We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
If you’re a long time reader of Movie Debaters a) thank you and b) it shouldn’t be a surprise that I LOOOOVE 2010′s A-Team.
We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
There was a lot of hoopla and brouhaha made about John Carter’s production. There’s rumors flying that the movie cost 250 million to make. Disney’s baffling decisions on the advertisements might have been the sole contributing factor to its failure. Some websites and critics seemed to create a self-fulfilling prophecy claiming the movie was a box office bomb before it even came out.
We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
The difficulty in writing the Second Chance Cinema column is defending a movie that got a bad reputation and/or bad reviews. Yes, I’d like everyone to give Hulk or The Shadow or Lake Placid a second chance, but on the other hand, I can kind of sort of see why the movie got bad ratings.
By no means should you think I’m purposefully advocating watching bad movies. I support and truly believe each movie in this column is worth watching (1).
Which brings me to Hot Rod.
Much like the last entry in SCC, Hudson Hawk, Hot Rod is very much a love it or hate it movie. It’s the first feature length movie from The Lonely Island sketch comedy group (the masterminds behind Saturday Night Live’s Digital Shorts). Andy Samberg stars as a wannabe stunt man who is in constant conflict with his overbearing father (played by Ian McShane).
Here’s some reasons why you should give it a second chance.
The movie’s backbone is absurdity. Perhaps audiences and critics weren’t ready for that type of humor, but once you realize the movie is not taking itself seriously (and you shouldn’t either) it’s a hilarious movie. This is a movie that opens with Samberg and McShane beating the utter shit out of each other. The movie also contains one of my favorite ADD, Tim & Eric style, editing sequences.
Hot Rod is a fun throwback to 80s romp movies. The plot is lighthearted and moves quickly like comedies from the 80s. There’s no dead spots in the movie. The plot and jokes move at a pace that dictates to the audience, “you should be having a good time.” Anytime the plot is Character Must Do X to Raise Money for a Sick Family Member and “X” is something ridiculous, the movie is probably going to be a fun time.
It features an early role from Danny McBride. Even cast as a supporting character, McBride damn near steals the show. Speaking of stealing scenes, Chris Parnell shows up for only a scene or two and has one of the more memorable jokes in the whole movie. As does Will Arnett. The cameos and pop-ins from well known comedians is another reason to give Hot Rod another go around.
I get if you have already seen Hot Rod and decided it wasn’t for you. However, if you were thrown for a loop by the level of absurdity, or if you ignored the movie because of critics, then definitely give Hot Rod a second chance. It’s immensely fun and thoroughly ridiculous. There hasn’t really been a recent comedy movie like it. That uniqueness deserves your attention.
(1)For example, I was extremely close to writing about The 13th Warrior. Upon rewatching, I realized the high esteem I held that movie to was only from the fog of nostalgia. In reality, it’s a meaningless movie targeted to 13 year old boys.
Hudson Hawk is a fairly frustrating movie. It doesn’t surprise me at all that it’s commonly listed as one of the worst movies ever made.
However, I tend to think that if you give a person (or persons) a fair warning about what type of movie Hudson Hawk is, then it can counteract most of the negative impressions logged against it. And with a proper warning the consumption of the movie becomes a much more enjoyable affair.
To explain: Hudson Hawk is a silly, silly, silly movie. It’s absurd, over the top, wacky, and downright strange. It’s supposed to be like that. This is not a movie that tried to be serious but catastrophically failed. This is a movie that is at it’s core is a farce.
This is what I’m talking about. The trailer completely misrepresents the film’s tone.
We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
Michael Bay just might be the most polarizing director working today. His films are paned by critics, make billions of dollars, and cause a great rift in audience members.
To me, Bay’s filmography is split pretty much 50/50. Half of his movies are good and half are bad. To clarify, movies like Bad Boys and The Rock are legitimately good action blockbusters. Movies like Armageddon and Pearl Harbor are slow and meandering exercises in explosions.
