Review: "Manos: The Hands of Fate"

Credentials: 0% Certified Rotten (Rottentomatoes.com) / 1.5 out of 10 (Imdb.com) / #3 Worst Movie of All Time (Imdb.com) / N/A )Metacritic.com)

Plot: A family vacation in Texas takes a turn for the worst when our heroes get lost looking for their hotel. Instead, they stumble across the “Lodge of Sins,” which just so happens to be run by a crystal meth addicted satyr (half man, half goat creature), a Freddy Mercury look-a-like cult leader with an affinity for silly robes and his six cackling brides. And Chevy Chase thought HIS family vacations were bad.

Thoughts: There’s a lot that needs to be said about “Manos: The Hand of Fate,” but I feel like we should start right at the top: the title.

                Now, I’m not fluent in Spanish but I know manos means hands, which means the actual title is: “Hands: The Hands of Fate.” I suppose writer/director Harold P. Warren was hoping no one would pick up on that.

The title flub should give you a pretty good idea of the level of skilled craftsmanship that went into creating “Manos.” The movie is a disaster from every possible standpoint, both behind the camera and in front of it.

“Manos” was shot with what seems to be a handheld camera, giving it a “home movie gone wrong” kind of feel. The first couple minutes are just an extended sequence of a guy driving a car with his wife, daughter and dog in tow. Plus, we get lots of shots of scenery that do nothing to further the plot. (Rumor has it, Warren meant to include opening credits over the driving shots, but forgot)

Normally, I can forgive a slow start like that. After all it’s only a couple of minutes of dead space near the beginning. Except, “Manos” is a scant 68 minutes long. 68 MINUTES! If your movie is an hour and 8 minutes, you can’t afford to waste a second!

The technical problems extend far past an inept writer/director with no sense of pacing. “Manos” is rife with editing problems like jump cuts and takes where characters don’t seem to realize the camera is rolling, so they stand there waiting.

Without a doubt, the biggest problem is the sound. Warren’s camera couldn’t record any so the effects and dialogue were added in later. Legend has it a crew of two men and one woman were used to record ALL of the film’s dialogue. THREE people! Speaking all of the lines, playing multiple characters!

I’m sure that story is true. The little girl in the movie definitely doesn’t sound like a child. Her voice, sort of a Paris Hilton-esque baby talk, is very creepy. Either way, the dubbing is poor. Not quite “Godzilla” level poor, but it’s close.

The acting is the stuff B-movie legends are made of, starting with John Reynolds who plays Torgo, the satyr and day manager of the Lodge of Sins. Reynolds’ persistent twitching, disjointed walk and bizarre habit of delivering lines like William Shatner on sleeping pills all make for a sight to behold. It’s so weird that fans of “Mystery Science Theater 3000” once campaigned for Reynolds to get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, despite this being his only big screen credit.

Another of Warren’s great directorial missteps is never actually identifying Torgo as a satyr in the movie. While watching it, I thought he was just a hairy guy with huge kneecaps who couldn’t walk right. It was only after reading some interviews with Warren that I found out Torgo’s true identity.

The family members are so ridiculously cliched, there's not much to talk about. The dad is out to protect his family, the mom is in near-constant need of rescuing, and the daughter is precocious and cries a lot. That's about it.
The cult consists of The Master (Tom Neyman) and his six cackling, blathering brides. Neyman over acts the hell out of the part, delivering his lines with a nearly Shakespearean gusto while staring daggers at the camera. His brides spend their screen time fighting amongst themselves and talking over each other.
Near the end, “Manos” veers off into borderline paedophilic territory. I’m not sure if it was intended or not, but it’s there alright.   

Breakdown

:06- So this is what it feels like to drive a car… ohhhh… ahhh

:07- “Where did the road go?” Brilliant, next time I get lost, I’m blaming the road

:10- So mom, dad, you don’t find anything weird about the meth addicted prospector named Torgo, who spends all his time talking about “The Master?” Nothing? Still sure it’s a good idea to spend a night with this guy? Ok, have fun.

:13- You’re a true patriot dad, make the guy who can’t walk lug all your bags from the car

:17- Oh no! Something killed that slipper! Oh wait… it’s not a slipper, it’s the dog. Well that’s sad.

:24- That’s right, just keep talking about your daughter like she’s not in the room, barely inches away from you. She won’t notice

:28- Ladies and gentlemen, the Master wants to know: Are you ready to rock?!?!?!? 

:52- Girls, the man said “kill” not “viciously grope.” How’s about one of you goes and gets a gun or a knife or something heavy, because massaging the poor basterd to death is going to take years

Video Evidence

Torgo!

Torgo and the Master

Mystery Science Theater 3000

 

More from MST3K

And so there you go: “Hands: The Hands of Fate.” It has its moments, but "Manos" is fun to talk about and a chore to sit and watch. Bumblebee tuna.

