Welcome to a new series of blogs for my page; Random Rants. The idea of the series is pretty self-explanatory, just a bunch of random rants based on minor things that just irk me to no end. I've been meaning to do these for a while, but was just too lazy to get around to it until now.
With that said, this first in hopefully many rants will be on something that you think wouldn't matter in the slightest, but kind of does in relation to the fanbase; the Counting Gag, for Kamen Rider.
For those unaware, the fan-coined "Counting Gag" is based on a numeric theme for the franchise for Kamen Riders W, OOO and Fourze. The gag was basically how the number was integrated into the shows themes, wordplay, episode titles, music and gimmick of the year.
This started with W and the number 2; 2 Gaia Memories used in the belt to transform, 2 people becoming W, the name itself being a pun on the number 2 (pronounced as "double", not "W") and each episode having 2 different titles (an arc name based around a letter and a title summarising each episode, with the letters in the arc name having two different meanings).
This was followed with OOO and 3's; 3 of the same term in the name, 3 Core Medals used at once to transform, 3 descriptors of the episode as their title names, 3 of the same type of Core Medal for a new form (i.e.: Tajadol based on birds or Gatakiriba on bugs), and hell, even the opening lyric for the theme song is "You count the Medals, 1, 2 and 3".
And finally, we have Fourze with the number 4; 4 Astro Switches to transform, 4 bases on the suit for the Switch Modules, 4 Kanji used to spell out the title names, and of course the name itself being a portmanteau of the numbers 4 and 0 (zero), in reference to Kamen Rider's then-40th anniversary, not to mention the 40 Astro Switches seen in the show.
There are more detailed ways as to how the Counting Gag is used as theme in and of itself in these shows, but that's the basic gist of it. However, due to every fanbase having a disturbing amount of trolls in them, there are of course people that simply won't let this fucking gag die out, with ludicrous and contradictory evidence to support that the gag continues with Wizard onwards.
In truth, they're not really counting anything; they're just looking from ANY visual gag that looks like a number while deliberately ignoring how the number was integrated and represented. Hell, the number itself should be irrelevant so long as as it's part of a consistent thematic, which it isn't in any respect for Wizard onwards.
I kid you not; some fans honestly think that the gag is in Wizard just because there are 5 fingers on the WizarDriver!
Hey George Carlin, what're your thoughts?
You're goddamn right!
First of all, no it doesn't. Just like any normal human hand, it has 4 fingers and 1 thumb. Second, even you were using the logic of "visual confirms Counting Gag", NOWHERE on the belt is there anything resembling the number 5! On top of that, there are no titles spelt out with 5 words, the theme song isn't focused around the number 5, Wizard the character doesn't have 5 of the same thing; face it folks, the Counting Gag is not in Wizard!
The same fucking thing happened with Gaim and the number 6, just because an unlocked Lockseed, apparently, looks like a 6.
Okay, I can kind of see that, but again, it wasn't the visual that confirmed the gag was still going; it was how it was consistently presented as a theme in and of itself! If it's not used the same way as W, OOO and Fourze, then it isn't there!
But it only gets worse from there; for Drive, it's the flipped over Shift Cars; Ghost, the Infinity sign flipped up; and Ex-Aid, a Gashat flipped upside-down! Did the fanbase just have a weird obsession with flipping over stuff just to look for an unrelated gag?! Because otherwise, NOTHING IN THESE SHOWS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COUNTING GAG!!!
Even the episode title styles from Drive onwards has changed to be reflective of the shows themselves, thus showing that they aren't even TRYING to do the Counting Gag anymore. With Drive, the titles are questions that are then answered in the episodes. With Ghost, they are reactions to what will happen in the episode. And with Ex-Aid, a romanized phrase among Japanese Kanji characters.
Hell, even Toei themselves have outright said that the Counting Gag stopped with Fourze, mainly due to both the writing staff for each show not being able to incorporate a higher number as a tertiary theme and Plex, the company who does design work for Kamen Rider and Super Sentai, had the same issue with a higher number than 4. Thus, they just gave up on it and told the fans straight that the gag was over. But again, because of the trolling we see all the time, they refuse to just let the gag fucking die! It's starting to feel like a joke you had told to you by a friend time and again; every time you hear it, it gets less and less funny, thus ruining the appeal and making it more aggravating for every one listening!
Point being; Rider fans, if you still say the Counting Gag continues past Fourze with more and more ludicrous, unfounded evidence to "support" your claims... well, I think UHF summed it up best:
I hope you enjoyed this rant and, as always, this is Callum Lewis, the Media Man, signing off!
Here we are folks; the review that you've all been waiting for... all three of you. The review of what I truly consider the absolute worst film I've ever seen. And just in time for my six month anniversary, too!
But before we reveal what it is, I think that I feel the need to clarify something. When it comes to picking something to review, I will admittedly do so at random, hence why I've only recently talked about the first two seasons of Steven Universe despite the show being out for a good four years now. But when it came to this specific list, that wasn't the case, as I had always been planning to talk about each of these films at some point. This was merely a convenient outlet for my utter disgust with these films.
That said, I didn't just choose these films because of some glaring flaws they have. In fact, I chose them for the opposite reason; the glaring positives that they had, as well as what material I had to work with when writing my reviews. To prove that to you, I can actually point out something positive with the first four films on the list.
5. Fant4stic. At the very least, even if it's extremely generic for the genre, it at least went in a different direction for the team that hasn't really been done before. It's still a shitty direction, but I can at least say they weren't just redoing the exact same thing as the other films.
4. Thunderbirds. Not only had a decent rescore by Hans Zimmer, but also had visual variety between each of the vehicles and the redesigns fit in with the more futuristic edge. Shame about the shitty CG, but what you are gonna do?
3. Hannibal Rising. The cinematography was decent and the set design fit really well with the post-WWII theme.
2. The Thing not-prequel... the acting was decent?
Okay, I will admit, the positives did start to dwindle as the list went on, but you get the point. Each film on the list had something nice for me to say about it... except one! Despite having seen the film several times, analysing every scene and every aspect with as critical an eye as I could muster, I have yet to find ANYTHING nice to say about this film. To this day, I can't even say anything remotely positive; it's THAT bad! And this isn't stuff like "The Room" or "Birdemic", where much of the entertainment value comes from how bad they are. This film is the pure definition of BAD!
And so, without further delay or revisiting the clues, here we go. The absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, piece of shit, worst film I have EVER seen is:
M Night Shyamalan's "The Last Airbender"... just to give you an idea of how bad it is, Paramount Studios basically had to use a random commenters opinion on the film from JoBlo to plaster on the front of my copy of the DVD case for ANY form of praise... and it was an opinion taken completely out of context... they couldn't find anyone who said a single nice thing about it, so basically plastered a lie on the front of the DVD... MST3K, I need you!
Thank you. Get used to that clip, by the way
This... THING was released in 2010, just two years after the end of the show it was based on; Nickelodeon's "Avatar: The Last Airbender", which I'll just call "The Legend of Aang" for the sake of simplicity, especially since that was the European title.
The show, running from 2005 to 2008, is the story of a fantasy world where people can "bend" the four elements and are separated by their own cultures and customs into four nations; the Air Nomads, the Water Tribes, the Earth Kingdom and the Fire Nation. The mediator in all of this is the Avatar, a person capable of bending all four of the elements and has a personal connection to the Spirit World, reincarnating onto the next nation in the cycle every time they die. But one day, as the Fire Nation began their siege on the rest of the world, the Avatar vanished
With this particular reincarnation, the titular last Airbender Aang, a war between the Fire Nation and the rest of the world has being going for the last 100 years. In all that time, Aang had been frozen in suspended animation until he was awoken by two siblings from the Southern Water Tribe, Katara and Sokka. Upon discovery of Aang's role as the Avatar, but more importantly saving him from the banished Fire Nation prince Zuko, Katara and Sokka go along with Aang to help him learn how to master the other elements so that, when the time came, he could face off against the Fire Nation's current ruler, the ruthless Fire Lord Ozai.
