The Hall of Infamy

The way I think of it, Manos was made for a bet, and Going Overboard was made to try and make us to laugh. Innocent horror films and comedy. Either way, not with mean-spirited intent. I think the thought put behind God's Not Dead balanced against it's technical competency, music and acting just pushes those good points aside and delivers us a movie worse than those two.

__________________

Manos: The Hands of Fate (Harold P. Warren, 1966)

Okay so, obviously there isn't much to talk about because not very much happens but I don't find the film particularly egregious. Like yeah its bad but just like, regular bad. This is not above and beyond bad its just kind of boring and I'd say it has a (very small) handful of moments. When the guy summons his wives and it cuts to him sitting there looking annoyed while his wives are loudly chatting is an okay gag and the moment where he explodes the dudes hand is, sadly, more than I was expecting we'd get at any point in the film lol. The best part of the film is easily the music though. Even though we hear a lot of the same tracks over and over, they bonk. Like, I'd consider buying that score. Honestly outside of a few out of focus shots I don't even think its shot that bad. Its certainly a dull film but I don't think it crosses the line into being annoying and I've honestly seen worse of my own accord in the last month lmao.

So I just finished rewatching God's Not Dead (2014). Directed by Harold Cronk, the film is about a Christian college student who tries to prove God's existence to his atheist philosophy professor. I originally saw this shortly after it came out. I suspect that if this film has a target audience, I would be part of it in that I have been a Christian for most of my life, grew up in the church, went to Bible College, read Christian books, etc. I didn't like this film when I first saw it and I like it even less after rewatch.

There are a lot of problems in the film. The screenplay is a mess. There are unnecessary side plots that add nothing of value to the film. The scene with the guy from Duck Dynasty should have been cut. Hunting and Duck Dynasty have nothing to do with arguing for God's existence. The characters of the woman with The interactions between the girl and her mean, angry Muslim father should have been cut. They added nothing good to the film and were not well done, in addition to perpetrating unfair stereotypes about Muslims. They should have focused more on the central story line and the debate about God's existence.

The acting in this film is all over the place. Shane Harper is miscast. His performance is bland and one dimensional and I don't think he is a good actor. Kevin Sorbo tries to do something with his character, even though he is written as a cartoonish evil atheist villain. Sorbo does a half decent job, in spite of how badly written the character is. Dean Cain gives probably the worst performance. I have liked Cain in other things, but here he is completely unbelievable and just awful. I thought the two guys playing the pastors were alright.

It's unfortunate that this film is so poorly made. I think the idea of a debate about God's existence could be done in an interesting way in a film. This needed a more focused, better screenplay with less stereotypical, one dimensional characters. I don't believe that the film is intentionally trying to be insulting or offensive to atheists, but I can see why many people find it offensive. The ending is pretty bad. Although this is a bad film, I don't think it is on the same level of ineptitude as some other films, such as Manos the Hands of Fate.

So I just finished watching Trog (1970). Directed by Freddie Francis, the film stars Joan Crawford and Michael Gough. It's about an anthropologist who tries to communicate with a troglodyte half caveman, half ape creature found in a cave. This actually wasn't that bad. It is more campy and cheesy than actually being bad. Performances were decent. Story could have been better, but it sort of, kind of mostly almost works. I liked the look of the Trog character. There were some fun moments here too. This is nowhere near as bad as other awful movies, like Manos the Hands of Fate. Trog is just passable enough to earn a .

I rather liked Trog for what it was. It felt to me like a made for the drive-in theater movie and it probably was...but Joan Crawford like in all of her movies gives it her best. In all of the Joan Crawford films I've seen (and some aren't that great) she still gives it her all when it comes to acting and I like that about her.

For those who have seen R.O.T.O.R.: what are your thoughts on "Shoeboogie?"



