BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (33 OF 100)

 

"Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (1985),
Dir: George Miller and George Ogilvie

$12,305,523 Budget vs. $36,200,000 in Gross

 

Haven't done one of these in a while and there's reasons. First, the return to my production roots: commenting less, producing more, and trying to build a minor Youtube army. Second is that I could not honestly think of any bad movies worth seeing lately. There are endless to choose from, but not many with redeeming qualities... Then I saw the new Mad Max trailer, and bingo! For this article, I picked the last of the trilogy, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. It's not the worst in the series, but not the best. I could easily have picked the first movie, but to be honest, I can’t argue it being worth the time. Yes, it’s got a younger, more Australian Mel Gibson in it. He plays a semi-future cop who turns his car into a weapon. But really, that’s it...

  

Other than being Mel's debut and us seeing Max go nuts (the murder of his wife and child... very Death Wish), it doesn't really hold much water to the rest of the series. You could watch the sequel and know all you need to know about the character from the title. (“Oh, he’s mad. I get it... Moving on.”) The first felt to me like a cheap superhero movie to me. When you hear people talk about Mad Max, usually they are referring to the second movie in the series, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, thinking it's the first one. Road Warrior has it all, from the crazy outback car chases, to the psychotic feral-people, to Lord Humungus, to that boomerang kid, to an epic car chase that made cinematic history. It’s kind of a masterpiece… And what does Thunderdome have? Well, it has Thunderdome!!

And as you can see, Thunderdome is f%$#ing awesome! That one sequence makes the film. The rules: two men go in, one man comes out. Pretty simple set-up... except Max has to take on the feared Master-Blaster (Blaster being a mindless goon, and Master being the midget who instructs him). It's pure cinema genius... and then it's over. And unfortunately, so is the rest of the movie.

After the glorious first-half of the movie, Max gets banished from Bartertown (which was actually parodied brilliantly by South Park). He goes on a new adventure and finds all these weird lost children, but after Thunderdome (without argument, the high-point of the film), it's hard to care. Firstly, the kids can hardly communicate with Max, which makes it kinda boring. Secondly, there’s this long journey to this passenger plane that they found, which apparently functions as a relic of the old-world and not a plot point. Now, me being a kid and the Mad Max movies usually being about vehicles, I thought this plane would be their escape from this terrible place. At the point in which they brought in The Pilot character from Road Warrior (the closest thing Max has to a friend in the series), I almost sure something was gonna come of this stupid plane… and it didn’t. So what was the damn point of putting it in there?! Planes aren't f&^%ing cheap!

The other major weak-point of Thunderdome for me was the casting of Tina Turner as the matriarch of Bartertown, Aunty Entity. Even as a kid, it never felt right to me… perhaps because it's glaringly Tina Turner, and not a movie character. But even then, I gotta ask myself when comparing this to Road Warrior (which has no shortage of misogyny and graphic rape), how did Aunty Entity acquire so much power in this f&#*ed-up, male-dominated world? Maybe she sang for them.

The movie is directed by two different directors and really feels that way at times. I can't really comment too much on the second-half of Thunderdome really, because I can't remember much. It's like the second-half of Stripes or Full Metal Jacket. Pretty forgettable, especially in comparison to its grand opening. That doesn't bode well for the last chapter in any series. Mad Max doesn’t end on a whimper, people. Mad Max ends on a kick to the nuts.

 

This is why the new Mad Max movie excites me. Whether a reboot, remake, re-launch, re-whatever, the original Mad Max franchise was rocky from the get-go and could use a jump-start. The last edition was in 1985 and the world of Mad Max was arguably not really created until the second movie, and then came to a grinding halt mid-third. So there is lots of ground to be covered and a new audience to enjoy it. Thunderdome is worth seeing because it gave us a glimpse of Max’s world when all the cars and explosions stop for a second… and then we get thrown into a messed-up Roman arena of pure awesomeness.

Check out this review of the second Mad Max film Road Warrior by my hetero-lifemates Seamus and Joe at Movies For Dudes right here.

RICKSHAW LAW - THE FINALE

THE FINALE: "JUSTICE FOR JIMMY"

Rickshaw Law - The Finale: Rochester Lawyers Enzo Prosciutto and H.P. Barnes are forced to take the law into their own hands to stop all this rickshaw bullsh#% once and for all.

