Coming Soon - "Halloween 3: Season of the Witch"

The whole month of October, Zach and I will be identifying the "worst of the franchise." First up, Halloween 3.

"Nothing But Trouble" - Maria's Take

What do The Brave Little Toaster, Meet the Feebles, and Nothing But Trouble all have in common?

All three films have left me feeling dirty, confused, and disgusted.

I am used to bad films. I can enjoy bad films. Nothing But Trouble is so far beyond a bad film I can't begin to describe it. When Zach and I moved in together, we combined our film collections. I noticed Zach owned not one, but two copies of this trash. Had I watched it before the joining of our collections, it might have been a deal breaker. This movie is one of the worst things I have ever seen.

The makeup is kind of cool. That is the one positive note I can make. I thought I had lost all possible respect for Demi Moore when she shacked up with Kelso, but alas, along came Nothing But Trouble. I think the casting is what really makes me angry. Here we have some of the greatest comedic personalities of our time: John Candy, Dan Aykroyd, and Chevy Chase, and not one of them is ever funny. The funniest thing about this movie is the random appearance by 2 Pac. And that isn't so much funny as in "haha" but funny as in bizarre.

I guess bizarre would be a decent word to describe this train wreck. It was just weird. Nothing made sense, there was little motive for any of the action, and I hated myself a little bit more each and every minute the movie progressed. There are some easy gags that might appeal to prepubescent boys, but I don't know if I'd want them wasting their time. I would feel immense guilt allowing anyone I know to voluntarily watch this film. I felt bad allowing our 7 month old kitten to watch this movie and she does not have rational thought.

Maybe that's it, maybe you have to be somehow separated from any sense of rationale to enjoy this film. Maybe I have just been hardened by the normal drivel emerging from Hollywood these days to really appreciate utter dog shit.

The story is pointless to summarize, because no matter how you break it down, there is no sense to be made. Chevy Chase was alright. His role called for a guy sort of bewildered and confused at the events unfolding around him. I think they just filmed him onset--unaware the cameras were rolling.

Ultimately, I downright hated this film. It bugs me to use the word "hate" in connection with anything John Candy was a part of because I loved that guy. I hate the fact that he spent a few months of his painfully short life making this piece of garbage. I would rather he have made Cool Runnings 2 than this crappy movie.

I was planning on making a pun on the title, but I don't think the movie even deserves that.

"Nothing But Trouble" - Zach's Take

So it's come to this. Nothing But Trouble.

When a film does so much wrong and so very little right, where does one begin in reviewing it?

Nothing But Trouble is perhaps one of the most unpleasant cinematic experiences of all time. Forget Saw, or Hostel, or A Serbian Film. Nevermind any of the 70's and 80's exploitation "classics" like The Last House on the Left, Cannibal Holocaust or I Spit on Your Grave. Nothing But Trouble is a truly grueling experiment in the endurance and perseverance of the audience. It mercilessly and humorlessly aims to torture the viewers in a sadistic display of grime and filth.

Did I mention that it aims to be a comedy?

The story of the film is quite simple. Chris (Chevy Chase) and Diane (Demi Moore) set out for Atlantic City from New York in attempt to do something or rather and meet some guy who neither person likes for reasons that are only semi-explained. Through a series of mishaps (and dumb character decisions) the two end up in a creepy house in Valkenvania, New Jersey. Some stuff happens, none of which is entertaining or remotely funny, and then the movie ends. Oh yeah, and the Justice of the Peace's nose looks like a penis.

That's how I imagine Dan Aykroyd pitched this picture.

This film marks both the debut and departure of Dan Aykroyd as a director. I suspect that after Ghostbusters II succeeded at the box office, someone in Hollywood felt that Aykroyd deserved a chance to bring his unrestrained vision to the lowly masses. That person was clearly a sadist, because the few people who saw this film (it bombed at the box office, understandably) paid dearly. In fact, I have one friend who mentioned to me that the only girl who ever cheated on him was the one whom he took to see Nothing But Trouble on their first date.

The biggest issue with Nothing But Trouble is that there are no jokes in the film. When I described it as humorless, I wasn't exaggerating. The height of the wit on display here is the fact that the judge has a penis nose. That's it. Every scene is just full of obnoxious shouting and aggravatingly stupid decision-making. This film might've worked if there happened to be more than just lowbrow junk. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some uptight prig. I love a good fart joke. But if the humor is going to eschew cleverness in favor of lowest common denominator type stuff, then at least make an attempt to challenge the audience. South Park does it. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia does it. Even with their gross-out humor, they always have a point to make. I can kind of see the hint of indictment of the U.S. justice system going on here, but it never delves deep enough and it certainly is never funny.