He is, for my money, one of the strangest supporting characters I've ever seen in a movie from his name to his behavior. He's a source of many riffs in the Rifftrax version, as you can imagine. I also say this because maybe it's an urban legend, but the identity of the actor who played the character has never been revealed.

https://www.moma.org/calendar/events/3624


MANOS: THE HANDS OF FATE

Man, I dig the Master's muumuu the most!
Definitely worth the price of admission.
I have seen worse shot movies, but never worse acted, worse written, or worse edited. Did they just not bother to edit it? Did it have to be a certain length? What? Why are we subjected to these enormous pauses?
Lucky for me, I saw a Rifftrax edit so at least it occasionally made me laugh.
Well at least most of the cast was good-looking...even Torgo. Though what was with the his pants being padded in the thigh area. Were they trying to make him look like he had goat legs?
I also enjoyed the wives tussling with each other that was pretty funny.
Definitely worse than my pick Trog. But my pick is a professional movie and this is completely amateur so what was Trog's excuse?

I would also need a new link, as the one previously sent says the film is not available.

And there aren't any purchase options aside from, like, a $44 DVD on Amazon.

I only know of a couple links to the film, which I hope will work.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

EDIT: Keyser just sent me a third link, so I sent it to you as well.

See, I'm a Keyser, and a Corleone. I have my connections.

Can I get that third link too? The first two links have tons of pop up ads and I’m having a hard time getting the movie to play.

Krampus: The Christmas Devil, 2013

A police detective named Jeremy (AJ Leslie) was abducted as a child and now spends his days tracking a series of child abductions across the country that may be related to the legend of Krampus.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, I was mildly interested to see why it was that I'd given this film a 3/10. Typically, and especially for low-budget films, even a movie I dislike ends up with a 4-5/10. Was I just in a foul mood when I rated it? Did it have some really offensive element that I'd forgotten?

But, oh, now I remember.

At almost every turn, this movie just absolutely annoyed me. I could shrug off the use of the stock footage at the beginning. I could maybe forgive the "what other filters/effects can we use?" style. And what's a rough performance here or there, especially in a small-time horror flick?

With maybe the exception of the actor (Bill Oberst Jr.) playing the ex-convict who targets the detective's wife, and the brief almost-cameo from Paul Ferm playing Santa, there is simply no joy on display in this film. And this is a movie where Santa tells a child in a cage that he deserves "to f*cking die". It should be, at the very least, a guilty pleasure. But instead the pacing and the performances and the writing just absolutely sink and momentum. Was that fight in the bar supposed to be good? Or so-bad-it's-good? For me it failed to be either.

But what really annoyed me (yes, it's all coming back) is that I didn't understand the movie. Like, Krampus is supposed to be killing kids, but he also (mostly?) kills adults? He sexually abuses a woman (and who was that woman? Did I miss something?), but kills dudes by appearing suddenly in front of them? I know that the last time I watched this movie I rewound it a few times because I was sure I must have missed something but this was not the case. It's just a confusing mess. I understand neither the beginning, nor the middle, nor the ending of this film.

I don't mind a low-budget flick with some sense of joy or effort, but this movie doesn't feel like it has either of those things. I would watch Manos ten times over before putting this one on again.



Infamy: 1/2

You liked your own nom a lot more than I did. I literally gave it a 1/100. The 1 was for the way Santa was portrayed.

Sent!

I realize that this is a back-handed compliment, but I thought that some of the actors were trying their best, like the guy who played the escaped convict, Santa, and sort of the wife.

Also, I forgot about how bad the writing was, which includes an early scene where the detective goes "I'm sure of it---it's the same guy!", then someone else says something, then the third man at the table turns to the detective and says, "So do you think it's the same guy?". Like, why?

Finally, and I mean this in all sincerity, if the plot did make sense to anyone, I would appreciate having it explained. Because starting around a third of the way into the movie I'm absolutely lost.

I think it was supposed to be intentionally bad and only humorous as a result, but it only panned out once or twice.

I think so too, but it's like . . . it also isn't trying very hard to be bad in an interesting/fun way? Maybe half of the people in the film are on board and half of them seem like they just don't want to go campy so they just get quiet and shuffle around instead.

I gotta ask what or who is a Keyser? I know who Corleone is but I never could figure out the Keyser part.

Are you saying, "Who's Keyser Soze?"


Do not Google if you haven't seen The Usual Suspects.


But no, seriously. In this instance, I was also making a pun on the German "kaiser," or emperor.