Review: "Manos: The Hands of Fate"

Credentials: 0% Certified Rotten (Rottentomatoes.com) / 1.5 out of 10 (Imdb.com) / #3 Worst Movie of All Time (Imdb.com) / N/A )Metacritic.com)

Plot: A family vacation in Texas takes a turn for the worst when our heroes get lost looking for their hotel. Instead, they stumble across the “Lodge of Sins,” which just so happens to be run by a crystal meth addicted satyr (half man, half goat creature), a Freddy Mercury look-a-like cult leader with an affinity for silly robes and his six cackling brides. And Chevy Chase thought HIS family vacations were bad.

Thoughts: There’s a lot that needs to be said about “Manos: The Hand of Fate,” but I feel like we should start right at the top: the title.

                Now, I’m not fluent in Spanish but I know manos means hands, which means the actual title is: “Hands: The Hands of Fate.” I suppose writer/director Harold P. Warren was hoping no one would pick up on that.

The title flub should give you a pretty good idea of the level of skilled craftsmanship that went into creating “Manos.” The movie is a disaster from every possible standpoint, both behind the camera and in front of it.

“Manos” was shot with what seems to be a handheld camera, giving it a “home movie gone wrong” kind of feel. The first couple minutes are just an extended sequence of a guy driving a car with his wife, daughter and dog in tow. Plus, we get lots of shots of scenery that do nothing to further the plot. (Rumor has it, Warren meant to include opening credits over the driving shots, but forgot)

Normally, I can forgive a slow start like that. After all it’s only a couple of minutes of dead space near the beginning. Except, “Manos” is a scant 68 minutes long. 68 MINUTES! If your movie is an hour and 8 minutes, you can’t afford to waste a second!

The technical problems extend far past an inept writer/director with no sense of pacing. “Manos” is rife with editing problems like jump cuts and takes where characters don’t seem to realize the camera is rolling, so they stand there waiting.

Without a doubt, the biggest problem is the sound. Warren’s camera couldn’t record any so the effects and dialogue were added in later. Legend has it a crew of two men and one woman were used to record ALL of the film’s dialogue. THREE people! Speaking all of the lines, playing multiple characters!

I’m sure that story is true. The little girl in the movie definitely doesn’t sound like a child. Her voice, sort of a Paris Hilton-esque baby talk, is very creepy. Either way, the dubbing is poor. Not quite “Godzilla” level poor, but it’s close.

The acting is the stuff B-movie legends are made of, starting with John Reynolds who plays Torgo, the satyr and day manager of the Lodge of Sins. Reynolds’ persistent twitching, disjointed walk and bizarre habit of delivering lines like William Shatner on sleeping pills all make for a sight to behold. It’s so weird that fans of “Mystery Science Theater 3000” once campaigned for Reynolds to get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, despite this being his only big screen credit.

Another of Warren’s great directorial missteps is never actually identifying Torgo as a satyr in the movie. While watching it, I thought he was just a hairy guy with huge kneecaps who couldn’t walk right. It was only after reading some interviews with Warren that I found out Torgo’s true identity.

The family members are so ridiculously cliched, there's not much to talk about. The dad is out to protect his family, the mom is in near-constant need of rescuing, and the daughter is precocious and cries a lot. That's about it.
The cult consists of The Master (Tom Neyman) and his six cackling, blathering brides. Neyman over acts the hell out of the part, delivering his lines with a nearly Shakespearean gusto while staring daggers at the camera. His brides spend their screen time fighting amongst themselves and talking over each other.
Near the end, “Manos” veers off into borderline paedophilic territory. I’m not sure if it was intended or not, but it’s there alright.   

Breakdown

:06- So this is what it feels like to drive a car… ohhhh… ahhh

:07- “Where did the road go?” Brilliant, next time I get lost, I’m blaming the road

:10- So mom, dad, you don’t find anything weird about the meth addicted prospector named Torgo, who spends all his time talking about “The Master?” Nothing? Still sure it’s a good idea to spend a night with this guy? Ok, have fun.

:13- You’re a true patriot dad, make the guy who can’t walk lug all your bags from the car

:17- Oh no! Something killed that slipper! Oh wait… it’s not a slipper, it’s the dog. Well that’s sad.

:24- That’s right, just keep talking about your daughter like she’s not in the room, barely inches away from you. She won’t notice

:28- Ladies and gentlemen, the Master wants to know: Are you ready to rock?!?!?!? 

:52- Girls, the man said “kill” not “viciously grope.” How’s about one of you goes and gets a gun or a knife or something heavy, because massaging the poor basterd to death is going to take years

Video Evidence

Torgo!

Torgo and the Master

Mystery Science Theater 3000

 

More from MST3K

And so there you go: “Hands: The Hands of Fate.” It has its moments, but "Manos" is fun to talk about and a chore to sit and watch. Bumblebee tuna.

