Obvious common offenses include remakes, colorizations, and bad sequels that didn't involve the original filmmakers or stars. A great example of that last one would be Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd. Sure, it's got an excellent TITLE, but the movie is beyond bad. In fact, it gives bad a bad name. Original Dumb and Dumber stars Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels had nothing to do with Dumb and Dumberer, nor did directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly, and I've always wondered why the film studio even bothered going through with the production at all. I suspect that some producer just happened to think up the title, "Dumb and Dumberer," and was so impressed with his own cleverness that he immediately got the ball rolling on making the picture happen.
--Unnamed Personal Assistant: "Mr. Emmerich, Jim Carrey has declined to star in that Dumb and Dumber sequel you're putting together. He says no matter what you pay him, he's not interested in rehashing a movie that's over ten years old."
--Big Time Producer Noel Emmerich: "But didn't he see the TITLE? Dumb and DumberER???"
--Assistant: "Jim Carrey just won't listen to reason anymore, sir. And it gets worse -- the Farrelly Brothers don't want to be involved, either."
--Emmerich: "But I gave them a golden TITLE to work with! Did you tell them that I PERSONALLY thought of the movie's hilarious name???"
--Assistant: "They won't do it, Mr. Emmerich."
--Emmerich: "Well, screw this.; Come heck or high water, I'm making a movie called 'Dumb and Dumberer'! Here's what we'll do -- hire a couple of complete hacks to write a screenplay, and STILL put the Farrelly Brothers' names in the credits as 'consultants' so that people think they had something to do with the movie. Then, we'll get two unknown jerks to play YOUNGER versions of Harry and Lloyd, and call the unfunny piece of crap a prequel. Mu-hah hah hah hah!"
Another movie-related atrocity that recently was brought to my attention is the straight up ABUSE of one of my all-time favorite films, Night of the Living Dead. George Romero's horror classic was the first movie that really made me think of film as an art form, and I trace my current obsession with the film world to it. One of the scariest movies of all time, Night of the Living Dead is a national treasure that should be respected. Sadly, however, this has not been the case. You see, due to some copyright slip up by the film's original distribution company back in the 60s, NOTLD is essentially public domain, meaning that just about anyone can do anything to it whenever they want (you can read more here -- just scroll down to Number Five). This has led to countless remakes and re-mixes of the film as digital editing becomes increasingly easy. Just about any schmuck with a basic understanding of video or computer technology can take Night of the Living Dead and mess with it.
I learned of this the hard way a few years back when I bought a bargain bin DVD of the film, only to realize later that night that it was some horrible colorized version. What idiot would want to watch Night of the Living Dead in color?
The idea that someone bothered colorizing NOTLD may be outrageous, but I encountered an even more offensive molestation of Romero's film not long after. Lemme set the scene for you: I bought yet another bargain bin DVD of Night of the Living Dead one day at Walmart, and settled down at home that evening for a screening. Everything started out OK -- the movie wasn't in color, the scenery was right, and I recognized the correct characters. Cool. I was just STARTING to feel good about my purchase when BLAM -- I'm suddenly watching a scene that I did not remember from the original film. It depicted a funeral of some kind, and a bunch of goateed dudes with shaved heads singing hymns or something. These knuckleheads clearly did not belong in the movie -- especially considering that they looked nothing like everyone else from the 1960s -- and I darn near choked on my popcorn. "What IS THIS NONSENSE? Who are THEY? What's going on?!?" I shouted.
These mysterious newcomers went away after a few seconds, but the situation still got worse when I realized that the SCORE was different. Yeah, some moron composed new music! For Night of the Living Dead!!! The campy score in that film is one of the best things about it, and I was enraged to see that someone had replaced it with total crap played on a cheap Radio Shack keyboard. What was the deal with that?
Well, I did some research and it turns out that the version of NOTLD that I'd purchased that day was actually some remix done by a bunch of hacks, apparently for thrills. They shot new scenes, inserted them in the original film, and added different music. It was an abomination, and I was shocked to learn that several such "re-issues" of the film exist. Who are these people kidding? Do they really think they're enhancing the movie in any way? Poor George Romero -- he gives the world one of the greatest horror films of all-time, and it gets spit on by anyone who has the time. And that's not to mention the countless lousy "sequels." Just look at what comes up when you search for "Night of the Living Dead" on the IMDB.
So, I suppose the lesson to be learned here is that it's important to read the label before buying any DVD of Night of the Living Dead, as there are probably more altered versions of the film circulating than copies of the real one. And speaking of good things being spoiled, here's a Thanksgiving film for the entire family to enjoy this week:
Thankskilling (2009)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129441/
Netflix description:
While on their way home for Thanksgiving break, five college kids run afoul of a homicidal turkey that wants them dead. As the cursed bird hunts them down one by one, the survivors scramble to find a way to defeat the possessed creature. Will the bloodthirsty turkey make this their last Thanksgiving feast ever? Writer-director Jordan Downey's holiday-themed horror spoof features an appearance by adult-film star Wanda Lust.
Yeah, this is a campy, goofball monster pic about a possessed turkey that kills college students on Thanksgiving. The turkey, you see, was first known to have killed several pilgrims hundreds of years ago, and now reappears every so often to wreck additional havoc on holiday revelers. When a group of students go partying in the woods on Thanksgiving 2008, the turkey is waiting for them. Can they survive this night of terror, or will THEY be served up with gravy come dinner time?
There's really not much to say about Thankskilling. It's an incredibly simple film, which is actually a good thing in this case because, as I've stated before, a low-budget horror movie should always be kept as uncomplicated as possible. The turkey, who looks like a rubber hunting decoy, attacks people with various weapons (how he manages to hold them is unclear), and cracks obscene jokes (yes, he can talk). He's also a bit of a sexual predator, and doesn't discriminate between humans and animals during his killing sprees.
He might SOUND funny, but trust me -- the Killer Turkey is no Freddy Krueger. He's actually just a little too hostile for my taste. I mean, if we're to identify with the main character in this film, shouldn't he at least have a few endearing qualities? The turkey just spews profanities and hacks people to death with butcher's knives; no irony, no joy of life in his rubber eyes. Of course, we could root for the college kids, but they're even less likable than their tormentor. Standard, one-dimensional, slasher flick boneheads, really. In one of the earlier scenes, it's suggested that at least one of the dumber females may provide us with some nudity later on, but I don't recall that actually happening. What a tease. There's also a geeky guy, a jock, a girl next door type, and a fat dude. I suppose I liked the fat dude best. He seemed like a decent guy.
Anyway, did I LIKE Thankskilling? Well, sure. It was an amusing enough diversion for one evening, and the fact that it was shot for less than 35-hundred dollars impresses me. You've got to hand it to the folks behind this picture -- they had an idea, and they did something with it. Hey, now that I think about it, Thankskilling is actually of a much higher quality than most of the other low-budget films I've reviewed here. It features better lighting, editing, acting, and sound than countless other monster flicks that must have cost much more than 35-hundred bucks to shoot. It's a harmless, fairly funny, little movie. Why not check it out with loved ones this Thursday? Thankskilling is worth a rental.
3 out of 5.
b.
"It gives bad a bad name."
ReplyDeleteI like that.