We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
Lake Placid is a terrible movie if you think it’s supposed to be serious. It’s a wonderful movie if you realize that it’s all done tongue-in-cheek. Based off the 39% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I’m guessing that people weren’t clued in on the joke. It’s one of the best let’s-make-a-movie-about-a-giant-common-animal movies. I’d rank it right under Tremors (and you should know I love me some Tremors).
The cast has perfected the scene chewing required for this type of movie. Their acting is so hammy it’s no wonder a giant crocodile wants to eat them. Particular stand outs in the movie include Bill Pullman’s everyman hero and Oliver Platt’s crazed expert. Character actor favorite Brenden Gleeson also shows up as the token skeptic.
Another key aspect to Lake Placid’s success is the sharp script from David E. Kelly. Kelly perfectly infused his trademark sarcastic characters with the tropes of a giant monster movie. The script is a great example of both sending up the genre and being a loving and respectful of it.
Lake Placid is such a fun movie that it really does deserve a second chance. A recurring theme emerging in this Second Chance Cinema column is that certain movies are released ahead of their time. The giant animal monster movie has been a staple since the 1950s. The genre has ebbed and flowed many times. Over the past 10 years there’s been a large influx of giant monster movies (especially SyFy Channel’s output of movies). It seems that Lake Placid was released in a low point for the genre’s popularity.
Lake Placid is a lot better than its reputation suggests. Give it another try if you haven’t in a while. (I’d also like to say it’s one of those movies enjoyed better with company.)
We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
I can’t quite say The Shadow was before it’s time. It’s a pitch perfect homage/recreation of the classic pulp stories told in the 30s and 40s. What I can say is that this movie is much more in line with current movies that embrace and project ridiculousness onto the screen earnestly. Movies like Sin City, Crank: High Voltage, and The A-Team all have absurd, over the top plots and action without the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and cynicism that permeated throughout the 90s. Because of its similarity to current movies, The Shadow is perfect to revisit with a fresh mindset.
Alec Baldwin stars as the titular Shadow (civilian name Lamont Cranston [how awesome is that?]). He’s a suave playboy who has harnessed the ability to “cloud people’s minds.” Throughout the movie there is an awesomely cheesy special effect of a shadow coming across Baldwin’s face when he wants to control and persuade someone’s mind. It’s not Bladwin’s best role, but you can sense and experience the fun he’s having playing Cranston vicariously.
The plot is threadbare. It involves one of Genghis Khan’s ancestors (who strangely also has the same power set as Baldwin) holding New York City hostage with an atomic bomb. It’s always jarring when the villain is the weak point of a movie and that’s the case in The Shadow. Both the actor and character aren’t a suitable match for Baldwin’s Lamont Cranston.
But the story should be the least of your concerns when watching The Shadow. The best part of the movie is inhabiting the pulpy world of 1930′s New York City. The cars, the buildings, the clothes, the characters, and most importantly, the dialogue. The script has perfected the sort of pulpy dialogue that leaves no room for subtext. There’s also Tim Curry who plays a deliciously evil scientist and is one of the highlights of the movie.
The Shadow is the type of movie that was misunderstood at the time of its release and demands a second chance. (It’s on Netflix Watch Instantly right now. Check it out!)
We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
The Mission: Impossible series is quite interesting. Each movie in the franchise has certain things and themes in common: Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt, exotic locales, double crossing, exciting action. On the other hand, each movie has the mark of its director. The first movie is clearly a Brian De Palma movie, the second John Woo, the third JJ Abrams.
It’s interesting to look back on this movie knowing that the franchise really is about letting directors put their own style and flair onto the franchise. Things would have played out differently if Brian De Palma had directed the sequel. As it stands, each movie is its own entity. There’s hardly any reference from recurring characters to past events.