Alone in the Dark

Credentials: 1% Certified Rotten (Rottentomatoes.com) / Named the 15^th Worst Reviewed Movie of the 2000s (Rottentomatoes.com) / 2.3 out of 10 (Imdb.com) / #80 on the Bottom 100 List (Imdb.com) / 9 out of 100 (Metacritic.com) / Nominated for 2 Golden Raspberry Awards (Worst Director- Uwe Boll and Worst Actress- Tara Reid), won 0

Plot: Edward Carnby (Christian Slater) is a paranormal investigator hot on the trail of an ancient, demon-worshipping civilization which rumor has it is trying to take over the world. At their disposal is an army of possessed zombie-type things and some mostly invisible monsters with big, scorpion tails. Luckily for humanity Carnby isn’t alone in his quest to save the world. Standing by his side is the greatest archaeologist the world has ever seen... Indiana… oh wait what? It’s Tara Reid? Are you serious? Jesus Christ we’re screwed. All hail our ancient, demon-worshipping overlords! Hail!

Thoughts: “Alone in the Dark” has very little going for it.

For starters, it’s very, VERY loosely based on a videogame franchise. At last count there has been exactly ONE successful videogame-to-movie transition and that was “Resident Evil.” And heck, only the first “Resident Evil” movie was any good, the other three have been “Cheese List” material.

Then there’s the fact that Tara Reid plays a scientist, which is automatically the least believable thing in the movie. It doesn’t matter what else goes down (pigs flyin’, Johnny Depp made up to look unattractive), Tara Reid as a brainy, science type just requires too much suspension of disbelief for this guy.

But really, the biggest problems with “Alone in the Dark” all started behind the camera.

Ladies and gentlemen, Uwe Boll, or as some call him: Germany’s answer to Ed Wood. I don’t believe that comparison for a second, however. Ed Wood made entertainingly bad movies. Boll makes unwatchable garbage.

Once again, he’s crafted a movie so joyless and uninteresting that it’s not even fun to laugh at.

Boll is notorious for making movies on the cheap and with huge stars like Tara Reid and Christian Slater on the bill, it seems like his effects budget got slashed all to hell. So, he overcompensates by making his movie really dark. And not in the Edgar Allen Poe sense either. It’s dark in the: “I can’t tell what’s going on” sense.

Whenever you do happen to catch a glimpse of the monsters, it’s not impressive.

For an action movie, “Alone in the Dark” is pretty light on the action. There are a handful of horribly clichéd fight scenes, but again, they’re so dark you’re basically just listening to the bullets fly.

Usually with movies like “Alone in the Dark,” I do a lot of complaining about how there’s no story or nothing happens. That is NOT the case here.

 “Alone in the Dark” has enough story to cover three or four movies. Not good movies, mind you, but movies nonetheless.

The script by Elan Mastai and Boll veterans Michael Roesch and Peter Scheerer has a crap ton going on. I mean how many movies can features zombies, monsters, possession and a demon-worshipping cult?

It’s a lot to keep track of. Fortunately, the movie opens with a laughably long scroll to help to explain it all. It’s basically a term paper. The thing is so long that it’s like someone took the opening scrolls from all six “Star Wars” movies and played them one after another.

And then there’s our leading man Edward Carnby (Slater). He wears a trench coat, has some shady government connections and a very serious demeanor. Problem is, he’s not very likable and no one really believes he knows what he’s doing or talking about at any given second. Basically, if Fox Mulder and Zack Baggins had a baby, that baby would grow up to be Edward Carnby.

Breakdown

:02- An Uwe Boll Film? Typo in the credits, off to a great start

:18- What? 18 minutes?? It feels like an hour at least! Did this timer stop working or what?

:33- I can honestly say that I have NO CLUE what is going on

:52- Big guns and mindless heavy metal music? What a unique idea!

1:12- “Bureau 713” isn’t quite as catchy as, you know, “the X-Files”

Video Evidence

  

Horrible acted, overwritten and poorly directed: Uwe Boll’s “Alone in the Dark.” Now don’t tell him I said any of this though, or he might try to box me. Because that’s how adults act.

Bumblebee tuna.

Alone in the Dark

Credentials: 1% Certified Rotten (Rottentomatoes.com) / Named the 15^th Worst Reviewed Movie of the 2000s (Rottentomatoes.com) / 2.3 out of 10 (Imdb.com) / #80 on the Bottom 100 List (Imdb.com) / 9 out of 100 (Metacritic.com) / Nominated for 2 Golden Raspberry Awards (Worst Director- Uwe Boll and Worst Actress- Tara Reid), won 0

Plot: Edward Carnby (Christian Slater) is a paranormal investigator hot on the trail of an ancient, demon-worshipping civilization which rumor has it is trying to take over the world. At their disposal is an army of possessed zombie-type things and some mostly invisible monsters with big, scorpion tails. Luckily for humanity Carnby isn’t alone in his quest to save the world. Standing by his side is the greatest archaeologist the world has ever seen... Indiana… oh wait what? It’s Tara Reid? Are you serious? Jesus Christ we’re screwed. All hail our ancient, demon-worshipping overlords! Hail!

Thoughts: “Alone in the Dark” has very little going for it.

For starters, it’s very, VERY loosely based on a videogame franchise. At last count there has been exactly ONE successful videogame-to-movie transition and that was “Resident Evil.” And heck, only the first “Resident Evil” movie was any good, the other three have been “Cheese List” material.

