Crash! Landen’s Worst 10 Movies of 1978

Here’s the best that I could come up with for the worst of 1978. Several of these are competently done. It speaks more of my lack of having seen bad films from this year. Generally I only seek out the best, most critically acclaimed films from the past so I don’t have fewer bad ones to choose from the further I go back chronologically. But here’s the list I managed for 1978.

10 Battlestar Galactica (A step above Buck Rogers? Or below? It barely makes my list and probably doesn’t belong here. Sure there are many shortcomings, but for a 1970s TV movie pilot, it’s really not that bad.)

9 Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes (Intentionally funny no budget effort. I laughed, but that doesn’t make it good.)

8 The Wiz (The wacky inner-city version of the Wizard Of Oz. I’ll watch it though. It can’t be all bad with the comic force that was Nipsey Russell as the chocolate Tin Man.)

7 The Incredible Hulk (Technically just another pilot for a TV show. I think this was the best effort in the entire run The first appearance of the Lou Ferrigno Hulk was impressive given that this was a 1970s superhero TV series.)

6 The Bad News Bears Go to Japan (Should have stopped with the first. Tony Curtis is no Walter Matthau.)

5 Spider-Man Strikes Back  (Another TV movie, but I loved it. It’s not good, but I loved it.)

4 Dr. Strange (I actually watched this to get a tenth film on my list instead of Jaws 2 or The Omen 2, both of which don’t deserve to be on a ‘Worst’ list. I actually liked this… No, I’m not drunk. I just liked it.)

3 The Swarm (A B movie  with some great actors about killer bees with terrible direction. Well deserving of the Top 3.)

2 KISS Meets The Phantom of The Park (The proof that KISS was incapable of experiencing the emotion called shame.)

1 Grease (This is probably the only movie in any of my lists or reviews where I let emotion get in the way of my judgement. I’ll admit that. However there are very few films that I would prefer watching this over. Off hand I can’t think of  any. Olivia Newton John is the only thing tolerable in this. I can’t watch this movie without getting nauseous and/or contemplating serious injury to myself.)

Whew! That was difficult. I guess when I get to the 60s, I’m going to have to list my ‘Worst 3 Lists’ or something. Lucky for me 1977 lists will be much easier.

Weirdsville (2007) Short Review

While not a GREAT film, Weirdsville (originally called Weedsville until they got sued over the name) is entertaining in a laidback sort of way. Bentley and Speedman play two Beavis and Butthead like druggies who are looking for a way to pay back the local drug dealer before he cuts off their thumbs… or worse.

Taryn Manning plays Matilda, a streetwalker that tries to help the pair with her own failproof plan. Wait. She’s not a hooker, she goes on ‘business dates’. Anyway, trouble mounts when Mattie overdoses on drugs and the pair decides to bury her at an old theater that they used to work at. This continues as a ‘best laid plans’ story as well as a half hearted look at drug addiction.

My favorite character in the film has to be Martin, the mall security guard played by  Jordan Prentice. He has a deadpan delivery that works very well here. The fact that he was one of the actors that brought Howard the Duck to life doesn’t hurt, either… Yes, I liked Howard The Duck, believe it or not.

The story features would be satanists, violently veangeful little people and an underused Matt Frewer who is involved in a bizarre accident that all play a part in the finale.  There are a couple of scenes that stand out, involving Speedman skating barefoot on ice. It’s helps tell the story with an interesting and somewhat melancholy visual.. Weirdsville has a definite indie feel to it. It’s shot pretty well. The characters, even the bad guys in this, are trying their best to be likeable. Director Andy Moyle has a habit of making films (like Empire Records and New Waterford Girl) where every character is likable, but no one has anything interesting to do. There’s just enough to entertain here. There’s never anything remotely heavy in the film and that may be the movie’s biggest weakness. It’s not quite serious enough.

There is a horrible onscreen murder that feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie to some degree. It has a few good laughs mostly stemming from the dialogue or Wes Bentley’s way of high pitched screaming. Every now and again it tries to be poignant with the rat motif (comparing the main characters to a rat treading water.. in a toilet), but isn’t an emotional film. For some reason I enjoyed it, mostly for when the film gets medeival. It’s not a bad film if you’re not expecting much. It’s not a movie that’s going to win any awards, but I liked it enough to put it on my Top 25 Best Movies of 2007 List.

