I do love checking out a film that's "so bad, it's good", but (and this is weird to say) sometimes they don't quite deliver the entertainment factor as much as I wish they did. I tend to enjoy these for the laughs, and more often than not, they just plain don't deliver in their hilarity. They're just plain bad. But then, once in a while, we get something like 'Birdemic: Shock and Terror'; a movie that's so incredibly bad that basically every scene is a new laugh. It's what I like to call "Room-Level Quality", in reference to perhaps the most famous of its type. For something to be dubbed "Room-Level Quality", it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot. Low budget, bad acting, bad special effects, bad editing, bad dialogue, bad music... the list goes on, but we can consider those a sort of "bare minimum". Thankfully, 'Birdemic' actually has all of that and then some. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, BUT, it's also something I could watch again and again, introducing people to it who may not have seen it. This was one that I laughed all the way through with, and it definitely strikes me as one I want to watch again and again, looking for whatever little stupid things I can find within it. What really caught my attention, though, was the realization that this has two sequels, and the films somehow apparently get worse as they go... this only means, of course, that I'll be seeking them out to review in the future. If they are half as fun as this was, it'll be worth it. But, keeping focus here, 'Birdemic: Shock and Terror' might be the single best example of one of these "bad movies" accidentally becoming some sort of after-school special about environmental awareness. It's laughable how much this film goes into how good it is to live green that it covers everything from global warming to driving hybrid cars to eating seaweed, and it even goes out of the way to name-drop 'An Inconvenient Truth' as a "good movie". Now, before I get into this, I should warn everyone that I might spoil a thing or two about the plot. The good news, however, is that there really isn't much to spoil. The basic story behind what we're here to see is that one day, a bunch of CG birds attack a small town (some evidently equipped with airplane engines). I guess it's meant to take its inspiration from 'The Birds', but the catch here is that the bird attacks look so insanely ridiculous, using copy-and-paste bird animations (that even glitch on occasion) over scenes of people struggling against what is very clearly nothing at all... but that's the good part of the movie, and it only starts about halfway through. Before all of that (and after a drastically slow credit roll) we meet Rod (Alan Bagh), a successful software salesman who eventually bumps into his old classmate, Nathalie (Whitney Moore), a "Victoria's Secret" model to be. So yeah, the first half-hour or so is pretty much just us watching them get to know each other, date, and eventually do the deed while staying at a hotel. During this time, however, it's beyond entertaining watching their exchanges. The script comes across as though a child wrote it, and the acting comes across as similar to that of a middle-school play. While these two lovebirds are getting to know each other, and we continue to laugh along, we do begin to wonder where the hell this movie got its namesake. The only thing we really get for the first half of the movie is that in the background, unexplained fires, and dead birds, among other strange things start popping up. Then, if you're still with the film after they sleep together, the film just pulls a pin on a grenade, and out of absolutely nowhere, birds start attacking the town. The visuals of this whole event are probably what the film is best-known for at this point, but my god, it is laugh-out-loud hilarious - especially with the notion that it was kinda sorta supposed to be taken seriously. Eventually, Rod and Nathalie come across an ex-Marine named Ramsey (Adam Sessa) and his girlfriend Becky (Catherine Batcha) as well as two children who have lost their parents in the bird attacks, Susan (Janae Caster) and Tony (Colton Osborne). They rally together to survive these bird attacks as they picnic out in the open and have a discussion with some random old man about the effects global warming has had on these birds. Yes, folks. These birds spit acid and explode when they crash because of global warming. I know, it makes all the sense in the world, but it's details like that, that make this movie so damn much fun to watch. If you are a fan of "Bad Movies", the likes of 'The Room' and 'Troll 2', please do yourself a favour and check this one out if you haven't yet. This is another one where it's almost best to get a group together to watch it because it is such a fun time. It's ironic that nothing really happens until halfway through the movie, but the first half is quite honestly just as entertaining due to the dialogue and bad acting, among other glitches in the editing. Even before anything happens at all, the movie is making you laugh with the overuse of the same musical loop during the opening credits.