 

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=3AJFhFOjqW0

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (27 OF 100)

"Bad Taste" (1987), Dir: Peter Jackson

$30,000 in Budget vs. $26,000 in Gross

I remember seeing Bad Taste at a friend's house. While watching it, we're overjoyed to see the role of Derek being played by the film's director Peter Jackson. Then we were even more overjoyed to see the role of the alien menace Robert also played by Peter Jackson. Laughing our asses off, we watched as Robert actually attacks Derek, knocking him off a cliff into a pile of jagged rocks. Having just recently finished The Lord of The Rings trilogy, my friend brought up a point, "This guy just won an Academy Award, folks."

For those of you who have followed the career of Peter Jackson Pre-Lord of The Rings, you know that there are two Peter Jackson's. There is the Peter Jackson who brought us the B-movie gems Bad Taste, Meet The Feebles, and Dead Alive, later to elevate to The Frighteners and Heavenly Creatures. Then came the "New Peter Jackson" who made epic sagas like Lord of The Rings, The Hobbit, King Kong, Lovely Bones, etc. And as much as I like to say that I am proud of the New Peter Jackson for rising through the ranks and showing guys like Lucas, Spielberg, and Cameron how it's done, I miss the Old Peter Jackson... but also realize that he can never go back to his old ways. That's why seeing movies like Bad Taste shows how far this director has come.

In Bad Taste, a small New Zealand Town gets taken over by aliens, who have disguised themselves in human form, leaving the audience only able to tell they are aliens because they all wear blue shirts. But as the character Derek describes, "It's like we got a visit from a planet of Charlie Mansons." However, we never witness the town being taken over by aliens or the carnage that ensued, so the film's beginning is kinda boring. We really could have used one really big massacre to get us going. But once the violence does get started, the movie becomes much more entertaining.

The human characters are from The Astro Investigation & Defense Services (or AIDS), which makes a habit of employing gun-toting metal heads and creepy psychos. At the time of the town's disappearance, AID's own Barry and Derek are on the scene and managed to capture one of the aliens (Robert, also played by Peter Jackson). When Barry is attacked by a group of aliens and forced to hide in an abandoned shed, Derek begins torturing Robert for information... Now, to the untrained eye, most probably wouldn't even realize that they are essentially watching Peter Jackson torturing Peter Jackson.

When hearing the strange cries of Robert, the blue-shirt aliens go after Derek with mallets and sledgehammers (the best weapons earth has to offer) while Derek breaks out the uzi. "I'm a Derek and Derek's don't run." Then all hell breaks loose in one of the goriest gun battles (pre-Hobo With a Shotgun), but results in Derek falling off the cliff and splattering all over jagged rocks. (This sequence does have a hilarious dummy prat-fall.) Meanwhile, a Bible Salesman stumbles into the abandoned town, only to find himself being hunted by Robert. The Salesman takes refuge in a nearby house, finding himself smack in the home-base of the alien invasion. Led by raspy Lord Crumb, he divulges to the salesmen that humans have become the new fast food sensation of the galaxy and that they are planning to harvest all of earth for their new chain.

As this is happens, back at the bluffs, Derek suddenly sits up, somehow alive. He notices several splattered (and incredibly fake-looking) dead seagulls where he landed, but also finds pieces of his brain on the ground. Soon enough, he comes to realize that his brain is falling out of the gaping wound in his head. Derek manages to use his belt and a top-hat to keep anymore brains from falling out. But now, literally losing his mind, Derek breaks out the chainsaw he's had waiting in the back of his van and begins his deranged quest for vengeance.

What does this movie have to offer? A lot of bad Hair Metal Soundtrack. Lots of falling, fumbling, or character's losing their guns. Elongated action sequences with predictable, unsurprising consequences. Characters constantly referring to each other by their names, even though they have apparently worked together for years. This movie definitely looks like something Peter Jackson made in his backyard with his friends. The only thing that really separates it from a student film is the Tom Savini-inspired gore and the spacecraft shaped like a house that takes off in the third act.

Now, what makes this worth seeing? All the revolting things Peter Jackson subjects himself to: (1) Eats brains with a spoon. (2) Vomits an excess of green goo into a bowl. (3) Replaces part of his missing brain with an aliens. (4) Dives down an alien's throat chainsaw first and comes out his asshole, and that's just the beginning... Need I say more or show more? 

For your viewing displeasure, Peter Jackson in his very own action sequence...

