Rock and Rule (1983)

Title: Rock and Rule (1983)

Director: Clive A. Smith

Review:

You might not have heard of Rock and Rule, the animated post apocalyptic Rock and Roll fantasy, but that’s okay, it’s not your fault, the film got the shaft from MGM during one of those major studio shake ups where a lot of people get fired and some movies get ignored and lost in the shuffle; one of those movies was Rock and Rule. Basically, what happened to Rock and Rule is one of the worst things that can happen to any film: all the work, sweat and tears that went into making it got ignored because another film screwed it up for them. Said film was Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate (1980) one of the most expensive turkeys in the history of cinema. That particular film cost United Artists 44 million dollars; an astronomical amount of money back in those days. The film ended up making little more then 3 million in box office returns. Obviously heads were going to roll over at United Artists. By the time it was all said and done, MGM bought United Artists (which almost went bankrupt over the whole Heaven’s Gate fiasco) and MGM ended acquiring all of United Artists films. Problem was that MGM was not enthusiastic about Rock and Rule, therefore the proper promotional push needed for a film to take off was not given.

A similar situation happened to Terry Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988); an amazing film, but in the middle of a studio shuffle (this time it was Columbia Pictures) the film lost the people that championed it, the ones that cared. The way things work in Hollywood is that when new studio executives come in, they don’t want to market the films that the previous studio executives were producing and so, though Gilliam’s Adventures of Baron Munchausen was an epic fantasy film with some amazing images and effects….the film ultimately got the shaft from the new guys at the studio. As a result, the film tanked at the box office. Not because it wasn’t any good, but because when a studio gives a movie the shaft, it doesn’t get the proper merchandising, and when a film doesn’t get that needed promotional push to get into audiences psyches…well, then the movie tanks because the movie doesn’t exist in the publics’ consciousness. They don’t know about it, because the studio didn’t make sure the public knew; this is what happened to Rock and Rule.

Now I’m not saying Rock and Rule is the best animated film in the universe, or that it’s even any good, I’m just saying it never got the chance to find its audience. What kind of film are we talking about anyways? Well, Rock and Rule is one of these old school animated films. The kind that was painstakingly hand made, without the use of digital anything. This thing was done frame by frame by the efforts and passion of a talented group of animators. Some reports say that over 300 animators worked on the film. The animation studio that produced Rock and Rule was a Canadian one known as Nelvana; they were they guys responsible for doing that animated segment in the Star Wars Holiday Special (1978), the one were Boba Fett makes his first appearance. So anyhows, this little animation studio wanted to make it big, so they decide after producing various half hour animated shows for television, that they would make their first full length animated feature film. These guys even turned down Ivan Reitman, who asked them to produce Heavy Metal (1981) for him; I mean these guys were obviously really driven, they really wanted to make their own thing, and that they did.

Rock and Rule tells the story of a rock band that’s trying to make it. Omar, the lead singer, is having a hard time accepting the fact that Angel, the bass player can sing as well, maybe even better than he can. Together they play in a rock and roll bar called Mylar. At the same time, the biggest Rock and Roll god on the planet, a guy by the name of Mok; is looking for a way to open up a portal to another dimension (presumably hell) so he can bring forth a demon (presumably the devil himself) so he can take over the world, or something like that, it’s never really quite clear. Mok’s computers tell him that the only way to open up the portal is by using something called ‘The Armageddon Key’; said key can only be used when certain musical cords are sang by “a very special voice”; that voice is the voice of Angel. So he goes about trying to convince her to sing for him. Will she accept his offer or will Mok have to end up using other methods to persuade her?

Rock and Rule started out as a children’s film in the mind of the guys at Nelvana; they were going to call it ‘Drats!’ But as time went by, the project evolved. It got darker and darker, until it became adult oriented and finally ended up being what it is: a post apocalyptic rock and roll sci-fi. This film is often times compared to Heavy Metal (1980) and for good reason; same as Heavy Metal, it mixes the worlds of science fiction and Rock and Roll. They also share the fact that they are animated films made for adults. Both films include foul language, drug use and nudity, both films have trippy visuals. This is probably what made it a hard sell for the guys at MGM. It got what I like to call the ‘assured death formula’ for any film: it was too kiddy for adults, and too adult for the kiddies. Topple that with the fact that Americans were having a difficult time accepting that animated films could be made for adults, and voila! You got yourselves a turkey. The film cost 8 million dollars, yet recuperated little more than 39 thousand at the box office. Ouch!

But that doesn’t mean this is a bad film. Same as HeavyMetal, it’s not the best animated film ever made, but it certainly wasn’t the worst either. Rock and Rule has some cool ideas going for it. For example, the soundtrack for the film was produced by artists such as Debbie Harris (strange, she’s playing on my I-pod right now as I type this…), Iggy Pop, Cheap Trick, Earth Wind & Fire and Lou Reed. It also has a cool sci-fi angle to it, we get flying cars, and Blade Runner like city landscapes. We get a strong female protagonist in the form of Angel, the girl with the ethereal voice. The best thing about the film though is MOK, the villain; a mix between Mick Jagger and David Bowie, but certainly more Bowie than Jagger. The only problem I had with the film is that it sometimes didn’t transmit some of its ideas in the best way possible. I guess the animation was too crude, or didn’t really show us what we needed to see in order to understand the ideas. For example, the opening scroll tells us that this is supposed to be a post apocalyptic world, yet we have cities and flying cars? Nothing terribly post apocalyptic about it. Mok wants to bring a demon from another dimension, but it’s never really stated why he wants to do so. What’s his purpose? As a viewer, you have to kind of fill in the blanks, which tells you that the film needed some work storytelling wise.

Still, there are times when the film dazzles and shines. What we need to keep in mind is that this film was made in a time when computer animation was in diapers, in fact, computer animation is used sparingly on this film; 90% of the film is hand drawn frame by frame. We need to remember what a painstakingly difficult process this was back in those days! This was a film that started production in ’79 and was finally released in ’83! That’s about four years of production! To animate one of the characters they used real brains! The animation gets really psychedelic and trippy at times, so I guess, visually, the film does have its strengths. But at the end of the day it’s a mixed bag. It might have some cool visuals, but storytelling wise, script wise, it needed work. This is something that the animators themselves acknowledge when they say that they didn’t really have a script to work with. They had a “pool of ideas” but not a script; hence, the uneven, underdeveloped nature of the plot and characters. Across the years, Rock and Rule has garnered cult status, and in my opinion  the film  is a curiosity in the world of American animation. It can proudly stand next to films such as Heavy Metal (1981), American Pop (1981), Wizards (1977) and other American animated films that were trying to break the mold, trying to present themselves as something more than just for kids; and as such, this one succeeds

Rating: 3 out of 5      

Worst Movies Ever Made Part I

Bad movies have been a constant since the beginning of film. Because making movies is such a gamble, what might look good on paper, could end up being completely laughable when brought to cinematic life. But of course, this fact does not stop Hollywood from making movies. Failed attempts at making respectable films keep coming out every day! The thing about films is that what one perceives as a bad film is always open to interpretation; I might find a certain film awful, while somebody else will think the same film is the best film they’ve ever seen. This is why you’ll find such diverse lists on bad films out there. For example while Howard the Duck (1986) is constantly referred to by many as one of the worst films of all time, I happen to enjoy it a lot, and so, you wont find that one on my list. But one things for damn sure: there are so many bad movies out there I could probably write fifty articles on them!

