IMDB Bottom 100: No.s 58 & 57 - Copper Mountain and A Fox's Tale

Number 58: Copper Mountain (1983)

Copper Mountain could be worth checking out just for its curiosity value as it features Jim Carrey in one of his earliest film roles. If his IMDB profile is correct he would have been just 20 years old while he was filming this. It would be another decade before he would really hit the big time with Ace Ventura, but it’s interesting to see that even back then he was doing the rubber face-goofy voice shtick that would become his trademark.

His co-star in this is Alan Thicke, a man who made a career as a supporting actor in 100 different films and TV shows over the years. But perhaps his career highlight was composing the theme tune to Different Strokes (and yes, his son is Robin Thicke).

So how’s the movie? Well, bad films don’t move to the beat of just one drum.

It’s not really even a film. It’s only 60 minutes for one thing. And it comes off as a 60 minute infomercial for the Copper Mountain ski resort in Colorado. Lots of shots of the mountains, bars, restaurant, spa. It looks very nice, just the skiing part that puts me off.

Carrey and Thicke are Bobby and Jackson, two guys heading to the resort for different reasons. Jackson wants to join a pro-ski team while Bobby just wants to meet women. They say they come from Grimsby, which is Ontario but I like to imagine they mean Grimsby in Lincolnshire. It makes their story about chasing buffalo more interesting.

Jackson gets a chance to earn his spot on a pro-team in an, erm, ski-off but Bobby’s attempts to woo the ladies don’t go so well. Apparently, women don’t like it when you make silly noises and faces at them. I’m learning so much.

The film then takes a break to show a music concert from Romping Ronnie Hawkins. We don’t get just one song though, oh no, we get five. With Rita Coolidge too. A one hour film (shorter if you exclude the credits) and it is dragging itself out. 

I have looked up Ronnie Hawkins as its not a name I'm familiar with and it would seem he was a big pioneer in the early days of Rock ‘n’ Roll but never enjoyed the same sort of commercial success as his contemporaries. Still, that is no excuse for dragging out this segment and it makes Copper Mountain look a bit Butlins.

Jackson gets his spot on the team, despite losing his race because the guy he lost to is an employee of the resort and wants him to have it. Aren’t the staff lovely? While this is going on, Bobby finds the confidence to be himself after speaking to Jean Claude Killy, a gold medal winning Olympic skier. But when he’s doing his impressions of famous people and zaney antics is that not him being himself? Someone who likes to entertain (debatable) others? Why does it seem like ‘being yourself’ often means ‘be bland and uninteresting’.

Still, he has to go on a crazy run down the slopes before he has any success, impressing the ladies with his awesome ski skills. This negates the advice he was just given as this was actually his first time skiing and he just got lucky but the women thought he was great, so he went along with it. So don’t be yourself then, always be something you’re not. Lie, lie and lie again.

Not much to say about Copper Mountain as a film but as an advert for Copper Mountain Ski Resort, it’s fantastic.

Number 57: A Fox’s Tale (2008)

The first animated film on the list. And from Hungary too, another country to cross off the list. Truly, bad films are a global experience.

It does have a decent cast for the English dub of the film with Bill Nighy, Sienna Miller and Miranda Richardson adding their voices to the film. I imagine this is where the films budget went as they sure as hell didn’t spend any of it on the animation as this is truly horrendous. I don’t expect Toy Story levels of detail but this level of 3D animation wouldn’t have been acceptable on an early 90’s pc game. Chopping and swirling about all over the place, characters who look less convincing than Wallace & Gromit (I don’t even know how you do that) moving in bizarre ways.

Do not watch this film in one sitting. You will be ill.

From my background research (yes, I do research on these), A Fox’s Tale is an intended sequel to 1981 film The Little Fox, which is considered a highpoint for Hungarian animated films. I won’t argue that but if true, what a way to shit all over its legacy with this turd.

The story is something about animals being taken from the forest and made to perform in a circus. Led by Jack the fox they plan their escape, though the circus is right next to the forest and there aren’t any fences so it’s not exactly The Great Escape. There’s also a subplot about a young female acrobat and a supposedly disabled boy in a wheelchair. I say supposedly as he’s able to walk at the end and we're supposed to be amazed at this but even before that he moves his legs to trip up a goon. I say he’s just lazy.