 

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (25 OF 100)

"Footloose" (1984), Dir: Herbert Ross

$8.2 million in Budget vs. $80,035,402 in Gross

Footloose is the quintessential bad movie, from plot, to story, to acting, and even to the culture status it somehow achieved. Who would have thought a little movie about the town that wouldn't allow dancing would become a joke that seemingly never gets old?

From its very literal opening, Footloose is simply laughable. The classic "Footloose" tune by Kenny Loggins starts playing to a montage of different feet dancing around while the credits roll... But really, with the title is Footloose, how literal does one have to be? Did the creative team sit around the boardroom table and agree "This movie needs to open with a bunch of feet dancing." The assumption must have been that we would see the images of the feet, hear the lyrics to the song, and magically put two and two together: "Hey! This movie's about dancing!" It's reassuring to know the good people at Paramount have that much faith in the audience's ability to interpret cinematic language... But opening with feet? If there's anything that looks worse than feet on camera, it's noses, so at least they didn't start the movie with 2 minutes and 20 seconds of noses... Ugh.

Kevin Bacon plays Ren McCormack, a teenager raised in Chicago. He's moved to a small conservative town to live with his aunt and uncle, only to realize that the one thing he loves most in the world - dancing to rock music - has been outlawed. Now, I'm not sure how the legal system in the fictional town of Beaumont works, but this always seemed a little strange to me. Yes, it's just a movie and set in a very oppressed town, but what appointed judge is really going to agree to outlaw dancing? "Your honor, the accused is charged with... dancing alone in his apartment." And, for that matter, would he actually send someone to jail for dancing? "What're you in for?" Dancing. "Hmm... See you in the shower, boy."

A fish out of water, Kevin Bacon befriends a local boy named Willard, portrayed by the late Chris Penn, who shows him around. The Baconator then meets a local religious girl named Ariel, who happens to be daughter to Reverend Shaw Moore (played by the brilliant John Lithgow) who put the ban on dancing in the first place. Now, let's get something straight: John Lithgow is fantastic in almost everything he does. In Footloose, he plays the crotchety old reverend as he should be played (and for a paycheck). However, Lithgow as an individual also has a great sense of humor. Ten years later, his character Dick Solomon unwittingly mocked The Reverend's speech from Footloose condemning rock music in 3rd Rock From The Sun. Anyone who can take their own career and parody it (that isn't Kevin Smith) deserves my respect.

That said, the biggest question that Footloose poses: Why Kevin Bacon? It's probably the role he is most recognized for, but seems completely out of place. When I was in high school, our English Media Teacher (an idiot) made us do a comparison between Footloose and Rebel Without a Cause, suggesting Kevin Bacon's character to be the modern James Dean... Now, even if this was even close to being true, does Kevin Bacon strike you as the handsome lead? I've never heard a female ever admit to be attracted to Kevin Bacon in my life and the first who does is very brave for doing so. Secondly, does Kevin Bacon strike you as a rebel? Prior to this film, the only basis of comparison would be 1982's Diner, where his character was a sh@#-disturber but not really a rebel. Thirdly, does Kevin Bacon strike you as a dancing machine? I had no idea punch-dancing was so big in Chicago. Even in the movie's most famous sequence where Bacon dances his anger away, Bacon admitted (in reality) to having two dance-doubles, a stunt-double, and a gymnastics-double, so Bacon didn't actually do any of the movie's dancing... he's just the face of it... and not exactly the prettiest either.

Finally, the silliest sequence and a direct reference to Rebel Without a Cause comes in the form of a chicken run with tractors. Comparing this (as I was forced to) with the chicken run scene in Rebel Without a Cause, the two are very similar, yes, except that a tractor is not a car. And since this race isn't toward the end of a cliff like in Rebel and instead towards each other, there isn't as much stakes. I suspect that's why they have the track "I Need a Hero" by Bonnie Tyler playing in the background the whole time, to add a little excitement to an utterly plodding chase sequence... and even then, it just looks more ridiculous than anything.

Not to be misinterpreted, these are all reasons you should see Footloose. The Baconator has gone on to be a respectable actor in my opinion, but his humble beginnings with Footloose shall remain his humble beginnings. He can laugh at it, so we should as well.

And for your viewing displeasure, Footloose's cringe-worthy climax.

