The Hall of Infamy

Manos : The Hands of Fate is a hypnotically mesmerizing failure - a film so ineptly put together that at times you'd swear certain aspects have been cunningly manipulated to serve as pure fun for our entertainment. What a sense of humour these people must have. The fuzzy lack of focus in many scenes - is that on purpose? The bizarre editing - what's going on? Those moments when actors kind of stop and hover as if unsure of what exactly is going on - why are they behaving so strangely? When I watch it I can easily forget that this isn't an interesting experiment - it's simply the result of a bet Producer Harold P. Warren made with Stirling Silliphant in a mid-60s El Paso coffee shop. Warren pretty much reckoned that anyone could whip together a horror film - even an insurance and fertilizer salesman like himself. A short while later he'd managed to accumulate $19,000 and an uneasy, completely inexperienced crew and group of people who would serve as actors.

Despite it's noteworthy moments, which are admittedly much fun, the film's pace makes a running time of only 70 minutes feel much longer. Manos can get dreadfully boring. But at least it has those moments. The film follows a family of three - Michael, Margaret and little Debbie - driving through the desert and happening upon a polygynous cult with supernatural aspects to it. The cult's "temple" appears as if from nowhere, and the servant who greets the family, Torgo, is deformed from the waist-down in Satyr-like fashion. Despite the eerie sense of danger this represents, the family insists on staying the night at this place - and soon come to regret their decision. Creatures roam the night outside, their dog is mauled to death, and Torgo becomes sexually attracted to Margaret, insisting she become his wife. When the "Master" and his wives awake, debate rages as to what is to become of these interlopers.

If only we knew something about Michael, Margaret and Debbie - we'd be the slightest bit interested in what happens to them. Anything - one thing - would do. Michael is played by Harold P. Warren himself, and Diane Adelson plays Margaret. Neither would ever appear in anything else again - leaving Manos prequels, sequels and video games out of it. Tom Neyman and his daughter Jackey play the Master and Debbie respectively - both trying to cash in on the sudden popularity of the film 50 years later in various related work. It would be easy to lump them all together and call attention to the fact that they can barely act, and just do their best. We never know anyway, who is doing the terrible dubbing - the film's audio is stitched together like parts of a Frankenstein monster. Little Debbie is obviously being dubbed by an adult putting on a "little girl" voice - and for all we know it's a man doing it. John Reynolds, whose performance as Torgo is the weirdest, would go on to commit suicide via shotgun before the film was even released.

There is little logical consistency in what goes on. When the family comes upon this cult, Michael describes how strange it is that the place wasn't there a moment ago. "I don't care," states Margaret. The disfigured and strange Torgo seems visibly upset to see them, and despite his protestations the family demands to stay there the night - as bizarre as that sounds. When strange creatures are heard outside, instead of making sure their safety is assured inside Margaret insists that Michael go out and "chase it away". Incredible is the way they insist Torgo act as their porter and servant - there is no sign that this is a hotel of any kind. Over and over again, Michael instructs Torgo to bring their luggage in, drag it back out to the car, then bring it back - and I don't understand why he can't simply do that. I don't understand why, after moving heaven and earth to stay in the strange place they finally get the jitters and decide to leave - but in fact just hang around. Margaret even gets undressed, as if she's right at home. Eventually, they do flee into the night.

When the Master finally wakes up, the film really grinds to a halt. For half an hour his wives argue, bicker, and brawl about what to do with Michael, Margaret and Debbie. The Master just sits for a while as if tired of having so many wives - he looks fed up. We're all fed up too. For too long all we have to concentrate on is this bickering, and the family running around in the desert in a puzzling manner. At one stage, Michael has the bright idea to return and hide where all the villains are - back at the cult's place. "They'll never expect us to show up there" he says - but it makes no sense at all. If you didn't know better, you'd think this was all a brilliant deconstruction of the genre. Snakes are discovered and shot at out of fright. The police half-heartedly look for the family with a flashlight, despite the fact they're not really missing. The wives continue to bicker. The cinematographer again loses the Master as he goes fuzzy and the background comes into focus. When Debbie finds herself a "puppy" (the master's "evil" Doberman) she starts talking in gibberish which is impossible to understand.

