SubGenius badfilm reviews
Posted by:: "Modemac"
Date: 3 Mar 2005 05:27:12 -0800

--------
The latest blatant attempt to plug my web site:

http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/SubGenius_Badfilms

I've added a section that allows you to enter in any and all Slackful
movies, and to provide your own movie reviews. You don't have to do an
exhaustive essay on the symbolism of the underlying metaphor and the
deeper meaning of why you enjoyed seeing Thora Birch show us her boobs
in "American Beauty" (though it helps). Feel free to add new films to
the list, and to review those movies in any way you want.

Hellpope Huey's recent review of "Constantine" comes to mind.



Posted by:: HellPope Huey
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:39:45 GMT

--------
In article <1109856432.351181.275190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Modemac" wrote:

> The latest blatant attempt to plug my web site:
>
> http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/SubGenius_Badfilms
>
> I've added a section that allows you to enter in any and all Slackful
> movies, and to provide your own movie reviews. You don't have to do an
> exhaustive essay on the symbolism of the underlying metaphor and the
> deeper meaning of why you enjoyed seeing Thora Birch show us her boobs
> in "American Beauty" (though it helps). Feel free to add new films to
> the list, and to review those movies in any way you want.
>
> Hellpope Huey's recent review of "Constantine" comes to mind.

Then you'll love my upcoming take on "Attack of the 27-Year-Long
Passive-Aggressive Petty-Pouter Assfuck."

--

HellPope Huey
Chord Junkie, Popanalia, PresBobtyrian

"How could they screw up 'Riverdance'?"
"I dunno, a bag of marbles?"
- "Nikki"

Whoever is most impertinent has the best chance.
- Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart


Posted by:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:29:22 -0700

--------
Modemac wrote:
>
> The latest blatant attempt to plug my web site:
>
> http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/SubGenius_Badfilms
>

I wonder if you could create a parallel movie site that
is a bit more restrictive, but really has a pressing need:

Otherwise good movies that were utterly destroyed by
one or just a few unforgiveable screw-ups, identified by
scene. The kind of thing that rips away any submersion
in the plot and fantasy and just makes you go, "Arrrggh!"

Examples:

'Angel Heart': an utterly gripping detective thriller
that was utterly ruined by the appearance of Robert De Niro
at the end. Had they just ended the movie without trying to
explain every damn one of the gazillion loose ends in the
last 5 minutes, it would have created so much audience angst
that people would *still* be talking about it. And the worst
irony is that they paid as much money to De Niro to ruin the
movie as they paid to make the rest of the movie great.

'Poltergeist II': with two bad boffos. The first is the
gratuitous and cheesy tequila worm scene. Piss poor
animatronics that they then over-lit in the scene because
they wanted to show them off so bad. The second was the
equally gratuitous use of a blond-haired female angel at
the end, which is never okay. Judeo-Xtian symbolism does
not blend well, and must be used judiciously.

'The Black Hole': two bad boffos. Again with the angelic
and demonic symbolism at the end. Ecch. But the second
problem is the fight between the annoyingly saccharine
"cute, friendly" robot, a ripoff of C3PO, and the assistant
villain robot. Don't *ever* demean a villain. Villains
are only good as long as they have cred. If used as a
straight man, their villain quotient is sucked dry. They
also under-used the head villain robot, who needed to show
how villainous he was, not just have him stand around and
look menacing for the whole movie; and Ernest Borgnine was
just a bad casting decision.


--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"

--Kino Beman, brand name


Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:39:42 -0800

--------
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:29:22 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:

>Otherwise good movies that were utterly destroyed by
>one or just a few unforgiveable screw-ups, identified by
>scene. The kind of thing that rips away any submersion
>in the plot and fantasy and just makes you go, "Arrrggh!"
>
>Examples:
>
>'Angel Heart': an utterly gripping detective thriller
>that was utterly ruined by the appearance of Robert De Niro
>at the end. Had they just ended the movie without trying to
>explain every damn one of the gazillion loose ends in the
>last 5 minutes, it would have created so much audience angst
>that people would *still* be talking about it. And the worst
>irony is that they paid as much money to De Niro to ruin the
>movie as they paid to make the rest of the movie great.