Don’t worry if you miss anything though, as a crow turns up every few minutes to rap at you everything that’s just happened. I think it’s meant to make this film seem cool and hip but it reminds me of old CBBC series Maid Marion, which would have musical breaks every so while to recap the story of each episode. And that was never cool nor hip but still better than A Fox’s Tale.

They all escape and its happy endings all round. I think. It’s hard to concentrate with animation that juts about all over the place.

It’s always tempting to go easier on a film if it’s targeted at children but in this case, I don’t think so. If anything we need to be harder as children need to learn an important lesson: Half-arsing it like this is absolutely not acceptable.

It’s times like these I wonder what I am doing, watching a badly animated, Hungarian children’s cartoon and getting worked up about it. But I'm committed to it now, so I plow on...

IMDB Bottom 100: No.s 60 & 59 - Boggy Creek II and Soultaker

Number 60: Boggy Creek II: The Legend Continues (1985)

Aah, it feels good to be back on familiar ground with good old reliable, b-movie horror.

From looking on IMDB, this appears to be the third Boggy Creek movie. So we’re off to a good start already.

I haven’t seen the other films but I’m sure I’m not missing much.

A university professor, Dr Lockhart takes three students on a trip into the Arkansas woods in a search for a yeti creature. Tim is a bit of a dogsbody for the professor lugging stuff around but the two girls, Leslie and Tanya, contribute nothing. They have no useful skills. The film is quite honest that they only exist for the purpose of eye candy.

While setting up the equipment to track any large beasts in the area, Lockhart regales the students with stories about the beast they are looking for. It’s a dull life the beast has led, just walking around not really doing much. The kids aren’t that interested, apart from teacher’s pet Tim. The two girls don’t much like roughing it in their tents and wish they could go to a hotel instead. Why did they volunteer to go?

Not much happens until towards the end. I think the director Charles B.Pierce (who also plays Professor Lockhart) is trying to build tension but you need events to build suspense around. It picks up a little when there is a storm and they have to take refuge in Old Man Crenshaw’s farm.

Whenever you hear someone with a Southern accent in an American movie, generally they either want to hump you or eat you. Crenshaw looks like he could do both at the same time. But Crenshaw has put them all in danger as he’s taken the yeti’s offspring. Crenshaw is obviously quite scared of the beast so why he kidnapped its young is a mystery. What I do know is, it looks a lot like a small monkey.

The yeti comes a looking for its sprog and Lockhart just gives it back to him. And that’s it, the creature walks away. What an anti-climax.

Oh, and Lockhart narrates throughout the story. You could argue this is necessary to tell the backstory of the creature (which doesn’t have a name by the way) but this is already been told in flashbacks. Narration over flashbacks, what kind of hell is this?

Nothing else to say. Rubbish horror film with no pay off.

Number 59: Soultaker (1990)

More B-movie horror. Delightful.

Squint your eyes a bit and you can pretend we have a big name star in this. The titular Soultaker is played by Joe Estevez, the brother of Martin Sheen, uncle of Charlie and Emilio Estevez. Trivia fact, Joe stood in for Martin Sheen on days he was unwell filming Apocalypse Now. Sometimes I like to remind myself that good films exist, it makes the bad ones more tolerable.

A group of teenagers are in a horrific car crash but only two of them are important, Zach and Natalie. Their souls have been disconnected from their bodies and they need to find a way to get their souls back in them. They are being kept alive on life support but they are given a convenient deadline of midnight when they will be turned off. That seems quite a quick turnaround, not even kept in for one nights’ observation before being turned off.

Charlie Estevez is the Soultaker out to stop them. Something went wrong and they should have died in the crash but didn’t, I don’t know why. He’s got a boss who tells him he needs to catch them, while obeying the ‘rules’ (no idea), or their souls escape forever. All something to do with restoring balance. It’s all a bit silly but to be fair it is quite fun.

Emilio Sheen appears to take a personal interest in Natalie, not wanting to take her soul but wants her to join him instead. We learn the reason for this later on, when Zach finds one of his dead friends from the crash has now become a soultaker himself. It would seem Martin Estevez was once a regular guy and Natalie reminds him of his former wife.