Then there’s the fact that Tara Reid plays a scientist, which is automatically the least believable thing in the movie. It doesn’t matter what else goes down (pigs flyin’, Johnny Depp made up to look unattractive), Tara Reid as a brainy, science type just requires too much suspension of disbelief for this guy.

But really, the biggest problems with “Alone in the Dark” all started behind the camera.

Ladies and gentlemen, Uwe Boll, or as some call him: Germany’s answer to Ed Wood. I don’t believe that comparison for a second, however. Ed Wood made entertainingly bad movies. Boll makes unwatchable garbage.

Once again, he’s crafted a movie so joyless and uninteresting that it’s not even fun to laugh at.

Boll is notorious for making movies on the cheap and with huge stars like Tara Reid and Christian Slater on the bill, it seems like his effects budget got slashed all to hell. So, he overcompensates by making his movie really dark. And not in the Edgar Allen Poe sense either. It’s dark in the: “I can’t tell what’s going on” sense.

Whenever you do happen to catch a glimpse of the monsters, it’s not impressive.

For an action movie, “Alone in the Dark” is pretty light on the action. There are a handful of horribly clichéd fight scenes, but again, they’re so dark you’re basically just listening to the bullets fly.

Usually with movies like “Alone in the Dark,” I do a lot of complaining about how there’s no story or nothing happens. That is NOT the case here.

 “Alone in the Dark” has enough story to cover three or four movies. Not good movies, mind you, but movies nonetheless.

The script by Elan Mastai and Boll veterans Michael Roesch and Peter Scheerer has a crap ton going on. I mean how many movies can features zombies, monsters, possession and a demon-worshipping cult?

It’s a lot to keep track of. Fortunately, the movie opens with a laughably long scroll to help to explain it all. It’s basically a term paper. The thing is so long that it’s like someone took the opening scrolls from all six “Star Wars” movies and played them one after another.

And then there’s our leading man Edward Carnby (Slater). He wears a trench coat, has some shady government connections and a very serious demeanor. Problem is, he’s not very likable and no one really believes he knows what he’s doing or talking about at any given second. Basically, if Fox Mulder and Zack Baggins had a baby, that baby would grow up to be Edward Carnby.

Breakdown

:02- An Uwe Boll Film? Typo in the credits, off to a great start

:18- What? 18 minutes?? It feels like an hour at least! Did this timer stop working or what?

:33- I can honestly say that I have NO CLUE what is going on

:52- Big guns and mindless heavy metal music? What a unique idea!

1:12- “Bureau 713” isn’t quite as catchy as, you know, “the X-Files”

Video Evidence

  

Horrible acted, overwritten and poorly directed: Uwe Boll’s “Alone in the Dark.” Now don’t tell him I said any of this though, or he might try to box me. Because that’s how adults act.

Bumblebee tuna.

Rubber (2010)

Credentials: 68% Certified Fresh (Rottentomatoes.com) / 59 out of 100 (Metacritic.com) / 5.8 out of 10 (Imdb.com)

Plot: An abandoned tire wakes up in the middle of the desert and discovers it possesses telekinetic powers. It rolls around for a bit, doing all the things your average tire with psychic powers does until it stumbles upon--- and eventually becomes obsessed with--- a mysterious woman. So the tire follows the mystery lady around, leaving some fun and gory destruction in its wake. And all this happens under the watchful eyes of an in-movie audience. We get to watch the in-movie audience as they watch the events of the movie unfold. It’s all very Meta. Abed from “Community” level Meta.

Thoughts: Well color me disappointed.

First off, let me start by warning you not go into “Rubber” expecting to see a horror comedy about a killer tire. Because despite what my plot summary and every other one you read tells you, the movie is NOT about the tire.

Nope, the real show is the so-called audience members.

The killer tire ends up fighting for screen time with this meta-audience. We spend more time watching them sleep and wander the desert with binoculars than we do watching hardcore, psychic Goodyear carnage.

“Rubber” had all the makings of a kickass horror spoof. And not a “Scary Movie” spoof either, but an honest to god funny and insightful criticism of a genre. Writer/director Quentin Dupieux pays homage to horror classics like “Psycho,” “Carrie” and “Scanners” but seems unwilling to go whole hog.

He wades into the spoof pool, but never makes it past his ankles, relying on his gimmicky Meta audience like a little kid relies on swimmies.

Occasionally, we get to watch the audience members in the movie describe action scenes to us. “This is actually pretty awesome” says one. Great. Yeah, wish I was watching the local cops chase down a murderous tire, but instead I’m listening to some idiot with binoculars tell me about said chase scene.

Now, I’m sure Dupieux had some highfalutin, English-major ideas about analyzing the relationship between an audience and the movie they’re watching. That’s all well and good, but I’d never in a million years sit down and watch that movie. Don’t trick me into giving up my hard-earned dough by pretending your artsy movie is actually something else entirely.

As the end credits rolled, I felt like a dog who just realized there was a heartworm pill in that juicy piece of ham he just ate. Duped. And unlike the dog, I wasn’t better off as a result of the trickery. No, just $3.99 poorer.