Even though bad movie lists change with each reviewer because we all have different ideas of what makes a bad film, some films consistently pop up on everybody’s lists. These are films that we all universally acknowledge as being bad, some of these films have made it onto my list, but mind you, this is only the first part of a series of articles, there’s more bad movies where these came from! I’ve added some that I’ve seen and are very unique to my own taste. Some I have yet to watch like Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002), Manos the Hands of Fate (1966), Showgirls (1995), Cool As Ice (1991), Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964), An Allan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn (1997), Glitter (2001), The Room (2003), Son of the Mask (2005), and the king of all bad movies: Ed Wood’s masterpiece Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959). I’m actually looking forward to seeing all of these at some point. 

Some of these films are disowned by the very directors and actors that participated in making them. Some of them are expensive Hollywood turkeys that died a quick death at the box office, others are expensive pieces of crap that made a lot of dough anyways. Some are obscure straight to video releases that are so bad they deserve to be mentioned. Others are so bad you simply won’t have any desire to even finish watching them! But let’s face it, sometimes its fun to watch a bad movie. What? You’ve never purposely watched a bad movie? Take my advice, rent any of the films on this list, buy a couple of six packs and watch a bad film with your friends, you’ll be busting a gut in no time. Enjoy!

Title: Oblivion (1994)

Why it’s so Bad: To tell you the truth, I grew up watching a lot these ultra cheap Full Moon movies. Some of them were actually a lot of fun if I remember correctly; they never took themselves too seriously and they were just totally nuts sometimes. I still love watching Terrorvision (1986), my personal Full Moon favorite. Which is why I jumped at buying this dvd for Oblivion, a Full Moon flick that had escaped my radar. Reportedly, this was the most expensive of all the Full Moon movies, so I was expecting something special, boy was I wrong! This was the most boring film ever! Characters do nothing but talk all the time. You think that uniting the Sci-Fi and the Western genres would make for cheap laughs, but not even that. It’s sad too because the cast is composed of a pretty decent collection of b-movie celebrities like Andrew Divoff (Wishmaster) Meg Foster (Masters of the Universe) and George Takei (Star Trek)! Hell, even Julie Newman who used to play Catwoman in the old Batman t.v. show shows up! The screenplay was written by Peter David, which brought my hopes up since he’s written a bunch of Marvel Comics and a couple of other Full Moon movies (like Trancers 4 and 5) but not even that could save this boring wreck of a movie. I do not recommend this one…it just goes nowhere; I kind of get why they called it ‘Oblivion’, it’s where films like this one belong. Incredulous as it may seem, this film actually spawned a sequel! Oblivion 2: Blacklash (1996)! Actually, the sequel didn’t come as a result of the success of the first one…they were just filmed back to back. 

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: When the only good thing about your movie is an arm wrestling scene that has an alien that eats your face off if you loose. 

Bad Movie Dialog: “I have hemorrhoids smarter than you!”

Title: Troll 2 (1990)

Why it’s so Bad: Troll 2 is the king of bad movies, but it’s also the best kind of bad movie. It’s the kind that you like to re-watch because you simply cannot believe how incredibly bad it is. Why has Troll 2 garnered so much fame as “The Worst Bad Movie Ever Made?” Truth be told, everything about it is bad. You think you’ve seen bad acting and dialog? You aint seen nothing if you haven’t seen Troll 2 buddy boy! The acting and dialog is so bad on this movie you wont believe your eyes and ears. You cheeks will turn red when you hear the atrocities that these actors have to say. Not only is the dialog and acting bad, but the situations that the writers came up with are so stupid. For example, this is a film about Goblins (not trolls!) that have to turn humans into trees so they can eat them, because -get this- these Goblins are vegetarians! And they can be killed by throwing bologna sandwiches at them! You simply have to see this movie to believe it. Out of all the ones on this list, this is the must see one. Ever wanted to see a film that mixed ghosts, goblins, vegetarians, witches, Stonehenge, séances, green food, pop corn and people who turn into trees? Look no further! 

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: When the family is in their car, and they all start singing “Row, row, row, your boat” horrendously out of key. 

Bad Movie Dialog: “If my father knew you were here, he’d cut off your little nuts and eat them, he can’t stand you!”

Title: Mac and Me (1988)

Why it’s so Bad: There’s a thing about some of these truly, truly bad films, they literally make you cringe. Some scenes are so bad; you simply can’t help feeling shame. Mac and Me is one of the ones that really stirs my bowels. This abomination was some poor dopes attempt at cashing in on the success of E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982). The story is basically the same: an alien kid gets stranded here on earth and he befriends a human child who then wants to find a way to send him back home. Sounds fair enough, an E.T. rip off isn’t exactly a bad idea; these things can make money if done properly. But therein lays the problem: this film was not done properly. At least E.T. had a personality, this Mac thing, is the ugliest little alien thing! You can tell it was made by people whose sole interest was making money. Case in point: all the freaking product placement! It really gets out of hand on this one! The most ridiculous scene in the whole film takes place inside of a Mc Donalds! The aliens drink Coca-Cola, actually, everybody does in this movie, and they do so from cups that prominently have the Coca-Cola logo on them! The aliens go into a supermarket so we can get even more product placement! To make things worse, apparently the film ran out of money and didn’t have enough budget to show the little alien all the time, so they put a costume on the little alien for a huge chunk of the movie! Finally, the film offers us a sequel during the ending credits saying “We’ll Be Back!” Thank god they never did. 

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: When FBI agents end up inside of a McDonald’s chasing after an alien being, and the people in the McDonalds are spontaneously break dancing! 

Bad Movie Dialog: “You know what I feel like?” “A Big Mac?” “The mans a psychic!”