3.5 of 5

Aberdeen (2001) Short Review

Aberdeen is slightly over the top, sometimes predictable, but entertaining. I’ve seen variations of this same story done a little better in films like Smoke Signals or Garden State. The story and what is presented is quite flawed, but the actors involved make it interesting.

The movie starts with the semi-successful Kaisa who is asked by her sick mother to retrieve Kaisa’s alcohol abusing father from another country (Norway). She reluctantly agrees and the film develops as one of those ‘journey’ movies. Kaisa tries to get her father back to England with a number of complications. The film is reminiscent of films like Midnight Run where the writer is challenged with ways to prevent the characters from simply getting on a plane and flying back.

Ian Hart joins them at some point to form a somewhat unlikely trio. Hart seems even unlikelier opposite of Headey, but the movie works. It’s not a heavy film even with the subject matter… absent fathers… alcoholism… terminal illness… drug use… a good bit of nudity (of the topless kind)… Headey carries the film in a breezy nonchalant way. Even when there’s violence being perpetrated in this, it’s of the non-threatening variety. The       characters kind of know that the story isn’t about that.

I wouldn’t call the film brutally funny but there is humor in this, as well as some very awkward moments, both deliberately and otherwise. There are some sequences that are forced, if not shoehorned into the story. One segment in particular that is there for the very awkward second ending of the movie could have been left out. It was almost like after it was written, the producers asked if the writer could ramp up the action a bit and the extended hit and run/punishment ending is what he/she came up with.

Other things like the nose-helm sequence didnt go over too well in the context of the film. This is one of those cases where it seems if the film came in at 90 minutes as movies used to, the story would have worked a lot better.

Unnecessary emphasis is put on showing Skarsgard’s level of alcoholism. Some of the situations are cliched and a lot of it is repetitive. His rendition of ‘drunken man’ is believable. I’ve seen worse versions of faux drunkenness on film.

It’s not hard to like Lena Headey in this. She is very easy on the eyes and I would suspect she had a career as a model before becoming an actress. She’s sympathetic as the emotionally damaged woman, but I do think the drug use aspect of her character was unnecessary. She had several other issues that stemmed from not having a father figure in her life. The coke plotline seemed like an act of desperation by the writer.

Still, the characters were engaging. Maybe a little of it was just because I felt sorry for them. It’s a good effort, despite the cliched Freudian overtones. There was one big late twist (or two) that caught me off guard. It might have been a little better without the arrest towards the end.

I’ve seen Headey in other films that I liked, but I really loved her in this. She’s hard not to like as Kaisa. She over reacts at times, but I guess usually, no one watches films for characters that react correctly in every situation.  This didn’t quite make my Best Films of 2001, but it is a film that I can see watching again.

4 of 5

The Fury (1978) Short Review

This was WAAAAYYYY over the top. You have to expect that from a Brian De Palma film. Over the years his consistency in quality is akin to something like a drunken blind man trying to hit a dart board with a bowling ball. If you’re witness to it, it may be a good idea to take cover. With the exception of The Untouchables and the Stephen King horror classic Carrie, De Palma has offered up a healthy helping of mediocrity. HOWEVAH… When he goes down he doesn’t go down in flames as much as he assaults the viewer with a full on thermonuclear first strike. The Fury isn’t in the class of those two I mentioned, but it does rise above De Palma’s typical offerings, possibly in no small part to the grand ridiculousness of it all.

That he would direct this film, having directed the aforementioned Carrie, a film about a girl with psychic powers, with Amy Irving in a lead role (having been a supporting actress) as a girl with psychic powers, takes big ones as a director.Or maybe he found his reoccurring directorial theme that some directors lock onto. Whatever the reason, he was in familiar territory. It’s interesting to me that a number of films that came after this had a number of elements that seem lifted from here. Stephen King had a number of books/films that included plotlines that were extremely similar. This actually preceded the Dead ZOne by a year. David Cronenberg’s films, too (Scanners in particular). I’ve even seen films like Stir of Echoes that mimiced scenes fom The Fury… I have to wonder if I had seen this way back and seen these other films afterwards instead of before, would I have been calling them ripoffs?