"The Legend of Aang" is arguably Nickelodeon's most popular work, garnering critical praise for a diverse range of entertaining characters, an emotionally gripping story, unparalleled world-building, beautiful animation and a seamless incorporation of East Asian philosophies and folklore. The show was even popular enough to have both a comic-book continuation with several short stories and a sequel series with the next Avatar, Korra, which even expanded into it's own adventures and it's own comic book sequel. Admittedly, "Legend of Korra" isn't as great as "Legend of Aang", especially with the first two seasons, but it still pulled through with a likeable protagonist and discussions of politics and what can be considered social norms.
And then there's this movie, which was announced shortly after "Legend of Aang" finished with a four-part finale. It was supposedly being made for fans of the show, but obviously history would prove that to be a lie, especially with Shyamalan at the helm to not only direct, but also to produce and write the screenplay. And given that this was 2008 when this was announced, and "The Happening" was out at roughly the same time, that should have been the major warning flags.
Look, I'm just gonna be blunt here; I don't like M Night Shyamalan. Not just his movies, but him as a person as well. The dude has always shown himself as a self-centred egomaniac who cannot take even the slightest amount of criticism. Granted, some of this may have been due to the unreasonable hype he was given, with "The Sixth Sense" being No. 1 at the box office for the longest time and people praising him as "the next Spielberg", which no doubt already inflated his pretentious, overblown ego. But then something magical happened, as with each film after "Signs", which sucked by the way, he has been continuously slammed by the critics for his films being self-indulgent tripe. Even "Stargate: SG-1" wasn't afraid to take a stab at his work by questioning the logistics of aliens coming to a planet that is 2/3rds covered in water... when their weakness is water.
This was only made all the worst with his casting decisions, as he chose to make the characters predominantly white. All of this spawning with the casting of Nicola Peltz as Katara, a character who is based on Inuit culture and ethnicity. Because of this, any and all major players from the Water Tribes had to be consistently portrayed by white actors. Ironically, however, much of the Fire Nation, as opposed to obviously being based on the Japanese due to their customs and skin tones, is portrayed by Indian and middle-Eastern actors. This was likely due to the backlash of criticism for blatant ignorance of the cultural diversity the show had, but it also begs the question; "Why not just simply recast and start from scratch with the ethnically right actors"? This is a movie that is basically gift-wrapped for Asian actors, and thanks to Shyamalan, they intentionally got screwed out of these once in a lifetime roles! What the fuck, Shyamalan?!
To give people an idea of what I'm talking about, here are what cultures the four nations are based on:
The Northern and Southern Water Tribes; Inuits. The Earth Kingdom; the Chinese. The Fire Nation, the Japanese. The Air Nomads; Tibetan Monks and Indians.
What's worse, is that Shyamalan tried to actually justify his casting choices and, once again, treat his audience as idiots who can't fathom the idea of multicultural diversity. This is an actual quote from him:
"Anime is based on ambiguous facial features. It's meant to be interpretive, it's meant to be inclusive of all races, and you can see yourselves in all of these characters."
Where to even begin with this?
First of all, AVATAR IS NOT AN ANIME! Just because the animation style matches more of the anime style and incorporates various Eastern mythologies and iconography, it doesn't automatically count as an anime! With an anime, there is a expectancy and cultural trapping that basically forces even the most critically acclaimed anime to include certain things. This is why, in subtitled Japanese work, you always see the honorific titles being used when addressing someone, such as "Onii-chan" for brother or "San" if addressing an elder, or even "Sensei" when addressing someone with authority, like a doctor or a teacher; that stuff is only lost when an anime or Japanese film is being dubbed by English speaking voice actors. And since "Avatar" doesn't have these cultural expectancies nor has to rely on specific visual troupes for anime, it therefore doesn't count as one! It's an American cartoon with influence from Japanese works; no more, no less.
Second, we don't see ourselves in the characters because of their skin colour; we see ourselves in them because of how they are WRITTEN! If, to use myself for an example, I was watching a show and one of the central protagonists had autism or was on the autism spectrum, that would garner my attention and possible investment as I could relate to how the person's journey goes through the story. I wouldn't look at them and think; "Wow, this is a strong, accurate representation of what someone with a learning disorder has to go through, but I can't relate to them because they're ASIAN! We're nothing alike"! You wanna know why? Because that's just close minded, selfish and borders on potential racism! I'm not gonna act like EVERY person with a learning disorder are the same, but that doesn't mean we become less invested in them because of their ethnicity or cultural background!
Third, even if we were to accept ANY of this as truth, that doesn't mean that anime is inclusive of all races. In fact, the only reason we don't really see that much diversity with Japanese characters in anime is because the Japanese are homogeneous, thus we can instantly tell when someone in anime is not Japanese. At the very least, characters of different ethnic backgrounds are showcased. Don't believe me? Well, here are just a few examples:
Where's your "inclusive of all races" argument now, dickhead?!... MST3K, would you mind?
Thanks!
So yeah, even before talking about this film, we're on shaky ground. Even if someone were to see this film for the first time, without any knowledge of the show or the behind the scenes bullshit,... this film has 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, how do you THINK it'll turn out?!
The film adapts about 8-9 episodes of the show, all done horribly I might add. As expected, the story (or lack thereof) is of Katara and Sokka trying to get to the North Pole and help Aang learn Waterbending, all the while being chased by the banished Fire Nation Zuko, his unassuming uncle Iroh and his rival, Admiral Zhao. But of course, in Shyamalan's mind, that's NOWHERE near as interesting as the characters just lazing around and talking... oh, and I don't mean interacting with each other or talking about how they feel about the whole thing; I mean just talking. No character growth, no banter, no jokes; just talking!
Immediate problem; the dialogue (of which there is far too much) is horrible. None of it is about how the characters feel or giving the audience insight into their personalities. All the dialogue in this film is just exposition! There are entire scenes just focused on the characters having to explain something to the audience -- I mean, each other! And because of the wooden acting that even "Man of Steel" would be calling too flat, you will quickly lose focus as you get the idea that the actors don't care about what they're talking about! I think the Nostalgia Critic summed it up best:
Thanks, Cri --
Dammit, Casper!
Still, even with how badly the dialogue is written, do you wanna know the worst part about it? MOST OF IT WORTHLESS! There's a small moment when Aang is trying to commune with the spirits and before he does so, he feels the need to explain how someone meditates... I'm not even kidding! His exact lines are:
"To get your Airbending tattoos, you have to meditate for long periods of time without losing focus. Some of the great monks can meditate for four days". This is a detail that's completely unnecessary, as it comes right the fuck out of nowhere, especially since Shyamalan could've SHOWN THIS VISUALLY!! Shyamalan has been in Hollywood long enough to realise the rule is "Show, don't tell."
And this is then followed by Katara trying to talk to him, thus interrupting his attempts to meditate, showing that she didn't even listen to him; making the line entirely pointless! And that's nothing; this is how our villains back story is revealed, as Zuko just asks a random boy in a Fire Nation colony to tell him and Iroh about how Zuko was banished due to speaking out against a strategy and being physically scarred by his bastard of a father. We didn't need this as, due to the fact that Shyamalan actually filmed the scene of Zuko being scarred, this could've been a flashback from Zuko's point of view to remind himself of his failures, or Iroh talking to the crew to explain his attitude! Shyamalan had ways around this, and he chose the fucking lazy route!