Title: Knock Off (1998)

Why it’s so Bad: Well, Van Damme plays a fashion designer, that pretty much tells you how bad this one is. But seriously folks, if I aint mistaken, this was the film that marked the beginning of Van Damme’s cinematic demise. It tanked almost immediately at the box office and for good reason, it’s horrid! Van Damme has to stop a group of international knock off artists who sell black market Jeans! Holy smokes that sounds dangerous! Add to that Van Damme’s lame attempts at acting and Rob Schneider’s comedy relief sidekick character, which is the same thing he does in every other movie and you got yourselves the perfect ingredients for a disaster. Worst part of the movie? Van Damme’s hair! Not even Tsui Hark’s interesting camera moves save this one.

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: Basically, when you realize that this movie is about stopping people from making knock off jeans that explode. That’s when I said, really? Is this what this movies about?

Bad Movie Dialog: “Look, the massage industry in Hong Kong is going through a really tough time. I’m just trying to help out the local college girls”

Title: Steel (1997)

Why it’s so Bad: First things first, this film was based on a spin off character that came out of the whole ‘Death of Superman’ storyline that took everyone and their mother for a ride way back in the 90’s. You see, DC had everyone going making them believe that Superman had died. Cool thing about that storyline is that after Supes bit the bullet, four super characters emerged to fill in during Superman’s absence. One of these characters was John Henry Irons a.k.a. Steel; an iron worker who was once saved from certain death by Superman. After Superman’s ‘death’ John Henry decides to become Steel, dedicating his life to repay Supes by battling crime. Sounds cool right? Unfortunately this characters transfer to the big screen was awful. The big problem for me with the film is that it completely distanced itself from the whole Superman ordeal; it was not a good adaptation of the comic book character. Hey if your film is linked to a marketable and well established character like Superman, why distance your film from that? They should have embraced the whole Superman connection! They should have gotten a real actor instead of Shaquille O Neal and they should have tried way harder to make a good film. The dialog is awful and the suit that Shaq had to wear looks clunky and uncomfortable; a missed opportunity. 

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: When you see that the suit that Steel wears, which is supposed to be made out of steel, actually bends as if it was made out of plastic; which it obviously was. 

Bad Movie Dialog: “Eat the Hot Dog, don’t be one!”

Title: Double Dragon (1994)

Why it’s so Bad: The only thing this movie got right was casting Alyssa Milano who looks extremely hot through out the whole movie, everything else, is such a disappointment! This film is all about an evil douche bag called Koga Shuko (Robert Patrick) who wants to own the double dragon medallion, a mystical medallion that can grant him awesome powers. Why does he want it? To rule New Los Angeles, cause he’s bad that way. Problem is that the Lee Brothers own the second half of the medallion, and until both halves are united, Shuko wont have full power. The biggest problem with this film was giving it to a director whose previous directorial efforts included directing the Billboard Music Awards for various years, directed a New Kids on the Block television special and lets not forget he also directed Debbie Gibson and Phil Collins’s live concerts…in other words, not the best guy to direct a feature film. Maybe that explains why Robert Patrick’s character looks like Vanilla Ice? I don’t know. A lot of things just didn’t work on this show. For starters, the martial arts on this film are a joke! I mean, I know this film was pre-Matrix and want not, but damn, these kids look like they don’t know a damn about martial arts! In a film that is based on martial arts, it seems this would have been something they could have paid more attention to, but like many things on this film, the results were mediocre.

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: Shuko has two henchmen called Hewi and Lewis. When he sees them he says “Ah! Huey! Lewis! Any news?”

Bad Movie Dialog: “Great! The Power Corps are midgets!”

Title: Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo (1984)

Why it’s so Bad: It comes to us from the director of all those crappy ‘Ninja’ movies that came out during the 80’s so take that for what its worth. But honestly, this one is terrible, so terrible it needs to be seen. This time around, the break dancing kids have to stop an evil corporation from demolishing a community center where the kids like to dance, so they decide to do a Marathon where people can come and donate their money to stop the evil corporate bastards; which of course is one of the most generic plot devices ever put to celluloid. Recently, this same plot was re-used in The Muppets (2011). What makes this one so bad? Well, I found it really funny that no matter what is happening, where characters go or what they do…everybody is always dancing, dancing, dancing! Now I realize that this is to be expected in a movie about break dancing, but damn, even when they go into a hospital because Ozone breaks his leg they start dancing! So much so that suddenly Ozone’s broken leg is healed by the magic of dancing! One moment he is in a wheelchair and suddenly, dancing starts to happen and voila! He’s cured! Random musical numbers pop out of nowhere, for no reason! To make things worse, this film completely ignores the ending of the first film where the kids ended up doing a show on Broadway! What happened after that night? Did their show bomb? Did they not achieve their dancing dreams? Characters do things that can’t happen in real life -like dancing on the ceiling- and everybody seems to take things like this for granted. Okay, there’s a guy dancing upside down on the ceiling, cool! Characters on this film are even bigger fashion victims then on the first film, some of the stuff these guys wear, wow. What the film does do is serve as a nice time capsule to the crazy 80’s and, same as Troll 2, this one entertains because it is so atrocious.

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: The two main characters start showing each other how to dance with a girl, pretty soon, they start fighting over a rag doll that they mistake for each others girlfriends? You have to see it to believe it. 

Bad Movie Dialog: “Girls are whack man!”

Title: Super Mario Bros. The Movie (1993)

Why it’s so Bad: Again, same as Double Dragon they just didn’t translate the elements of the video game successfully to the screen. The kids who played the Super Mario games (like myself for example) wanted to see Luigi and Mario fighting giant fire breathing turtles and jumping through clouds in a Mushroom Kingdom…not fighting Dennis Hopper and his de-evolution gun or riding in stolen police cars. The film had some impressive things about it, like for example its production values and art direction; reportedly the film cost somewhere around 42 million. That’s a lot for the first video game movie ever made. Considering that the film is based on one of the most successful video games ever, this film should have been a huge success! Unfortunately, the filmmakers were afraid to fully embrace the video game elements and so gamers all around the world hated the film. Maybe if it had not been called Super Mario Bros. I wouldn’t have been as disappointed. On its own, the movie has it’s moments I guess. But even the actors knew this film was going down the drains; both John Leguizamo and Bob Hoskins got drunk to make it through the shoot. Bob Hoskins himself said that this was the worst film he ever did. But without a doubt the biggest problem the film ever had was that the directors wanted a more adult film, while the studio wanted a kiddy film. That tug of war resulted in this mess of a film. Hopefully somebody out there will do the game justice some day and make a decent Super Mario Bros. movie. But then again, we should have known better; the poster did warn us by prominently featuring the words: “This Aint No Game!”