The Fury’s story probably needed a good re-write. There’s a lot of redundancy. It wanders. Not aimlessly, but it wanders. It’s still entertaining.  It begins with what looks to be a terrorist attack on a Mid East beach. Kirk Douglas is frolicking on the beach with his son. Yes, frolicking. It’s that over the top. I was uncomfortable. Anyway, right before the terrorist attack, it’s revealed that Kirk’s son has a ‘special’ talent and that Kirk is leaving an unnamed government agency. A colleague (John Cassavetes is congratulating him when the terrorists attack. There’s some extended gun violence where the son thinks he’s witnessed his father being killed in a boat explosion. He isn’t. While the son is whisked away by the men that work for Kirk’s former colleage, Kirk swims ashore. He immediately discovers that it wasn’t a random attack, but a hit on Douglas in order to separate him from his son. Cassavetes is behind it. That sets up Kirk being on the run for the rest of the film.

On a side note, there was a supreme effort made in this to show that Douglas still ‘had it’ to a nigh-embarrassing degree. He wrestles the son on the beach. He shows off his clean shaven man-boobs. He spends an inordinate amount of time in his skivvies. He jumps from buildings. Scales walls. Intimidates men half his age. Displays the sex drive of a recently deflowered virgin. He fights off German Shepards. He carries the girl (And slaps her around a little). We get it Kirk of 1978, we get it.

The film’s just getting started, though. The film cuts to Chicago where now Amy Irving is in a bikini at the beach. Much better.We find out she’s got the gift of being psychic… or telekinetic… or psychometric… or all of the above. She doesn’t fit in because of this (much like Carrie) and ends up being sent to a special institute where the bad guys await. The story zips back and forth between Douglas searching for his son while eluding ‘the man’ and Irving having unintentionally bloody psychic episodes. There is also Douglas’ former ladylove that gives him an inside view of the institute where Irving is kept. Lucky coincidence.

It was surprising that the ending was not as over the top as perhaps it could have been. Don’t get me wrong, the movie goes out with a bang reminiscent of Scanners (or that one being reminiscent of The Fury). It actually goes one step further. But the buildup, even with the scrambled storyline, was a little better than the slightly nonsensical double ending.

This isn’t as well crafted as the nightmarish Carrie, but it isn’t intended as straight horror. This has a lot more in common with Firestarter (another one that seems influenced by this). it’s a little super-heroish rather than intended to scare. It doesn’t skimp on the blood, though. De Palma throws in a lot of Scarface like shoot ‘em up scenes as well as a lot of 70s style humor. With all the different elements in the film, I wouldn’t have thought that this would work, but it did. Douglas and Irving are probably a big reason why.

3.5 of 5

Johnny Mnemonic (1995) Short Review

 

A mid 90s attempt at a William Gibson cyber-punk short story that feels like its from the 1980s. This might have worked had it not been dumbed down for a mass audience. It’s just not a smart movie. The movie depends on outlandish ideas and images that I’m sure they thought would go over well with young techie anarchist wannabes. Ther are several moents in this where it seems everythings stops in the film as if the director is asking the audience directly “This is cool isn’t it?” My answer would be no.

The film serves as a primer for Reeves later role in The Matrix films. There are a few similarities such as the implanted internet connection in Keanu’s head. In this he plays an cyber-courier, where important data is uploaded directly into his cyborg brain for transport. It’s funny how the advent of the internet has changed things. You would think in this near future that they could just email the encrypted information and it would be a lot faster/safer, but the filmmakers didn’t even see DVDs (or BlueRay) taking the place of VHS tapes.

Reeves is challenged along the way by Yakuza killers and a portrayal of  a Jesus freak that reaches near offensive levels (and not just for the terrible Christian bumper sticker-like one liners that Lundgren is only capable of uttering in this). Who he is aided by is where the film waterskis right into the gills of the shark. I might can buy muscleheaded singer Rollins as a scientific type. In some circles he’s viewed as an intelligent guy because he sometimes wears glasses and performs ‘spoken word’. But I can NOT buy both he AND rapper Ice T as cyber-geniuses in this. There is some truly mechanical acting in this with the collection of Reeves, Lundgren, Rollins, T, Tweed and the undisputed King of Cheeseball acting: Udo Kier.

As far as the action goes, the Matrix this is not. None of the fight scenes are anything beyond adequate, especially when the warrior/bodyguard women of the film are involved. This is one of those films before they started giving the actors actual training and it shows.

"Come to Jesus".

There are many things that distance the viewer from any emotional involvement in the movie, the biggest being that a good deal of the big moments of the film hinge on ‘imaginary’ moments. When an actor hits himself in the thumb with a hammer, people can relate to that. When Keanu puts on a helmet with multiple emanating wires and yells “YAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH”… Well that’s not very cinematic. You’re having to rely on how well Reeves yells “Yargh” to gauge the significance of it. Eveery time they did that, the other actors just stood around blankly waiting for the next scene…. And the dolphin… Geez. They have a fake cyborg dolphin in a tank just large enough for it to fit in and the dolphin ‘saving the day’ is one of the crucial moments of the film.