"Arrrggh!"

Deniro was GREAT in that, and I really don't see how they could have
ended that without SOME kind of explanation of a half-dozen otherwise
unexplained murders that the whole movie REVOLVED around. People
would still be talking about it all right, they would be talking about
"remember that stupid movie where they never explained the murders?
GOD that pissed me off!"

You're insane, dornobbo.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
How about if as a Xorn, you absorb first an Amulet of Extra Ring? If you
have a 1 in 3 of gaining the intrinsic by X-eating the ", then presumably,
the extra slots could open up.



Posted by:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:28:38 -0700

--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> >'Angel Heart': an utterly gripping detective thriller
> >that was utterly ruined by the appearance of Robert De Niro
> >at the end. Had they just ended the movie without trying to
> >explain every damn one of the gazillion loose ends in the
> >last 5 minutes, it would have created so much audience angst
> >that people would *still* be talking about it. And the worst
> >irony is that they paid as much money to De Niro to ruin the
> >movie as they paid to make the rest of the movie great.
>
> "Arrrggh!"
>
> Deniro was GREAT in that, and I really don't see how they
> could have ended that without SOME kind of explanation of
> a half-dozen otherwise unexplained murders that the whole
> movie REVOLVED around. People would still be talking about
> it all right, they would be talking about "remember that
> stupid movie where they never explained the murders?
> GOD that pissed me off!"


I hope you're not one of those people who needs explanations
spoon fed to them, who needs everything to make "sense".

I hate it when an otherwise intelligent movie dumbs itself
down so that the simplest moron in the audience can figure
it out. It's like when the aliens tell Captain Picard that
they are going to blow the Enterprise to bits, then unload
on it with all phasers or whatever, tearing out gaping holes
in the ship and killing dozens of crewmen.

And then Counselor Troy pipes up, "Captain, I'm sensing
great *hostility* from the aliens!"

Well, no shit, Sherlock. How much of an imbecile do you think
he is not to notice something GLARINGLY OBVIOUS like that?

But Hollywood does shit like that ALL THE TIME. And I HATE it.

Back to Angel Heart. Mickey Rourke has built up the movie to
a frantic crescendo of detective paranoia.

--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"A stupid movie WILL NOT make you turn
down a blowjob. Simple as that."
-- nu-monet


Posted by:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:42:45 -0700

--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>
> Back to Angel Heart. Mickey Rourke has built up the movie to
> a frantic crescendo of detective paranoia.

Dammit, I hit the "send" key by mistake. But to continue:

It seems that the killer, whoever it is, is both one step ahead
and one step behind Rourke, and it's driving him crazy. Or, he
thinks, is *he* the killer and he just can't remember killing?

Truly, had the movie just ended there, maybe with stress
overwhelming Rourke, so that he has a nervous breakdown or
something, and we never find out who the killer is, it would
have been utterly brilliant. Maybe just show Rourke's
headstone in a cemetery with someone who *maybe* looks like
Rourke walking away from it. Just make it as enigmatic as
possible.

Beyond a certain point, loose ends take on a life of their own.

They could even show Rourke, years later, having never figured
it all out, going mad out of frustration.

But it ended up looking like some studio suit had wandered onto
the set and said, "Hey, this production is already late and
over budget. Do the scene with Mr De Niro and wrap it up.
He's only here for one hour so be sure to do his scene right.
He's *an important and expensive actor*."

An equally shitty ended was used in the movie "The Serpent and
the Rainbow", in which the movie *ended* with the hero getting
on the plane to return to the states. But then they spliced
on some utter BULLSHIT mystical crap with lots of stupid special
effects to make it 10 minutes longer. Like they just couldn't
*stand* the fact that the bad guy gets away with it.