The last infuriating thing about Nothing But Trouble is the sheer waste of talent on display. Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, John Candy. Hell, even The Thing and Jurassic Park cinematographer Dean Cundey are doing essentially nothing worthwhile. The only somewhat-decent thing is the make-up effects, which are done pretty well. But they're certainly nothing that hasn't been done before or better in other films.

Little known fact: hip hop group Digital Underground appear as themselves and waste our time with an interminably-long music sequence for no reason relevant to the plot. Know who was a member of Digital Underground? Tupac Shakur. Now I think we know the real reason behind his murder...

As always, leave your thoughts in the comments below or email us at cinematicfacepalm@gmail.com

Coming Soon - "Nothing But Trouble"

Our "Box Office Blunders" series is coming to end with the pinnacle of Hollywood mistakes.

Full disclosure: at one point in recent history, I owned not one but two copies of this movie on DVD.

Spoiler alert: I still have one. You can't give this movie away.

"Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" - Maria's Take

Okay, first of all, the title is misleading. "Ballistic" seems to indicate some crazy focus on guns. There was certainly a lot of gunfire in the movie, but not nearly enough to warrant an inclusion in the title. Also, there was one fight between the title characters, but they ultimately join forces. Having said all of that, I can't think of a proper title for this movie. The plot, characters, even the locations were so muddled there was nothing coherent enough to form a title.

This movie also included the most boring motorcycle chase I have ever seen. The two stunt people looked so uneasy on the bikes, their top speed was maybe 35. A wood-paneled station wagon sped passed them. It was pretty great though, because they had some epic techno music blasting during the chase, so it just made the scene all the more ridiculous.

I think my biggest problem with this film was just how confusing the story became. It started off simple enough, a young boy, Michael, was implanted with some piece of technology that could potentially kill him. Sever, played dreadfully by Lucy Liu, extracts the technology and protects the boy. Ecks, played by the always mediocre Antonio Banderas, is trying to find his wife. He is told Sever carries the necessary information to find his long lost love, and so he hunts down Sever. Alright, I got that part. However, it is at this point in the screenwriting process that the writer decided to start including action film cliches. So, Ecks learns that Michael is his son and the evil Gant has married his wife. Ecks and Sever then team up. My problem with the majority of the plot revolves around Sever's lack of character. We learn she was a mother whose child was taken, but we never understand why she is so set on saving Michael. Gant is the one who took her family away, and I venture to guess she is just set on revenge, but the characters are so weak it becomes hard to place some of the ideas together.

This movie was most likely written for an audience happy with big explosions and hot, half naked women. I understand that I might not be the target audience for this movie. However, this movie isn't fun like the first Transformers movie and it isn't hilariously over the top like...well, other action flicks (I must admit here, action movies really aren't my favorite, so it is hard for me to provide examples). This movie plays out like a sub-par video game.

In conclusion, when a production company hires a guy named Kaos (pronounced like "chaos" not "Laos"--an embarrassing mistake I made), you can't expect Hitchcock levels of film-making, hell, you can't expect Michael Bay levels of film-making. This movie was just bad. Don't watch it.

"Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" - Zach's Take

A resounding meh.

That's all this movie elicits from me. It's just mediocre in the truest sense of the word. Not a single thing about the film is interesting in the least. Terrible, poorly-paced script. Bland performances. Stale action scenes. I'm sure I've said this is a previous review, but it bears repeating. When it comes to action movies, the story doesn't always have to be clever or hell, even make sense. But if you're gonna skimp on some aspect of the movie, then you have to make up for it in the action scenes. And naturally, this movie's action scenes are poorly conceived and not the least bit thrilling. But what do you expect when the director's name is "Kaos?"

Ugh.

That really sums up the movie right there. "Directed by Kaos." And surprise! A guy named "Kaos" has an affinity for really terrible techno/house/electronica music, so he decided to put it in his stupid movie! Sorry buddy, just because you enjoy boring, repetitive drivel doesn't mean you should throw it in your action scenes.

This movie might have been successful if it were released eight or nine years earlier. This has mid-90's action movie written all over it. The plot is incredibly derivative and even the one-liners are facepalm-inducing. This movie is exactly what the average studio exec thinks the American public wants. Thank the flying spaghetti monster that they rejected this tripe and instead opted for something more artistic and thought-provoking.

As always, leave your thoughts in the comments section below or email us with your suggestions at cinematicfacepalm@gmail.com!