This movie is a mediocre time waster, but it’s not quite bad enough to go on my List of the Worst Films of 1995. It was close, though. This only succeeds in being extremely forgettable.

Wasn't Dina Meyer in that Friday The 13th TV show?

1.5 of 5

The Killer Inside Me (2010) Short Review

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD. This was just a gigantic miscalculation. Parts of this are done well. The biggest problem (and not the only one) is with the casting, especially of Alba. I think she does a fine job acting, BUT… The intended shock that they try and deliver using Alba does not work. You know it’s Jessica Alba the famous actress. You know she’s not really getting beaten up. You may say, “Of course not, idiot! They’re actors!” But I say that her role REQUIRED  an unknown actress to have the scene be believable and as violent as intended. WIth Alba in the role, the continued beating just seems gratuitous and again…”That’s Jessica Alba. She’s not really being beaten up.” It had no impact, at least with me and really just turned me against the film instead of the lead anti-protagonist (or whatever you’d call Affleck’s character in this).

Another problem is some of film is illogical and comes off just as the director (Michael Winterbottom) trying to convince the viewer that he’s an edgy filmmaker. The eventual stabbing of Alba’s character was completely forced and unrealistic. Bringing the victim to the accused and standing WAY behind her so as to let the villain protagonist (WHATEVER you call him) predictably stab her was poorly executed (no pun intended).

The film revolves around a small town officer of the law that secretly is a complete woman-hating dirtbag capable of extreme violence and murder. Casey Affleck does an adequate job of portraying the character. That’s not  a surprise. He’s a good actor. The problem is that the  film doesn’t appear to want to say anything about what’s transpiring other than to depict it.

The film is set in the 50s and takes a 1950s approach to Freudian psychology involving Affleck’s mother, wife and (Alba playing) hooker mistress. I personally have never cared for films that center on a villain being a villain for the entire film unless there is some sort of point to be made (see 1978′s Straight Time for a proper example).

Perhaps Jim Thompson’s book (which this was taken from) said something worthwhile. I have not read it. I do know there was one of the worst parts of the book removed for the film, I guess to make it more palatable, which is ridiculous with the kind of violence toward women that the lead perpetrates in this. I will state that I have a problem with films about a villain doing bad deeds for an entire film. It’s just not interesting to me… unless there is some sort of reasonable point.

This seemed more intent I’ve only seen one other Michael Winterbottom film (Code 46) and thought that one was a masterpiece, so I don’t know how he would end up making a film this polar opposite. This will make mysogynists happy, though. It made my Worst 10 Films of 2010.

1 0f 5

Harry Brown (2010) Short Review

WARNING: A SLIGHT SPOILER ABOUNDS: I had heard some things about this film that were not entirely true; mostly that the film embraces the idea of vigilante revenge killings as morally ‘right’ and I found that it did not. With Emily Mortimer’s character, the film does voice the opinion that you can’t have a civilized society with this kind of street justice.

I think it actually has a little in common, not with the Death Wish films, so much as Taxi Driver. Not in the respect that Harry is off his rocker, but that ultimately he does something that is unlawful, perhaps immoral, and by film’s end he hasn’t had to face societal repercussions and he’s in a better state of mind than he was at the beginning. So was I, though. There’s a bit of catharsis in seeing obnoxious deserving neer-do-wells (and they ARE obnoxious in this) get blown away onscreen, right or wrong.

The story is a direct one. Michael Caine’s haggard, weary Harry Brown is a former soldier, who had long left that sort of occasionally violent life behind him because of his wife’s influence. He is aging in an increasingly violent society, but chooses to look the other way like everyone else when it comes to dealing with the blatant lawlessness that goes on right in his own neighborhood.

But his wife dies. Then his only friend (another elderly gentleman) comes to him complaining about the young thugs that harass him on a daily basis. Harry tells him to inform the police of his problem, but he already has. They’ve done nothing (of course) and now he was hoping that Harry would help him deal with them (with the necessary violence). Harry will not… Until his friend is killed by the neighborhood drug dealing hoodlums. After the police and the court system prove futile, Harry decides to basically get even for the death of his friend.