“Rubber” isn’t all bad. Certainly Dupieux has some talent as a filmmaker. I just wish he would use his clever and witty sensibilities for something a little more accessible. Or that he’d go back and do some George Lucas caliber tinkering with “Rubber.”      

The highlight of the movie--- outside of the concept itself--- is Stephen Spinella who plays Lt. Chad. Spinella is an absolute crazy person. He brings a manic, mischievous energy to every scene he’s in and is a real treat; despite the fact his character makes no sense whatsoever.

You see, Lt. Chad exists essentially in two places at once in the world of the film. He actively participates in the killer tire storyline, AND hangs out with the audience and comments on how the story isn’t real.

Lt. Chad is the movie’s Meta nature personified. If it wasn’t for Spinella’s over-the-top performance, I’d have hated the character because I never was really sure what he was supposed to be doing or why.  

I’m not sure if anything I just wrote made any sense. I did my best to explain what took place in “Rubber,” but I’m not sure I got it all. Heed my warning: Campy fun this is NOT!

Breakdown

:06- Hey it’s Fat Neil from “Community!” Holy crap does Abed know you’re here? He’d love this garbage.

:26- The hotel is called the “Easy Rest Inn.” Is there any way to rest difficultly? I feel like any degree of difficulty immediately makes something the opposite of resting.

:27- Pretty girl, staying at a seedy, middle-of-nowhere hotel. Yeah seems like a great idea to take a shower with your front door not only unlocked, but wide open. God not even Minka Kelly would play a character this dumb… then again…

:35- Poor tire. He was just trying to look his best

:50- This movie’s tagline should have been: “Because we can, that’s why. Not sit down and shut up.”

1:04- Is NASCAR like porn but for tires? I’m just trying to get to the heart of this scene…

1:18- Wow. It takes real skill to make a 78 minute movie seem at least twice as long as it needed to be

Video Evidence

 The great Stephen Spinella. Plus, this scene should give you some idea of just what "Rubber" really is

No reason...

A movie about a killer tire seemed destined for B-movie greatness. Instead, its heavy-handed, art house pretense got in the way of what could have been a rollicking good time.

Bumblebee tuna.

Rubber (2010)

Credentials: 68% Certified Fresh (Rottentomatoes.com) / 59 out of 100 (Metacritic.com) / 5.8 out of 10 (Imdb.com)

Plot: An abandoned tire wakes up in the middle of the desert and discovers it possesses telekinetic powers. It rolls around for a bit, doing all the things your average tire with psychic powers does until it stumbles upon--- and eventually becomes obsessed with--- a mysterious woman. So the tire follows the mystery lady around, leaving some fun and gory destruction in its wake. And all this happens under the watchful eyes of an in-movie audience. We get to watch the in-movie audience as they watch the events of the movie unfold. It’s all very Meta. Abed from “Community” level Meta.

Thoughts: Well color me disappointed.

First off, let me start by warning you not go into “Rubber” expecting to see a horror comedy about a killer tire. Because despite what my plot summary and every other one you read tells you, the movie is NOT about the tire.

Nope, the real show is the so-called audience members.

The killer tire ends up fighting for screen time with this meta-audience. We spend more time watching them sleep and wander the desert with binoculars than we do watching hardcore, psychic Goodyear carnage.

“Rubber” had all the makings of a kickass horror spoof. And not a “Scary Movie” spoof either, but an honest to god funny and insightful criticism of a genre. Writer/director Quentin Dupieux pays homage to horror classics like “Psycho,” “Carrie” and “Scanners” but seems unwilling to go whole hog.

He wades into the spoof pool, but never makes it past his ankles, relying on his gimmicky Meta audience like a little kid relies on swimmies.

Occasionally, we get to watch the audience members in the movie describe action scenes to us. “This is actually pretty awesome” says one. Great. Yeah, wish I was watching the local cops chase down a murderous tire, but instead I’m listening to some idiot with binoculars tell me about said chase scene.

Now, I’m sure Dupieux had some highfalutin, English-major ideas about analyzing the relationship between an audience and the movie they’re watching. That’s all well and good, but I’d never in a million years sit down and watch that movie. Don’t trick me into giving up my hard-earned dough by pretending your artsy movie is actually something else entirely.

As the end credits rolled, I felt like a dog who just realized there was a heartworm pill in that juicy piece of ham he just ate. Duped. And unlike the dog, I wasn’t better off as a result of the trickery. No, just $3.99 poorer.

“Rubber” isn’t all bad. Certainly Dupieux has some talent as a filmmaker. I just wish he would use his clever and witty sensibilities for something a little more accessible. Or that he’d go back and do some George Lucas caliber tinkering with “Rubber.”      

The highlight of the movie--- outside of the concept itself--- is Stephen Spinella who plays Lt. Chad. Spinella is an absolute crazy person. He brings a manic, mischievous energy to every scene he’s in and is a real treat; despite the fact his character makes no sense whatsoever.

You see, Lt. Chad exists essentially in two places at once in the world of the film. He actively participates in the killer tire storyline, AND hangs out with the audience and comments on how the story isn’t real.