 

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (24 OF 100)

"The Happening" (2008), Dir: M. Night Shyamalan

$48,000,000 in Budget vs. $64,505,912 in Gross

You could say that most of M. Night Shyamalan's movies should be on this list. Signs had the worst acting and possibly the worst climax I've ever seen. The Last Airbender was just a monumental joke. However, I choose The Happening based on it being M. Night's supposed "comeback movie" and then sucking 100% ass in almost every regard. It sums up pretty much the constant disappointment that has become his career.

 
M. Night started out with a lot of promise. The Sixth Sense was pretty much M. Night's retelling of The Shining, but without the hotel. It had a twist that shocked the world unless you're Director Doug Brown, who had no idea until 2002 that Bruce Willis' character was a ghost. He just thought he was cold all the time. But I don't know if M. Night can really be credited with the success of The Sixth Sense. The cast was utterly superb. You had Bruce Willis in his only performance where he didn't use a gun; Haley Joel Osment earning that Oscar nod; and Donnie Wahlberg, who gets very little credit for his terrifying performance as an escaped lunatic. But movie after movie, M. Night's films went from hokey to bad, to absolutely horrible. Twelve years later, his name has become synonymous with several of the worst movies ever made. Yet, for some reason, he keeps getting budgets of $130,000,000 when filmmakers like me can't even get a f$%@ing handshake.

 
The Happening stars Mark Wahlberg as Elliot Moore, a high school teacher caught up (somehow) in a strange epidemic. For some reason, mass groups of people are committing suicide without reason or rational explanation. Not knowing how to handle this, the characters flea the city in a vain attempt to get away from... whatever this is. Shyamalan described his idea as being in the same vein as "The Birds and Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Incorrect statement, sir. Those are actually good films. This is most definitely not. Even its star, Wahlberg himself claimed, "It was a really bad movie... F%$@ it. It is what it is. F&%$ing trees, man. The plants. F@#$ it. You can’t blame me for not wanting to try to play a science teacher. At least I wasn’t playing a cop or a crook." Well, there you have it, folks. Don't ever accuse Marky Mark of not standing by his director. But that being said, f%$@ing trees is right and we'll get back to that...

My biggest problem with The Happening is that a movie about mass suicide is a cheap shot in my mind. Suicide is something that generally rubs everybody wrong (I would hope). Exposing us to an hour and a half of it is kind of tasteless. It does lead to a handful of interesting sequences: There's the opening where construction workers throw themselves off a building, which is a pretty stark image. One sequence follows a gun that multiple people shoot themselves with. Kinda creative. But then there's the sequence where everyone is watching a video of a man who walks into a tiger cage and taunts the beast until it mauls him. To me, watching people watching a video on someone's phone is about as scary as seeing you're coworkers watching youtube videos of puppies at work.

The whole time I was watching this, I was thinking that none of these deaths are actually scary, just unsettling and not in a good way. If you were going to make a horror movie like The Birds or Invasion of the Body Snatchers, don't you think an epidemic of mass murder would make more sense? It would definitely raises the stakes. Characters would be forced to defend themselves rather than be airy, whimpering, passive, wussies. The threat would actually be a physical thing rather than just a looming conceptual one. Mass suicide for me just feels self-defeating, which is the nature of suicide I guess... and also in very poor taste... 

Typically, all M. Night movies end with a twist. That's pretty much his signature, one that has gradually become a joke over time. And as Wahlberg stated, it's f*%$ing trees. Yep. Turns out the root of all the outbreaks are trees in the end... I mean, really? Trees?! Trees were the cause of all this mass hysteria? Trees?! Trees are your twist?! That's the best you could do, M. Night?! Trees?!

Another reason I picked this film is that it's got M. Night's worst twist of all his films. In a lot of cases, the twist is the only reason for watching. In this one, it's the most disappointing part. I probably would have been happier with absolutely nothing rather than f&@$ing trees. Sorry if this is a spoiler for some, but I might have just saved you the biggest disappointment of your film-viewing life. 

For your viewing displeasure, Mark Wahlberg pulling an Emilio Estevez in Maximum Overdrive and talking to the tree in his office. If you wanna learn how to talk to trees, Mark, take lessons from Hugh Jackman.