--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/


Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:57:45 -0800

--------
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:42:45 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:

>nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>>
>> Back to Angel Heart. Mickey Rourke has built up the movie to
>> a frantic crescendo of detective paranoia.
>
>Dammit, I hit the "send" key by mistake. But to continue:
>
>It seems that the killer, whoever it is, is both one step ahead
>and one step behind Rourke, and it's driving him crazy. Or, he
>thinks, is *he* the killer and he just can't remember killing?
>
>Truly, had the movie just ended there, maybe with stress
>overwhelming Rourke, so that he has a nervous breakdown or
>something, and we never find out who the killer is, it would
>have been utterly brilliant. Maybe just show Rourke's
>headstone in a cemetery with someone who *maybe* looks like
>Rourke walking away from it. Just make it as enigmatic as
>possible.
>

I can imagine that, but "utterly brilliant"?

Personally I think it would just be overdoing it. Like by analogy,
think of Twin Peaks (or any other extended murder mystery, Twin Peaks
just springs to mind). Yeah you could go on forever without revealing
Bob, I don't think that's brilliant. Yes it's disappointing when you
finally resolve the mystery, but the tension which mystery builds is
just that, tension, the whole point is to resolve it.

Refusing to resolve it doesn't make things get more and more and more
tense. After a certain point, you just lose your audience if you
refuse to resolve the story. You can accuse the audience of needing
to be "spoon fed" but if you can't tell a story people find
interesting, it doesn't really matter who you blame it on, you've
failed.




--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"My energies are much better spent teaching people to eat pork than teaching
pigs to be civilized."
- (Dr K. "Cortez" Legume)



Posted by:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 3 Mar 2005 13:12:52 -0800

--------
You know. What's funny? You douchebag bastard. I'll tell ya! Back when
I was working at Wall-to-Wall. I wasn't even watching Twin Peaks
regularly. Stacy. The movie manager at the store. Asked me who I
thought killed Laura Palmer. (Because. you know. It's what EVERYONE was
talking about. At the time). And. Just to be a prick. I said, "It's her
father." And. GOD HELP ME. It turned out I was right.

That's some fucked up shit. eh? huh? What you think chicken?



Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:52:06 -0800

--------
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:28:38 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:

>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> >'Angel Heart': an utterly gripping detective thriller
>> >that was utterly ruined by the appearance of Robert De Niro
>> >at the end. Had they just ended the movie without trying to
>> >explain every damn one of the gazillion loose ends in the
>> >last 5 minutes, it would have created so much audience angst
>> >that people would *still* be talking about it. And the worst
>> >irony is that they paid as much money to De Niro to ruin the
>> >movie as they paid to make the rest of the movie great.
>>
>> "Arrrggh!"
>>
>> Deniro was GREAT in that, and I really don't see how they
>> could have ended that without SOME kind of explanation of
>> a half-dozen otherwise unexplained murders that the whole
>> movie REVOLVED around. People would still be talking about
>> it all right, they would be talking about "remember that
>> stupid movie where they never explained the murders?
>> GOD that pissed me off!"
>
>
>I hope you're not one of those people who needs explanations
>spoon fed to them, who needs everything to make "sense".
>

oh PLEASE!

There are a half dozen, completely unexplained murders, and you think
that explaining WHY these people are killed and by WHOM is "spoon
feeding"? PUHLEEZE NIGGA!

I mean, what do you have if you don't come up with some kind of
explanation for the murders? Mickey Rourke drives around for ninety
minutes, everybody he talks to gets killed, and they never explain
why? That makes NO SENSE. I mean, that might make an interesting
movie, some guy drives around the US and everybody he talks to gets
murdered for no comprehensible reason at all right after he talks to
them. Personally I don't think it would be a better movie than Angel
Heart.



--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
thirty eight ... thirty nine ... fourty
- Two times



Posted by:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 3 Mar 2005 12:55:34 -0800

--------
Like I said. It's not's my problem your bleach-blodne midget whore of a
mother would spread her goddamn legs to whatever little mongreloid
maggot came her way.



Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:34:57 -0800

--------
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:52:06 -0800, Zapanaz
wrote:

>I mean, what do you have if you don't come up with some kind of
>explanation for the murders? Mickey Rourke drives around for ninety
>minutes, everybody he talks to gets killed, and they never explain
>why? That makes NO SENSE. I mean, that might make an interesting
>movie, some guy drives around the US and everybody he talks to gets
>murdered for no comprehensible reason at all right after he talks to
>them. Personally I don't think it would be a better movie than Angel
>Heart.

actually the more I think about it, the more I like it.