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: When you realize that Koopa’s de-evolution gun is really just a spray painted Super Nintendo Gun.  

Bad Movie Dialog: “Hand out the de-evolution guns! Prepare for destiny! Where’s my Pizza?”

Title: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Why it’s so Bad: Wow, let me count the ways…the first film is a serious film, a classic. It took the elements found in the Superman comic books and effectively used them to bring Superman to life in a believable fashion. The film didn’t feel like a comic book to me. It felt real. And therein lies the problem with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace; it feels too much like a Saturday morning cartoon, or an extremely childish comic book. While Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor had always been a slightly comedic character, on Superman IV he’s turned into a silly villain, with an even sillier nephew/henchman. The big problem with this one was its budget. It started at 36 million and was slashed down to 17 by Cannon films who was going bankrupt at the time. This was actually one of their last films before going totally caput. The budgetary problems brought this film down in quality. The visual effects are completely laughable and the script; wow. Who the hell directed this film? It certainly wasn’t Richard Donner who had helmed the first one, but declined to do this one. Richard Lester, the guy behind Superman III (1983) decided not to involve himself with this one either. Hell, even Wes Craven declined over creative differences with Christopher Reeves. I guess the miniscule budget scared them all away. And with good reason, they knew they couldn’t do a proper Superman movie with so little money. Sidney J. Furie ended up directing. He’s the guy behind Iron Eagle I (1986), Iron Eagle II (1988) and The Entity (1982). In the end, Superman IV had noble intentions and themes; unfortunately the execution was cheesy as hell. Nuclear Man looks like something out of ‘Wrestlemania’ for crying out loud! Characters go into space and are unaffected by the laws of gravity or space itself! The moon looks like a cheesy set! Nuclear Mans nails look like they were done in a nail salon! The cheesy/bad movie wonders never cease with this one.        

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: In order to grab Supes attention, Nuclear Man grabs  Lacy Warfield (a Daily Bugle’s reporter) with him to space; she apparently has no problems breathing in the vacuum of space, where there is no oxygen.    

Bad Movie Dialog: “Now Leonard, your uncle Lex, with this protoplasm that I’ve grown from Superman’s hair cells, will duplicate creation itself!”

Title: Conan The Barbarian (2011) and Pathfinder (2007)

Why it’s so Bad: I have to do a double whammy here because both of these abominations come from the same director: Marcus Nispel. What bothers me about Nispel and his films is that he is given a budget, and everything necessary to make a good movie, yet he fails. Why? Because Nispel is missing the most important element: talent. Marcus Nispel is a hack of a director, sorry, but none of his films have impressed me. Okay, maybe I did like his take on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), but that’s about as far as my appreciation for this guy goes. In fact, most of his films have disappointed me. Case in point this poorly executed Conan film. It single handedly takes the Conan character and turns it into a silly cartoon. You don’t feel a connection to this character who comes off as something of an asshole through out the whole film. It’s not like when Schwarzenegger portrayed him, where you felt identified in a way with the character, hell, we even feel some sympathy for Conan in Millius’s film; not so with this new Conan who’s an arrogant prick. John Millius, the director behind Conan The Barbarian (1982) took the character and turned him into something believable, even if the story took place in a fantasy land. That’s what I love about that first Conan movie…it feels real. This thing that Marcus Nispel directed feels like a bunch of actors walking around crappy looking sets and green screens. There’s something horrible about Nispel films, they are terribly edited to the point where you loose track of what’s going, there’s no continuity, no flow to his style of editing, this is something I came to notice while watching Pathfinder (2007), Nispel’s first attempt at making a film that was similar to Conan, actually, it was a blatant rip off of the original Conan film. It was obvious while watching Pathfinder that Nispel loved Conan, Pathfinder’s story is copy pasted from Millius’s film. And yet the irony! He was given the opportunity to make a bonafide Conan film and what does he do? He blows it. Buttom line: Nispel had big shoes to fill and didn’t live up to the promise. Both films sucked: his Conan rip-off, and his actual Conan film.   

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment:  When Conan meets up with his pirate sidekick and the boat looks like this tiny little boat, Nispel obviously failed to make it look bigger. 

Bad Movie Dialog: “Run from me and I will tear the mountains apart to find you!”

Title: Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

Why it’s so Bad: It’s bad because its stupid as hell that’s why. First of all, we have to accept the fact that this shark is somehow related to the sharks that died in the previous films, and that it’s out to avenge the death of his fellow sharks? How does that happen? Do these sharks posses the ability to speak telepathically? That right there is enough for me, but then we have to believe that this shark traveled from Amity Island to The Bahamas to exact its revenge? Preposterous! The tagline for the film: “This Time It’s Personal!” How does a shark take it personal? Who the hell knows! Who was the freaking lame-o who wrote this script? Who’s to blame for this turkey? It’s no surprise that Joseph Sergeant, this films “director” was nominated for worst director in the 1987 Golden Raspberry Awards; he should have won that award as far as I’m concerned, but the award went to Elaine May for Ishtar (1987) instead. Are you kidding me? Ishtar is Oscar material next to Jaws: The Revenge! Those Golden Raspberry Awards are a rip off! But wait! Maybe the Golden Raspberry Awards aren’t that bad: Jaws The Revenge won that year for Worst Visual Effects! Considering there are NO visual effects on that movie, I’ve confirmed it; The Golden Raspberries aren’t worth shit. Even sadder, Michael Caine couldn’t attend the Oscar to pick up his academy award for Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) because he was making this piece of crap; ironic in deed!     

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: When the shark comes out of the water in the films big finale, it screams and roars, an impossible feat for a shark, especially when we take in consideration that sharks have no lungs or vocal cords with which to roar with. Also, the sharks roar sounds like that of a dinosaur!   

Bad Movie Dialog: “If I go any faster, this thing will turn into a flying Cuisinart and we’ll all be diced into oblivion!”

Title: Garbage Pail Kids (1987)

Why it’s so Bad: Why? One look at this movie and you’ll know. The dialog, the production values, the stupidity. Okay, I know what you’re saying, this is a Garbage Pail Kids movie, what did you expect? Truth of the matter is that I really don’t think this film should have ever been made. There is no explanation as to why these creatures exist! The cards, which were awesome to collect as a kid (I know because I collected them for the longest time) simply existed to amuse and gross you out with their crazy ideas. There was never a back story to the crazy drawings depicted in the cards, and the film did a terrible job of giving them one. The Garbage Pail Kids supposedly come out of some magical garbage can with the help of a magical book, or something like that. The film was aimed at kids, but the situations were not for them, the film doesn’t even get its themes straight! Is being different good or bad? Are we against the freaks or for them? The Garbage Pail Kids themselves look awful, the designs and puppets just make the look freaky and kind of scary. You’ll gawk at the screen in shame, but you won’t be able to believe how this one is; this is an awkward film to watch; literally one of the biggest abortions to grace the silver screen. It should have never been made.