Joe Sheen doesn’t catch them in time and they make it back into their bodies. Apparently this means they can’t ever take their souls now, so I guess Zach and Natalie are immortal now? The soultaker gets packed off into the underworld forever.

Having escaped death, Zach and Natalie awake from their real life comas and are up and moving around. Here’s the thing, they were in a horrific car crash, the car was crumpled up like an accordion. Escaping a crash like that alive would be considered highly fortunate, to have no injuries would be a miracle. They aren’t even bruised.

Overall, it’s an ok film if a little bland and the ending just leaves it with no credibility.

(these are from IMDB Bottom 100 movies list as it was on 31st August 2015)

IMDB Bottom 100: No.s 62 & 61 - Ben & Arthur and I Accuse My Parents

Number 62: Ben & Arthur (2002)

Hmm, someone’s bound to get offended here but I’ll try my best. A little sensitivity is required here due to the subject matter but it’s handled so poorly that will not be an easy task.

Firstly, a word on quality. There is none. It’s basically a cheap film made with editing techniques you could find on Windows Moviemaker. But it’s not all about lighting and special effects. Sometimes you’ve got to work with what you have and just because you’re shooting on a hand held camera, if the story is good you can still make a good film.

They don’t. But after a while you start to enjoy the odd framing, bad acting, awkward dialogue and strange angles. It's delightfully shite.

Gay couple Ben and Arthur want to get married but it’s not legal in California. Their original plan was to go to Hawaii to get married but that’s scuppered when Gay Marriage bill in Hawaii gets held up. There’s another problem in that Ben is already married to a woman meaning they couldn’t have married in Hawaii anyway. Homosexual or not, bigamy is still a crime people. Ben’s wife doesn’t take kindly to Ben’s homosexuality and plans to shoot him. Ben wrests control of the gun away from her (this becomes important), she leaves and we never see her again. Nice meeting you! 

Though it’s never said on screen presumably their divorce goes through so Ben and Arthur marry in Vermont which looks a lot like California, gay marriage is legal and apparently you don’t need witnesses.Though it wouldn't surprise me if Ben were still married, the film talks about legal rights and laws but doesn't really understand any of them.

A quick word on Ben and Arthur. Theirs is actually quite an abusive relationship, Ben is an absolute dick to Arthur. Always shouting and belittling him. One time he straight-up knocks him out. What does he say when he comes to? ‘That’ll teach you for having stupid thoughts.’ Charming guy. There are times when you think Arthur might be realising he’s made a mistake but since it is never really expanded on, I’m probably giving the makers too much credit.

Arthur’s unhinged brother Victor opposes their union on religious grounds. He’s a zealot and we know this as the first scene he’s in he is wearing a white robe and carrying a copy of the Bible with him.

Victor believes homosexuality to be an illness they can be cured of. Ben and Arthur don’t take kindly to this and tell him where to go. Victor retorts to this by threatening to pray for them. He actually uses prayer as a threat. That’ll teach them the errors of their sinful ways.

Victor tries to cure them with more traditional threats and even a magic potion of holy water that will wash the gay disease away. This was made in 2002, are there really still Christian people who believe this nonsense? I guess so.

Disaster strikes for Victor when he is kicked out of his church because Arthur is gay. I’ve looked this up, now though Victor’s specific denomination is not given, I can’t find any examples of a church ex-communicating other family members because one of them is gay. The priest gives him a way back in though and all he has to do is hire a hitman to kill Ben and Arthur. The church really is tough on homosexuality.

The guy must have had a change of heart though as just smears lipstick over Ben instead (yeah, it’s supposed to be blood). He survives but a detective comes round to ask Victor some questions and then speaks to the priest and we never see him again. Nice meeting you!

This all sends Arthur a little over the edge and after learning of the priest’s involvement, he kills him by setting him on fire in the campest way possible. That’s how you win the moral argument! There’s been nothing to suggest Arthur of being capable of murder beforehand but then again, you might argue this is some of Victor’s own madness leaking through into Arthur. So on this occasion, maybe I’m not giving the makers enough credit.

