Terrible Films I Love: changing the rules

Originally, I'd planned to write all six of my Terrible Films I Love reviews one after the other and then perhaps move on to other things. However, obviously, that never happened, I wrote the first review (for The Room) nearly a year ago now and although I've seen all the films mentioned on that list, some were so long ago now that it seems daft to try and keep myself in that strict regime.

So, I'm going to break out of my set order and write about the best good-bad films that I see, when I see them. Here are a few films that deserve to be reviewed that I've either seen recently or plan to watch (again).

One of the worst

This is an incredible psychedelic Japanese horror

Not sure I could bare this again, but it is really bad

Ah Nicolas Cage, possibly his best/worst is The Vampire's Kiss...

But then this film is pretty awful too

A film so dumb you lose IQ points watching it, MONSTER TRUCKS!

Forget Christopher Nolan, THIS is the definitive Batman

Lazy AND pretentious, for a film so derivative it hurts

Lead actor/writer/director not credited. Good idea, he's terrible

You had me at Mechano-Whores

Is it a joke? Is it? Because NOTHING is Happening

Terrible Films I Love, Volume III : Street Fighter

I've fallen WAY behind in my terrible film reviewing recently, but not long ago I saw two more from the list.

Before I continue however, here's a bit of a recap for those joining late or with fading memories (like me):

Introduction and definition of 'Terrible Films I Love'

Volume I: The Room

Volume II: Dungeons & Dragons

& Before the film review, what was Street Fighter anyway?

Street Fighter II : The Game

When I was growing up Street Fighter 2 was my favourite computer game, more so than Mario Brothers, Sonic, Zelda, Doom, or any other iconic 90s computer game franchise that I played.

Before I was gifted a SNES for my birthday from my loving parents, the sole reason for getting one was so that I could play Street Fighter 2, I'd travel to the arcades at least once a week to play. Now this anecdote might lend the false belief that I was an accomplished gameplayer, or perhaps even a grand master undefeated in over 1000 games, but actually due to the fact that I'd have to try an hold a 50p all week and that 50p only got you three games. I wasn't really that expert, but that's not the point. The point is, I was pretty obsessed about the game and by the time I got the SNES I was quite willing to devote far more hours than was healthy to playing the game. Anyway, enough of the misspent youth story...

The game is fairly simple with no real storyline and the basic premise is so (ironically) two-dimensional that you'd have thought it impossible to turn into a film with a coherent story (you'd be right) but then that was all before it made in $1.5 billion revenue in arcade cabinet sales worldwide (indeed, only Pacman and Space Invaders have made more money). Now, that's good enough reason to make a film!

The initial player select screen from Street Fighter 2

The gameplay is: you pick one of eight characters and fight eleven other street fighters (the seven other pickable characters and four computer controlled 'bosses')  in a 'best of three rounds' fighting competition to determine who is the 'World Warrior'. Each character has their own fighting style and special moves (except Ken and Ryu who are basically the same), which further individualises them, well, that and the sometimes outrageous cultural stereotyping. The format of special moves via certain controller movements and button presses was, as a computer game, revolutionary and set the stall for dozens of similar games (the most well-known of which is probably Mortal Kombat). The only changes really came about with improving technology, better 3D graphics, otherwise it was just more complex maneuvers and more characters.

Any personal storyline is only made clear once you've beaten the final boss and are rewarded with a short animated sequence. Some of which were hilarious, f.e. Zangief's involved Gorbachev being flown in via helicopter to congratulate him and then joining in with some Cossack dancing. Again, very basic stuff and although later games spun-out the storylines, there wasn't really anything very deep about any of the characters, but they were loved by players of the game. And most importantly it made a shed-load of money!

Street Fighter : The Movie

First point: I broke my own rule. No one should watch alone. This was a mistake.

I hadn't seen the film for quite a while and I'd thought I'd refresh my memory before writing this. Also, as it was short notice, no one was about and I wasn't in the mood to wait.

Watching the film I wondered had the writer (who is also the director, always a good sign for a terrible film) Steven E. de Souza even seen the game? However, that couldn't be the case as they include some fairly niche character points. So, why include some and blatantly ignore or rewrite other characters? It is because you know best, eh Steve? Well, quite frankly, you don't.

