BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (28 OF 100)

"Gorgo" (1961), Dir: Eugene Lourie

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

Studio's have been trying to make a successful western-version of Godzilla for decades. In the late 90s, they attempted this feat with that giant pile of dung Godzilla, where the trademark monster went to New York and looked nothing like it did before. In 2008, Cloverfield was made, featuring a lanky-armed beast that the studios hoped would've filled the big guy's shoes, but hasn't reared his ugly head since. And most recently, a trailer for the new Godzilla was just posted today. However, in this ongoing search for the next Godzilla, the Americans should have learned from the British who attempted it back in the 1960s. Their Godzilla was named Gorgo and he unfortunately fell under the radar in terms of classic movie monsters...

Most people have little patience for monster movies. They want monsters, destruction, and bad special effects, and if they don't get that, they lose interest. In the original Godzilla, the movie opens with what remains of Tokyo after Godzilla's warpath. We see the devastation and all the wounded people, as if a nuclear bomb just went off (wink, wink), so immediately we are interested in what's happening. In the only Gorgo, the movie starts with a thunder storm and a volcano eruption. Then, for the first ten minutes of the movie, it's mostly sailors investigating a small Irish village. Captain Joe Ryan (Bill Travers) takes an interest in the area after mounds of dead fish start appearing around the waters. Then the body of a diver appears, having died because of fright. Uh-oh! But then things still don't get started because they go talk to the villagers about it, who deny any knowledge of what is happening.

Gorgo's main problem is that its beginning is very, very boring. In keeping with the mindset of the monster movie audience, the first ten to fifteen minutes is so painfully slow that I am not surprised people stop watching before the monster even appears. (It's almost as bad as the first ten minutes of White Zombie.) When more divers go to check things out, they find the monster Gorgo at the bottom of the ocean, released by the volcanic eruption. When word gets out, poachers hunt the creature, only to get attacked by this miniature Godzilla with glowing red eyes and a nearly identical roar. That is when the movie gets started. From there, Gorgo attacks the village. But in retaliation, the villagers fight back throwing flaming torches to scare it off. Now, this was something that interested me. Never in monster movies has the monster ever really been afraid of something, as real animals would be. Godzilla never seemed afraid of anything. He was always kinda oblivious to the elements around him.

Captain Joe Ryan and his crew make a deal with the villagers, claiming that they can rid the village of the monster for a price. In their first attempt, they lower an officer in a steel pod to the sea's bottom. There, the pod finds Gorgo merrily swimming along the bottom. Gorgo sees the pod, grabs it, and nearly crushes it. I like this part too because no one ever got this close to Godzilla before, so it created some tension. Once the metal pod goads Gorgo to surface, the crew deploys the fishing nets, capturing the monster nearly as big as their own ship.

Borrowing from the plot of King Kong, Gorgo becomes the sensation of the European airwaves. There are scenes where they transport Gorgo in ships and with cranes, which are actually the best special effects in the movie. Not often do these movies show the monsters actually interacting with their environment as opposed to just destroying it. On top of this idea, the movie also calls into question things such as the logistics of capturing monster, transporting it, containing it, drugging it; whether it belongs in a lab, a zoo, its natural habitat; or whether the Irish own it because it came from their shores or the British own it because they captured it. So many ideas to be explored when most monster movies just dismiss them.

Possibly the best scene of the movie is when Gorgo is put in a giant pen and people gawk and scream at it. This movie actually gives the monster some personality, something for the audience to connect with. You feel sorry for Gorgo and despise the humans. Once Gorgo has officially become a side show attraction, its captors are summoned by the Ministry of Science to hear of a discovery that has been made. It turns out that their monster is not an adult monster but an infant, making its theoretical parent probably two-hundred feet tall and presumably looking for its lost child. Then, the very next scene, back in the Irish village, a much bigger, much angrier version of Gorgo (referred to as Orca) rises from the waters and vengefully destroys the village. Its next stop: London, England, and not for a spot of f%$@ing tea. 

Having re-watched this, I've realized it has more plot, ideas, and dramatic devices than any Godzilla movies ever did. Does this make it better? Hard to say, because I love that big lug. The sequences with Orca are pretty great, especially the one where they set fire to the whole harbor to scare the monster away, but just ends up pissing it off more. The climax of the movie is watching Orca destroy most of London, which I found more engaging than watching Godzilla destroying Tokyo because I was more familiar with the British landmarks. Seeing Orca demolish a clearly hollow Big Ben (clocks don't have insides, right?) was definitely a high-point. Despite a boring opening and a kinda cheesy ending, I'd call this movie The Thinking Man's Godzilla. Its main problem: thinking is not why you typically watch these movies.