The film insists on being strange. Instead of the word "immortal" the Master insists on calling himself "permanent", which just sounds unusual - as if he never quite struck on a term he could more accurately use. He corners Torgo and announces he's going to kill him, gets closer and closer, dangling his fingers and crowding him with what must be a supernatural death blow - but when we cut away and come back to them Torgo is still following the Master around. Torgo is at least the most fun - but the way he acts conforms with nothing we can relate to character-wise. He's not scary, sympathetic, dark or anything - just plain strange. He walks like he has eggs in his pockets he doesn't want to break, and takes a breath after each and every syllable he utters. He'd like to touch Margaret's hair, and marry her of course - but Marg promises not to tell on him. He just seems so harmless.

Manos had it's premiere at The Capri Theater in El Paso in 1966 (a single limousine circling the block to drop off contingents - a cute play-act at the real thing.) It played a few shows in a few theaters, some showings at Texas drive-ins, and then became virtually unseen until 1993 when it was included amongst a batch of films sent by Comedy Central for Mystery Science Theater 3000 to joke about and send up. The Manos show was one of the most popular the long-running series ever broadcast, and as such Manos : The Hands of Fate gained fame far beyond what the people involved would have ever have imagined in their wildest dreams. As the internet era began, the film topped the bottom, so to speak, for a long time on the IMDb - it was perhaps the worst film the world had ever seen.

Sequels, prequels, video games and copyright disputes - it sounds the stuff of Star Wars, not one of the worst, most obscure films ever made - but this has been the life of Manos : The Hands of Fate, which has turned into something of a cult phenomenon. Before, it's appearance even on television was a source of conjecture and legend. I've seen the film numerous times, and many other film fans have - which just adds to it's strange story. Why do so many people watch this? Well, despite it's tedious nature, the brain works in overdrive as questions, little notations and uncontainable laughter and chuckles come forth. There's just so much wrong with it that it's impossible to cover it all. There appears to have been little post-production - and there's absolutely no polish. Mistakes abound, and were never rectified. The long scenic drive - perhaps originally intended for a credits sequence - is still there. Purposeless. Conspicuous.

In the meantime Joe Warren, Harold's son, has tried to copyright the film - probably because people are earning money from his father's creation now. Video games have been made. Blu-Ray releases - the original 16mm workprint was found in 2011 and the film was restored as if it's a bona-fide classic. A prequel, Manos : The Rise of Torgo came out in 2018 and featured Jackey Neyman Jones, who starred as Debbie in the original film. The same year Manos Returns, with Tom Neyman reprising his role as the Master and Jackey Neyman Jones as Debbie came out. All in all these cultural epochs of bad films have produced their own sense of nostalgia, and as such it's not only old classics that spawn sequels and revivals. Manos, the result of a bet (you could argue over whether the bet was really won by Harold P. Warren - but I guess it was) that produced the worst film ever made is a significant moment in film history. I don't know if there's a copy in the Libary of Congress or wherever it is old and important films are stored - but I wouldn't be surprised if there is. It's "permanent".

__________________

I'm pretty sure that was the intention, so that they can trick people like me into watching it haha.

I'm not sure if I watched the whole thing or not (it was quite the number of years ago), but the poster was 100% why I gave it a shot.

__________________

That would actually be a use for those "book sleeves" we sell at work. They're too slim to fit any hardcover, and even a lot of paperbacks. They'd be absolutely perfect for hiding a DVD you don't want people to see though!

i was planning to go with her other film "Id" which i remember being even worse but couldn't find it anywhere

So where am I legally watching Lust for Frankenstein?

I sent you a link.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Also, this is the first time I've ever linked Takoma to porn.

So I suffered through R.O.T.O.R. (1987). Horribly directed by Cullen Blaine, this is a really bad rip off of other much better sci-fi films. The film looks cheap and ugly. Performances are all terrible and unconvincing. The dialogue is ridiculously bad and reads as if it was written by a bunch of drunken children who have watched too many science fiction movies. The film feels longer than its run time. The only bright spot is Willard the sassy police robot, complete with his own police hat. There should have been more of him and less of everything else. I did snicker a few times at some of the ridiculously bad dialogue and acting, but that is about all the entertainment value this so-called film has to offer. This sucked, so good nomination!

How come you never link me to porn?

Why didn't you ask?

God's Not Dead

Inspired by an actual case where a class was punished for their faith, God's Not Dead seems to be made by those angry at the bias shown to the class. It shows because every atheist in the movie is kind of a jerk, which in real life is not the case. It gives into the political and social beliefs concerning "the other side" of teenage Bush supporters. From the filmmaking side, it wasn't terrible at all. Kevin Sorbo played a douche very well. But from a social standpoint, its side-picking is all too obvious despite the effort put into the messages and the science debates.