Rather than detail ALL the character problems and differences/outrageous changes from the game-world (always a difficulty itself with Terrible Films) I'll list a few of the major ones that change the entire basis of the game to film dynamic, such that one hardly resembles the other at all.

1. Main Character(s)
In the Street Fighter series the main character is always Ryu (and Ken). Now, this makes sense for a number of reasons the most obvious of which is that it's a Japanese game, he's Japanese, and fulfills the standard Japanese silent hero role. Also he has Ken as his friend/double/comic relief, the main reason for Ken was that there would now be two basic characters, as in the game's early development the same character couldn't be selected in a versus battle. As the game has gone through further sequels Ken as become totally different in style to Ryu. Anyway, they have always been a double-act, both disciples of Shotokan Karate, and it seems odd that they should have the most significant character re-write for the film.

The movie has Ryu and Ken as bumbling well-intentioned smugglers and Guile as the lead. This makes sense too, because I assume the thinking was; American movie = American Hero and it can't be Ken because he's always been lesser to Ryu. Well, it's a shame they picked Guile (although he was my favourite character to play) because now we get a military based story rather than a martial arts one. Also his back story is really crap, some pseudo-Vietnam vet story that somehow ties up with M.Bison (the game's Big Bad End Boss). So, who to cast as you archetypal American soldier-hero? Why it's Belgium's very own "Muscles from Brussels" JCVD of course! Curiously, this basis is kept for the children's cartoon of the series that was produced a year or two after the film. So, maybe de Souza was onto something...

No.

2. It's only a game
If you're going to make a move adaptation, be it of a novel or a video game, the first question is always going to be, "how faithful will we remain to the original?" Now, obviously, lots of adaptations have been less than faithful to their originals but have gone on to be so much better ('The Shining' is an immediate and unfair example). However, faithfulness to the original aside there is most often (in good films) a level of respect to the source material that even if they are unfaithful there are still some things that will not be changed. Street Fighter: The Movie has no such respect or faithfulness to its source, the general opinion of which seems to be "f*** it, it's only a computer game, who cares what the geeks think!"

This attitude seems particular of the 1980s and outdated even in 1994, nowadays such an attitude would be box-office suicide especially with several films being made recently to appeal to the 'geek fanboy' market, 'The Avengers' and 'Pacific Rim' being two of the biggest box offices successes especially tailored for fan appeal.

Of course, this attitude probably wasn't helped by the release of the spectacularly bad 'Super Mario Bros.' film the previous year, which is probably over-the-line of good-bad and straight into agonising fail. Although the comments the cast later made about the film are hilarious in and of themself. (see here)

3. Missing the obvious
A martial arts fighting game that translates to... a military action film. Why? Isn't Jean-Claude most famous for martial arts type movies? I suppose, see above, for the answers to that stupid decision.

Also, a coherent plot would have been nice, if this were a good movie, or even an attempt at one if it were a good-bad movie, but then what is this?

So, by this point of watching on my own I'd got thoroughly bored. I quit.

Time passes...

& I find myself watching Street Fighter: The Movie with a group of friends in high spirits, watching the film via Netflix.

4. Any more fun with a group of friends?
Well, yes, but then only just. It helps that a number of us are old-skool-gaming-geeks whose rage at the liberties de Souza takes with (the very limited) characters, plot, dialogue, action & effects made for an amusing game of "call out the bullsh*t".




5. Saved by acting
What finally makes this a terrible film I love and not just schlock nonsense is some of the performances in this film. Jean-Claude gives a memorably awful motivation speech and is generally ham-fisted hammy ham ham (you get the idea). Kylie Minogue is just dreadful as Cammy. Poor old Raul Julia gets one final paycheck and overacts to near Irons level. Indeed, as terrible as everyone is in this film (only Raul Julia escapes this because he's obviously just really going for one last laugh, one great scene with Ming-Na as Chun-Li proves this) they are eclipsed by an actor so painfully terrible that even his wordless presence seems to destroy the film around him like a sort of industrial movie acid. I speak thereof Kenya Sawada. The story behind his involvement is quite special.