For your viewing displeasure, a short documentary on the making of Gorgo...

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (21 OF 100)

"Super Mario Bros." (1993), Dir: Annabel Jankel
& Rocky Morton

 

$48 million in Budget vs. $20,915,465 in Gross

I'm sure you all remember the evolution of Nintendo. Oh, yes. From the dusty, old, 8-bit original Nintendo to the game-changing Super Nintendo  in all it's color and 16-bit glory. But the kids buying these technical marvels had no interest in the technology involved. Our understanding of Nintendo came through the ever-changing, ever-evolving spokes-character Super Mario and his brother Luigi. Then it was announced that a Super Mario Bros film was being made. Suddenly, every kid who saw The Wizard was ecstatic with anticipation. When it was finally released, millions of young video gamers went to the theaters, started watching, and quickly asked themselves, "What the f&$# is this?" The answer to that question is simple: the most expensive betrayal of our childhood prior to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace rearing its ugly head.

I watched this movie recently, trying to figure out what the thinking behind this big-budget disaster was. Now that I am much older and have more of an education than when I was ten, I have a couple theories. Picture yourself as the guy in charge of making The Super Mario Bros. movie. It's a tough gig. You're in charge of one of the biggest non-film franchises in history and are obligated to a planet of children to not disappoint them. That being said, what is your most rational course of thinking?

Well, firstly, when there is kids involved, so the safest bet is an animated movie (like we've seen with the recent Lego movie coming out.) Makes sense. Cartoons are cheaper. Cartoons are less risk. Cartoons need less explaining. Parents are likely to bring kids to a cartoon because they're generally harmless. (It should be noted that the most recent Super Smash Brothers game for the Nintendo Wii had an animated story involving the entire Nintendo universe and accomplished that without using any dialogue.) But no, the overlords at Nintendo just put down $2 million dollars to give the rights of the character (temporarily) to a film studio. Back then, $2 million clams would have been the entire budget for an animated film, so, needless to say, they expected something a little more substantial.

So the more logical cartoon idea is out. Okay. Next question: How do you bring Mario to the real world? How do you explain the warp whistle, the pipes, the mushrooms, the Goombas, the turtles with wings, any of that to an audience paying money to see this? What possible logical connection can one make for any of these elements to co-exist in the same world together?

Wait! I know! Dinosaurs! Yes, there is a running theme of prehistoric-like creatures in the Mario Games. Koopa is kind of a dinosaur, though most dinosaurs never breathed fire. Yoshi is definitely a dinosaur, so that idea works. The Goombas? Yeah, sure, whatever. Make them dinosaurs too. Rolling with this concept, writers Parker Bennett, Terry Runté, and Ed Solomon thought the most sensible thing to do would be to set the Mario Bro's world in another dimension where dinosaurs evolved to make technology and civilizations of their own... And it's not that bad of an idea, really. In fact, it's kinda cool. Question is, how does this reflect the video game and how will children understand this? Answer is simple: they didn't.
 

 
Next, who does one cast to play these characters? Well, Bob Hoskins is a rounded, portly fella. Kids already know him from Who Framed Roger Rabbit (or if you were a kid like me, The Long Good Friday), so he would make a great Mario. And for Luigi, well, who other than Fox's soon-to-be House of Buggin's host, John Leguizamo? Hmm. Well, he kinda looks Italian (but is actually Colombian) and comes across pretty dopey. Definitely not the worst casting choice in the world. But then there's the challenge: who do you cast for King Koopa, a giant, fire-breathing monster that lives in a flying castle? Oh, that's easy! Dennis Hopper of course! That's right! Star of Blue Velvet, and also one of the most notorious coke-heads in all of Hollywood. What kid wouldn't recognize "The Hop" and love seeing him King Koopa, even though the filmmakers made no effort to make the two look alike at all?

Finally, what kind of mood should the picture be? What would the Mario world be like if it were in our world? I know! A Blade Runner-esque wasteland with mutants and jet packs and crazed dictators. Oh yeah. Kids will love that... Well, no. No, they didn't. Not in the slightest. Of all its flaws, this is where the Super Mario Bros. movie fell flat on its face. Playing any of the Mario games, you'll clearly see that the colors are bright, the music is always jovial, the characters are dancing, even if they are your sworn enemies with them, and everyone is very happy and very contented in their little universe (minus Princess Daisy perhaps). So why when making a Super Mario Bros. movie does one stray so far from the merry little world that the two universes cannot even be compared, even slightly? And also, what's with all the f%$@ing slime everywhere? Is this Alien Resurrection or something?!

