5th Monday Ugh: Catwoman (2004)

You may have noticed I haven't been keeping up with this blog on a weekly basis; it probably has something to do with some ineffible law of internet thermo-dynamics where everything self-published online prematurely degrades or something. Somebody could write a paper about it. However, that doesn't mean I've abandoned it! To prove this, here's a 5th Monday Ugh!!

There are so many good places to start talking about how bad this movie is. I want to poke fun at the name of the director, "Pitof" (one word, like Madonna); I want to point out that this super-hero action movie is--in all actuality--about make up; I want to dig in deep to my inherent dislike of the overused, washed-up material we so often find in movies of this vein; instead--after giving it some careful thought--I think I'll start here: This movie isn't about Catwoman. 

Those of you who haven't seen it you may find this claim hard to believe, but it's true. Selina Kyle is the woman who has tortured the heart of America's favorite bat for the last 73 years. This movie is about a mild-mannered woman who works in advertizing named Patience Phillips. Yes, you heard me right. Patience. Phillips. Instead of a disturbed but talented young woman who chooses to take upon herself the attributes of the domesticated feline, she becomes--wait for it--supernaturally infused with the power of catness (not to be confused with Katniss) for reasons which even the movie seems embarrassed to explain. 

The best promo picture ever taken? You be the judge.

Mostly this movie is about ogling Halle Berry in a revealing (if rather bizarrely constructed) costume, which is--quite frankly--demeaning. There are a few laughable fight scenes, and a moment or two of the obligatory bad science used by the detective/love interest to track the enigmatic jewel thief, but mostly it's just her. Being there. Bending. Jumping. Looking crafty. Uncovering the makeup plot that couldn't hope to hold the attention of a seven-year-old girl.

I would say there are two things about this movie that I genuinely enjoy: 1) There are cats in it, and I like cats. 2) Patience's friend is a little overweight, but her character doesn't have anything to do with her weight. It's shocking how rare it is to find a mainstream film with a character like this, so I'll take it where I can find it. Despite the fact that many overweight women live lives that have very little to do with their size, the vast majority of film and television labors under the damaging delusion that half of the world's population is defined by their size.

All-in-all, this is a good bad movie. For those who enjoy bad movies, there is something for you here. To those who legitimately enjoy this film...well, I'm not sure how to address you without being insulting. Just know that I respect your right to have your own opinions. :)

-MA 12.30.13

5th Monday Ugh: The Wicker Man

Might I interest you in some bees?

In 1967, David Pinner published a horror novel called "Ritual." Six years later, Robin Hardy directed a very highly regarded (and very R-rated) horror classic based on that book he called "The Wicker Man." Over three decades later, Neil LaBute and Nicholas Cage thought maybe they could do it better. The result? A film I must admit I'm a bit obsessed with: the 2006 remake. Now, hear me out, I'm not saying it's a good film; in fact, everybody pretty much agrees it's one of the worst horror films ever made. When I say I'm "obsessed," I mean I am obsessed with its badness. I've seen this movie a lot of times (and I do mean a lot); I've even watched the director's commentary! So here's my two cents on what makes it bad, and what it is about that badness that makes it sort of irresistible.

Like the best bad movies, this film means well; LaBute is artistically-minded, if nothing else. The problem is he makes the wrong choice at pretty much every turn. There is some degree of talent involved here, but it is misused and poorly focused. You can feel the intention behind the screen, but what actually reaches us is impossible to take serious, confusing, and at times downright non-nonsensical. Why does this film take place in a reality so alien to our own? Why do the characters have such trouble just completing their sentences?? The humans here do not act like humans, so it's impossible to care about what's happening. They stutter around their thoughts and actions as if removed from humanity. They laugh and fight and smile and scream, but we don't have a real sense of them doing so in a logical progression based on what's happening. You've never seen people laugh about saying there's a shark in a bag until you've seen "The Wicker Man."

I don't know Nicholas Cage personally, and maybe he's a totally cool guy, but what I see when I watch this movie is someone who is extremely eccentric, maybe even a little disturbed, and it doesn't feel like acting. In the director's commentary, LaBute explains that drastic revisions were made during the actual filming because Cage would say, and I'm paraphrasing here, "No. This isn't how I would do it if I were really Edward. I would do such and such. I would do this instead." You can see the logic, right? As an actor, he's envisioning himself in the situation and saying it would be more realistic if he handled it differently. This might hold water if Cage were like you or me, but what we actually see is an inept policeman doing very little police work and a lot of erratic, bizarre, often somewhat hateful things. We see Cage lose his temper over and over. He punches people. He screams. He seems tense and frustrated, but we never really get the feeling that it's about anything. He simply has these feelings and does these things. Watching the film, you might find yourself thinking, "Hm. I don't think I would have thought to handle that situation in such a manner." Also, how can someone act so uninterested in what they are doing and yet so angry at the same time? Truly, he is a master.