He really hasn't

Sawada plays a character called Captain Sawada, one can assume this is due to the actor's lack of English and any discernible acting talent. Indeed, his few lines are apparently dubbed, but if this is the case they only succeeded in making them appear even worse. The story I've read is that Capcom (the original game designers) themselves forced the inclusion of the character and actor, telling the studio and director that he was "the new face of Capcom." Is Kenya Sawada related to the owners of Capcom? I honestly can't think of another reason why he'd be in this film, albeit so very briefly, which as it turns out is a damn shame. His artless line delivery (not even his own), his gormless appearance (perhaps he was nervous?) and his wooden stilted actions make every moment solid gold s***. 
Such beautiful terribleness.

6. Final Reckoning

This film is possibly more painful to watch than Dungeons & Dragons (another piece of my childhood destroyed) and can only be recommended to hardcore good-bad film enthusiasts. That said, even myself needed a human shield of laughter to make my way through the film in it's entirety.

Requirements: Hardcore addiction to awfully funny good-bad movies, love of camp acting, desire to see how bad a thing can be, ability to endure mind-numbingly stupid plot holes and dialogue, a soft spot for the delightful Raul Julia, the largest group of friends possible.

Captain Sawada, second from the left. Why?

Terrible Films I Love, Volume II : Dungeons & Dragons

Part two of the ongoing series: Terrible Films I love, start with the introduction if you haven't already.

Phantom Menace poster anyone?

As a teenager and into early adulthood I was an avid player of various RPGs and it was with D&D that I first began. It's been well over ten years now since I last played and I'm currently suffering from a real sense of nostalgia about it. It may well be time to dig out the old D&D books (unless I've sold them on eBay and can't remember) and try and convince some aging academics to take part in a game.

I can remember countless conversations when we were young about how our ideal fantasy film would look (and I think Peter Jackson did a great job of satisfying my 13 year-old self's idea of a Lord of the Rings film) and so although I was quite a bit older when I heard they had made a Dungeons & Dragons film, I was still intrigued with a proper Wizards of the Coast backed film project. Especially as it featured Jeremy Irons, an actor I really admire and enjoyed in Brideshead Revisited and many more.

One fear was a 'Disneyfication' of the film, by that I mean a softening of tone, although keeping various stereotypes, and an anachronistic simplification of Medieval style cultures, with a harking back to crypto-right-wing notions of tradition and hierarchy, albeit ones that never actually existed anywhere. This was something increasingly began to bother me about fantasy setting RPGs as I grew older. I need not have worried too much though, because that particular problem was the least of concerns for the Dungeons & Dragons film.

It would be no understatement to say that Jeremy Irons steals every single scene he is in, indeed, he does more than just steal scenes he utterly devastates them with overacting so fierce that it's probably dangerous to witness. It's scenery chewing that defies belief.


Don't look right at him!!

We might ask ourselves why, that is, why would a well-established, respected, and seasoned dramatic actor find himself with a first-time director, an awful script, and less than excellent co-stars? Perhaps he has a rubbish agent, or has no personal judgement, or is desperate for the money. 

Certainly it can't be his love of the project that motivated him. Irons gives the impression of a man who has found himself somehow in a crap job and thought to himself, "Sod this, I'm going to go as far as I can, have fun doing it, and let's see if that stupid kid director has the balls to stop me!" Which, for the record, Courtney Solomon did not, but also I'm not sure that Jeremy enjoyed himself given a brief insight a 'behind the scenes' clip gave me. 

In one of the many pointless extras on the DVD, there's an opportunity to see the "D&D creator" in a cameo appearance. I'd like to point out that there were TWO D&D creators, although Dave Arneson was probably lucky to get that mention (even though he got deleted from the film) as Gary Gygax was probably better known (thanks to Futurama).

Anyway, in said clip, we see Jeremy Irons gie'in it laldie (much like the clip above) and once line is delivered and "cut!" is called he drops and stomps off with such an expression that you'd never think he was in any way finding joy in his work.

Summary: If only Jeremy Irons played every character in this film...

What of our heroes? Well, they're quite a pair... Ridley or Ripley (excellent fantasy name there writers! Oh and I checked it was Ridley) is your typical anti-hero every-man super-man, played with something like charm by that bloke who played 'Jimmy' in the New Adventures of Superman  (Justin Whalin). I say 'something like charm' because the only evidence of this charm is the occasional attempt at a mischievous grin, which results in our hero looking like a lobotomy patient or deranged sex pest. This isn't to say the actor's terrible, or massively overacting, but just that he seems woefully miscast as the hero. Especially when they have to rely on a chosen one trope to explain why any of this shit is happening. 