Coming Soon - "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever"

Hey, it's that "Grant's like me; he's a digger" guy from Jurassic Park! Oh man, Jurassic Park is a great film. I like the dinosaurs. And the score. And the Jeff Goldblum.

Damnit, now I wanna watch Jurassic Park! Why did we have to start a site about watching bad movies?

"Ishtar" - Maria's Take

Okay, so it wasn't that bad.

Granted, it wasn't very good either. I went into this movie expecting absolute garbage. For years, I have been told this movie is pretty much unwatchable. And, after about 20 minutes of Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty proving that they cannot sing and have no chemistry as a comedic duo, I would agree. However, about halfway through the film there are some entertaining scenes. I think those individuals who say this film is awful have probably never suffered through the likes of "Cutthroat Island" or "Miss Conception."

Usually I complain about how bored I was throughout the duration of these movies, however, this one kept my attention and actually had me laughing. I think both Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman are wonderful actors, but I don't think this was the proper genre for the two. Attempting to homage the Bing Crosby and Bob Hope "Road to..." movies of the 40s and 50s, "Ishtar" places two painfully ordinary individuals in the middle of an African land war (hilarious!). The difference is, in the famous "Road to..." films, audiences knew what they were getting into from the get-go. Hope and Crosby were famous personalities, not Oscar friendly actors more suited for high drama or artful comedies (you know, like "Tootsie). Also, in the "Road to..." films, there was a very specific straight character and a well defined clown. In "Ishtar" the roles get muddled, and it sometimes feels like Beatty and Hoffman are both trying too hard to show off their comedic panache.

However, I did actually enjoy some of this film. The auctioneer scene with Hoffman pretending to know every dialect was fun and I enjoyed the whole "blind camel" bit. Unfortunately, the writers and director of the film focused on the wrong aspects of the plot. Setting them up as terrible though ambitious musicians is fine, and I think the ending, although absolutely ridiculous, could work more effectively if it was not drawn out for a lengthy and unnecessary bit of time. The first 20 or so minutes of this movie felt disconnected and irrelevant to the rest of the film. I understand that the filmmakers were attempting to create the exposition for their ultimate punchline, but it was the part of the film that dragged rather mercilessly and, I'm certain, lost a large percentage of their potential audience.

Overall, of all the films reviewed thus far, I have to admit (much to my own chagrin) that I enjoyed this one the most. Perhaps it is my love for Dustin Hoffman, but I really didn't hate this movie. I agree that it does, many times, try way too hard, but compared to some of the awful things that get released today (how many "Resident Evil" movies does Paul W.S. Anderson really need to make?) "Ishtar" is simply a mediocre Hollywood film with surprisingly good actors.

"Ishtar" - Zach's Take

Ishtar's reputation is that of one of the worst films ever made. A colossal failure. A staggering display of ineptitude.

I can't say that I necessarily agree with that sentiment, but it is mostly terrible. The acting is fine. But that's about it.

Really, the fault of the film comes down squarely to Writer/Director Elaine May. Basically, the script is atrociously structured. The first act mostly consists Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty singing terrible songs in a desperate attempt to get laughs from the audience. Those laughs never come. We get it, they're terrible singers. Can we learn something about their characters so that we care about them? No? Why Not? Because Elaine May couldn't be bothered to flesh out their characters beyond the fact that they're bad singers? Oh, okay. Let's just have another insufferable scene of the two guys singing terribly until suddenly we are thrown into the Middle East and introduced to a stupid plot revolving around an ancient map and a power struggle between the CIA and communists.

Ugh.

The only time this movie even slightly amused me was when a blind camel comes into play. Even then, I was laughing at how ridiculously derpy camels are, not the scene itself. Seriously, look:

"HURF DURF I'M A CAMEL!! ISHTAR IS AN UNDERRATED CLASSIC!"

Okay, where was I? Oh yeah, this movie isn't the worst picture ever made, not by a long shot. But it is a pretty terrible Hollywood movie, with very few redeeming qualities. It's also one of the laziest big budget movies I've ever seen. There was clearly very little thought put into any aspect of it. Considering the talent involved, I guess I understand why it's been so mercilessly eviscerated by critics and the public. After seeing it, I can't really be bothered to defend it.

As always, leave your thoughts in the comments below or email us with suggestions at cinematicfacepalm@blogspot.com

Coming Soon - Ishtar

Continuing on in our "Box Office Blunders" series, we have the notorious Ishtar. This is probably the only one in our list that I've consistently seen a small few actually defend.

Judging from the trailer, I can see why. I mean, Dustin Hoffman has never been in a bad movie!