Caine is really good here, but then, he always is. He’s one of those actors that can make anything sound good. The bad guys are convincingly repugnant. Loud. Arrogant. Defiant, yet cowardly. The director does a good job with making them seem worthy of being the victims of Harry’s vengeance. This is also different from other revenge tales of this variety, just from the fact that the one doling out the punishment is of an advanced age. Harry struggles with his physical limitations. There is a funny scene or two involving some of the stereotypical things you expect from someone up in age. Harry makes one of his victims work a cell phone for him.

I enjoyed the movie, but mostly just for Caine in the lead. He’s had quite an extraordinary career and its great to see him in a lead role again. He can still carry a film, rather easily. The story itself is predictable, except for one (slight) twist towards the end. It’s also ever so slightly over the top at times, but I didn’t mind that. It had the standard professional looking cinematography that’s common nowadays. Not a complaint, but there are an awful lot of movies that have this same kind of hyper-crisp look with the blue/green and amber-golds for the night scenes. Artistically speaking it was uninspired, but that’s minor for this kind of story. It’s well acted and a professionally made revenge tale.

4 of 5

Fish Tank (2009) Review

Fish Tank is a British film. It won their version of the Academy Awards in 2009. After seeing it I have to say deservedly so.

The movie starts out with the protagonist Mia (Katie Jarvis) going about a typical day in the life. She exists in the lower end of British society and is not depicted very kindly. You can see her problems immediately, the biggest being that she has no (positive) parental figure in her life. When Michael Fassbender’s Conner enters the picture, it has an immediate, but temporary effect. I can’t say what I’d like to say abut that without giving things away, but I will say where the movie was going with Mia and Conner IS predictable. But what happens after that… Wow. I had no idea where the film was going or what it was about.

It even made me squirm a little. I even had thoughts of turning it off again, this time the subject matter began to take a VERY nasty turn… Or at least it seemed that way.

Jarvis’ Mia had won me over by that point, but the choices she makes (or doesn’t make) in the last hour created quite a bit of anxiety. It’s one of the better finishes that I’ve seen in a movie, recently. There are several story threads that are seen one way in the beginning, but by film’s end have taken on new meaning. The character of Mia is like that. Her behavior initially is, as I said, obnoxious. There’s little to like about her, but the film paints a pretty good picture of what may be at the root cause of her abhorrent act.

There was one thing at the beginning (won’t give it away) that the character does that I completely didn’t understand why it was in the film until near the end. That thing I’m speaking of, is shown to represent Mia or at least how she sees herself. It’s done wordlessly and emphatically. Writer/director  Andrea Arnold took the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words” to heart. I think the best parts of this movie are the moments without dialogue.

It also uses some subtle symbolism that relate to the title of the film. Pay attention to the use of water motifs in the film.

Michael Fassbender is an actor that’s been doing great work for quite some time, but is now on the edge of international stardom with his recent slate of films that have included, Inglourious Basterds, the new X-Men movie, as well as this. He’s great here as Connor, a character that, much like the lead, is introduced in a way that paints him in one light, but changes by his last scene.

Katie Jarvis is exceptional as Mia. I have to direct anyone who thought the blank stare one note “acting” (and I use the term loosely) by Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone to this film. Jarvis inhabits this character to a degree that you might think that you’re watching a documentary in some parts of the film. She seemed like a real person.

Jarvis with Kierston Wareing who plays Mia's irresponsible mother.

Her dialogue never seemed scripted in the least.  Jarvis portrays the kind of character that you might see in a Wal-Mart parking lot arguing with her mother and making a complete fool of herself with not a bit of shame. She manages to evoke a little sympathy by film’s end, but the story never becomes smarmy. Jarvis never betrays the personality of the character. The ending is one of those that may be determined by each particular viewer’s outlook on the world.

City Of Ember's Harry Treadaway plays a key (background) role.

This is one of the best films I saw from 2009. I had to once again rearrange my Top 10 Films of 2009 and the Top 100 Films of the 2000s to make room for this one. This movie definitely deserves to be there. I didn’t see this as depressing as some others have said. It paints a bleak picture of the girl’s envronment, but allows for a glimmer of hope. It shows a side of England that you don’t see as much on film (at least here in the states and a wonderfully moving story with a point. The acting is very realistic; the characters familiar yet distinctive. Andrea Arnold orchestrates a film that manipulates the viewer from beginning to end. It’s a character study with a point.

5 of 5

 

 

 

Enabler (4 of 4)

Back To Page 2…

Enabler (3 of 4)

Back To Page 1On To Page 3…