So far so American hero cliche, what better accompaniment than a throw-back black sidekick? Marlon Wayans plays the servile retarded comic-relief character Snails as a homage to Chris Tucker's character in The Fifth Element. Although I've no way of checking and it hardly excuses him anyway, Wayans filmed his scenes in only four days before returning to another production. Maybe that's why he didn't notice quite how awful it all was and it's certainly why when both heroes are wounded, one falls to an ignominious death (Snails) and the other (Ripley?) is, for no other than reason than he's the 'chosen one', healed by the elf king (is he a king? maybe not, but he's Definitely NOT Elrond) played by the least elf-like actor they could find, the always extraordinary Tom Baker. Maybe it was the Doctor Who connection that led to his casting, but not even as Doctor Who has Tom Baker had to say such nonsense. Actually, it appears the director was trying to give us another depiction of despised Jar-Jar Binks from the Phantom Menace in the character of Snails, because he's apparently meant to fulfill the same role, in that he's equally irritating and offensive. If, however, you've got a character who spends the majority of his time wailing and falling into things it does seem a bit odd, cruel even, to then have him slaughtered and throw his body off a castle battlements.

Summary: Worst buddy combo ever? Miscasting and offensive stereotypes are not a great double-act.



What of the supporting cast? Because no true D&D inspired film should be without 'the group'. For those that don't know, one of D&D's key features (that makes up for the lack of actual role-playing) is the necessity for a group of characters to work together, each utilising their class-specific skills, i.e. you need a thief to open doors and disarm traps, a fighter to fight, a cleric to heal, and a magic-user to support with magic.

So, what's the combination of the movie team? Two thieves, a mage, a dwarf, and an elf 'tracker'. Actually, Ridley is probably more of a thief/fighter with some innate magic skills. One of the benefits of being the 'chosen one' is that you can do everything on your own, which goes against the whole idea of D&D as a game. Not that a truthful adherence to the rules will make it a better film, but just that (like I've mentioned before in my Hobbit review) it's a Tolkien-influenced fantasy theme for the individual to be reliant of his or her group, that is, their friends. D&D as game comes from the Tolkien idea that nothing can be achieved without collaboration as a group.

I've already got to the point, much quicker than anticipated, where I can't be bothered going on with this review. If I was to tell you ALL that is bad about the film it would take another 100 hours and probably remove all the fun you can have with it.

So, for the sake of brevity and my sanity, here is just a short list of a few of things that I could have mentioned:

1. Where did that dwarf come from? What's his name? Where's he gone? Who the hell is that guy?! Why is the DWARF the same height as everyone else?
2. Does that elf's breastplate have nipples?
3. Why does the big bad guy have blue lipstick? Who'd tell him?
4. Richard O'Brien has a 'crystal' maze.
5. Constant establishing shots of Disney castles.
6. Does the director really love Indiana Jones THAT much? *copies scene*
7. Not Phantom Menace too! *copies inherent racism*
8. "We're all equal... and I'm getting knighted." *sigh*
9. Random purple headed man, possibly an extra from Buffy.
10. If you can't afford decent CG why use it so much? And in direct shot?
11. Thora Birch can't be bothered to act. Note: This is being EXTRA kind.
12. Who the fuck are these guys? Where did they come from? What are they saying?
13. Makes an episode of Xena look like a well-researched historical epic.
14. Must have taken plot ideas directly from a 12 year-old boy's D&D game.

That's probably enough.

Final reckoning: If not for Jeremy Irons this would be an excruciating experience, but once ol' Jezza has settled you in for what's in store, it really is quite a fun shout-at-the-idiot-athon.

Requirement: Beer, group of raucous friends, ability to find humour in dire acting/script/effects.

Finally, a top 20 moments video compilation from the same guy (The RetroCritic) that made the excellent Street Fighter movie 'embarrassing moments' video.

Terrible Films I Love, Volume I : The Room

So, as promised, here is the first review of Terrible Films I Love.

NOTE: You might notice that most/all of the clips from the film have now been removed due to a copyright claim from Tommy Wiseau...