Many times, I watched the film with the help of
the Rifftrax commentary. I even got Kevin Murphy
to sign my copy of the movie!! "Not the bees!"

My absolute favorite thing about the movie is how the opening scene has absolutely nothing to do with the plot as a whole. Clearly, SOMETHING supernatural is happening; Cage watches an 18-wheeler slam into a parked car, killing the two passengers (a woman and her daughter), and their bodies are never found. That's kind of interesting, right? Who were they? How do they relate to Cage being summoned to Summersisle to look for his missing daughter? Well, despite constant flashbacks reminding us of this traumatic incident, we get to the end of the film, to the plot twist about why Cage was coerced to coming to the island in the first place, and we find...nothing. The backbone of the film, the "ritual," the Wicker Man itself, has nothing--may I repeat this? NOTHING--to do with the mother-daughter tragedy from the opening scene. As a director, what could possibly be the appeal of doing this? Because it's weird? Maybe LaBute hopes to draw us in with the incident, and then let us forget about it, but how can we when he shows it to us no fewer than five times throughout the entire movie?

At every corner of the film there's something that might have worked, that maybe could get the juices flowing, the mind turning, but we always come up empty-handed. LaBute sets the stage over and over, he hints at a greater mystery, he makes promises, but in the end it all turns out to be a ruse. No, I don't mean a ruse to fool Edward, I mean a ruse to fool us. At best, this film is an insult to its viewers; at worst it is an unfulfilled, high-budget dream.

-MA

Some bonus Wicker Man fun!

Comedy trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_mW8mBzmHo
Who burned Nick's toast?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV-D60nRvCU
Conan's Nicholas Cage Terror Alert System: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C102uy70qA
The Rifftrax commentary: http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/wicker-man

5th Monday Ugh: Troll 2 (Movie)

*COMMENT WITH YOUR FAVORITE TROLL 2 QUOTES!*

I must admit, I struggled in deciding whether or not I should count "Troll 2" as a 5th Monday Ugh or as a bonafide Great Work. After probably more deliberation than I could rightfully justify, I decided it should be considered an "Ugh" on the basis that the creators were trying to create something else and failed. What they ended up creating, however, is nothing short of a joy to behold.

Perhaps you are already familiar with the background* behind this incredible movie, but if not, here it is in a nutshell. In order to understand the grandeur of the film, I feel it is imperative to know a bit about how it came to be. Drake Floyd is the American-ish pseudonym of Italian filmmaker Claudio Fragasso. Before making "Troll 2," Floyd mostly worked on low budget slasher and zombie films. "Troll 2" is probably his most personal project, considering the screenplay was penned by his wife and was based on her original ideas. And boy are they ever original! Now, you might be asking yourself, why "Troll 2?" What about "Troll 1?" Well, the reason I'm not addressing the first "Troll" film is that it doesn't have anything to do with the work in question. The decision to change the title to "Troll 2" from the original title "Goblins" was an eleventh-hour attempt on the studio's part to squeeze a little more money out of the movie on the grounds that "Troll" was moderately successful considering its low budget.

"This is their kingdom!"

This would perhaps be a good strategy if it weren't for three things: 1) The films have no story or thematic continuity between them, as neither were created with the other in mind. 2) The films are not the same genre. "Goblins" was meant to be a dark horror film, whereas "Troll" was a good-natured fantasy. 3) THERE ARE NO TROLLS IN TROLL 2. You heard me. Not one. Sadly, Kevin Murphy's clever quip from The Wickerman Rifftrax ("This movie has as many wicker men in it as 'Troll 2' has trolls,") turns out not to be accurate, since in "The Wickerman" there is one wicker man on screen at the end of the movie. The only time anything that has to do with trolls appears in "Troll 2" is the on-screen wording of the opening and closing credits.

The best horror films and books often have morals buried within them. For example, Stephen King's Pet Semetary is a cleverly packaged warning against the dangers of fixation. It shows us in horrific detail what can happen to a person chooses to be blind to their own growing addictions. "Troll 2" also has a moral: vegetarians are annoying. I mean it. Floyd's wife, Rossella Drudi, flat-out said that was the point of the script. She got the idea for it after a few too many lunches with her vegetarian friends. Accordingly, the goblins in the film turn people into a plant-like food and eat them, which helps us understand how real-life vegetarians are no good.