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: The main characters in this film, The Garbage Pail Kids spend 90% of the film peeing, vomiting and farting. You do the math.   

Bad Movie Dialog: “Rats and thunder, wind and hail, send these kids back into the pail”

Title: 10,000 BC (2008)

Why it’s so Bad: Normally, Roland Emerich makes big budget bad movies that can be enjoyed on one level or another. Most of the times his big budget spectacles have cool effects and action like 2012 (2009) or Independence Day (1996), but the fact that his movies are about as commercial and vapid as films can get, there is no question. 10,000 B.C. takes the taco there. God where to begin, well, first off there are the historical inaccuracies. Nothing in this movie makes sense! Caveman speaking in perfect English? Now this really, really bothered me because cavemen spoke in their own primitive language that wasn’t even properly formed yet, they probably couldn’t even communicate properly, yet on this film they are so articulate, so well versed! Even the cavewomen look as if they’ve just put on make up? And then on top of all these things, we have to deal with bad CGI creatures? I was expecting something like Quest for Fire (1981), but with better looking Mammoths; now there’s a good movie about cavemen! That one at least felt real, this big budget abomination was an insult to my intelligence. Plus, it was the same damn story that Emmerich used for Stargate (1994)! The characters even look alike! Then we also have to deal with the notion of romantic cavemen…which seemed so stupid to me; during those days, cavemen didn’t romance women, they just grabbed them by the hair and had their way with them! But whatever, such is the way of a typical Hollywood blockbuster, trying to gloss things over beyond recognition.    

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment:  When cavemen start talking in english 

Bad Movie Dialog: “Do not eat me when I save your life!”

Title: Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity (1987)

Why it’s so Bad:  This is one that is so bad that it’s good, how do I know this is a bad movie? Well for starters this is one of those movies that is so cheap, that it’s all about characters running from one set to the other, I only counted three sets…and they were all half assed. The girls go from the castle, to the jungle, then back to the castle…then back to the jungle. And the jungle set..wow, you could tell it was a bunch of plants on a set;  just terrible, but funny in a low budget sort of way. The tag line for this movie was “Big Production. Big Movie. Big Girls!” Well, the got one thing right, the one salvaging thing about this movie are the two air head blonde bimbos who star in it. They spend most of their time scantly clad, so much so, that the filmmakers found a way to have these girls walking around in lingerie for most of the film! How sleazy is that!? So anyways, the film starts out with these two slave girls escaping their space prison (it is NEVER explained why they were imprisoned in the first place, they just are) and end up crash landing on a jungle planet. They then end up in this castle, which I swear is straight out of a Hammer film, where they meet ZED, the villain of the film, who acts and talks exactly like Count Dracula! He welcomes the girls to his castle and then attempts to kill them! And the things these girls say…pure b-movie gold! Example: “I am so dazzling, people have to wear sunglasses!”  If it wasn’t for the one liners and the girls, I might have fallen asleep while watching this one, because truth be told, it is a bloody bore. Still, the cheesiness can be entertaining. Recommend this one if you are interested in seeing one of the worst films ever made, and laugh while doing it.   

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment:  When the girls crash land on the alien planet, we never even see the crash, the film just cuts straight to the girls walking through the jungle.

Bad Movie Dialog: “Something tells me there’s more in this jungle than meets the eye”

Worst green screen ever

 Title: Ballistic Eck vs. Sever (2002)

Why it’s so Bad: Some movies just make it so easy for me to hate them. Ballistic: Eck Vs. Sever is one of them. I saw this at the movie theater (I had no idea) and the audience was actually laughing at the film! People were not laughing at one liners (like in a normal action film) people were laughing at how bad the movie was! The terrible acting, the horribly obvious green screens, the nonsensical happenings! This film was made by a  filmmaker from Thailand (Wych Kaosayananda) who had success in his country with a film he made and was given the opportunity to make his first Hollywood film, unfortunately, said Hollywood film was Eck Vs. Sever. It is no surprise this film is #1 on many “Worst Films Ever Made” lists. It just makes no sense. For example, the film has us follow these FBI agents, yet the film takes place in Canada? Where the FBI has no jurisdiction? Antonio Banderas is obviously spewing his lines as quickly as possible so he can get over it and cash that check! Even worse is the fact that the video game, which was released a few months before the film, was praised more than the movie was! 

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment: When Sever crashes her car into another one and both cars explode, she still walks away unharmed, without a single scratch! Guns shoot backwards…the list just goes on and on.  

Bad Movie Dialog: “There are no innocent people in this world Sever, only killers and victims”

Title: Leonard Part 6 (1987)

Why it’s so Bad: Leonard Part 6 (never mind the fact that there were never previous Leonard movies!) is a film that is so bad that Bill Cosby himself urged people not to go see it even though he starred, wrote and produced the damned thing! Last time I saw that happen was with Jet Li, who publicly despised WAR (2007) even though he starred in it. Hell, Bill Cosby hates this movie so much that he went and bought the television rights to the film so it could never air on television! Now that’s something right there! Kind of reminds me of how Kubrick tracked down all his early films so no one could see them because he was ashamed of them. But let’s face it, Bill Cosby is no Kubrick, and neither is this films director, a guy by the name of Paul Weiland. What else did he direct? A lot of television that’s what! I am surprised that they guy has directed more films after this terrible fiasco! It’s the kind of movie that you have to keep watching, just to make sure it gets worse, and trust me, it does. Cosby uses hot dogs to make a henchmen’s head explode into confetti! Since the bad guys on this movie are vegetarians (hmm, same as on Troll II, that’s kind of weird) Leonard rubs meat on their faces to subdue them! See it if you want to see a totally insane movie, just remember, I warned ya!  

It’s Obvious It’s Bad Moment:  When in the films first five minutes Bill Cosby is dancing like a ballerina and then seconds later, he jumps off an exploding building while riding an ostrich! Yes, an ostrich!  