The Room is very obviously the personal project of Tommy Wiseau who wrote, directed, starred in, and somehow how financed the entire production in 2003. It tells the quite probably semi-autobiographical tale of 'Johnny' a wealthy man-about-town (perhaps some sort of banker or something? We are never told) and his fiancée, sorry not fiancée, his "future wife" Lisa and her betrayal of Johnny with his best friend Mark. Also important to the story, in that they both have unresolved sub-plots are Denny, Johnny's ward, and Claudette, future wife's mum. There are many more characters, but they drop in and out  of the story so regularly and suddenly that they can't be considered to be part of the main plot, although that doesn't stop them taking up a great deal of screen time anyway.

The basic plot is this: Johnny and Lisa are happy and in love, Johnny buys her gifts (e.g. a dozen red roses and a sexy red dress) and they have regular sex while listening to poor quality R&B music. However, Lisa is bored with Johnny and, possibly because he doesn't get an expected job promotion, but possibly not, she decides to "make things interesting" by first starting an affair with Johnny's best friend Mark and then by lying that she has been beaten by Johnny while he was drunk and then also lying that she is pregnant. Throughout all this Johnny remains calm, he talks to his friends for advice, plays football in tuxedos, saves Denny from a violent armed drug dealer named Chris R. Finally, however, his suspicions are aroused, so he records Lisa's telephone conversations and then accidentally catches Lisa and Mark kissing at a surprise party Lisa had organised for Johnny. This prompts a fight between the former friends  everyone leaves, Johnny trashes the room and then commits suicide. End of film.

Already in this brief explanation you might be wondering WTF? But wait, there's more!


Possibly the most quoted line from the film.

Denny is such a mysterious character that he deserves a little more attention. Denny is Johnny's ward, in that, although not related Johnny takes care of Denny by paying him through college and offering moral support and philosophical advice. Also, he doesn't seem to mind that Denny professes his love for Lisa and isn't bothered by the whole drug thing. Part of this support of Denny means that the young man drops by Johnny and Lisa's flat all the time (actually, quite a lot of people seem to use the flat as a drop in centre for tedious conversations and awkward sex). Sometimes it's only a brief visit, sometimes to eat an apple, ignore the obvious hint that Johnny and Lisa want to be alone, and then join them in their pillow fight foreplay. Perhaps he is slightly backward? We'll never know, because Denny's sub-plot, like Claudette's cancer, is never explained or explored. At least Denny is the one person to genuinely grieve Johnny's death. Although the actor does call him "Tommy" by mistake, which is the sort of thing you should probably fix before distributing the film.


Advice straight from the Tao of Wiseau.

We are constantly reminded, both in the opening shot and subsequently in all establishing shots that the film is set in SAN FRANCISCO. If we are not seeing the Golden Gate Bridge, or tram cars, we are seeing Johnny walk past various landmarks to remind us of the location, but why? The setting plays absolutely no role in the plot, nor is it ever mentioned. Indeed, beyond Johnny and Lisa's flat, the roof (with obvious shed that is meant to be a stairwell), the alley, and the coffee shop, there are only a few external locations. Not forgetting the very memorable flower shop, which is probably my favourite scene, "Hi Doggy!"



Actually this also prompts the consideration of the constant greetings and farewells that all characters (but especially Johnny) participate in. If one character enters a room then they will greet everyone present and every character will in turn say, "oh Hai!" The same happens when someone leaves a room, "bye X!"



Why do they do this? I assume it's to constantly remind us who the hell anyone is, but beyond their names there's normally very little other information. For example, what reason does anyone have for any of the things they are doing? We are never given the slightest clue.

Why are there framed photos of cutlery (spoons! part of The Room screenings performance involves throwing plastic spoons whenever these pictures are in shot) and not of loved ones?