Lt. Chad is the movie’s Meta nature personified. If it wasn’t for Spinella’s over-the-top performance, I’d have hated the character because I never was really sure what he was supposed to be doing or why.  

I’m not sure if anything I just wrote made any sense. I did my best to explain what took place in “Rubber,” but I’m not sure I got it all. Heed my warning: Campy fun this is NOT!

Breakdown

:06- Hey it’s Fat Neil from “Community!” Holy crap does Abed know you’re here? He’d love this garbage.

:26- The hotel is called the “Easy Rest Inn.” Is there any way to rest difficultly? I feel like any degree of difficulty immediately makes something the opposite of resting.

:27- Pretty girl, staying at a seedy, middle-of-nowhere hotel. Yeah seems like a great idea to take a shower with your front door not only unlocked, but wide open. God not even Minka Kelly would play a character this dumb… then again…

:35- Poor tire. He was just trying to look his best

:50- This movie’s tagline should have been: “Because we can, that’s why. Not sit down and shut up.”

1:04- Is NASCAR like porn but for tires? I’m just trying to get to the heart of this scene…

1:18- Wow. It takes real skill to make a 78 minute movie seem at least twice as long as it needed to be

Video Evidence

 The great Stephen Spinella. Plus, this scene should give you some idea of just what "Rubber" really is

No reason...

A movie about a killer tire seemed destined for B-movie greatness. Instead, its heavy-handed, art house pretense got in the way of what could have been a rollicking good time.

Bumblebee tuna.

The Roommate (2011)

Credentials: 4%, Certified Rotten (Rottentomatoes.com) / 23 out of 100 (Metacritic.com) / 4 out of 10 (Imdb.com)

Plot: Small town ditz and all-around hollow vessel Sara (Minka Kelly) accidentally falls off a turnip truck and finds herself smack dab in the middle of downtown L.A. Not one to complain, she decides to enroll in a local college and take some fashion courses. Unfortunately for Sara, and the rest of us, her roommate Rebecca (Leighton Meester) is a teensy, weensy bit crazed. Before you can say: “I want my money back,” Rebecca becomes completely obsessed with Sara and all heck starts to break loose. You have to say heck, because it’s a PG-13 movie. Only get to cuss so much. Gotta make ‘em count.

Thoughts: If I told you “The Roommate” was directed by a former Academy Award nominee, you’d probably have a good laugh and then start looking for the hidden cameras, correct? Surely, I must be trying to put one over on you.

Sadly, I’m not. The film's director, Christian Christiansen, was indeed nominated for an Academy Award back in 2008 for Best Live Action Short Film. Yes that is an actual category and even more amazing yes that is his real name. He’s from Denmark. I guess they don’t have laws regarding cruel and unusual punishment there otherwise his parents would still be behind bars for their malicious naming practices.

However, Christian squared isn’t the one to blame for this mess, I just thought that was an interesting anecdote.

No, the real villains here are the screenwriters (there are FOUR of them, never a good sign) and the so-called actors. These two unholy forces combine to create a perfect storm of annoying the likes of which has rarely been seen.

Exhibit A: I give you our heroine, Sara.

Sara manages to go an entire 90 minute movie without making a single good decision. That has to be some kind of record. Girl can’t even make a smart choice by accident. The character was supposed to be a bit of a naïve, country gal, but our 4-man writing team got a little carried away. Sara ends up as a candidate for dumbest character of all time. It gets so bad you half expect there to be a 10-minute montage of Sara struggling to wear pants like a jacket and going to class with shoes on her hands.        

Instead we watch her wander around downtown L.A. at night by herself, take pills given to her by a total stranger, and leave her drink unattended in the middle of a crowded bar only to return later to finish imbibing it!

Minka Kelly doesn’t do anything to help matters. As Sara, she delivers all of her lines in a kind of breathy, baby-talk whisper and sort of floats around the screen like she’s in a daze. Naïve she is not. Severely concussed, possibly.

And that brings us to another of Sara’s horrible decisions: her new college beau Stephen, played by Cam Gigandet.

Gigandet takes the term d-bag to levels which were previously believed impossible. He’s supposed to be funny and charming, but he comes across like a total ass clown. The poster boy for cliche frat guys everywhere. The only thing he's missing is the popped coller.  Each scene he’s in makes you want to hit him over the head with something heavy.

As the homicidal maniac Rebecca, Leighton Meester somehow is the most likeable person in the movie. Truth be told, I started rooting for her to off Sara and Stephen because I couldn’t take either of them anymore.

Meester does a fine to middling job, but I suspect she looks a lot better sandwiched in between deadweight like Kelly and Gigandet. Compared to those two, she’s might as well be Helen Mirren.

The script is too by the books, “Fatal Attraction” with teens to elicit any sort of suspense, so you need a little blood and guts to fall back on. At least to keep things interesting. Sadly, the PG-13 rating makes sure things stay mostly nice, clean and bloodless. There is a rather unfortunate scene involving a cat which I will not go into any further.

