on MoFo for 19 days.

Have you sent her a PM?

[PHOENIX74]

Have you sent her a PM?

Yeah, around 4-6 days ago checking on her, but I haven't had any reply yet.

[Siddon]

I'm off work until the 9th of January. I will have these done before then. Life just got busy and these types of movies became... not high on my to do list unfortunately.


Any word on your progress?

[KeyserCorleone]

Any word on your progress?


Tell us. TELL US. Tell us, precious.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Reviews coming soon.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Carnival of Souls

https://i.postimg.cc/PxzKVJgN/Carnival-of-Souls-Film-Poster.jpg

Wes Craven, may he rest in peace, should be embarrassed that his name was attached to this. I'm not sure how 'hands-on' he was and probably just threw his name on it for a quick buck, but damn, you can't be hurting that bad financially.

The film looks cheap, plays cheap and the only saving grace is that it is a "horror" movie. Horror is a genre that I forgive because it always seems to snuggle up to my heart. Making it somewhat bearable compared to the other shlock that I found myself watching this time around.

Larry Miller usually plays a sleazy guy and he has the looks and charm of a madman. He can play deranged killer rather well...just take the damn makeup off his face. He looks goofy with it on. Much more sinister and frightening with it off. He knows what kind of movie this is, I'm not entirely sure everyone else does.

If your film has too many dream sequences, it's a sign you are putting people to sleep too!!!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Bane

https://i.postimg.cc/VvCYx8pY/bane.jpg

Bane tests the limits of my horror love, but I have indeed seen far worse in this genre. It does want to wrestle for the crown of low-budget and ugly looking. This is something that film students would try and throw together at the last second for a passing grade. I saw film students because there does seem to be 'some' effort put forth. As minimal as that may be.

The acting is beyond bad and I feel the casting call sheet must have said "free meal". Every line delivery is wooden and forced, the script is almost non-existent and the sound quality was God-awful.

There are better torture films out there, this one is an easy skip. I had no idea this even existed until it was nominated.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Candy

https://i.postimg.cc/tTzf7m6h/candy.webp

Brando's self-proclaimed "worst film". At least is plays like a movie!!!

I giggled here and there, it was certainly weird at times. The cry crying "need...need...my need" over and over was off-putting. Then his grotesque licking turned me off as well. These "hippie" movies are fun to look back on and see how out there people were.

I did a double-take when Ringo Starr turned up as a Meixcan? What? I did enjoy James Coburn's little surgical sequence.

I'm surprised this film is nominated to be honest. As "bad" as it is, there are certainly more terrible choices out there. This film is at the very least, watchable.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Titanic: The Legend Goes On...

https://i.postimg.cc/BvBNCPv3/titanic.jpg

You know, as bad as this film is...people actually sat down and spent time on it. There was some poor SOB who had to sit hour after hour hand-drawing every frame of this movie. For THAT and THAT alone, this cannot be topping my list for this HoF.

The film is an insult to the senses and the memories of those who died that day. The Legend Goes On has bad songs, talking animals, poor animation and terrible voice work.Let's not forget the insane stereotypes. My gawd.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Other Titanic Movie...

https://i.postimg.cc/vHMDdBpb/legend-of-the-titanic.jpg

Where's the rapping dog at?

The 'real' story of the Titanic is just as insulting as the last, but where the other film had some charm here or there, this film feels void of any of it. Even with the bogus ending, the film feels cold to the touch. The animation feels different in almost every other scene and the persistence of both films to have so many talking animals boggles the mind.

A big WOW moment for the filmmakers I'm sure was when we get a nice 3D animated 360 shot of the Titanic. Pat themselves on the back they did for that one.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Incredible Petrified World

https://i.postimg.cc/D07hRWmN/inredible.jpg[

Despite being a rather tediously boring movie, points for a shark vs octopus fight.

An interesting idea that could be fun if it were remade today. The filmmakers would have to put some effort into it though, as this felt devoid of any of that. No real imagination, tension, heart, or brains were put into making this movie.

I wish that there was more than just swimming around in this movie, that's what it felt like. Swim here, swim there, roll credits.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Loqueesha

https://i.postimg.cc/rmJCCb4r/Loqueesha-Poster.jpg

Who in God's name nominated this garbage? Oh yeah...sorry.

Offensive comedies CAN work. They just need to be funny and in on the joke about who or what they are offending. This film is so tone-deaf and unfunny that it hurts. I did not laugh once. I rolled my eyes several times and looked at my phone even more.

He doesn't even do a good job of putting on 'the voice'. None of the characters are likable or even the least bit realistic. This is a stain on this site's legacy that it has been watched and reviewed by so many people...

[TheUsualSuspect]

I've watched all the movies. Just need to find time to review them.