This is one of those bad movies that I actually have to give a pass to because, hell, it's just plain entertaining. This is the kind of fun-time movie I can easily recommend to anyone who loves a good bad movie, and I personally consider it a new favourite in that category. The thing is a complete dumpster fire, but it belongs in the high rankings of movies like it. To a mainstream audience, it's certainly one of the worst movies ever made. But to the niche audience of bad movie fans like me, it's just another guilty pleasure we're glad got to see the light of day if only to entertain us so accidentally! Check it out, and have a good time! 2/5
0 Comments
Dear God, where to begin with this one. For starters, I find it fascinating that in looking up either "fear.com" or "feardotcom.com" (as we see it's actually typed out in the film), you get nothing. "fear.com" gives you the "this page can't be reached" screen with the sad piece of paper icon, and "feardotcom.com"... well, I dunno for sure, but warnings of it potentially being a malicious site pop up and no amount of curiosity is gonna make me risk whatever that leads to, be it a virus or just things I really don't wanna see. I remember when this came out and never having an interest in it. This was right around when I was really into 80s classic horror, and the modern horror genre wasn't really doing it for me. 'Feardotcom' provides a solid reason as to why I avoided a lot of it, and more than half of that has to do with the fact that this is almost the same story as 'The Ring', which came out just a couple of months after this, but was infinitely better. Even then I think it's a little overrated, but we'll get into that on a review for that sometime in the future. This is also just shortly before "torture porn" (which is definitely not my path when it comes to horror) became popularized with movies like 'Hostel' and 'Saw' - although I still contend 'Saw' didn't actually become famous for its torture porn aspect until about 'Saw III'. Until then, things are solid. But we're not here to talk about that, even if it is far more interesting than whatever the hell this was. 'Feardotcom' was also released at a time when the internet wasn't at all what it is today. Internet Explorer was the big browser name, you chatted with MSN Messenger, Facebook, Instagram and even YouTube didn't exist at all yet, the list goes on. So more than anything, the film is just incredibly dated. It portrays what we might call "the dark web" these days, but with consequences for looking at it. Things all start with a mysterious, and, if I'm honest, rather funny death on a subway, where a guy kind of throws himself in front of a train. In reality, not funny, but the execution of this scene was such a "WTF" moment. Ultimately, it is somewhat explained, but I digress. This calls NYPD detective Mike Reilly (Stephen Dorff) to the scene where he discovers the victim bleeding from his eyes with a look of terror on his face. Soon, several more victims start popping up with the same weird symptoms, which frankly fascinates Dept. of Health researcher, and deadpan character extraordinaire, Terry Huston (Natascha McElhone). Eventually, the idea of some kind of virus is ruled out, and Mike and Terry put their heads together to try to solve the mystery behind these deaths. Eventually, it's discovered that the one thing all of these victims have in common is visiting an underground website about two days before their demise. Sound familiar? Yeah, it's 'The Ring'. But why do we know about 'The Ring' so well as opposed to this when this was released beforehand? I guess the simple answer would be the Japanese horror cult phenomenon 'Ringu', which 'The Ring' Americanized itself after whereas this just kind of took the idea and made it something different. I'd say at this point in the game, to go back and watch this, it's interesting to see various familiarities with titles other than 'The Ring' as well, and I can't even properly fault the movie for these, as they were released afterward. For example, 'Saw' has the same idea of the would-be victim "playing a game" before their inevitable death, and a lot of this reminded me of that, along with the whole torture porn aspect of things. And again, torture porn isn't something I'm into when it comes to horror. I find it cheap for the most part, and can only really endure it as long as the victim is able to get some good revenge in the end. As far as that aspect goes with this, I must admit that it wasn't anything I felt I had to turn away from, really, as it doesn't show much of anything. But that's also the problem with it. This movie is full of bad cuts, and confusing camera angles that make the viewer sort of have to guess what they're even looking at. We don't really see much of anything except quick glimpses, so if you ARE a fan some something like 'Hostel' for those reasons (I understand and respect that everyone has their tastes), this isn't even something I can recommend on that level. It tries to be more psychological, I suppose, but it does a sloppy job of it. But what killed me about this movie more than anything was Natascha McElhone's acting. Good lord was she awful in this. And I do not directly blame her for that, as it could very well be the direction. The only thing I really knew her for before this was 'The Truman Show', and she's quite charming in that. So something's definitely off here. The worst of it involves a scene nearing the end when she's struggling with the big baddie of the movie and, quite honestly, just looks bored, adding zero tension to the scene. It was as though it was their hundredth take and she had just had enough of acting altogether. But again, could be the direction. William Malone's track record isn't exactly peak, but hit-or-miss at best.