Bad Movie Dialog: “This was, I believe, the first recorded instances of a CIA agent being eaten alive by a rainbow trout”

If you liked this article, then don't forget to check out it's sequel: Worst Movies Ever Made Part II

Prometheus In-Depth Analysis

Prometheus was one of the most anticipated films of the year for me and many film lovers. A Ridley Scott film, in my opinion is always a major event, he is after all one of the most important filmmakers of his generation. As you might have gathered from my review for Prometheus, I love Ridley Scott films for many, many reasons, still, I have no problems in pointing out a disappointing one if I ever see one. For example, the last Ridley Scott film to underwhelm me was Robin Hood (2010). I enjoyed it, but wasn’t floored by it. Though well made, I found it boring. I wasn’t a big fan of G.I. Jane (1997) either. Point is I don’t blindly love Scott’s films. No filmmaker is free of making a dud or two; but Prometheus wasn’t a disappointment in my book. I recognize that it isn’t perfect film though. Some characters do pretty stupid things when they should be acting more professionally; like that guy who starts playing with a potentially dangerous alien life form like it was a cute little teddy bear or something? The idiot! But can that scene really be considered a major flaw? Not in my book, there are a lot of idiots out there, that guy happened to be one of them.

The interesting thing about a lot of Ridley Scott’s most recognized films is that at first they weren’t big hits with the masses. Two good examples are Blade Runner (1982) and Legend (1985); both huge flops when they first premiered in theaters. Yet right now they are both considered some of the best films within their genre. Now here comes Prometheus, again, a film that a lot of people have felt disappointed by. It was not a flop in theaters, or a failure in the true sense of the word (it’s still making money around the world) the problem with it was that even though there was a huge hype surrounding the film, it didn’t make as much money as expected. I think people were expecting another film like Alien and Prometheus was anything but that. Alien was a straight forward horror film, Prometheus isn’t. Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) was a far simpler film than Prometheus. Alien simply wanted to scare, while Prometheus aspires to explore deeper themes about life and the universe we live in; we can’t blame a filmmaker for wanting to go in a deeper and more cerebral direction with his new films. But this shift in tone was not received well by the masses. The masses wanted people running from Aliens and shooting guns, what they got was a film that wanted to explain the origins of humanity. The result was a smaller intake at the box office then expected. Still, that’s fine by me; I don’t consider Prometheus to be a film for everyone. It doesn’t have mass appeal. The masses love stupid films, Prometheus was not.

The following article aspires to analyze Ridley Scott’s Prometheus. If you haven’t seen the film, then please don’t read this article because I’ll be analyzing major plot points and themes. If on the other hand you have seen it, and want to read my thoughts on the films themes, then continue reading my friend!

  

ORIGINS OF MAN - WHO MADE US?

The questions of who made us and where do we really come from have always been a major issue for deep thinkers. The thing is that once you eschew the many teachings religion has to offer  about the origins of man, then you are left with zero answers. The scientific mind will rarely acknowledge anything related to religion because scientists by nature need proof. That’s what science is all about, making a hypothesis, and then proving it. If you can’t prove it, then it’s just a hypothesis or a theory. In religion, when something can’t be proven, it’s called faith. For scientists, religious explenations are closer to fairy tales than anything else, for the philosopher, this holds true as well. Truth of the matter is we still don’t really know who made us; the perennial question lingers on.

Prometheus is an interesting film because it’s one of those films that dares to give explanations for the origins of man other than the explanations that Christianity teaches. The daring part is that the film doesn’t tell us that humanity was created by Christianities ‘God’, the film tells us that it was other beings known as ‘The Engineers’. The idea that maybe aliens designed us and that we are somehow linked to them is not a new one, for example, it had been explored before in films like Brian De Palma’s Mission to Mars (2000) and Alex Proyas’ Knowing (2009). Mission to Mars actually has many similarities with Prometheus, watch that film again and you’ll see what I mean. The same themes are touched upon.

The alien beings in Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars (2000)

Prometheus starts out with these amazing vistas of Planet Earth. We see mountains, waterfalls, cloud formations, basically, planet earth at it’s most glorious. The idea being that maybe the Planet was here long before any life form came to it. Then, a huge spaceship leaves an albino, bald, and extremely muscular alien being behind. The alien seems to be wearing ceremonial clothing of some kind, leading us to believe that maybe this whole event has a religious connotation for the alien beings. The being takes a sip of something that begins to degenerate his body, soon, the being falls to the water as his body continues to disintegrate in the depths. Then, the camera does an extreme close up and focuses on the beings DNA which appears to be disintegrating and forming itself back again; we are looking at the origins of man. “Big things have small beginnings” a character says at some point in the film, this was the small beginning of man.

 

So this is a brave film, because according to it, we weren’t created by the Christian idea of ‘God’, it was beings from some other planet. But of course, the question still remains, if they created us, and they are ‘The Engineers’ of humanity, then who created them? There is always something bigger behind everything. Who is that one final being who created everything anyways? I love it how the film attempts to answer some questions, but makes even bigger ones. 

   

 THE QUESTIONING OF CHRISTIANITY

The films protagonist, a scientist by the name of Elizabeth Shaw is a Christian. According to her, Christianity is what she’s chosen to believe in because it’s what her father believed in, and therefore, his beliefs where passed on to her, which is something that happens to a lot of people. You probably ended up believing in Jesus because that’s what your parents taught you, but does that mean it is right? Or even real? Maybe, maybe not, but like Elizabeth Shaw, when one is confronted with the validity of their beliefs, the answer is sometimes “because it’s what I choose to believe”, not because you have proof, or because you know what you are believing in is right, but it’s what you’ve chosen to help you get through life.

This is another theme that the film addresses, the idea that we got to believe in something even though we might not be entirely sure if it’s true or not. For example, my belief system is a bit more grounded in reality. I personally believe that we don’t know the truth about anything, that the universe is the biggest thing out there and that there is a lot we don’t know. If it was by me, we would have sent out a spaceship to explore the universe a long ass time ago, Star Trek style.  I personally just accept the big mystery until that fateful day when we’ll finally know THE REAL TRUTH.

But Prometheus is a film that questions Christianity a lot. For example, when the scientists in the film are finally gearing up to meet with the alien beings, Charlie tells Elizabeth that she should throw away her cross, alluding to the idea that maybe Christianity is all fairy tales and that what they are about to meet out there is the real deal. I found it interesting how Elizabeth Shaw never throws away her cross. Maybe it’s because it belonged to her father and it reminds her of him so it has more to do with sentimental value than beliefs, either way, the cross Elizabeth Shaw wears through out the whole film is an important symbol. It means that until she finds some real answers, she’s not willing to let go of the beliefs she grew up with. After all, that’s exactly what this movie is all about, finding answers to the big questions in life and until Elizabeth finds them, she’s sticking to Christianity. But I like the fact that her search is never ending.