THE SUBGENIUS MOVIE

Before and during the opening credits is the most psychedelic footage
ever filmed. Flying saucers, X Y and Z aliens, multi-dimensional
psychorealitywarping warfare, 8-dimensional wormholes, towering Church
of the Subgenius cathedrals a thousand feet high made of glimmering
crystal,

All of this is simply to establish that the protagonist is a
Subgenius, no other purpose. A little like The Man Who Fell To Earth
but not as confusing or flat. And to establish that this Subgenius is
visiting Earth.

So next the Subgenius visits various Earth places. He goes into a
McDonald's. He starts a conversation with somebody who works there,
and is curious about Earth, so they talk and the Subgenius is trying
to understand why Earth people do the things they do.

It would be a chance to more or less (less, mostly) propound Subgenius
Wisdom. Or it would TAKE THAT FORM. Like if this were a more New
Agey movie, the protagonist might ask "but, why do Earth people fight
wars?" and the Earthling answers as best they can and the protagonist
says "where -I- come from, we don't fight wars, because we all share
the crystal wisdom of life ... and we all have THE SAME SKIN COLOR."

It's LIKE that, but this isn't a New Age movie. It's a SUBGENIUS
movie. So while it takes that form, of the alien protagonist
expounding his wisdom simply by making innocent comments about what he
sees around him (like K-Pax, a lot like that); looked at closely, the
exchanges don't QUITE make sense. Like instead of "in the Quord
dimension, where I live, we all have the same skin color", instead
it's "in the Quord dimension, where I live, we don't fight over the
differences in our skin color, because we all have a terrible skin
rash, so we are itching all the time". And the Earthling looks at him
like "oh wow ... that's SO DEEP AND WISE."

So then as soon as the conversation is over and the Wise Subgenius is
walking away, the Earthling's head explodes.

Most of the movie is like this. And exchange of not quite
comprehensible alien wisdom, and then the Earthling's head explodes,
for no readily comprehensible reason. K-PWISH.

The risk here is that people's interpretation would be that the
Earthling's heads explode -because of- the Subgenius wisdom, which
their heads just can't contain. But they would be WRONG. Their heads
JUST EXPLODE. It would be very important to make this as clear as
possible. Sometimes heads JUST EXPLODE. DEAL WITH IT.

And that's the rest of the movie. Exploding heads. And it is never
explained why. But the movie is not pointless. There is a great
dramatic resolution. At the end, the whole universe explodes, and all
that is left is a GIGANTIC INTERSTELLAR TOOTHBRUSH. The cosmic
toothbrush is SYMBOLIC. It symbolizes CLEAN TEETH. Roll end credits.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
What does not kill me makes me stronger
- Nietzsche



Posted by:: "Modemac"
Date: 3 Mar 2005 08:13:32 -0800

--------

nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> I wonder if you could create a parallel movie site that
> is a bit more restrictive, but really has a pressing need:

Two thoughts: 1) Feel free to enter your own commentary on those
movies there. There's no need to restrict yourself - this is a
SUBGENIUS site, not the Next Competitor To The Leonard Maltin Movie
Review Guide here. Write what you want.

2) And I did include the instructions for the web site, in big letters:
BE BOLD. Go ahead and create your own entries! You can expand it into
your own sections. What I'm trying to say is, you (and EVERYONE who
visits the web page) are free to add your own stuff, make your own
changes, and do whatever the hell you think needs to be done to make it
more Slackful. If you want a section dedicated to movie flubs, then
MAKE ONE. Go for it!



Posted by:: "Modemac"
Date: 3 Mar 2005 08:47:28 -0800

--------
Modemac wrote:
> MAKE ONE. Go for it!

I've received messages from a couple of folks who aren't familiar with
creating pages on a wiki. It's very simple, and here is how to do so.

Suppose you want to add an entry for the movie "Deep Throat." Here's
what to do:

1) Go to the appropriate page (in this case, "SubGenius Badfilms."