I could go on about various clichés throughout the movie as well, such as the glitchy camera work accompanies by weird nails-on-chalkboard sounds. Or the fact that the whole time, Mike and Terry are looking out for who a little girl with a bouncy ball is. Granted, there's something eerie about it in general, but it's such a "go-to", namely the concept of the creepy little girl who potentially needs redemption - again, 'The Ring'. So, in the end, I think I'll just conclude as simply as possible - 'The Ring' is the movie you want to see. Not this glitchy mess. Again, it's not entirely my cup of tea, but I do respect it and how it was executed. It's not without some solid creepiness, and I have to appreciate people's love of it. But this? Who even remembers it? 1/5 So, this is either a really good thing or a really bad thing for this "Bad Movie Review", but I have to confess that I've never actually seen the original John Carpenter/Deborah Hill collaboration. In some ways, that sucks, as I have nothing to compare it to. I don't know how close this represents it either - what they got right, what they screwed up, etc. In some ways though, it's good, because I can say with certainty that this movie does a good job of being bad on its own, without the need for any sort of comparison. This was one I caught in theaters when it was released, and I can remember coming out of it thinking it was a pile of junk then, too. Although, I will say that I started this whole concept of bad movie reviews fairly loosely with this set of three bad horror movies. This will be made up for as these reviews keep going because I think I went with "forgettable bad" over "classically bad". But I digress. All of this considered, this is still a stinker, and even though I admit to not having seen the original from 1980, I can still safely recommend that version over this one, if only because it's considered a bit of a Carpenter classic. On the fictional island of Antonio, off the coast of Oregon, the small community is preparing to unveil a statue which commemorates its founding fathers. Meanwhile, Nick Castle (Tom Welling) and his friend Spooner (DeRay Davis) disturb a couple of underwater artifacts that seemingly set things into motion - namely a pocket watch and a hairbrush. These artifacts once belonged to a ship known as the Elizabeth Dane, which we only really know burns in the beginning. The rest of the history of the ship's fate unveils itself as the film unfolds, as it's all part of the grand mystery. Sticking to the main part of the story and trying not to spoil any details of this story (if anyone even cares), Nick soon meets up with his former girlfriend, Elizabeth Williams (Maggie Grace), who has come back after being away for six months for some reason. They hit it off immediately again, despite the fact that Nick tries picking her up on the side of the road, thinking she's just some sexy hitchhiker. Eventually, the aforementioned pocket watch is given to Elizabeth by the film's harbinger of doom, Machen (R. Nelson Brown), and the hairbrush is found by young Andy Wayne - son of the local radio host, Stevie Wayne (Selma Blair). It's not long before things start going weird. A thick fog seems to be the source of it all, but the film is full of unexplainable phenomena that get a lot of funny and/or weird reactions. For example, in a scene involving Elizabeth sitting in a chair with water droplets falling on her from the ceiling, it seems clear that ghostly footprints are appearing above her head. A creepy situation, sure, but her reaction is far more that of a clueless person who can't seem to wrap her head around the concept of moving. Furthermore, no part of her seems scared, and the scene just comes across as incredibly bland when it's meant to be scary. There is just a lot of bad going on here, and so much of it comes from all three major culprits of acting, writing and direction. At the end of the day, these are the things that are probably most important to telling a good on-screen story. All of it is pretty weak here, and the whole thing comes off as much more of a late-night made-for-TV thriller than the apparent classic the 1980 version was. You've also got actors here that simply don't compare to the original portrayals of these characters. I mean, scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis vs Maggie Grace? Cult horror legend, Tom Atkins vs Tom Welling? Slasher film birth-giver Janet freaking Leigh vs Sara Botsford? There's no contest here. Even having said all of that, I have still read numerous times, something along the lines of this being a bad remake of a film that's really "just okay". I have a feeling I could join the originals' cult following rather easily the more I read about it, but if the general consensus is that the original is a bit of a middle-ground horror, that should speak volumes as to how rough this flick really is. It seemed to get a mild pass upon its release, but I can't say I'm surprised at not being able to find it to stream anywhere (I found it to rent on YouTube). As mentioned earlier, it's just plain forgettable. I feel like if the original didn't exist, this would have had an even shorter lifespan. Now, I will defend the film in just a couple of aspects. For one, the score is half-decent. It does a good job of adding some creepiness to the atmosphere of things. It's well done in its subtlety, using ominous tones to set the mood. But even having said that, and again without having seen the original, there's no comparison to the awesomeness that is the original score. Carpenter definitely had a knack for delivering a good creepy soundtrack. So once again, when it comes to old vs new, I think the old takes it. Another aspect of the film I have to give it credit for is the visual effects... even if sometimes the fog machine they're using is far too obvious.