Then again, it wouldn't matter if it was done visually or entirely with dialogue. Why? Because the characters have been reduced from entertaining, multi-layered individuals to stoic, boring, exposition spewing robots! This is probably more insulting than giving them shitty dialogue, because the characters in the show are written as human fucking beings, with their personalities and ideals shining through before we needed to know their role in the story. In this film, Shyamalan spends more time on establishing the role of the Avatar and his powers... before we even get his fucking name at the 25 minute point! This clearly shows that Shyamalan didn't give an iota of a shit when it came to the characters, just their role in the story and never treating them as people! This is more of an obvious indication that he had never seen the show, as the idea of treating someone more as a tool and not a person was the EXACT reason Aang ran from his responsibilities in the first place!
But the most insulting example has to be with Katara. Being a strong, independent, multi-faceted person with her own flaws and issues, Katara from the show shown herself as how to do a strong female character without having to conform to making her a generic tomboy. Katara in the film? Not even close! She virtually does nothing in the entire film to warrant her existence let alone someone to portray her! She does nothing, affects nothing, makes no convincing argument and takes a back seat to the horrible exposition and acting to even stand out! This isn't just a bad depiction of the character, but one that borderlines on being a sexist depiction; the same sexism that Katara in the show railed against and made a significant stand against to get female Waterbenders trained in combat. Hell, much of the bullshit casting choices were because Shyamalan wanted Nicola Peltz to be in the film, thus obviously didn't give a single shit when it came to her characterisation! I hate that I have to keep using this clip, but:
And you know what else is missing from this film? The lore! "Avatar", even if they botched it up in season two of "Legend of Korra", had some terrific and compelling world-building and lore. So much to look in to, analyse and compare to other great fantasy stories; "Lord of the Rings", for instance. But with this film, we don't get any of that! All we get is just the bare-bones minimum of storytelling, with little to no reference to the Avatars that came before Aang, or an expansion on Katara's tragic backstory with the loss of her mother. Even the more rudimentary stuff like Master Pakku's lost relationship with Katara and Sokka's Gran-Gran, or Aang's feelings of loss, despair and responsibility at the discovery of the genocide of his entire culture; all of this stuff was used brilliantly in the show to inform us of how the characters acted and what their motivations were! If you cut that out and give us stock, generic protagonists with no personalities, then that's you going out of your way to basically give a cinematic middle finger to the audience! I don't even feel the need to re-use the "Just didn't care" clip at this point; you're already thinking it!
The cinematography and direction in this film is complete and utter shit, once more done as a means of Shyamalan showing of that he can do entire scenes in one take! Granted, doing stuff in one entire take can be impressive, but only when used for the right moments. To again draw a parallel to myself, one of the final assignments for my first year at University was that we had to create and film a short 5 minute piece that focused around the overall theme of "dystopia". To capture this feeling, we shot an actress walking through the park listening to this ominous and incorporeal voice warning her of something that will happen. We did the piece in one take, because we wanted to create an uncomfortable setting and atmosphere, accented by having the camera focused mostly on the actresses face and her reactions to the voice and what it is saying to her, as only she could hear it. Shyamalan however just does entire conversations in one take just to show off his ego and "skill" as a director. It's artsy just for it's own sake and just makes the film feel even slower than it already is!
And it's not like the choreography of the fights is any better, with far too much emphasis on showing off an entire katas worth of martial arts only to result in a puff of air. Keep in mind, I'm a guy who likes watching Japanese content that feature high-tier, fast paced choreography... on the budget of a TV show. Granted, not everyone is familiar with stuff I watch, such as Kamen Rider or Super Sentai, thus can't tell when the choreography is done well. But an easy way to spot is how fast and fluent the movements are. In well directed stunt work, even if you have initial trouble keeping up with the fight, playing back in your mind reminds you of how well-versed and fluent each action is, which all culminates in the event of the fight itself. In poorly directed stunt, you can tell when someone is just waving their limbs around and when their fists don't connect to the opponent, especially when their actions don't result in the effect that should come from it.
Just to give you an example, here's the (sadly heavily edited for YouTube to avoid copyright) final battle from Kamen Rider Ex-Aid, a show made on a TV budget:
It's fast paced, sure, but you can see all the time and effort being put into every move and how each action results in the right effect. It is legitimately fun and exciting!
By contrast, here's a fight scene from the film, which had a budget of roughly $150 million:
See the difference? This one, in spite of higher productions values, has less going on. It's slow, lazy, unfocused and, worst of all, BORING!!! For most of the scene, you're just waiting for something fun to happen, but all we get is just people standing around looking like idiots! You can't fail more than that!
And really, that should have been the real promotional quote on the front of the DVD case: "The Last Airbender: You can't fail more than THIS"!
If the extensively long paragraphs worth of rants were indication, not to mention the title of this blog, I think it's save to say that I fucking hate this movie. It's one thing for a film to try and fail, but to not even try at all is even worse. The acting is monotone for the entire cast, with no-one giving even a semblance of emotion; the action scenes are slow, being both poorly choreographed and directed; the effects are cheap, never once do they ever look like they're really there; the storytelling is horseshit, it's uninteresting much in place of something that should be awe-inspiring; the characters are horrible, coming off as emotionless, useless planks of wood used only to facilitate bad exposition and dialogue. It's not even enjoyably bad; it's BORING! But at the same time, it's insulting, knowing that it came from such a great show. Literally nothing about it works! Fuck this movie to the end of days! Fuck the plastic that was used to make the DVD case! Fuck the lumberjacks who cut down the trees that were turned into the paper that was used to write this movie! And most importantly:
FUCK! YOU! M NIGHT SHYAMALAN!!!
... Okay, one more time:
I want to thank you all for reading these reviews over the last 6 months; I never would have come this far without your support. Here's hoping that the next line of reviews will be more relaxing than this.
Til next time, this is Callum Lewis, the Media Man, signing off!
Some days, I really regret ever deciding to start reviewing stuff.
Despite not being my favourite genre, horror has certainly made quite the impact with cinema, hasn't it? Not only as a means of scaring the shit out of people, but also pushing the rating system further so that audiences can get the chance to truly experience something scary. Because of this, films like "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" were all possible and are recognised as some of the best horror films of all time... at least, before being bogged down by shitty sequels and remakes.
However, in recent years, namely in the last decade or so, Hollywood seemed really keen on releasing shitty horror film after shitty horror film as a means of making a quick buck, never really putting any thought into them and introducing new troupes for people to despise or resurrecting old troupes that disappeared because of how people hated them. A lot of this can be blamed on constant remakes by companies like Platinum Dunes, where they just simply take the original film, repeat the same damn story, water down what people loved about the original and add in needless elements that ultimately make the remakes terrible. "A Nightmare on Elm Street"? It's now a mystery movie with Freddy Krueger as a paedophile. "Friday the 13th"? Ignores that Jason's mum was the original killer to focus on Jason and introduces two completely different yet equally annoying groups of teens for the body count. "Halloween"? Michael had a rough childhood that takes up 45 minutes of running time and then the rest of the film is just a lazy rehash of the original with none of the class.
Why do I bring this up? Well, because I have a feeling that today's film was intended to be a remake before they changed their minds and decided to just make it a non-canon prequel. That would definitely explain it's bizarre identity crisis.
So without further ado, here are the 3 clues from last time:
1. It's another prequel.
2. It's another horror movie.
3. It's a prequel to my all-time favourite horror movie.
Again, I hesitate to call it a prequel. Number 2 on The Shit List is:
"The Thing"!
What?! No! The other one!
... The OTHER other one!
... That's the video game!
... For Christ's sake, WE DID "FANT4STIC" ALREADY!!
Excuse me a minute while I "talk" with my editor.
Sorry about that, just had to introduce my foot to my former editor's face. Still, just show me the most recent one:
THAT'S it, the 2011 version!
This mutated abomination of ass was the first film to be based on the John Campbell Jr novella "Who Goes There?" since John Carpenter took a stab at it in 1982.
The basic story for every version is that a crew in an isolated research outpost has an alien creature stalking them, picking each one off until there is only a handful left. Despite having a similar premise, the first adaptation of the story, "The Thing from Another World", is a loose adaptation as it is set in the North Pole as opposed to the Antarctic and the biology of the creature is vastly different, being a plant based organism that reproduces itself with seed pods within it's own body.