And every single Warren Beatty movie is a classic. Charles Grodin's filmography is simply flawless.

"Cutthroat Island" - Maria's Take

Pirates, treasure, exploding ships, cutlasses, scene-stealing monkeys; never would I have imagined a movie jam-packed with all of these things could ever be so painfully boring. Starring the usually charismatic and likable Geena Davis and Matthew Modine, "Cutthroat Island" succeeded with sucking these two actors dry of any personality. The script was abysmal, the acting was stilted and poorly directed, the sound editing was obnoxiously uneven, the special effects and makeup were sloppy, and the sets were cheesy.

Hmm, I wonder why this movie bombed?!

The plot is so cliche it is barely worth mentioning. Morgan, portrayed lazily by Geena Davis, is a lady pirate searching for her late father's treasure. She happens upon William Shaw (according to Zach--I heard him called "Sean"),played by Matthew Modine, some sort of thief-liar-slave, whom she buys and falls in love with. They are racing against Frank Langella's character, one whose name I missed, who also wants the treasure--basically because they needed an antagonist. Good wins out, blah, blah, blah.

My biggest issue with this film was the writers didn't even try to write dialogue authentic for the time period. Actually, to be fair, little of this movie's production reflected the mid 17th century. The jokes were mostly visual and usually consisted of either a kick in the groin or the monkey (who is, inexplicably, either mentioned or seen in every shot) thinking he's people. One of the British soldiers looks remarkably like Louis XIV, which doesn't begin to make sense, and the other characters look straight out of the Dark Ages.

This movie failed for a great number of reasons: it was painfully tedious, the story took far too long to resolve itself, the characters were boring or generic at best, and most noticeably, the filmmakers tried way too hard. This film tried to be eveything, a romance, an action flick, a costume drama, a comedy; and yet it failed at every one. Ultimately, it was a boring 2 plus hours of cinematic disaster that dragged a couple of likable actors down with its sinking ship.

On the bright side, this is EXACTLY the type of film Zach and I created this blog to review. It is Hollywood at it's most cringe-worthy, and to that I say cheers to you, Mr. Bigshot Producer, I hope that 140 million dollar loss feels really good right about now.

"Cutthroat Island" - Zach's Take

Before watching Cutthroat Island, I was afraid that I might actually enjoy the film. I feared that it would be better than its reputation would lead one to believe. It couldn't be as bad as people say, no. It must be unfairly maligned! And if it wasn't so terrible, it has no place on our blog.

Unfortunately, I was wrong.

It's a miserable, plodding, cliche-ridden borefest. When the producers set out to make this film, it's clear that they wanted to make something akin to the Errol Flynn swashbuckling adventure films. What they forgot was the adventure and swashbuckling. Sure, there's lots of swordplay in this film, but none of it is exciting or remotely interesting because a.) the characters are absolutely one-note, and b.)the choreography is extremely stagey and tame. Not to mention, no less than 57% per cent of this movie is in slow motion. Director Renny Harlin inexplicably decides to switch between slow motion and normal shots for the majority of the movie's action sequences. There's no rhythm, no intention. The slow motion is never used to build the tension or suspense. It kinda just comes out of nowhere. At times, it feels like the slo-mo shots were an accident, but the producers realized they were already $100 million in the hole and couldn't go back to do reshoots.

What I'm getting at is this movie, which focuses almost exclusively on action, can't even get the action scenes right. I mean, if you're going to ignore characterization, humor, and quick-plotting in exchange for lots of sword fights, then at least make the fights fun!

There's no single fault in this movie. It's the product of a million astoundingly awful decisions. Terrible script. Boring direction. Zero chemistry between Matthew Modine and Geena Davis. And that goddamned monkey the producers decided to throw in to appeal to children for comic relief.

The movie has one ambition that is kind of admirable, and that's making a female the protagonist as well as the major player in all the fights. There's a real shortage of decent female action heroes. Sadly, Geena Davis is the actress called in to possess the dry-cool wit and physicality required for the role. Look, Geena Davis is fine most of the time. She does what's required of her in The Fly, she's not bad in Beetlejuice, and she's not terrible in A League of their Own. But she is terrible in this. I'm sorry, but she does not strike me as a badass pirate chick.

Don't even get me started on Matthew Modine.

All-in-all, this was painful to sit through. I love big, dumb fun as much as the next moviegoer, but this movie is just a bloated, moronic chore. It's also one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. Sometimes, only sometimes, the American public gets it right. Thankfully, this one got buried out to sea.

As always , leave your thoughts in the comments below or email us at cinematicfacepalm@gmail.com