A screening in Cleveland, 2011

& Minneapolis 2010

There are many questions we could ask, but after having seen the film the most pertinent question will probably be, is this for real? Having watched this film a few times with different groups of friends there's normally one person (the sober one) who cannot believe that the whole thing wasn't a set-up or some amazing parody of a truly awful film. How is it possible, they wonder, that almost every aspect of the film (to say one good thing about the film, it is well shot, albeit shot like a daytime US soap, but still looks nice) is so terrible? It must be a hoax! Well, as this sounds like a genuine claim, I did some research and I'm pretty certain I can state that it really was a totally legitimate attempt at film-making. How so? Well despite Tommy Wiseau's later claims that The Room was a 'black comedy' and was meant to be funny, it's pretty obvious that he's not understood what a black comedy actually is and that he only claimed this after this critical outcry. Additionally and finally damning is his later 'attempt' to make a sitcom. As people have found The Room so hilarious this must mean that Wiseau is a comedy genius right? Therefore it's natural he should make a sitcom and it be a hit! This was probably something like his reasoning. Sadly for Tommy and for the viewing public, he really is not anything like a comedy genius, except unintentionally. You see, writing comedy is actually very hard and if you can't write a coherent love triangle plot or develop characters and so forth then it's pretty unlikely you'll manage to be funny on purpose.


Less funny than The Room but almost as stupid

In a sense, I suppose it is cruel to laugh at the efforts of someone so deluded. However, having heard a few interviews with Wiseau (including one were he compares The Room with Citizen Kane) I have to say he managed to remove all sympathy that I might have felt for him, I do pity the other actors and crew involved though as the production must have been an awful experience. Still, the pain is temporary but the results will resound down the ages! 

It's also inspired some equally funny responses; a flash game, various mash-up videos, parodies, and (my favourite) this excellent dubstep music video.



Final reckoning: I've only briefly touched on some of the things that make The Room so very special indeed. I could describe everything about the film but it would still need to be seen to be believed. See it!

Silly sATURDAY: terrible films I have loved - Introductions & Summary

Six of the worst!

1. Appreciating terrible films.

First, we might want to consider why I would want to watch a terrible film anyway. For, if a film is really bad then surely it must be not possible to enjoy it. The category of films I refer to then are not simply bad but belong to the 'so bad it's good' genre. This series (Best of the Worst) by RedLetterMedia.com is an excellent example of this sort of enjoyment of truly awful films. What then denotes this category, if we are looking for something more than just bad? This is not a simply definition, but then few are, it may come down to personal taste in the end. So, rather than attempt to give a general theory of good bad films I'll simply tell you what it is that I love for in a film that makes it a 'terrible film I love'.

Indeed, it's sometimes a dangerous game and often times you find yourself with just a dull, stupid or nasty film and not one that has you roaring with laughter at the ridiculousness of the film. 

So, of utmost importance, is the humour one finds in the film. It's not enough for the dialogue to be corny, or the plot illogical, or the effects lame, or the acting wooden, but they must be of a certain level that is just beyond, it must be SO much worse than you could possibly expect!

Typically these are not the sorts of films that one would want to watch alone (or sober). Indeed, of secondary importance, is the group participation aspect of the activity. A really good 'terrible film I love' will also be a film I've watched with a group of friends, it is the laughing together and shouting out lines or just questions of incredulity to the film that adds enjoyment. 'The Room' is the epitome of this sort of film, so much so that I believe it should carry a warning that one should not attempt to watch the film alone! This really is a film (and many of them are) that can only be enjoyed in a group. Below was an example from one of the many screening of 'The Room'. However, for copyright reasons it's been removed from YouTube. As you would have seen it's something of a performance piece in itself, almost like 'Rocky Horror' or 'sing-a-long-a Sound of Music'. In the clip, which is part of 'The Room' watching fandom, there is a running joke that whenever a framed photo of spoons is in frame that you shout "spoon!" (obviously) and throw plastic spoons at the screen. This does beg the question, why are there framed photos of spoons? Well, I believe the answer is that the set-dresser bought photos to place around 'The Room' but didn't think to replace the generic pictures with people, y'know, people in the film.

There are lots more videos of this type, but I'll save some of the longer ones and longer clips for the review proper.

What are we enjoying here? Is it the mockery of a thing or the act of passing judgement on an obviously inferior thing that causes our pleasure? Put simply, are we just enjoying the equivalent of 'bullying' someone's personal artistic vision? I'd hope that this is not the case, as I don't feel that I am deriving any pleasure from belittling or humiliating the work of another, nor do I feel any sense of superiority over another's artwork. I don't feel I'm directing my laughter personally at the actors, writers, or directors involved. Indeed, sometimes a really good actor, writer, or director can find themselves involved in a terrible production. For an example please refer to Jeremy Irons in my Dungeons & Dragons review. 