The John Carpenter remake, "The Thing", however, was a more faithful adaptation of the book, being based in Antarctica and the creature more akin to how it operated in the book. To summarise, the alien can absorb organic life forms and imitate them on a cellular level, thus allowing it to hide among the humans and subtly infect everyone as it tries not draw attention to itself. This works to great effect in the film, as the core themes of paranoia, tension and mistrust all come down to whether or not the people at Outpost 31 can be trusted not just be each other, but by the audience as well. Even the protagonist, MacReady played by Kurt Russell, could be an unreliable narrator as he is put in positions where most of the team don't trust him.
"The Thing" is easily my all-time favourite horror movie; not just because of the beautiful practical effects by Rob Bottin or even the fact that Kurt Russell is in it, but because it creates an unsettling, frightening atmosphere and none of the characters are ever presented as being stupid or doing something right for all the wrong reasons. One of the troupes I despise in horror films is when the protagonist does something so unexpectedly dumb, thus ruining any appreciation for the character and weakening the overall experience. This film is truly something you have to see for yourself if you're in for a good scare. Hell, I love the film so much that I did an assignment for a University module where I had to propose a story that could work in both theatre and film and based it around this movie; I love the film that much!
If only the "prequel" didn't share the same fucking name, thus confusing people into thinking that it's a remake! What the hell, Hollywood?!
This version of the story is the events that happened before the creature got to Outpost 31 as a husky. Specifically, with the group of Norwegians who were unintentionally responsible for thawing the creature out and letting it loose on the people in the base. Initially, not a bad premise for horror film and could potentially stand on it's own without being compared to the original.
But see, here's the problem; it's basically trying too hard to BE the original film, right down to, as I said before, sharing the same name for profitable value.
Just to give you an idea of how you can lose investment with your characters in the first minute; the first few lines of dialogue is an incest joke spoken in Norwegian about a little boy fucking his grandmother... let that sink in.
Still, the Norwegians enlist the help of palaeontologist Kate Lloyd... an AMERICAN palaeontologist, I might add. Little side question; did Norway really not have ANY palaeontologists? Furthermore, why would Norwegians share sensitive information and findings about a crashed alien ship with someone who falls under American jurisdiction? And what about reporting their findings to another Norwegian institute for science about what they found? Hell, why do they need a palaeontologist to begin with? They study the corpses of fossilised creatures that went extinct before human civilisation began to bloom. These people literally have no reason to include a palaeontologist in studying an alien creature. For fucks sake, when she gets there and they try to take a sample, she tries to sway them from doing this and finding an alternate solution, but they just brush off her concerns, telling her not to correct them in front of everyone else. Thus, Kate's role in this film, despite being the main protagonist, is completely superfluous.
And just like that, you can automatically guess one of the main problems with this film:
EVERYONE'S A FUCKING IMBECILE!!!!
And I do mean everyone. Never does anyone in this film, despite all of them having some form of scientific expertise, make a single rational or logical decision, instead relying on doing the obviously wrong things. As stated before, one the scientists, Dr Sander, wants to drill into the block of ice containing the creature to get a sample... and no-one but Kate tries to stop him. Literally NO-ONE! None of them throw out the possibility of alien disease, or finding another way to collect a sample that in no way damages the creature, or better yet, LEAVE THE FUCKING THING ALONE IN THE PLATEAU OF ANTARCTICA!!
I'm sorry if I just seem like I'm harping right now, but I feel it's important to point this bullshit out. Why? Because one of the aspects that endeared people to the Carpenter version was how NO-ONE acted like an idiot! They acted and reacted exactly how anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would act in this situation. They rationalised, they discussed their plans and, most importantly, they used their brains! I can't say that about anyone in the not-prequel, as all of them make the most basic and obvious of errors when they should know better. Thus, we don't care when one of them is revealed to be the Thing or when any of them dies, as we had no investment in what they had to offer due to their lack of competence or logical thinking.
But it's not just the people; the creature is an utter idiot too! Remember how in the Carpenter version the creature was quiet, took it's time and only revealed itself when it had no choice or was exposed? Well, throw that out the window, as this creature is loud, draws attention to itself and constantly reveals itself over and over for no fucking reason! And I do mean no reason. There's a point after the creature is first discovered once it consumes Norwegian number 15 and is burned to a crisp where a group of people are on the helicopter and leaving the base for a medical base, with one of the people on board being the creature. All the creature has to do is just sit there and do nothing, as it's now escaping with no-one the wiser. And what does it do?
Well, along with showing some piss-poor CGI, it does the exact OPPOSITE thing that any thinking, rational organism would do! Keep in mind, every single cell in the creature is a living organism, thus there's probably millions of brains inside of the creature. Does ANY of them think "You know, maybe we should just sit still and nothing"?! There! Villain wins by literally doing nothing!
Then again, this must of being thrown in there for the sake of showing off the gore and the frankly terrible CG. No joke, this is some of the laziest, most unconvincing CG I have ever seen. Namely because, none of this effects were meant to be fully CG. There's behind the scenes footage of the cast and crew reassuring the viewer that the effects are mostly practical with CG enhancements. But apparently, halfway through production, the executives all procrastinated at the same time, hit "fuck it" and told the team to just go all CG. Not only is that insulting to the hard work that was put into creating some of the puppets and animatronics of the creature, that's also insulting to Rob Bottin's work!
Keep in mind, Bottin spent 57 weeks at the studio just creating the creature effects and even slept at the studio to ensure that they were finished on time, to the point where after filming wrapped up, Carpenter had Bottin sent to the hospital for rest and to regain his health. Bottin was in his early 20's when he did these effects and they paid off immensely, as the practical effects still look horrifying to this day, with some of the most gruesomely creative monster designs of all time! Just look at the chest defibrillator scene and tell me it looks fake:
One last thing (pun unintended) I want to talk about is the consistency (or lack thereof) with the original film, namely with the timeline and how the creature operates.
As explained before, the creature absorbs other organic life, assimilates it and imitates it down to the cellular level, thus easily disguising itself among everyone else. However, with this film, a discovery is made where the Thing can't absorb inorganic material, such as metal fillings or plates, thus spits them out. And by shear fucking luck and coincidence, almost EVERYONE at the base has metal fillings, thus the few without metal fillings or have porcelain fillings are automatically suspect.
To quote the ever talented and late George Carlin:
For one, how would Kate know if everyone has metal fillings? What if some of them just took really good care of their teeth on a day to day basis? Granted, I can't talk as I not only had porcelain fillings and metal fillings, but is also equipped with braces. However, that doesn't automatically mean that everyone in the whole world has had fillings. Second, Sander's fillings are porcelain... so why is he a suspect? Porcelain is not technically an organic compound, thus he should off the hook as, if he was the Thing, he would have them missing from his teeth!
But third, and probably the biggest issue, THIS WAS NEVER SOMETHING THE THING COULD DO!! Sure, it doesn't absorb inorganic material, but that doesn't mean that it would just spit it out! Because if that was the case, why didn't it spit out the defibrillators in the scene I just showed you? Why didn't it spit out the bullets it got hit with after being discovered for the first time during both films? Why didn't it spit out the metal plate in Norwegian number 15's arm after absorbing him?! Consistency; you suck at it!
But the even bigger issue is the film's total disregard for continuity. You already read the spoiler warning, so no way are you backing out now. In the films increasingly stupid and predictable climax, Kate ends up destroying the creature in the ship and goes off on her own in a snow cat to... wherever. But after that, the film cuts to the now destroyed base in the morning as the two remaining survivors hurry off to chase after the creature that's disguised as a husky in a helicopter, leading into the opening of the original film.
