One of my new favourite podcasts to listen to is the show How Did This Get Made (with Paul Scheer, Jason Mantzoukas and June Diane Raphael). The basis of the podcast are these three great hosts, and whichever star guest is on, discuss a ridiculously bad movie. They don’t discuss it from the standpoint of, “dear, lord who thought this was a good idea?” but rather, “OMG, that’s so freaking awesome that they did that!!”
While I love the conversations of these three people enjoying a movie every other week (as I do enjoy with a lot of other film related podcasts I listen to) what I think has become more and more important to me with this podcast is when they decide to give me some insight into a filmmaker’s honest opinion of their work or to hear a filmmaker’s true passion for cinema. Recently, in one of the now most lauded (and yes I’m piling on with it) episodes of film podcasts to ever be released, they (along with Lexi Alexander and Patton Oswalt) decided to discuss Punisher: War Zone (directed by: Lexi Alexander). They didn’t just discuss the film itself, but also Lexi‘s experience with the film, how she eventually ended up doing it and walking us through some of the choices and her admitting as to what kind of a movie it really is. They also did this kind of a thing (not as detailed though) in an earlier episode where they discussed their thoughts on Skyline with Liam O’Donnell (a writer on said film) in a short segment of the episode.
Now I’ve always viewed these “bad movies are so bad that they’re good” are most of the time just bad movies, and not much other than a few litres of hard liquor can’t fix. With that said though I know that many people out there enjoy this brand of cinema in this way very much. I see the joke though. We’re not laughing at what’s in front of us, but rather the idea that someone out in the world thought that what’s been put in front of us was actually a good idea, or that we (or anyone) would actually like this, and that’s funny (honestly) but I just am not sure how much of this brand of cinema I could actually stomach on a regular basis.
So going back to why I enjoyed the Punisher episode of Scheer‘s podcast: I think it’s mainly because it’s honest. We see this happen so often. A film is made with people having the best intentions (at least in the public eye). It comes out, it bombs and is shitted on by every person out there. Then a few years later when it’s no longer in the books of Hollywood the people involved have fun throwing out remarks, “ye I knew that movie sucked,” just to keep with the public opinion, but I can youtube interviews of you talking about how “visionary” and “interesting” this person’s take on this story is. Here however, it felt different. Firstly, I don’t remember seeing Lexi Alexander talking Best Picture chatter about her film when it was being released, but at the same time it gives me more than actors and directors mildly laughing at themselves and saying the movie’s shit, but rather a peek into the world that is movie making. Which is all I ever want from any kind of interview.
I think the truth of it all at the end of the day, as shown from my reaction to listening to the Punisher: War Zone episode of HDTGM, I think I’d be a lot more on board if I knew that these filmmakers were open and honest about what they were doing. Don’t come on interviews and try to sell me the movie but instead sell me you. Sell me that you know that the movie you made was the best you could make (given the tools at hand) and you did it for these reasons and at the same time you know it’s not going to be loved by the critics and we’ll talk about it in a month’s time as to whether it’ll be in the bargain bin or not. I know it’s not how the Hollywood game is played but I wish it was done like that.
With me it comes down to – if I think a film is bad then I don't like it. If I like a film then it is automatically not a bad film in my opinion. Therefore, I don't like bad films. But I understand your point and I think it comes to down to the idea of the guilty pleasure, which is a flawed concept to begin with, but one that is quite popular. Films that are universally panned or that the general consensus from critics and audiences is that the film in question is a poor.
Personally, I wouldn't say I like bad films. I know I prefer good ones at least. But I also know that I have an unhealthy obsession with, and hold in much higher regard than most, a bunch of films considered average by the critic elite and the majority of audiences (ie. Scorsese's best work in my eyes is The King of Comedy and After Hours, not Raging Bull and Goodfellas).
I get what you're saying. The avoiding bad movies is a great way to go in life. I tend to walk that path myself. However, every so often it breaks the barrier for me and graduates to cheesy fun in a way that a well crafted film can never do, and probably never wants to do.
But I doubt I'd ever force myself into an overload of that brand of cinema ever.
I have movies I would classify as nostalgia movies. Movies from my childhood that weren't necessarily that great, even then, but I still hold some fondness for the sheer number of hours of my youth they helped peck away at. Movies like Surf Ninjas. I try to avoid the "so bad, it's good" typecast, but I do so to varying degrees of success. There are some movies that are generally considered bad that I think are alright (in keeping with the subject matter, the original The Punisher with Thomas Jane would fit into this category).
Well.. when you're a child anything with flickering images is AWESOME!. Then as you grow up you refuse to admit that child you was wrong (because we're always right).
God knows I loved 3 Ninjas and watched that shit over and over as a child.
That depends. "Surf Ninjas" is a pretty bad movie but it was a film I watched as a kid and still kind of enjoy it for how bad it is. The original "3 Ninjas" was OK but the sequels were fucking shit yet, they were nothing compared to the awfulness that was "3 Ninjas High Noon at Magic Mountain". Whoa, that was horrible from start to finish. It's not even entertaining at all.
I think I saw 3 Ninjas Part 2 (don't ask me what the sub-title to it is), but by the time the third film came out I knew it was garbage and wasn't willing to put up with it.
Didn't they recast all the child characters for the sequels? That should be worthy of the "really bad movies" category that are possible to break into being horribly entertaining at the end of the day (if you're into that kind of thing).
I'm right there with you when it comes to wanting honesty from filmmakers. As you pointed out, I'm not likely to get it until their movie has faded away a bit, but I can still want it.
I don't even know how to begin talking about what makes a movie so bad it's good. For me, it comes down to entertainment. The first thing that pops into my head is Raw Deal. That movie is BAD. Not so bad it's good…just BAD. Why? It's just boring and shitty. Nothing made me laugh, nothing made me go "holy shit, did that just happen" etc…In contrast, Commando is absolutely so bad it's good. Toward the end, Arnold plants a couple of claymores, and a whole block of buildings explode independently. Then there's the part where actual human beings were literally represented by cardboard cutouts, and we weren't supposed to be able to tell the difference. That's entertainment.
for some reason I think of a quote from DRIVE right now….
When Albert Brooks is talking abt his foray into filmmaking "I thought were shit, one critic called it European"