I will never forgive Hollywood or Nintendo for The Super Marios Bros. movie. I can understand the frustration in trying to find the logistics in making this movie work, but if doing so was that hard to begin with, then why make it all? Next time (and I'm sure we're due) think like Lego did and stick to cartoons.

And for your viewing pleasure, the live-action Mario TV show from the 1980s that also did not reflect the game, but at least had the jovial tone right...

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (14 OF 100)

"Tammy And The T-Rex" (1994), Dir: Stewart Raffill
 

$$ Something in Budget vs. Nothing in Gross $$

Most filmmakers walk into a project with an intention. They usually have an idea what kind of movie they are trying to make or at least what audience they are aiming towards. But with the sci-comedy-disaster Tammy And The T-Rex, I don't think Director Stewart Raffill could even answer those questions. Coming off his screaming success Mac And Me (that was sarcasm by the way), Raffill brings us a movie that embodies three very distinctively genres, but fails at achieving anyone of them.

Firstly, Tammy And The T-Rex is supposed to be a teen comedy. The majority of the cast are 90s teen actors with the lovely (but talentless) Denise Richards playing Tammy and Fast & Furious' own Paul Walker playing her goofy boyfriend Michael. Immediately we learn that Tammy fears for Michael's life when her psychotic ex-boyfriend Billy won't leave her alone. Michael tells Tammy that he is not afraid of Billy and confronts him. The two proceed to grab each other's balls in probably one of the funniest teen movie confrontations I've ever seen ("What we got here is one of them testicular stand-offs!").

But from there, Billy and his cronies kidnap Michael and drop him off at a zoo to be lion-lunch. And surely enough, Michael is mauled and killed by a lion... This is where the film takes a sudden turn, casually becoming a teen-comedy that also happens to be revenge-film...? Hmm. So Paul Walker dies (in a very funny hospital sequence), but his brain is left in tact, even if his body is not. Meanwhile, a mad scientist named Dr. Wachenstein (played by Weekend at Bernie's own Terry Kiser) has built a giant robotic Tyrannosaurus Rex... for whatever reason. All it needs to be functional is an unsullied brain, making Paul Walker's now useless brain the perfect suitor. And yes, this is all the same movie...

So the mad scientist steals Paul Walkers's brain (in a lab sequence that looks a lot like Simpsons Treehouse of Horror II) and transplants it into the robot dinosaur. And within a few seconds of becoming a robot dinosaur, Paul Walker sets out to exact revenge by viciously slaughtering Billy and his gang in some rather gory PG-13 moments. So essentially, at this point, this so-called teen-comedy that just recently became a revenge-film now also features sci-fi special effects of about the caliber your see in the picture below.

Ridiculous plot aside, the most off-putting thing about Tammy And The T-Rex is the blatant disregard for human life that the film tries to treat humorously. There's a sequence where Denise Richards and her super-gay friend Byron (Theo Forsett) go to the morgue and start picking through corpses to find Michael's potential replacement body. Leaning the bodies against the window so the giant robot dinosaur can see them, Tammy rejects one because apparently his c$%k is too big for her... Yup. She's not that kinda girl, but is the type that will desecrate a corpse.

Now I know this is an attempt at humor, but the popular brand of 90s dark humor (typically found in era classics such as Pulp Fiction) doesn't work here. Especially not when paralleled with some imitation 80s bubble gum schlock. They do try comedy with the dinosaur like having it trying to make a phone call, but this weird playfulness seems out of place when just moments ago the T-Rex ripped a guy's guts out and crushed him in front of an old lady.

As a director, I think Raffill deserves study. His career includes two films that attempt to tap the youth market of a particular time without having any idea what that market wants or why they even exist... Or maybe it's as simple as Raffill wanted to make a movie about a T-Rex (in light of Jurassic Park's success the previous year) and the name Tammy just happened to start with a "T." Wow! Marketing genius at its finest!

The only thing that makes Tammy And The T-Rex worth seeing is Denise Richards. Simply put, she's young and gorgeous. And I assume the striptease she performs for the camera at the end was the filmmakers half-assed way of apologizing for making the audience put up with whatever the hell this was, while also exploiting Denise Richards for being very attractive at the same time. Poor Denise... She may never have had much in the way of acting talent (even slightly), but the Charlie Sheen years really look as if they took a toll on her pretty face and that's a real shame.

Enjoy this movie for the few laughs it has (mostly among the human characters surprisingly) and to see Denise in a better place, even if that better place is a world where Paul Walker's brain can be kept in salad bowl so that he can enjoy a daily striptease from Tammy. 

And for your viewing displeasure, the off-putting violence I was speaking of, accompanied by some really, really bad special effects.