Wanna know how it completely disregards continuity? Because we already knew what happened to the creature and the space ship thanks to information found in the original film! Specifically, the Norwegian crew set thermite charges to try and uncover the ice covering the ship, only to end up destroying it before finding the creature frozen solid and bringing it back in the block of ice. In the not-prequel, the ship is destroyed from the inside, with a HAND GRENADE and suffers no other damage! How the fuck could they have ignored this easily remembered fact from the original, as it was essentially a reference to "The Thing From Another World"?! Why did this film ever get good reviews?! Why am I still talking about it?! Just END! END!!
Thank you, Tom Servo... again.
This film is an utter insult not only to everything the original film was about, but the impact that it had as well. The original may have been a critical and commercial failure when it was first released, but thanks to it gaining cult status through home video, it's now recognised as the brilliant horror film that it is. But even taking the original out the equation, the not-prequel is still a flaming pile of dogshit. The effects; terrible. The acting; monotone. The story; auto-pilot. The jumpscares; one too many. This was just a pain to sit through, and is easily the absolute worst horror film I've ever seen, and the fact that it shares the same name as my all-time favourite horror film just makes it even worse.
Overall rating; 0.5/10 (Painful).
And yet, with all of that, there is still one worse... here you go:
1. Released in 2010.
2. Based on a kids show.
3. Directed by one of Hollywood's biggest egomaniacs.
Til next time, this is Callum Lewis, the Media Man... and I only have one more to go.
In the same way that kids shows often end up being butchered on the big screen, classic novels often become victims of Hollywood's executive changes. Granted, this is more of the case of translation between two massively different mediums; with a book, it's only as long as the reader allows it to be. They could easily read something like Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" within the span of a few days, but have trouble getting through Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" in less that a week. With TV, there is a specific and consistent time-frame for each episode, be it 25 minutes or a full hour.
But no matter the medium, both TV and books has not had the best track record in terms of feature length adaptations. Again, differences in the mediums may have something to do with it, as an average novel lasts for roughly 450-500 pages. However, it is often the interpretation that one gets from the novel that determines whether or not the representation of the novels themes, characters and story is both accurate and satisfying to the average movie-goer.
To once again draw the "Frankenstein" parallel, this book has had dozens of adaptations over the years, be it with Boris Karloff as the monster or directed by Kenneth Branagh... or having him be a gargoyle killer in modern times. Needless to say, each version tries to bring something different to the idea while still retaining the heart of the original. The Karloff version, for instance, is not 100% accurate to the book and is missing several scenes of the Dr's childhood. And yet, it still carries the theme of "who's the real monster" while showcasing the Dr's willingness to amend for his sins by finding the monster himself. The Branagh version, on the other hand, remains much more faithful to the book and still carries these themes. However, it also tries showing the monster growing increasingly intelligent and swearing vengeance on the Dr for his sins against nature. And as for "I, Frankenstein"... I honestly have no clue; something about fighting gargoyles, being a gun-wielding warrior, none of it makes any sense.
Still, I hope that I'm getting the idea across; if the themes and spirit of the book remain true while still making some minor changes, there could be a successful adaptation of a classic story. However, what happens if the book is already a piece of shit? What if it's stuff like "Twilight", "The 5th Wave" or "50 Shades", where the source material was already critically panned and no-one asked for a film adaptation?
This, of course, brings us to Number 3 on the Shit List, as well as another butchering of a classic series.
For those in need of a reminder, here were the three clues from last time:
1. It's a prequel.
2. It's a horror film.
3. It's based on an already shitty book.
The 3rd absolute worst film I have ever seen is:
Hannibal Rising... There's already a sour taste in my mouth.
This raw pile of used anal beads was released in 2007 and was directed by Peter Webber, with a screenplay from the books author Thomas Harris.
Said book is a prequel to a series of novels written by Harris in the mid-80's, commonly referred to as the "Lecter" series. The books were named such as all of them had the story revolving around the character of Hannibal Lecter, a former forensic psychiatrist who was sentenced to life in prison after it was discovered that he was a cannibalistic serial killer known as the "Chesapeake Ripper". The first in these series of books, "Red Dragon", focused on former FBI agent Will Graham, the man who arrested Lecter, investigating another series of bizarre murders from someone the press calls the "Tooth Fairy" due to jagged teeth marks on the victims, which leads to him reluctantly asking Lecter for help studying the cases. The second book, "Silence of the Lambs", saw FBI trainee Clarice Starling going to Dr Lecter for help in finding a new killer named Buffalo Bill, a man who peels the skin of off women to make himself a woman suit as he was too crazy for a sex change operation. The third and supposedly final book, simply named "Hannibal", takes place 10 years after "Silence" and Hannibal Lecter has escaped and been hiding in Italy ever since. That is, until veteran agent Clarice is tasked with finding him and being accosted by the only man to have ever survived an attack from Lecter, a deformed paedophile cripple named Mason Verger.
Along with the books gaining large critical acclaim, despite the controversial ending to "Hannibal" where Dr Lecter and Clarice are married, they were obviously adapted in films with admitted mixed results. First was "Manhunter" from "Red Dragon", named such as to avoid confusion with a series of Bruce Lee movies that were out at the time. While earning critical praise, it was a massive box office failure, though it has reemerged into cult status with fans of the films. The one that people seem to remember the most was "Silence of the Lambs", namely due to Sir Anthony Hopkins portrayal of the Lecter character, earning an Oscar despite being in the film for a total of 15 minutes. They were then followed by "Hannibal", to mixed reception and my all-time favourite movie, "Red Dragon", also to mixed reviews.
I'm not even joking; "Red Dragon" is my all-time favourite movie. It's the one that introduced me to the series and is the one I have the most fond memories of. Granted, some of the stuff in it was done better in "Manhunter", but I remember the visuals, performances and story of "Red Dragon" a lot more.
This, of course, brings us to the unnecessary prequel that was made a few years after "Red Dragon" was released to cinemas, with Hopkins no longer in the role and replaced by a then-teenager Gaspard Ulliel.
As one could gather from the title, this is the origin story about how Lecter would eventually become Hannibal "the Cannibal". As a boy in WWII Lithuania, a young Lecter and his sister Mischa were forced to live in a cabin with a group of sadistic Nazis after their parents were killed in a bomb blast. In order to survive, the Nazis killed and ate Mischa, leaving Hannibal alive. After escaping and being put into an orphanage (which, through irony and coincidence, was his old mansion), Lecter then escapes and runs to Paris, where is taken in by his Asian aunt, Lady Murasaki, played by Gong Li.
Now fuelled with a lust for revenge, and after finding his sisters remains at the cabin along with the dog-tags the Nazi's left behind for some reason, Lecter now starts his killing spree at a young age, hunting them down all the way to their leader, Grutas. Oh, he also starts medical school, becomes a master detective, an expert cook, a cannibal, a fucking samurai; all in the span of 2 and a bit hours while also evading the suspicions of the police officer Popil and --
That's twice now that I've used that clip; how does this keep happening?!
But yeah, much like "Fant4stic", I ended up asking the same question; who honestly gives a shit? For much of the film, we see Gaspard trying to emulate Hopkins' portrayal of Lecter, but failing miserably as they screwed up the characterisation, which I'll get to later. Gaspard's performance, while not unbearable, is bland, stoic and lacking in any form of emotion outside of being a generally smug jackass with delusions of grandeur. I hate these kinds of characters, especially if they're the protagonist, as they ruin any form of appreciation or sympathy they are trying to force out of the audience. Again, we'll address more of how badly they got the character wrong in this film later.