2) Click on "Edit this page" at the bottom.

3) In the right spot on the page, type this in:

* ''[[Deep Throat]]''

4) Click the Save button.

5) That's it. You've now created a new link to "Deep Throat." It will
appear on the page with a little blue question mark after it. Click on
the question mark, and voila! Your page on Deep Throat is there,
waiting for you to type in your text.



The commands used to create that page are:

* - put a "bullet" (an indentation and a big dot on the left margin).
'' - italics (that's two apostrophes, not quote marks)
[[ ]] - create the link





Posted by:: "just john"
Date: 3 Mar 2005 12:45:32 -0800

--------
Okay, I'm still unclear on the notion of "badfilm" ... as opposed to
"bad film."


"... Munchausen" and "Taxi Driver" are NOT bad films, so what does
badfilm mean?

'Cuz from the name of the category, I'd be putting stuff in like
"Leningrad Cowboys Go America," but that doesn't fit in the company
you've listed there.

(And then there's "Just plain weird" movies, like "Greaser's Palace"
and "Ravenous.")



Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:32:58 -0800

--------
Modemac wrote:
>
> The latest blatant attempt to plug my web site:
>
> http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/SubGenius_Badfilms
>
> I've added a section that allows you to enter in any and all Slackful
> movies, and to provide your own movie reviews. You don't have to do an
> exhaustive essay on the symbolism of the underlying metaphor and the
> deeper meaning of why you enjoyed seeing Thora Birch show us her boobs
> in "American Beauty" (though it helps). Feel free to add new films to
> the list, and to review those movies in any way you want.
>

I'm too lazy and/or stupid to try to figure out how to add free content
to your website, but if you see anything I post here that you like go
ahead and put it there. I just watched Sliding Doors starring Gwyneth
Paltrow. It was cute. I think she could stand to gain about ten pounds
though, her arms are just sticks.


Posted by:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:40:03 -0500

--------
In article <4227F30A.40ECD018@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:

> Modemac wrote:
> >
> > The latest blatant attempt to plug my web site:
> >
> > http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/SubGenius_Badfilms
> >
> > I've added a section that allows you to enter in any and all Slackful
> > movies, and to provide your own movie reviews. You don't have to do an
> > exhaustive essay on the symbolism of the underlying metaphor and the
> > deeper meaning of why you enjoyed seeing Thora Birch show us her boobs
> > in "American Beauty" (though it helps). Feel free to add new films to
> > the list, and to review those movies in any way you want.
> >
>
> I'm too lazy and/or stupid to try to figure out how to add free content
> to your website, but if you see anything I post here that you like go
> ahead and put it there. I just watched Sliding Doors starring Gwyneth
> Paltrow. It was cute. I think she could stand to gain about ten pounds
> though, her arms are just sticks.

When I get the half-chance I'm gonna go through my posts and move the
various bad film reviews and badfilm reviews that I've written on
alt.slack to one place, where I can see if they're repostworthy. But
same here, Sex God Modemac, any of my movie natterings that I DON'T
send are yours to reprint. However I will try to collect them together.
It'll be almost like remembering that I saw those movies, again.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this "posting to websites"
concept. From now on I'll try to remember to post movie reviews BOTH
places when I'm suddenly seized with the need to write one.

About the brittle-appendaged, twiggyish Gwyneth Paltrow. Everytime I
mention an actor, Princess Wei tells me which movie star he or she is
the OFFSPRING of.

My question: are most modern movie stars the offspring of other movie
stars or persons otherwise highly placed in the movie business? I read
the Enquirer, so I know who they're all cheating on and with, but it
doesn't always give geneaologies, and I've lately been rather startled
at the PROPORTION of "born connected" people in the movie biz. Also,
several gentiles who happen to be utter failures in the film business
have told me that they're all Jews, every single person in Hollywood.

--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB


Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:53:31 -0800

--------
"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote:
>
> several gentiles who happen to be utter failures in the film business
> have told me that they're all Jews, every single person in Hollywood.

I think Don Cheadle is actually Sammy Davis III.