Back in 1996 I don’t know if people were ready for a Brian De Palma Mission: Impossible movie. The movie was often cited as being confusing and not representative of the Mission: Impossible franchise. However, knowing what we know now, it’s easy to look back on the movie and appreciate it’s quality.
The movie might be confusing on first pass, but if you go back and watch it again, the plot is fairly straight forward. It’s one of those movies that does get better with repeated viewings. Because you’re aware of the plot twists, it’s easier to let go of that mentality that you have to figure out the movie. You can then appreciate it on a different level.
The tone of the movie is also noteworthy. Rather than some big dumb action movie (watch the second one if that’s what you’re after), the first Mission: Impossible movie is an ode to thrillers from the 50s and 60s. The action isn’t too fantastical; it’s always tense and nerve wracking. Each action set piece has an underlying, thrilling edge to it. Whether it’s Jean Reno barely able to hold onto Tom Cruise in the CIA building or the helicopter chase through the train tunnel. Compared to the other movies, it’s downright tame. Nevertheless, the action is very successful in this movie.
Another reason to enjoy this movie is that after three total, it’s clear that one recurring theme is that Ethan Hunt has a different team in each movie. The death of his team in the beginning was shocking at the time. But now, it’s easy to see they were just a team, not the team.
All-in-all, Mission: Impossible is a pretty good movie. It get replayed on cable all the time, so I tend to think people may have already been clued in to it’s success as a movie. But if you haven’t, give it a second chance.
We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie’s history. This is Second Chance Cinema. We re-examine the most infamous films to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.
I know a lot of people who love comic book movies. Curiously, of those people I know, very few actually read comics. This may or may not lead to some comic book movies being unfortunately passed by or panned.
I’m not here to make any claims as to why or why not a person doesn’t read comics. What I will say is that Hulk (2003) is a super hero movie that emulates a comic book very well.
Part of Hulk’s legacy is that the movie holds the record for second biggest box office drop for a movie that premiered at number one. This is not a movie that the critics or audiences were fond of.
Since its release, Hulk has limped along as a footnote in Marvel’s cinema library. It was the first Marvel franchise to be rebooted. (Yes, there was a Punisher movie made in 1989 and then one made in 2004. The Incredible Hulk was the first Marvel movie referenced as a reboot.) Not to mention the above “record.”
So what makes Hulk worth of a second chance?
The visual palette and aesthetics are astonishingly good. This is especially true for the editing. In Hulk, every scene, every moment, every sequence looks as if it were lifted directly off a comic book page. Some sequences even feature an editing style that uses “panels.”
It seems to me that audiences in 2003 weren’t ready for such an extreme visual style. But as movies like Sin City and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World show, borrowing comics’ visual vocabulary can be immensely beneficial to a comic book movie’s success. Hulk was one of the first movies to bridge the gap between printed comic and film.
The most prevalent complaint about Hulk is that the movie is too slow. What most call slowness, I call emotional depth. Yes, the Hulk is a giant green monster who smashes things. That should be part of a Hulk movie. And it was apart of this Hulk movie. On the other hand, Dr. Bruce Banner is a character so afraid of his emotions that he is in a constant state of internal turmoil. That is what Hulk as a movie is about. Even the two most important side characters in the movie — Betty Ross and General Ross — reflect the two sides of Banner: emotional openness and repression.
Again, it was a timing issue that worked against Hulk. From movies like The Dark Knight to A History of Violence, we’ve seen that it is possible to have an emotionally complex comic book movie.
I often wonder if Hulk would have been better received if the filmmakers had known that Marvel was going to have a grand unification movie universe. Perhaps the film could have had a different plot that worked in concert with the other Marvel movies but still be a movie with a strong emotional core.
Hulk is not the best superhero movie. Not by a long shot. The film tends to rush past important plot points. The acting is a little wooden too. However, Hulk is a movie that got an unfair shake the first time around and deserves a second chance.
P.S. That Hulk-dog scene? That lasts like five minutes. Get over it. It’s not as bad as you remembered.