Now, onto the villains. The Nazis in this film are just stock, generic bad guys, which is probably the most insulting thing about them. With the other villains in the franchise, there were more layers and a level of sympathy to be had with them. Buffalo Bill, for instance, was someone who believed that he was a woman in a man's body and was not mentally stable enough for a sex change. He was depraved and depressed and his only means of escaping that was to commit the heinous actions that he did. Francis Dolarhyde, the "Tooth Fairy", was a victim of abuse from his grandmother who threatened to cut off his dick for wetting the bed and having a verbal lisp, resulting in creating the personality of the Dragon who demanded that people be killed to satisfy it's hunger. It was ultimately Francis' love for a blind woman that stopped him from killing more people and fighting back against his dark side, killing himself in the process. Even Mason Verger, even if he is wholly unsympathetic, had a good reason for trying to kill Lecter; he was scarred and paralysed, thus could no longer do anything without someone else helping him. Granted, he was a paedophile who used the misnomer that God inspired him to do what he did, but at least it's a reason to see him as a legitimate threat as he had the resources to get want he wanted.
Also, Mason had the best death scene in the films, bar non. Sorry if you're squemish:
The Nazis? They're just a bunch of assholes who only killed Mischa for the sake of survival, still keeping contact with each other years after the war was over and Grutas partakes in human trafficking and white slavery for the sake of wealth. Yeah, tell me where I'm supposed to feel sorry for these guys when Lecter ultimately does kill them?
Then again, much of Lecter's actions are facilitated by the utter incompetence of his aunt. Not only does she encourage him to go to medical school (which wasn't even alluded to or referenced beforehand, by the way) to work on preparing cadavers for the class; not only does she show him how to properly use a samurai sword and various cooking utensils; but she constantly contradicts her own arguments when it comes to revenge, coming off as an utter hypocrite. I kid you not; one scene, she's all like "revenge isn't a horrible path to walk", thus setting Lecter's path in motion. Then later, she says "Vengeance is like a knife; it hurts you." Bitch, MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND!!
But of course, there's the star himself; Hannibal Lecter, one of cinema's greatest villains...... or least he WAS, until he was rewritten to be a goody-goody anti-hero who has no will of his own with the mid-set of a sociopath! Yeah, a little reminder for people who haven't seen these films:
HANNIBAL LECTER IS NOT A SOCIOPATH!!!
Sociopaths often have an inability to connect emotionally with anyone and tend to keep to themselves, while also being weakly aware that what they are doing is wrong, just not having enough will to stop themselves from committing heinous crimes.
Lecter, on the other hand, is a forensic psychiatrist, thus has the ability to get a clear understanding of what people are thinking and can easily and accurately predict their next move before even they know it. He also had a booming social life, yet was able to conceal his identity as the Chesapeake Ripper for years, even from the people closest to him, such as Will Graham or the people that he invites over for dinner. He had in-depth knowledge of how to get around the precautions that the police had set up in the asylum he was admitted to after being found guilty, using his excellent memory skills to get to Will Graham from inside his cell. But on top of that, Lecter also had a very Grey moral boundary, meaning he would only do stuff for someone through Quid Pro Quo; they give him something and he gives information in return. That's what made the dynamic between him and Clarice interesting and frightening.
But here, not only is Lecter a sociopath with an amazing sense of luck given how he gets any form of information in this film, but he's also a moron too. Popil, the police officer I mentioned earlier, offers Lecter amnesty for his crimes if he gives the information about the Nazis to the police, as the Nazis are wanted criminals who would be sent straight to the guillotine. And to add to the pot, Lady Murasaki offers herself as a reward if he goes down this path. He gets his revenge, he gets off scot free and he gets to lose his virginity to a hot Asian lady. Granted, it's aunt who's doing it, but it's Gong Li, so it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned. And what does he do, instead of the fucking obvious?!
He ignores what they say, choosing to instead try and get revenge his own way, resulting in his aunt being kidnapped by Grutas and him learning the "shocking twist" that he was fed his sisters remains while he was asleep!
In the words of Krusty the Clown:
Also, that "shocking twist"? Yeah, not much of a twist, This is a prequel for a character who we, as an audience, knows about Hannibal's cannibalism, as it is what got him put in a loony bin in the fucking first place! For fucks sake; HIS NICKNAME IS HANNIBAL "THE CANNIBAL"!! How is this in any way a surprise?! Why isn't this movie over yet?! Just END! END!!
Initially, I had this film in the number one spot for the longest time before two more films came along and stole that position. But even if it's not at number one on this list, that doesn't change that this movie is awful! Terrible acting, disregard for continuity, a lack of competent or interesting villains, idiot or useless side characters and a complete and utter misunderstanding of what makes Hannibal Lecter a brilliant character not only to watch, but also to analyse. If this was just any other horror movie, it may have been crap, but it would be less insulting. But through association of it being a Hannibal Lecter movie, and based on a shitty Hannibal Lecter book at the same time, it ends up being more insulting to the audiences intelligence. Just through this film in the trash bin where it belongs, because no-one should feast their eyes on this garbage.
Overall rating: 1/10 (A Trainwreck).
So, with this in mind, it's time to leave you with another round of clues:
1. It's another prequel.
2. It's another horror movie.
3. It's a prequel to my all-time favourite horror movie.
Narrows it down, doesn't it?
So til next time, this is Callum Lewis, the Media Man, going to find some liver, with some fava beans and a NICE Chianti...
Okay, this is where things start to get more personal for me.
When it comes to film adaptations of TV shows aimed primarily at children, I always try to stay open minded about some of the changes that the creators make with the medium transfer. Creative liberties and changes will always be expected if someone is going to take something that will otherwise have an entire season dedicated towards it and squeeze it into a 2-hour long flick. It's either that or the filmmakers create a different interpretation on the same concept.
For instance, think Transformers; the films may be have the same basic premise as the original cartoon, giant alien robots fighting each other and bringing their war to Earth, but it's how the films take the concept in a different direction that makes it stand out from its source material, while also incorporating parts of other Transformers lore that was expanded upon in other various shows. I will openly admit that the Transformers aren't the best example of this, as critical reception has been consistently low with each instalment in the film series, but you get the general idea.
Sadly, as is evident with films like Jem and the Holograms, Inspector Gadget, the Smurfs, G.I. Joe and Alvin and the Chipmunks, most of the people who make these movies don't seem to understand the source material, to the point where one questions whether or not they've even seen the shows that the films are based on. Each of these films suffer from the same issues; bad acting/casting choices, attention on childish humour, stories that make little to no sense and character alienation to the point where they are the characters in name only. Unless the creator was specifically involved and giving advise, any film based on a classic kids show is pretty much doomed to fail.
Which is where we now get back to the shit list. As a reminder, here are the clues from last time:
1. It is based on a popular children's show from the 60's.
2. It was released in the early-mid-2000's.
3. The story it is based on holds a strong spot with my childhood memories.
And so, let's get to it. Number 4 on the Shit List is:
The Thunderbirds... this one will hurt.
Released in 2004, this soaring pile of garbage was directed by Jonathan Frakes, known for playing Lieutenant Thomas Riker in Star Trek, and is obviously based on the 1960's "Supermarionation" series of the same name.
The show focused on the adventures of the Tracy family, who are otherwise known as International Rescue, an organisation dedicated to helping people across the globe from any threat, be it a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. To do this, they implement the use of their incredible machines, most notably the titular Thunderbirds 1-5, each with their own purpose and capabilities. The family consists mainly of former astronaut Jeff Tracy and his five sons; Scott, Virgil, John, Gordon and Alan. And yes, the pun is that his sons are named after other astronauts. Assisting them on their mission are Jeff's long time friend Kyrano, his daughter Tin Tin, stuttering scientist Brains, London Agent Lady Penelope and her badass butler Parker.
The show was created by children's entertainment mastermind Gerry Anderson, who sadly, along with his wife Sylvia, passed away a few years ago. The key inspiration was a mining disaster in West Germany in 1963, with Anderson asking the question "what if there were people who could arrive on the situation and save those people as quickly as possible?" And thus, in September of 1965, Thunderbirds hit UK TV and an entire legacy was born.
I, of course, sat through re-runs of the show in the 90's and it just simply stuck in my mind, mainly because of the bright visuals, fantastic puppet and model work and, of course, who could forget that classic opening?