Breakdown:

:13- I think a better title for this movie would have been “Minka Kelly Does Her Best to Get Date Raped”

:22- Wow. Ally Michalka is cultivating nice little niche for herself playing a drunken whore

:27- I haven’t seen the cat in a while, what’s she up to? Probably more interesting than what our human characters are doing

:28- Who’s this Irene person everyone keeps talking about? Might want to let the audience in on that little secret

:29- No shower shoes in a college dorm? Ewww… gross Michalka

:34- “I can take care of myself!” HA! What movie have you been watching Minka? Based on what I’ve seen so far, I would trust you to take care of a pencil, let alone yourself

:43- WHO IS IRENE?????

1:26- Well, it’s not a completely happy ending.

Video Evidence

What a truly original and interesting idea! I don't believe I've ever seen anything like this!

Cam Gigandet in all his douchey glory 

                And so there you go, “The Roommate.” And for the record, my freshman year roommate was way worse than this. Now, THAT would make for an entertaining horror movie. Bumblebee tuna.

The Roommate (2011)

Credentials: 4%, Certified Rotten (Rottentomatoes.com) / 23 out of 100 (Metacritic.com) / 4 out of 10 (Imdb.com)

Plot: Small town ditz and all-around hollow vessel Sara (Minka Kelly) accidentally falls off a turnip truck and finds herself smack dab in the middle of downtown L.A. Not one to complain, she decides to enroll in a local college and take some fashion courses. Unfortunately for Sara, and the rest of us, her roommate Rebecca (Leighton Meester) is a teensy, weensy bit crazed. Before you can say: “I want my money back,” Rebecca becomes completely obsessed with Sara and all heck starts to break loose. You have to say heck, because it’s a PG-13 movie. Only get to cuss so much. Gotta make ‘em count.

Thoughts: If I told you “The Roommate” was directed by a former Academy Award nominee, you’d probably have a good laugh and then start looking for the hidden cameras, correct? Surely, I must be trying to put one over on you.

Sadly, I’m not. The film's director, Christian Christiansen, was indeed nominated for an Academy Award back in 2008 for Best Live Action Short Film. Yes that is an actual category and even more amazing yes that is his real name. He’s from Denmark. I guess they don’t have laws regarding cruel and unusual punishment there otherwise his parents would still be behind bars for their malicious naming practices.

However, Christian squared isn’t the one to blame for this mess, I just thought that was an interesting anecdote.

No, the real villains here are the screenwriters (there are FOUR of them, never a good sign) and the so-called actors. These two unholy forces combine to create a perfect storm of annoying the likes of which has rarely been seen.

Exhibit A: I give you our heroine, Sara.

Sara manages to go an entire 90 minute movie without making a single good decision. That has to be some kind of record. Girl can’t even make a smart choice by accident. The character was supposed to be a bit of a naïve, country gal, but our 4-man writing team got a little carried away. Sara ends up as a candidate for dumbest character of all time. It gets so bad you half expect there to be a 10-minute montage of Sara struggling to wear pants like a jacket and going to class with shoes on her hands.        

Instead we watch her wander around downtown L.A. at night by herself, take pills given to her by a total stranger, and leave her drink unattended in the middle of a crowded bar only to return later to finish imbibing it!

Minka Kelly doesn’t do anything to help matters. As Sara, she delivers all of her lines in a kind of breathy, baby-talk whisper and sort of floats around the screen like she’s in a daze. Naïve she is not. Severely concussed, possibly.

And that brings us to another of Sara’s horrible decisions: her new college beau Stephen, played by Cam Gigandet.

Gigandet takes the term d-bag to levels which were previously believed impossible. He’s supposed to be funny and charming, but he comes across like a total ass clown. The poster boy for cliche frat guys everywhere. The only thing he's missing is the popped coller.  Each scene he’s in makes you want to hit him over the head with something heavy.

As the homicidal maniac Rebecca, Leighton Meester somehow is the most likeable person in the movie. Truth be told, I started rooting for her to off Sara and Stephen because I couldn’t take either of them anymore.

Meester does a fine to middling job, but I suspect she looks a lot better sandwiched in between deadweight like Kelly and Gigandet. Compared to those two, she’s might as well be Helen Mirren.

The script is too by the books, “Fatal Attraction” with teens to elicit any sort of suspense, so you need a little blood and guts to fall back on. At least to keep things interesting. Sadly, the PG-13 rating makes sure things stay mostly nice, clean and bloodless. There is a rather unfortunate scene involving a cat which I will not go into any further.

Breakdown:

:13- I think a better title for this movie would have been “Minka Kelly Does Her Best to Get Date Raped”

:22- Wow. Ally Michalka is cultivating nice little niche for herself playing a drunken whore

:27- I haven’t seen the cat in a while, what’s she up to? Probably more interesting than what our human characters are doing

:28- Who’s this Irene person everyone keeps talking about? Might want to let the audience in on that little secret

:29- No shower shoes in a college dorm? Ewww… gross Michalka

:34- “I can take care of myself!” HA! What movie have you been watching Minka? Based on what I’ve seen so far, I would trust you to take care of a pencil, let alone yourself

:43- WHO IS IRENE?????

1:26- Well, it’s not a completely happy ending.