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (23 OF 100)

"Gymkata" (1985), Dir: Robert Clouse

$8.5 Million in Budget vs. $5,730,596 in Gross

The title alone gives you a pretty good idea what Gymkata is about. I rented it having seen it reviewed by Red Letter Media and was wondering how a ninja/gymnast movie would hold up. I was pleasantly surprised with most of it, and absolutely terrified with some. That's right. I said terrified. All in all, most of what Gymkata offered were a lot of surprises I did not expect, making it a very worthwhile bad movie.

The plot is surprisingly complicated. While watching Gymkata, I almost found it almost impossible to know what was happening. I knew there was a deadly game involved, but wasn't sure why the main character Jonathan Cabot (Kurt Thomas) had any interested. Turns out Johnathon Cabot is a gymnastics champ whose father at one time took part in this deadly game and lost, losing his life as well. The game itself is an endurance test held in a fictional country called Parmistan (which will come up again later), where the contestants avoid obstacles and run from Parmistanian warriors bent on killing them. If a contestant wins, he is granted one wish of his choosing.

So early in the movie, our hero Johnathon is approached by the SIA (Special Intelligence Agency) about entering the tournament so that if he wins, they can use his one wish to set up a satellite monitoring station for the Star Wars Program... Yep. That is what they want to do with his only wish. What assholes. Also, this is also the only non-animated movie I've ever seen where wishes are actually part of the plot-line. But Johnathon also has his own reasons for entering the tournament. If Johnathon wins the game, he will be honoring his father and accomplishing what he could not... Wow. So yes, a lot going on, but is anyone really watching it for the plot? No. So let's see some more Gymkata.

The star Kurt Thomas was an actual Olympic Gymnastics winner. So for an unassuming, nimble little white-boy, he's got some sweet moves and manages to execute them with noticably more grace than JCVD (which takes a bit of the grit out of it). The action sequences in the movie, though low-budget, are competently made. You watch them, ooh'ing and ah'ing as Kurt Thomas gracefully kicks some ass. Is Kurt convincing in that sense? Very much so. Is he an action star? No. No, not at all. It's hard to take an action hero series who oddly looks a lot like Wayne Gretzky and dresses like... well, like a dork. I mean seriously, would you be able to take JCVD seriously if he wore a Christmas sweater? So agility is no question. Kurt does a good job kicking ass, especially in the scene where he fights an entire village using only a pummel horse... But as far as be imtidating, well...

Kurt's presence aside, the location of the movie was the most off-putting thing about it. Fictional countries seem to only work in Perfect Strangers or children's cartoons. I refer you to Genosha in X-Men. But when you create one for a movie, you're fall subject to some problems, such as race, ethnicity, culture, etc. Little things. And yet, when you create a country that doesn't have any of those (minus barbaric gaming), you get the great Parmistan, a country named after a cheese-topping, populated by lazy-eyed extras, and decorated with a mix of Russian, Amish, Islamic, Scottish, and Asian stereotypes. It's pretty much a case of "The East" for those of you not familiar with Orientalism. Simply put: in North America's eyes, whatever isn't the west is the east. (Better examples of this can be found in the Italian Sword & Sandal Films, more specifically involving the dance sequences.)

Another strange aspect of the setting is that the characters need to make it through "The Village of the Crazies," a village populated with deadly lunatics. It's a fifteen minute sequence near the end of the film and is as strange and terrifying as anything David Lynch has ever made. John is forced to do battle with maniac after maniac, each with their own brand of psychotic. I guess mental health is a bit of a grey area in the Parmistanian government. The Village of the Crazies might not be a sequence many will enjoy, but I thought it gave the movie a bit of edge from being just another generically bad action film.

 

Gymkata is a lot of fun and worth seeing for some decent action and a good string of laughs.

For your viewing displeasure, the "Village of The Crazies" sequence in full. 

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (22 OF 100)

"Hercules And The Captive Women" (1961),
Dir: Vittorio Cottafavi

$$$ Unknown Budget vs. Unknown Gross $$$

I once wrote a whole 25 page essay on this movie... and no, I'm not kidding, and no, this one will not be twenty-five pages. To understand this film, one must be familiar with the Italian Peplum (or "Sword & Sandal Films" or "T & A Films") films that were popular genre through the late-1960s, even giving Arnold Schwarzenegger his first role in Hercules In New York. In terms of cinematic history, the Italians made hundreds of these cheap, Neo-Mythogical films, capitalizing on the popularity of biblical films like Ben-Hur and The Robe, but appealing to the drive-in movie crowd through through skimpy costuming and absurdist humor. One could go on for months breaking down what possible importance these films could have or you could simply watch Hercules And The Captive Women and pretty much sum up the main points... and maybe The Colossus of Rhodes, starring Rory Calhoun for kicks.