Even as I grew older, I couldn't help but hold this show in high regards, to the point where I impulse purchased the remastered DVD boxset released by ITV. And watching it as an adult actually allowed me to appreciated the show even further with how it clearly didn't treat the children watching as imbeciles and the suspense and tension in each episode kept building, letting the viewers have a stronger appreciation of slow pacing and atmosphere...... and then the piece of shit movie came around!
So, you would think that the story would basically be about International Rescue going around in the Thunderbirds and saving people. But as soon as the admittedly cool opening credits are finished, you quickly realise what this film really is; an unnecessary prequel that breaks the continuity and chooses instead to focus on one person as opposed to the team! That person is a pre-Thunderbird 3 pilot Alan Tracy, a youngster who is apparently not ready to join International Res -- oh, I'm sorry, the THUNDERBIRDS, as the film can't make up it's mind on what they're called.
But one day, after Alan and his made up for the movie friend Fermat come back from school for Spring Break, the villainous Hood chooses now to begin his attack and launches a missile at Thunderbird 5, thus necessitating the entire team go and save John, who is stationed there. Quick question; why is EVERYONE going? Shouldn't at least one or two of them stay behind in case this was a diversion? Oh wait, then that would draw attention away from the egocentric brat and his self-centred attitude and we can't have that, can we?
Thus, the film basically becomes Spy-Kids part 5 as Alan, Fermat and Tin Tin try to find a way to stop the Hood from using the Thunderbirds (the vehicles, NOT the people) to rob the largest banks in the world and framing International Rescue in the process --
And see, that's one of the big problems with this film; who the fuck cares?! This movie tries to play up the villains plan as devious and monstrous, when it's just another "villain wants money" scheme that's been done a million times before and in much more interesting ways. Wanna know the scenario from the shows first episode?
A brand new plane with a nuclear reactor is triggered with a bomb that will go of the next time it lands, but if they stay in the air for too long, the passengers with be hit with radiation poisoning and die a slow, painful, horrible death. Thus, International Rescue try their absolute best to get the plane to land without triggering the bomb and killing millions of people in the process.
You see the difference here? THAT is interesting! It's full of suspense, tension, atmosphere and showcases the team as competent people with their minds focused solely on saving as many people as possible with as little collateral damage. But you don't get that with this movie with how they basically write most of the team out of it to focus on it's bastardised interpretation of Alan!
Oh yeah, let's talk about our lead; this is NOT Alan Tracy! Sure, in the original show Alan was kind of whiny and bit self-centred, but he wasn't this much of a liability. Alan in this film not only showcases that he would happily risk anything for the sake of his own inflated ego, but he also shows himself as a complete and utter fucking imbecile! He would always make the wrong move at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons. At one point, Tin Tin and Fermat suggest doing what Jeff says by waiting for Lady Penelope at the rendezvous point. What does he do? Ignores what they say while also insulting Fermat's carried over speech impediment from Brain's, resulting in his supposed friends getting captured and him giving up the guidance processor chip for Thunderbird 2 just to egg the Hood on! How am I supposed to care for this self-important twat if he is this fucking stupid and lazy?!
But back to a point that REALLY pissed me off; the fact that the Thunderbirds, the title characters of their own movie, are barely in the fucking thing! I'm not just talking about the machines, I'm talking about the people as well. They pretty spend the entire film stuck on Thunderbird 5 as they wait for their selfish baby brother to get off his lazy ass and save them, made even worse with how I can't tell any of the Tracy brothers apart! Say what you will about the relatively simplistic characters in the original series, but you could at least tell them apart! Helped that they were full grown men in the original, while these schmucks are just a bunch of teenagers! At one point in the film, one of them just says "Alan's a kid"; YOU GUYS ARE BARELY 17!!! They just treat the rest of the team as if they're nothing but pretty decoration, made to look like a generic boy band shoved off a mass production line and just given different shirts to were! These guys aren't International Rescue, they're frat boys trying too hard to be cool! They've literally been turned into a bunch of hipsters!
What's worse is that all of this is just to make Alan look more like the hero, which is a HORRIBLE thing to do if you're making a movie about a TEAM of heroes! NEVER make one hero look better than the others, as it will just result in everyone else being a superfluous addition to an already convoluted mess! Part of the appeal of the original series was the family dynamic between the 5 of them, each one having their own distinct personality and skills and working off of each other to come to best solution. The only exception was with John, who pretty much got relegated to just staying on Thunderbird 5, but that was because Gerry Anderson was not happy with how the puppet turned out and wanted as little of him in the show as possible. But even John in the original had more personality than whoever the fuck John is supposed to be!
The only positive thing I can say about this film is this; I kind of liked the redesigns for the Thunderbirds. Oh sure, they look fake as hell, but this isn't a bad aesthetic update to the vehicles. They have a more angled appearance than before and even have sleeker curves to them. And at they very least, the visual cues for each one in still in tact. Again, the C.G.I doesn't do them any justice with how fake it looks, but I can at least appreciate a decent update in design.
However, there is one thing that still baffles me to this day. For you see, this movie had a tie-in theme song... by Busted.
Wanna know the thing that baffles me? It's the fact that this song made by a band known for making atonal trash... is closer to the spirit of Thunderbirds than the movie that it's made for... WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!
Now, to wrap up; this film is an utter insult to everything the franchise stood for! The storytelling, the characterisation, the effects, the tone, even the acting from greats like Ben Kingsley; ALL of it wasted on a film that pretty much spits not just on my childhood, but on the legacy of one of the greatest children's entertainers. Hell, Frakes pretty much admitted to having never heard of Thunderbirds before (which I call bullshit on as, remember, he was in Star Trek, a sci-fi series with similar elements to Thunderbirds) and Gerry was initially attached to the film before being booted off from it completely. Fuck this movie and everyone else who worked on it!
Overall rating: 1/10 (A Trainwreck).
So, next three clues:
1. It's a prequel.
2. It's a horror film.
3. It's based on an already shitty book.
Til next time, this is Callum Lewis, the Media Man... and Thunderbirds will ALWAYS be go!
This is it folks; the rollercoster to unfiltered, unrestricted rage has begun.
As I brought up a bit ago, the 30th of September will be my 6 month anniversary of starting this little review series. As a celebration, I will be bringing reviews of what I consider the absolute worst movies that I've ever seen. They are the bottom of the barrel, the movies that should teach people how NOT to direct, write, produce or act in a movie. If anyone out there likes these movies for whatever reason... I pity you.
Still, keep in mind, that this is all strictly opinion based and will obviously have some bias, as it is only my opinion that is being written on the page. You may disagree at your leisure, but that's not gonna change what you read. Also, they are films that I have actually seen, so you won't be seeing the likes of Howard the Duck, Norm of the North or Troll 2 on here. I know that they are considered some of the worst films of all time, but I don't need to watch them to know how bad they are when entire other films and documentaries have been made about them, most especially Troll 2.
With that said, let's start at Number 5. For a recap, here are the 3 hints that I left last time:
1. It's a superhero movie.
2. It's a Marvel property.
3. This specific property has yet to have an actually good movie.
Now that I think about, I probably should have reworded that last one. It should actually say "It has yet to have any other successful adaptation outside of it's source material". Why, you may ask? Because only one person, Elliot, guessed, his choice being Daredevil. Don't get me wrong; that movie is a piece of shit (including the Director's Cut), but at least we did get a good Daredevil... from Netflix.
But sadly, he was wrong. The Number 5 choice on the Shit List, as well as the worst superhero movie I've ever seen, is:
Fant4stic... I am NOT calling this shithole "Fantastic Four"!
Released in 2015 and directed by Josh Trank, this walking pile of Skrull faeces was yet another example of Marvel's First Family getting fucked over hard in every other medium except for comic books... but even the comics were starting to fuck it up.
