BOB AND GORDON: ZUPER FRIENDZ

BOB AND GORDON: ZUPER FRIENDZ

Gordon gets a visit from his old friend Bob...

and then Bob steals his pants...

Check out The Fitl Box
http://www.youtube.com/user/Fitl?sub_confirmation=1

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 (12 OF 100)

"League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (2003),
Dir: Stephen Norrington
 

$78,000,000 in Budget vs. $179,265,204 in Gross

 

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is one of the best/worst blockbuster films ever made. Based on the comics by famed Watchmen-writer (and part-time magician) Alan Moore, the film attempts to be Jules Verne's answer to DC Comics' Justice League. And for all intensive purposes, this idea probably looked great on paper, combining all these fictional characters in a similar way to the movie Tall Tale, but already proved not to work back in good old 1995. But what makes this movie so great are all the ways it doesn't work and still remains entertaining.

Based on a comic and thus subject to fantasy, the movie claims to be set in the year 1899, so we presume that's our 1899... yet there's submarines, machine guns, automobiles, rockets, etc., so any divide between Fantasy 1899 and Reality 1899 is never made clear. Not like the opening credits to Watchmen, where the movie's different world setting is much more evident. Now, a lot of people blame the movie's poor reception on the C.G.I. and it's overuse, but they might be surprised to discover the movie has a lot less of that than some would think. For example, I always thought Mr. Hyde was a C.G. character. Turns out it's just a bad-looking latex suit as seen below. And the car chase scene through Venice (with the first automobile ever created apparently) is actually all miniatures... Hmm. Interesting. Still looks like sh&^%, though.

Special effects aside, the main problem with LXG is the poor decisions on the creative teams' part. Coming out of The Matrix craze of all early-2000s superhero movies (X-Men and Norrington's Blade included), they chose to follow this visual trend of dark costuming and bullet-time action sequences to sway audiences into believing these story-lines. But for a movie set in the Victorian era, lifting the style of a movie about cyberpunks seems like an odd choice.

Now, maybe I am just ignorant, but I had no idea who Allan Quatermain was before seeing this movie. My inability to read anything beyond the back of a shampoo bottle didn't help. But the bigger question is, what audience going to see a superhero action movie would be brushing up on their Victorian era writings first? I knew Tom Sawyer (hardly Victorian and not as some f*&%ing secret service agent), Dr. Jekyll (the original Hulk), The Invisible Man (who spends most of the movie naked apparently), Captain Nemo (but only Disney's version), and Professor James Moriarty (with no Sherlock Holmes in sight).

Allan Quatermain? No idea. Mina Harker (Dracula's wife and former protagonist of the comic books) I only knew from Wyona Ryder's soulless portrayal in Bram Stoker's Dracula, where she wasn't a vampire and had me confused. And Dorian Gray (from The Picture of Dorian Gray, an Oscar Wilde story) was definitely the most obscure. Also, the movie provides no background to these characters, so if you don't know the story of Dorian Gray, Stuart Townsend's action movie one-liner seen in this clip really makes no sense...

LXG's legacy was less so informing audiences about these classical characters and more so about killing a lot of careers. After its release, Sean Connery quit acting all together. Director Stephen Norrington has not directed a feature since this. And this mess was the last film to carry Alan Moore's name. For all its infamy, though, this movie is immensely entertaining, from its over-the-top action sequences and general lunacy. You will be laughing out loud and have a great time with it.