The ghouls look pretty cool here, and the film's use of silhouettes is nice and creepy. We also get visuals of an old, haunted clipper ship that are pretty effective. I wouldn't say it's "visually stunning", but you can kind of tell where the budget for this thing went. However, visuals and music are just not enough to save it. In truth, all re-watching this made me think of was why I wasn't finally giving the original a proper chance. That'll happen eventually, but first I'll need to wash the bad taste this one left, out of my mouth. It's definitely one of the lamest horror movies of the 21st century... which says a lot. 1/5 Bad movies come in all types of flavours, and with that in mind, I intend to keep these bad movie reviews focused on particular themes every month. This month, we're dealing with some of the worst-ranked supernatural horror movies out there. But the truth is, sometimes some of those "terrible" movies are something I can manage to find something I like about. If nothing else, titles like 'The Room' and 'Troll 2' lend themselves as being guilty pleasures. Junk food for the brain when you just feel like indulging. I felt like kicking this month off by taking a look at a movie I feel has been long since forgotten (and probably with good reason) called 'Darkness' - not to be confused with 2016's 'The Darkness' or 'Darkness Falls', which came out just one year later. This was a pretty average haunted house movie that took a lot of influence from other, better material like 'The Shining' and 'Amityville Horror.' In other words, Dad starts to go crazy, and it's all centred on some sort of supernatural element at work. This is no different, except there's also a sort of "cult" element to it - which 'The Shining' eventually got to anyway with 'Doctor Sleep,' but at least we can say that happened after this movie. Still, even reading that director Jaume Balagueró drew influence from 'Shining' and 'Amityville,' that doesn't necessarily mean this will be seen as "good" so much as "copying." Something like this just makes the audience think that they've seen it done before, but better; especially when both stories (never mind the movies) are complete classics that have captured our imaginations and gripped us with fear since they were published. It's hard to imagine a 2002 film that's far too similar to these stories is going to stand out. But oh, it gets better! Before I dive in, I have to mention that there was a lot of seemingly disjointed material here, and there were a few times when I got confused about what was happening. That might just be a "me" thing (usually is), but there did seem to be a lot going on here that felt unnecessary or had me asking, "What? Why?". All in all, one CAN figure it out, but it just feels like there's a lot of odd filler here, and this could have worked out reasonably well as something I could see on my TV instead (at the time, I mean). If a couple of things were changed, this could have been an episode of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?', as it delivers just about as many scares. The opening credits show that something has occurred that has a kid running for his life. The surviving kid narrates to, presumably, a psychologist, and we get that 5 other kids have gone missing during an occult ritual. Forty years later, we cut to a family of four, moving into their new, completely secluded house. So secluded that a city bus stops right in front of it at one point! We're introduced to Dad, Mark (Iain Glen), Mom, Maria (Lena Olin), teenage daughter, the lead character, and prominent "survivor girl," Regina (Anna Paquin), and token kid connected to the paranormal, little brother, Paul (Stephan Enquist). However, Mark's father, Albert (Giancarlo Giannini), is located not too far away from them and is also a doctor. Their short distance from each other is mainly for convenience to help with Mark's progressing Huntington's Disease, which seems to be making him more and more aggressive. It's not long before young Paul starts seeing a small group of kids lurking in the shadows, making him fear the dark for the first time. When Paul is seen with bruises, fingers point at Dad. But soon, Regina starts to wonder if it might have something to do with the house itself... just like 'Shining' and 'Amityville' again. Regina and her love interest, Carlos (Fele Martínez), go looking for answers about the house's past and what went on there. All is eventually revealed by the film's end, but one can't claim things to be too surprising or entirely predictable. I have to say that for me, there really wasn't a lot here to send shivers up my spine - last of all, a group of ghouls who seemingly don't need to be there and, I swear, just look like different versions of the same 'Dick Tracy' villain. It's right up there with "Darth Maul" popping up in 'Sinister' - except 'Sinister' was still a bit more thrilling. In the end, a lot of the film's themes seem to be about the "power" of the darkness, and why we should fear it. But even having said that, I feel like I'm reading too much into it. If you want to see this story essentially done in a similar way but much, much better, do a back-to-back of 'The Shining' and 'Doctor Sleep'. They both make for better, more thrilling horror flicks, and together, they pretty much have the same ingredients as this. They're great stories, too, as opposed to this somewhat jumbled mess that uses lame visuals and jump scares to fill its gaps.
This one seemed to have come and gone upon its release, and completely swept under the rug. It's not really hard to see why, especially since there has been a lot of better material released since then. More than anything, this felt like a cash-in idea, using Paquin to their advantage, remembering that at this point in time, she was a big deal as Rogue in 'X-Men'. By the end, it just ends up being a badly done, discombobulated mess of a copy of better material. BUT it does make for a good drinking game - 1 shot for every time Anna Paquin calls out for any of her family, be it "Paul", "Dad" or "Mom". 1/5 |