For those in need of a history lesson, quick primer; Fantastic Four was essentially Stan Lee's first attempt at creating a superhero family, with the team comprised of Dr Reed Richards (Mr Fantastic), the world's dumbest genius with the ability to stretch his body to insane proportions, his future wife Susan Storm (the Invisible Woman), whose powers are self explanatory, her little brother Johnny (the Human Torch) the team's requisite show-off, and Reed's long time friend Ben Grimm (the Thing), a dude with rock-like skin and a penchant for clobberin' stuff.
There is more to the team's history than that, such as their rogues gallery with villains like Dr Doom and the Mole Man, but that is the general basics that most people going into this movie are likely aware of. However, despite having a reasonably solid, albeit cheesy, set-up with room for character growth, every movie adaptation practically fails at getting the characters to truly leap from the page to the screen. First we had Roger Corman's version from 1994:
It didn't go well.
Then we had the Tim Story version from 2004:
It and it's sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer, were only slightly better, but also somewhat worse.
So, with news hitting the net that not only were 20th Century Fox going to go all "dark, gritty reboot" on us, but were also taking inspiration from the widely panned Ultimate run for the team, fans knew that this family was pretty much doomed to never have a good movie unless specifically made by Marvel... thus begging the question of why Fox bother trying to hold on to the rights when they couldn't succeed the first time.
Still, as evident of the 10% score on Rotten Tomatoes as well as the horrible Box Office turnout (even taking into account DVD sales), it's obvious that Fox has pretty much wrote their own names into a Death Note. Thank Carlin that they did Deadpool and Logan the following year.
What's the story?... No seriously, that's my first question; what's the actual story for this movie? Because at first, it's about building a trans-dimensional transporter to a place called Planet Zero, but after about an hour of nothing, it's suddenly about these bland, unemotional schmucks getting superpowers and fighting a dude in a green cloak and a badly photoshopped crash test dummy mask. But see, that's an automatic problem with this film; it can't decide what it wants to be except for the Marvel version of The Dark Knight.
2 things, however. Firstly, we already had that; it's called Winter Soldier. Secondly, why would you want to make the Fantastic Four, a group of bright, colourful superheroes, into another Batman story? The reason that the gritty tone in the Dark Knight trilogy worked was because it was fitting for the character of Batman; a dark, brooding individual who has to deal with psychotic maniacs and clown-faced anarchists. The Fantastic Four, in a superficial sense, is supposed to be silly and fun, capturing the essence of an all American family with superpowers. If all you do is give them a blank, unemotional pile of angst and distrust, then the regular movie-goers will quickly grow tired of seeing these uninteresting schmucks and fans of the source material will be pissed!
This also ties into an even bigger problem with the film. After they have gained their powers and being angsty brats about it, they are pretty much separated from each other. Ben's doing "covert ops" for the military, Johnny's busy just doing stuff with his powers, Sue is trying to rebuild the machine and Reed is a fugitive who ALSO tries to rebuild the machine. Wanna know why this doesn't work? BECAUSE THIS IS MARVEL'S FIRST FAMILY!!! Having them separated for an entire year in film time is a horrible way of presenting the character's who have held that staple since the fucking 1960's. The whole point was seeing these 4 people learning to cope with their powers by coming together as a family unit and working together, helping each other understand how their greatest character strengths will always outweigh their personal character flaws. If you barely show them interacting with each other outside of a science montage and drunken decisions to take the teleporter on a joyride, then how are we, as viewers, supposed to be invested when they do come together to fight Doom?!
Speaking of which, let's actually talk about this villain who pretty much doesn't really show up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie. Not only is Doom a joke in the final (and only) battle of the film, but even before being turned into Doom, he's a nihilistic, social outcast who is completely condescending to others because... the Kool-Aid man likes red. No, seriously, I have no idea why he's so "Earth is bad so you must feel bad", as they just barely glance over his backstory as a jackass from Latveria who has this unexplored stalker-like obsession with Sue. It ultimately amounts to nothing, so why bother going through with it in the fucking first place?!
And even taking out the connection to the Fantastic Four, what else is there about this film that makes it stand out from the other bad, needlessly dark reboots that completely miss the point of the source material? I talked about this before with the Netflix Death Note movie, so I will just rephrase what I said there. Making the film dark to the point where you use that fucking stupid grey colour palette as a visual eyesore does not make your movie automatically more mature; it comes off as if your just conforming to trends that people already hate and want to see less of because it makes your movie dull, uninteresting and, most importantly, BOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRIIIIIIIING!!!!! Besides, your movie's villain's real name is Victor Von Doom, so you kind of lost the chance of the audience taking you seriously.
Then again, I have a feeling that most of the shit that happened with this movie may be because of Fox and Trank constantly butting heads, with how Fox basically kept on asking for rewrite after rewrite, never being satisfied with the finished product and giving the ultimate "fuck you" to Trank by locking him out of the editing room as they put together the final theatrical cut of the movie. But even if Fox deserves most of the blame for this one, Trank also deserves a fair amount of it, as he was apparently being an utter dick on set, that is if he ever turned up on time, and the conflict between him and the producers led to him taking his anger out on his cast and crew, treating them like shit for no actually good reason. He may have an excuse for being an asshole, but he was still an asshole.
Then again, he did disown the film on Twitter the day before it came out, so what're you gonna do?
Tweets can be deleted, but screen-caps can last forever.
And there is one last thing I want to talk about before I close out this review and leave the hints for the next one. You all remember the Thing's catchphrase "It's clobberin' time!", right? It's simple, but it's also catchy and sticks in peoples' heads... then this movie completely fucked it up! For you see, the origin for the catchphrase is that Ben's abusive, older brother use to say that before whacking Ben over the head... what the actual fuck?! You mean to tell me in all of the executive meddling Fox did; rewrites, re-shoots, re-edits, ALL OF THAT... and they didn't think to cut this scene out?! Again I ask, what the actual fuck?!
As stated earlier, Fant4stic has to be the worst superhero movie I have ever seen. The acting all around is sub-standard (even to other bad superhero movies), the visuals are not interesting, the characters nothing more than blank slates with no personality, the story virtually non-existent, the directing lazy and half-assed and it's more than obvious where the film suffered not only from executive mandate but also from lack of care and effort. Much like the other films on my Shit List, it's not even enjoyably bad; it's a bore to sit through, while also being insulting at the same time.
Overall rating: 1/10 (A Trainwreck).
So, before we close out this review, allow me to leave the next set of clues:
1. It is based on a popular children's show from the 60's.
2. It was released early-mid-2000's.
3. The story it is based on holds a strong spot with my childhood memories.
Let the speculation continue.
Til next time, I'm Callum Lewis, the Media Man... and it only gets worse from here.
Ladies and gents, as part of my six month anniversary, I am putting together a special list for a the people who have read my reviews over the course of half a year. I may not post a new review every single week, but I am grateful for any support that I have gotten since my amateur start.
Still, what kind of of list am I doing, you may ask? Well, it's a very special one. It is a list of the 5 worst movies I have ever seen. That's right! For anyone who ever gave the inkling of a shit, you now get to see what films I truly consider an atrocity on the very art of cinema.
Why make this announcement? Well, because I am letting you, I repeat, YOU, have a guess on what movie will be next on the list. At the end of each review, there will be no more than three clues as to what the next film will be. What will your reward be for guessing the right film?
Yeah, I will admit, this is kind of a tease of me, but it's more or less a means of getting my readers involved. Note that this Post will be shown on my Facebook page, so people on my friends list will see it as soon as it goes up. Anyone who sees it, I greatly appreciate you sharing it and leaving your comments on what you think will come next.
With all this said and done, here are the three clues:
1. It's a superhero movie.
2. It's a Marvel property.
3. This specific property has yet to have an actually good movie.
Let the Shit List speculation begin!
Til next time, this is Callum Lewis, the Media Man, signing off!