Firstly, I love this film. Maybe it's because I had to watch months of this schlock for a film course and this installment was at least the best of the worst. I won't even go into the grim details of how bad some were (Hercules Against The Moon Men), whereas this one nails all that was good about them in one movie. Depending on what version you see (I prefer the American), the film opens with a bar fight. Hercules and his entourage of skimpily dressed young men and a midget are overwhelmed by angry drunks. Meanwhile, Hercules (Reg Park, the most awkward and hilarious of bodybuilders to play Hercules) continues to enjoy his meal. Once finished, he casually pushes aside a group of men coming at him with a battering ram and leaves the bar with his friends, completely unscathed.

Upon their leave, they encounter a bright red... something. It's honestly very unclear what they are looking at in the scene, but it's very red, makes the sun shrink, and forewarns them of a dangerous army coming, that could destroy their beloved Thebes. Androcles, King of Thebes, brings this problem to the counsel and neigboring cities, but none can agree to help the king. Worried for his kingdom while he is gone, Androcles asks Hercules who will take care of his throne. Hercules rips the thrown off the floor and smashes it, proclaiming that the people shall build Androcles a newer, better thrown upon his return.

Now, the counsel scene is probably the only real "intelligent" part in the movie. A lot of the humor and farce falls upon being a reflection of the constant incongruity of Italian politics. Historically, the Italians have never had a working government. An example can be found with the good old Red Brigade right here. The country is so fragmented between north and south, struggling with class conflicts, language barriers, extremist political parties that these problems are generally reflected in their movies. In this case, this scene does it very comically, alluding to a fragmented government that cannot work together to stop a looming threat that could destroy them all. For further insight, you can read about The Christian Democrats and it just might make this sequence even funnier.

So with no one else to join them on their journey into the unknown, Hercules and Androcles are forced to go alone. But then, after a talk with his formidable wife, Hercules decides not to go with Androcles either and stay at home and rest. Without any support or fleet to join him, Androcles is forced to drug and kidnap Hercules to take him on their journey. When Hercules awakes on a ship at sea, he completely forgets telling Androcles that he would not be going, assumes everything is going according to plan, and takes a nap... It should be noted that Hercules actually spends the majority of the film unconscious. If not because he is drugged, because he is simply lazy. If not because he is simply lazy, because the task at hand is beneath him. One could argue that Hercules is a very apathetic hero, if not actually hero at all...

In fact, one could argue that Hercules is simply a device of destruction that one transports place to place and is only to be used when absolutely necessary. There are even more direct references this notion later on, but we'll get to that. Back to political references for now and the is littered with them. Logically, it's doubtful that many would have thought these films to be particularly political-driven given their nature, but Italian films are generally very political in their nature. This film in particular has tons of political allegories, but they don't all necessarily add up. For example, Hercules finds himself in the Lost City of Atlantis (when it was above water), which has a population of slaves, female sacrifices to the Gods, and a lot of subecjts diseased from some strange energy source...

Hmm. They wouldn't be in Atomic Age America, would they? No, no. They couldn't be. Because the superhuman guards dressed in black armor (that are also all identical) are clearly a reference to Nazi Germany... So does that mean that the filmmakers are trying to say America is the new Nazi Germany. Maybe. But that wouldn't make sense because at the end of the movie, when Hercules ignites the volcano and blows up Atlantis, that destructive imagery suggests that that must be a reference Hiroshima, Japan (or Nagasaki), which the Americans bombed, meaning that... meaning that...? Ah, f&%$ it.

The only commonality here is pretty much everything Hercules touches gets destroy and any heroics he performs just end in mass destruction, but he is still the film's hero. Whether or not the Italians were trying to make a bold statement about the United States, or Nazi Germany, or the events that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nothing is more bold than wearing those costumes and managing to keep a straight-face.

You really have to enjoy your bad movies to like this one. One of the film's highlights is when Hercules fights the shape-changing monster Proteus. The clip below is the closest thing I could find for a trailer and goes under one of the film's many names, "Hercules Conquers Atlantis."

For your viewing displeasure, Hercules vs. Proteus!