Elizabeth Shaw never looses her faith

At one point in the film, the character of Peter Weyland says that because of all we have achieved so far as a race “we are the Gods now”. Somebody created us, but we can also create life ourselves, even artificial life. Right now, we can create computers and robots that think for themselves, but how long  before we can create androids like the ones presented in these films? In Prometheus, humanity has reached the point where they can create androids that live forever (!) and are almost indistinguishable from man! In the film we are similar to Gods in the sense that we can create. According to Biblical and Greek Mythology, the gods don’t like it when we are like them. It’s the reason why they punished the god Prometheus and sent him to Tartarus; a.k.a. HELL. According to the story, Prometheus shared the secret of fire with man, in this way bringing us closer to Godhood because of it. The idea being that knowledge is power, and ultimate knowledge has made us Gods. What drives the characters in this film? The search for answers to the biggest questions; its that thirst for god like knowledge. Mans thirst to KNOW, which strangely enough is considered a sin in the bible. In the tale of Adam and Eve, when they take a bite from the tree of knowledge, they were expelled from paradise! So to the Gods, no matter what religion, knowledge is not something they want us mere humans to have, knowledge is what makes us like them.  

   

 WHY DO OUR CREATORS WANT TO DESTROY US?

In Prometheus The Engineers of humanity have now turned into the would be destroyers of humanity. The big question that arises in the film is why? Why do they want to wipe us out? One scene has Elizabeth Shaw confronting The Engineers, asking them why do they want to destroy us? This idea of Gods destroying their creation is not new at either. If we go back to the bible itself, God was once so displeased with humanity that he wiped it all out, save for eight people he thought were good enough to save. I’m speaking of course of the biblical story of Noah’s Ark and how he and his family where saved from the worldwide deluge that God sent humanities way. This is the idea that we are presented with in Prometheus as well. The Engineers have created a deadly life form that they intend on releasing upon humanity. When David, the android of the film finally discovers how The Engineers computers work, he learns that their final destination was earth and that their deadly cargo was destined for us; what they really wanted to do was destroy us. The idea being that our creators are ashamed of us, same as God was ashamed of having created humanity in the bible.

This idea is an interesting one when we take in consideration how messed up the world truly is. So many shameful things happen ever second of every day on our planet, that if  alien beings were watching us, analyzing our behavior, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided to wipe us out. Let’s see, nuclear weapons, child slavery, rapes, violation of human rights, despotic governments, greed, murder, war, famine, you name it, if it’s evil, its happening on Planet Earth!  If there is a God, and he’s watching what’s going on down here, he HAS to be ashamed. I would have pushed that restart button a long time ago; as one of the characters in Prometheus says: sometimes, in order to create, one has to destroy.  

 ACCEPTANCE OF DEATH “EVERY KING HAS HIS DAY, THEN HE DIES”

It’s interesting that one of the main characters in Prometheus is an android who will live forever, way past the lifespan of its own creators because this film is all about humans wanting more life. Same as the ‘replicants’ in Ridley Scott’s own Blade Runner (1982), one of the humans in Prometheus is after more life. I’m talking of course of Peter Weyland, the owner and founder of The Wayland Corporation, the company in charge of space exploration in the Alien universe. You see, in the film Peter Weyland is dying, but before he dies he wants to meet The Engineers in order to ask them for more life, same as the replicant Roy Batty in Blade Runner wanted to meet his creator to ask him about: “Something a little more radical…death” If you remember that scene, Batty then picks up Tyrell and tells him “I want more life fucker!” I found it interesting that the need that the androids of Blade Runner have is now the need that humans have in Prometheus. Basically, we don’t want to die. As I said in my review for Prometheus, I think it’s fitting that Scott, now 74 is asking these questions. He must feel like Roy Batty or Peter Weyland himself; getting close to death, and not wanting that day to arrive. 

Rutger Hauer as replicant Roy Batty in Ridle Scott's Blade Runner (1982)

All these great things we see and do, they all fade away as soon as we die, sometimes forgotten forever. How many lives blink out of existence, never to be thought of ever again? The character of Roy Batty said it very poetically in Blade Runner: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain…time to die.” Of course, since this is a film that addresses big questions and themes, the theme of death could not be left out. It is mans greatest enemy and one of the grandest themes one could address in a film, which is why I appreciate a film like Prometheus, it touches upon so many important themes, leaving them there for us to ponder and think about after the film is over. On Prometheus, the final thought on death is mentioned when the character of Meredith Vickers tells her father Peter Weyland: “A King has his day and then he dies” That is the truth about death, we have our days on this earth, we better make the best of them because then we die, and the ride is over. 

THE SEARCH FOR THE REAL ‘TRUTH’ NEVER ENDS

Finally, one of the things I loved the most about Prometheus was its ending. When Elizabeth Shaw finds that other ship and takes off towards the planet where ‘The Engineers’ supposedly come from. To be honest, that ending offers up so many awesome possibilities for a sequel. What planet will Elizabeth Shaw arrive at? What discovers await for her out there? Will she find the true engineers of humanity, or something greater? Whatever Elizabeth Shaw’s out come maybe, I loved the fact that her final words were her signing off and saying that her search never ends, that her search for truth continues. This is my goal as well, the never ending search for the real truth. Well, my friends, this has been The Film Connoisseur. I should reach the frontier at some point, with a little luck; the network will pick me up. This is Franco, one of many survivors on spaceship earth…singing off.  

Savages (2012)

Title: Savages (2012)

Director: Oliver Stone

Cast: Benicio del Toro, Salma Hayek, John Travolta, Aaron Johnson, Blake Lively, Taylor Kitsch

I enjoyed Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday (1999), it had a lot of his kinetic energy, a lot of his love for Americana, and I loved how he filmed football like it was a war, but I'm not a huge fan of football, so that film wasn't really big on my Oliver Stone-o-meter; yes I have one of those. In reality, the last Oliver Stone movie that I really enjoyed was U-Turn (1997), I believe that was Stone's last truly edgy film. It wasn't based on any real life events, it wasn't making any political statements or trying to uncover some age old conspiracy like a lot of Oliver Stone's films do, no, U-Turn was Oliver Stone simply having some fun telling a story about this shitty day Sean Penn has when he falls, like a fly into a fly trap, into this hell hole of a town, straight out of a Twilight Zone episode. It was kinetic, it was weird, it was offbeat, it was dark and funny...and it had that great Billy Bob Thornton performance. Sadly, every other film Stone has made after that one has missed that Oliver Stone kineticness we all came to love. Actually, the title U-Turn was so symbolic because from there on in, Stone's films just haven't been the same. 