Video Evidence

What a truly original and interesting idea! I don't believe I've ever seen anything like this!

Cam Gigandet in all his douchey glory 

                And so there you go, “The Roommate.” And for the record, my freshman year roommate was way worse than this. Now, THAT would make for an entertaining horror movie. Bumblebee tuna.

Godzilla (1998)

Credentials: 4.9 out of 10 (Imdb.com) / 25% Certified Rotten (Rottentomatoes.com) / 32 out of 100 (Metacritic.com) / Nominated for 5 Razzies at the 1998 Golden Raspberry Awards, won 2 (in Bold and underlined)--- Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Sequel or Remake, Worst Supporting Actress (Maria Pitillo)

Plot: A gaggle of iguanas are sunning themselves on a rock and doing whatever else it is iguanas do when all of a sudden the French come along and drop a bunch of atomic bombs on them. Not to be deterred, one iguana lives to tell the tale. Unfortunately for humanity, said lizard just so happens to mutate into a ginormous, fire-breathing, city-stomping, asexual-reproducing menace. Oh yeah and if all that wasn’t bad enough, he’s pregnant (yes I said he) which means he’s all hormonal and crazy. It’s up to a brave man (Matthew Broderick) who wouldn’t let school tie him down in the 80’s to save the day.  Luckily he’s got most of the cast of “The Simpsons” to stand by his side. Giddy up!

Thoughts: Not sure why, but I’ve been on a bit of a “Godzilla” kick over the last few months.

                And by kick, I don’t mean I’ve been watching the movies or anything like that, even though most of them are a delight. Instead, I’ve satisfied my half-hearted “Godzilla” cravings by wandering around Wikipedia, reading movie plots and pouring over monster stats. It’s a tremendous amount of fun, but still, hadn’t watched the big guy kick butt…

                Until now. Sadly, I went with the 1998 American version directed by Roland Emmerich (“Independence Day,” “The Day After Tomorrow”) and written by Emmerich and Dean Devlin. And two guys named Ted Elliott and Terry Russio sorta helped. You might know them from their wholly unimpressive work as Johnny Depp’s backup dancers on the “Pirates of the Caribbean” films.

                I made my selection based on the fact I remember enjoying the movie’s soundtrack back in the day. Despite rocking out to its tunes, I never actually saw it for some reason.

                And now I know why.

Emmerich tries extremely hard to make his “Godzilla” a marriage between “Independence Day” and “King Kong.” He doesn’t pull it off.

The problem is the script. Even the characters don’t really know what’s going on. In one sentence Matthew Broderick’s character waxes poetic about how awesome and majestic Godzilla is, only wrap up that thought by urging the military blow the ugly brute straight to hell.

The whole movie is bipolar like that. It can’t decide whether it wants you to sympathize with Godzilla or root for his ultimate destruction. Every time you think the movie has picked a side, it hops right back into the middle.

Emmerich needs a clearly defined villain, like the menacing E.T.s in “Independence Day.” He’s outside of his area of expertise when it comes to shades of grey.

And come on. The whole story that Godzilla needs a place to crank out some babies is fantastically uninteresting. Wasn't anyone paying attention? The last time Godzilla had a kid it sucked! Why do it again!!??

When he actually has his whelps, it seems more like a ploy to sell toys and pad the runtime than an actual, useful part of the plot. I’m not sure why Godzilla decimating New York wasn’t enough, but apparently the kiddy subplot was a must.

The creature effects, even by 1998 standards, are abysmal. I don't hate the revamped look Godzilla has--- basically a big iguana that walks on two legs. It's just the effects that bring him to life are awful.

For a guy like Emmerich, who lives and dies by his special effects, this is unforgivable. The borderline hokey tricks used pale in comparison to ground-breaking efforts like “Jurassic Park” (1993) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991).

Sure, the green screen tactics look more convincing than the old school, “guy-in-a-rubber-suit” method, but not by a whole lot.

For his part, Matthew Broderick exploits his boyish charms to come out of this dung heap smelling an awful lot like roses. Essentially, he plays a slightly less neurotic version of the Jeff Goldblum character from “Independence Day.” He's just so darn likable.

Breakdown

:07- Let this be a lesson to all of the kids out there, if you play hooky enough, the army will show up

:14- Alright we get it. His last name is hard to pronounce. Let it go already!

:17- Bumblebee tuna shout out!!!

:25- Mayor Ebert and his assistant Gene? Haha, Siskel must have been so pissed he had to be the assistant

:38- I’m sorry, how exactly can Godzilla hide INSIDE of a building? He’s a giant lizard. I don’t think he’d make it through security

:49- Wow, Godzilla’s new fire breath is very lame. VERY

1:15- I’m tired of all this talk about French coffee! We get it! Broderick’s name is hard to pronounce and the French are eccentric! You don’t need to keep repeating your jokes!!

1:32- I’m the baby!

Video Evidence

What a truly awful song. What the hell was I thinking liking it back in the day? And how did Puff Daddy ever get famous writing junk like this?

Better than most of the movie...

And so there it is: “Godzilla” (1998). Bumblebee tuna.