Perhaps then we're just enjoying these films ironically? That is, there's not really anything to be enjoyed, so we make a pretense of appreciating the film to show how ironic we are. This, or any similar descriptions, just doesn't work, because I do find genuine entertainment in watching a 'terrible film I love' and there is something that I'm appreciating in all of them. It isn't something very deep, but it does engage critical analysis - it must confirm a specific description to be enjoyable - and it isn't just an allowing of normal film watching criteria to slip for a time, rather it is more like an extreme form of typical criteria, a special type of appreciating. Normally I am repelled, or at the very least bored, by films that are lazy, cheap, or exploitative, but these 'terrible films I love' aren't bad in this sense. It is more like a genuine attempt has been made to achieve something in the film (via dialogue, plot, or effects) but that it goes so spectacularly wrong that it causes astonished amusement, "why would they think THAT was a good idea?"

Indeed, if I think about my favourite 'terrible films I love' (reviews linked below) then none of them are lazy cash-grabs (the plot of Prometheus*, Adam Sandler's films, all of the films made by Asylum). Instead these failings come about by some sort of deluded artistic vision, or an obsession for some other aspect of the film at the cost of all else (typically this initial reason gets lost along the way too), or some other sort of near magical convergence of bizarre awfulness (Hercules in New York is an excellent example). 

So, to conclude, it's quite hard to specify exactly what makes a film move from bad to so bad it's good, but it must have humour (our individual commitment of appreciation), have group spectacle (our shared commitment of interaction), have integrity of failed expression (the film-maker's commitment), and not fall into the category of dull or lazy and so forth. The final being the hardest to avoid, for even the best 'terrible film I love' will have some extended moments that are just bad and are devoid of anything entertaining. Still it is worth suffering this potential dullness for those moments of absolute comedic joy enjoyed as a group.

2. The Films.

Summary and Recommendation.

I - The Room

The absolute classic so bad it's good film. Tommy Wiseau is writer/director/producer/lead actor. That's probably enough information. If you've never seen it or a so bad it's good film before then you MUST watch this!

Recommendation: The highest possible. Get the beers in!

II - Dungeons & Dragons

When is a bad film made awesome? When involves Jeremy Irons going all-out crazy in an manner that would make Nick Cage concerned for his mental health. A fantasy film made by people with no understanding of the fantasy genre.

Recommendation: Quite strong. If only to see an excellent actor going beserk. Is achingly awful in places (and probably massively racist).

III - Street Fighter

Van Damme is his typical self combined with an awful computer game spin-off that equals amazement. One of the best moments features Jean-Claude (who plays archetypal American hero Guile with a Belgian accent) giving an inspirational speech to his men.

Recommendation: High. More of a head-scratcher at times, especially if you know (and love) the game it's supposedly based upon. Poor old Raul Julia though :(

IV - Hercules in New York

Arnold 'Strong' (the film-makers obviously thought Schwarzenegger as too unbelievable) shows just how much better an actor he is now in this epic fail of hilarity. The best moment is a fist fight in Central Park with a man in a rubbish bear costume (hint: it's meant to be a real bear).

Recommendation: Definitely. Arnie's line delivery is a constant source of amusement.

V - Samurai Cop

Classic 80's martial arts schlock done to an extreme level of ridiculousness.

Recommendation: Yes! A classic of its type, but hard work sometimes. The wig makes it all worthwhile though.

VI - Mystery Movie...

Can't make my mind up yet.

Reviews forthcoming...

*Thanks to the Doubtful Egg for an excellent review of just some of Prometheus' failings.

Silly Saturday: The 'Best' of Street Fighter the Movie

An excellently put together and edited video highlighting one of the worst video game film adaptations ever (and that's really saying something!).

And by worst, I mean the best!

Continuing the theme of 'so bad they're good' films, started last week with Hercules, this is another feast of; camp acting, dreadful line delivery, wrong headed casting, Jean Claude Van Damme, a ridiculous script and nonsense plot. Fantastic fun!

Silly Saturday: The 'Best' of Hercules in New York

I love terrible films. Not films that are boring, or lazy, or exploitative, but films rather like this. Hercules in New York has it all, terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible direction, terrible effects. It's the holy grail of terrible films.

Update: (23/04/13) The above video has been blocked, damn shame, so here's another one.