Oliver Stone, working out a scene with Travolta and Kitsch

Take World Trade Center (2006) for example. What a boring film! Had that been a true Oliver Stone film it would have focused on the terrorists on the plane or on the conspiracy theory that maybe it was the Americans who blew themselves up to have an excuse to invade Iraq or something like that. But no, since World Trade Center was made by the "neutured by Hollywood" Oliver Stone, well, it was about these heroic firemen; a noble and sentimental approach to the whole World Trade Center tragedy, but not in my opinion the kind of story that the old Oliver Stone would have told. Same goes for W (2008), a film that was "soft" when compared to similar Stone films like the mindblowingly good JFK (1991) or NIXON (1995). So now, here comes Savages, and judging by the looks of the previews, it seemed like this is Stone's attempt to grow some balls back and have some fun while doing it. Not a bad combination in my book. It seemed to me like Savages was going to show us Stone's still got it in him to make a film with an edge to it. It looked like he was ready to give us another jolt of shock to the system. Did Stone deliver the goods?

On Savages we meet two California weed dealers, Ben and Chon; two friends who have decided to use their capabilities to produced and sell some of the finest weed ever smoked by man. One graduated from college and has extensive knowledge on botany and chemistry, the other is an ex military who offers his military know-how and is the muscles of the operation. The two of them are in love with the same woman, Opehelia, and they all live in beach side mansion in California. Their lives are like a dream, selling and smoking weed, making tons of dough, they are  living the life so to speak. But Ben wants a normal life and wants out of the weed selling business, he convinces Chon and Ophelia to do  the same. In their minds they can effectively run off to Indonesia and live a luxurious life over there, far away from all the drug dealing. But what happens when the bigger drug dealers don't want them to go? 

First the good news: this isn't a completely unwatchable Oliver Stone film; it has many of the things we've come to expect from the legendary filmmaker, albeit with less intensity. It's got violence, drugs, sex and controversial ideas, but it just doesn't  get too intense, not like old Stone films would. One of the most controversial ideas the film puts across is that marijuana should be legalized; that it's only a matter of time before this happens. And herein lies the surprise for me with this movie: I wasn't expecting for the film to be a Stoner Flick. This movie is really, really about weed; actually it borders on glorifying or even glamorizing it. There are these scenes where the main characters are just smoking away, 'chillaxing'; that's chilling and relaxing all roled up into one in case you're wondering. It really captures what it means to smoke weed, to be in that totally chilled, spaced out moment, we even get one of these scenes that we saw before in Stones own The Doors (1991), where characters are high, looking out at the stars, loosing themselves in the vastness of space. The names of the main characters in the film: 'Ben and Chon' are enough of an indication to tell us that this film will be all about weed, the names of course remind us of those perennial pot heads from the 70's Cheech and Chong. So a big theme here is marijuana, and how if it was legalized, a lot of unnecesary crap could be avoided. 

The glamorizing aspect of the film comes when we see the kind of life that these two guys and their girlfriend  live. They make the finest pot ever, they are drug dealers yet they live in these beautiful homes, have these cool cars, and share the hottest girlfriend, which by the way is another controversial aspect of the film, the depiction of a threesome. It doesn't really go too deeply into the whole threesome thing like the way Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008) did, but it does make a point to tell us that this kind of thing just doesn't work out. Bottom line though is that these guys are drug dealers, but they are depicted as the nicest drug dealers ever. They dress like surfers, and drive these expensive sports cars and what have you, but come on, these guys are supposed to be drug dealers! To me they just didn't look the part, they didn't convince me they were dealers. They came off as too nice for drug dealers. They looked more like surfer dudes who would be smoking the pot rather then making it and sell it. And here for me is where the film has a few faults. 

Stone's cinematic characters were never beatuftiful people, they were always caricatures of what humans are like. With  emotions augmented and personafied. I'm thinking of James Wood's in Salvador (1986), Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in Natural Born Killers (1994), not the best looking peole, but boy could they act the hell out of their characters. They had such intensity to them.  His characters were always rough looking, ugly in a way, disturbed, and sometimes even cartoonish somehow.  Take Tom Cruise for example -the sex symbol of his day- he starred in Born on the Fourth of July (1989), but even then, Stone turned Cruise into a demented freak in a wheel chair, with long hair and a mustachio, trying to screw Mexican whores with a limp dick. Point is, only recently did he start this thing about putting beautiful people in his films, this probably is at the request of Hollywood producers. Stone seems to be aware of this himself, because even though he's got young, good looking protagonists on his film, he places them in juxtaposition to,Benicio del Toro as the villain called 'Lado'. Now Benicio is the kind of character you'd expect to see in an Oliver Stone film, he fits the bill perfectly. Benicio is a fantastic actor, and in this film he even comes off as frightening and scary in his violent ways. The character of Lado gives us a small glimmer of what Stone's characters used to be like. Scary, ugly, dangerous, edgy kind of characters. I loved  how Stone addresses the issue of beautiful protagonists by having 'Lado' make fun of  Ben by telling him that he's "cute"; in this scene, Stone is making fun of the fact that he has these two Calvin Klein models as protagonists on his film.

Other than that, this is pretty much an Oliver Stone film, but light. He still uses the change in film stock, sometimes the film goes to black and white, sometimes we see over saturated images...but at the same times the camera stays still a lot. It's missing that frenetic pacing we used to have in Stone's films, where we felt as if a coked up dude was telling us the story. I guess Stone is getting old, and it doesn't surprise me that his films keep getting softer the older he gets; this happens to many filmmakers as they start getting older, they kind of loose what made them cool when they were young. Kind of like aging rock stars, some don't loose it, but most do. I don't think Stone has totally lost his cool yet, he might have an awesomely dark film up his sleeve yet, but this one just ain't it. I'm not saying it's a bad film, because it has a lot of cool stuff going for it. It's fun, it's fast paced. But for an Oliver Stone film, it's just too bright, too colorful, too beautiful..too perfect in a way. I liked the chaotic nature of previous Stone films. But then again, the way this film was made was  probably done intentionally. It looks to me like Stone was going for a film with beautiful people, lots of colors  and a happy kind of vibe going for it, this is a film about smoking weed after all. Savages is a film where even the villains where kind of likable, as is the case with Salma Hayek's 'Elena'; a villain who comes off as a mother figure of sorts. Even though the film does have decaptations and bloodshed, it felt like a milder kind of film from and old marketer of 'Gloom and Doom'; which of course is why it feels so strange. Not bad, just different, definetly not what you'd expect from Stone. Savages is the kind of film where everything goes smoothly for the pot heads; but in the end, it left me longing for the old war horse that Stone was. 

Rating 3 1/2 out of 5