Do I think God exists? Yes. DO I think all athiest professors are evil? No. I don't even think atheism is evil.

So, while my Lust for Frankenstein review is reserved for later to avoid spoiling how the movie is made, I'm already done with half the movies. I gotta say, despite being a bad movie, so far my favorite of the five is God's Not Dead. And I'm using the word "favorite" liberally.

It's probably a good thing I'm not in this HoF I got a feeling things would ramp up some

To be fair, I'm enjoying this Hall so far.

Yeah of course, I've always said this was an awesome idea. Wish I could've joined.

Going Overboard, 1989

Schecky (Adam Sandler) is a waiter aboard a cruise ship who dreams of being the ship's stand-up comedian. As he watches the ship's hack comedian (Scott LaRose) inexplicably wow the passengers, Schecky tries to find an opportunity to showcase his talents.

Right off the bat, Sandler breaks the fourth wall to tell us, hey, we had this cruise ship and some cash, so we made this thing.

Does this context make the film less bad? LOL, no. But does it make it easier to watch? Kind of yes.

Everyone is acting on the same level, which is to say three notches above tolerable. But despite this it manages to be vaguely watchable. Dickie the comedian and a character called Croaker (Adam Rifkin) are both pretty gross and odious, but everyone else is mostly fine.

Did the movie get any real laughs out of me? Yes. The running gag of Sandler's shirt changing every time he left and reentered the frame during the final sequence was stupid but dare I say kind of fun? I also liked Billy Zane playing Neptune giving Schecky a snarky booty bump before stalking away. And the line delivery of "You hear that, Miss Australia?! You're dead!"

The offensive elements are definitely there, but none of them are executed with enough rancor to make them really painful. There's some half-hearted ogling of the ship's female passengers (most of whom are international beauty pageant contestants). There's a subplot about South American terrorists (one of whom is also Islamic?!) that's just too dumb to take seriously. And honestly the two actors look like they're having tremendous fun and their decision to make them more of a squabbling gay couple takes the sting out of their portrayal.

It's weird watching a movie about comedy that knows it's a bad comedy. It's the hinge point that really makes the film not work. We're supposed to root for Schecky, but Schecky is terribly unfunny for the entire run of the film. All that really differentiates him from the "hack" comedian is that the hack's jokes are mean and sexualized, while Schecky is delivering material straight out of a cliche 70s stand-up gag.

I'm not a huge fan of Sandler's brand of comedy, and this is definitely the worst of his comedic leanings in an unrefined form. The movie is also easily 20 minutes too long. That said, it's absurd that this movie has a 1.8 on IMDb. That's just people jumping on the bandwagon. Zane's turn as Neptune alone deserves a few stars.



Infamy:

God's Not Dead (2014) -

This was a bad film for the reasons I was anticipating going into it. For one, it's definitely one of the most hateful films I've ever seen. Every Christian character is portrayed in a positive light, while every atheist character is cartoonishly bad and stereotypical. Virtually no levity exists for either group. This is the kind of film which should appeal to the "Atheists are all evil and are trying to destroy Christianity" group of Christians and Evangelists out there. I also found most of the characters underdeveloped and bland. They generally fell into two categories: (1) Atheist who's a jerk to all Christians they come across and (2) Christian who's persecuted for their religion. The individual arcs for most of these characters were uninteresting and predictable and since so much time was devoted to exploring those characterizations, this made most of the film really dull to sit through. Amy is the only character who (kind of) stood out in the entire film due to one decent scene she had near the end. With that being said, I wouldn't say the film is a complete waste of time. In terms of the quality of the filmmaking, it's actually fairly good. Some of the Christian rock in the film (especially in the final act) sounded really good (I'm not referring to the overbearing sentimental score which played throughout a decent chunk of the film, btw), the acting was decent across the board (Kevin Sorbo gave a solid performance as Professor Radisson), and I suppose the cinematography looked good. Overall though, this movie is pretty bad, even if it's not quite the abomination I thought it would be.

Next Up: Going Overboard

I saw the film, and was so blown up by it that I saw the MST3K episode right after

__________________

Never seen the film but could only guess because of the subject matter. The way Mr. Error describes it, is it a far reach in comparing it to "Reefer Madness" by way of utter paranoia?

I haven't seen Reefer Madness, so I'm not sure.