"Our queen...needs us..."

"Troll 2" was filmed in Utah in the late 80's with an all-Italian crew and an all-American cast. Now, that wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that only one crew member (the costume designer) was actually fluent in both languages. Cast members recount how disconnected the directing was because of this. In one memorable day of shooting an actor was told by Floyd to "go upstairs" during the shot. Unfortunately, they were outside at the time, and no stairs were in sight. Some of the little people who play the goblins in the movie reminisced that typically when making a film you don't ever see a full script, but you start to get a sense of the film's continuity as you show up for filming day after day, but with "Troll 2," they became less certain of what they were involved in each time they went to a shoot.

"You can't piss on hospitality! I won't allow it!"

The wording of most of the lines in the movie is unnatural to say the least, as it was written by an ESL Italian woman. Cast members suggested that--knowing the general purpose of the lines--they might reword some of it to sound more American without losing any meaning. Floyd rudely denied this request, demanding they speak each line verbatim come Hell or high water, arguing that he was "more American than any American director," and as such, perfectly aware of how Americans spoke. As a result, we get exchanges like this:

    Elliott: I'm the victim of a nocturnal rapture. I have to release my lowest instincts with a woman.
    Holly: [Punches Elliott in the groin] Release your instincts in the bathroom.
    Elliott: Are you nuts? You tryin' to turn me into a homo?
    Holly: Wouldn't be too hard. If my father discovers you here, he'd cut off your little nuts and eat them. He can't stand you.

And this:

    Diana: Joshua, start singing. Come on, sing that song I like so much.
    Joshua: I don't feel like singing, Mom!
    Diana: Just sing.
    Joshua: [singing] Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream...
    Diana, Joshua: [both singing] Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily. Life is but a dream...

Truthfully, I could probably just copy/paste the entire script in here and it would make for an enjoyable read, but better to watch the film and hear the horrendous delivery of the lines along with it.

"Dad?!"

What makes this film so wonderful, so darn likable, is its energy. Its confidence and passion for itself. Undeniably, it's a terrible movie, but no one bothered to tell anybody that while they were filming. Every line is delivered at the height of energy. Nothing is thrown away here. Everyone on screen is committed %110. This is probably because the filmmaker couple that produced it loved it. To this day they stand behind the film as great art, despite the fact that they know it has a reputation as being one of the worst films ever made. Floyd even went so far as to say that having someone tell you this is the worst movie ever made is the exact same thing as them saying it's the best movie ever made. (???)

"Try some, boy, and have some of your friends drink some also."

You go girl.

There are various production notes that would enrich the viewer's experience, but here are two that I feel are indispensable. A dentist who showed up hoping to be an extra in the movie, thinking it might be a fun experience, was cast as one of the main characters, Michael. He was chosen exclusively based on how he looked, and the fact that he was not an actor is more than apparent. The other interesting factoid is that the drugstore owner was cast using an inmate of a local insane asylum who was--get this--out on a one day pass. He has since been cured of his insanity and lives a more or less normal life. Of his role in the film, he has explained that the creepiness you see on screen is not acting, and that he was not fully aware at the time that he was in a movie.

After watching the film, it is an interesting exercise to try to make some sense out of it. I'm not going to get into all that here, but I challenge you and your friends to map out exactly what happened during the film, and--for maximum entertainment--what the supernatural rules are for this world. For example, if the movie were about vampires, you could make a list of rules the movie did or didn't employ. These vampires can't go outside during the daytime...they don't turn into bats...that sort of thing. What rules do the goblins here follow?

That's right. Hot. Sexy. Corn.

Finally, there is one last scene I'd like to address, though admittedly I could go on about "Troll 2" for maybe twenty or thirty pages. I am of course referring to the scene in which Creedence Leonore Gielgud (a gem among gems in this movie) goes to the boys' camper and seduces a young man with an ear of corn. Had it been intentional, this scene would deserve to go down in history's books as one of the greatest avant-guade displays of surreal comedy ever created in any medium. Everything in this four minute encounter should be intensely studied by writers and performers of comedy, from the slightly off-tune saxophone background music (which abruptly stops without the actress being informed, as she can be seen still gyrating slowly in the silence), to the inexplicable delivery of the line, "Actually I like popcorn," to the...well, I wouldn't want to spoil the scene's twist ending...

I'm sure I've rambled on enough about this. If you're still reading stop reading, and go watch yourself some "Troll 2!"

"I must do it! I must do it!"

-MA 7.29.2013

*The information on this film comes from various internet resources such as Wikipedia, as well as from the 2010 documentary "Best Worst Movie."