This brings us to the finale. Victor goes to their apartment and shoots Ben dead. This is where the editor discovered the blur effect and dammit he is going to use it as Arthur cradles Ben’s dead body for two minutes. Victor then makes Arthur renounce his sinful ways at gun point, strips him naked and baptises him. But he’s only using bath water and he’s not an ordained minister so I’m pretty sure it doesn’t count.

Victor then goes out for a breather because movie, allowing Arthur to get the gun Ben’s ex-wife brought earlier (I told you it would be important). After implying that Victor is just repressing his own sexuality, the two brothers shoot each other dead. Nobody wins but the audience loses.

There are two sensitive issues in place here: homosexuality and religious faith. It requires subtlety and this is as subtle as a brick to the face. The two may never be openly compatible but I feel like what this film really needed was a third voice to say they don’t need to be openly hostile. It just feels like the message coming out from this is: this is pretty shitty, it's going to stay shitty, so what you gonna do?

I don’t have the answers but that’s my opinion. Can’t we all just get along?

The film sucks.

Number 61: I Accuse my Parents (1944)

Coming to us all the way from the forties, I Accuse My Parents is the oldest film on this whole list. A dubious honour but it is always interesting to see how times and styles have changed. But bad movies are timeless.

So, what we have here is a young man on trial in court and when asked what he has to say for himself, he replies ‘I accuse my parents!’ And thus we have our title. And what shocking things did these so-called parents do to this young man, well let’s take a look:

Our young man Jimmy (because everyone was called Jimmy in the forties) has won an essay contest describing the perfect American family. It’s an antiquated idea of the family with father out working while mother stays at home to cook, clean and bring up baby but that’s by-the-by. But it’s all a sham for father is a workaholic-gambler and mother is an alcoholic who don’t give Jimmy the attention he feels he deserves. His mother embarrasses Jimmy by turning up drunk to a function at his school.

Jimmy gets a job at a shoe shop and meets attractive young lady Kitty, a lounge singer. The bar she sings at is owned by shady criminal Blake (I blame the parents). Jimmy starts doing the odd jobs for Blake to earn some money (parents fault). Kitty tries to warn him off but Jimmy’s having none of it (those parents again). Unfortunately for Jimmy, Blake has the hots for Kitty too and doesn’t take kindly to him moving in on his woman.

Blake sets Jimmy up for a robbery and then tries to have Jimmy killed but he escapes and leaves towns (damn those parents). He meets a creepy guy who owns a diner, who persuades him to return and give himself in.

He confronts Blake first and accidentally kills him which brings us full circle (and its all those pesky parents, is there no depth to which they won't sink?). And as I’m sure you can see, this is all the parents fault. Jimmy gives a whiney monologue about how they didn’t give him the love he needed and that’s why he became a criminal.

Ridiculously, the judge agrees with this. Jimmy still has to serve time for his crimes but the judge is in no doubt it’s all the parents fault.

Mum and Dad aren’t ever going to win parents of the year but the idea they are responsible for Jimmy falling into crime is ridiculous. Take some responsibility for your own actions, Jimmy. Your parents didn't force you to work for a mob boss.

At least there isn’t a narrator, and many films of the time would have had one so at least we can be thankful for that.

I think the story must have been wrote by a group of overbearing teenagers: blame the parents; absolve the kids. I might have tolerated it if not for the infuriating ending where we're told we don't ever have to take personal responsibility, we can always blame someone else. Silly film with a silly message.

(these are from Imdb Bottom 100 movies list as it was on 31st August 2015)

IMDB Bottom 100: No.s 64 & 63 - Warrior of the Lost World and Leonard, part 6

Number 64: Warrior of the Lost World (1983)

How to summarise Warrior of the Lost World, well I suppose it’s a case of 1984 meets Mad Max meets Knightrider meets a Duran Duran music video. And if that’s not a strange enough mix for you it’s got Donald Pleasance in it to.

Donald Pleasance was a fine actor (The Great Escape, Halloween) but he was in a lot of crud. Sadly (spoiler alert) he does come up again in the bottom 100. He’s in full Blofeld mode here as Prosser, the Big Brother of this new dystopia, replete with its own SS-style army. Actually, as far as post-Apocalyptic worlds go, this one is rather pleasant. It has green trees and everything.

The hero, known simply as The Rider (Robert Ginty), is recruited by The Elders to rescue a professor and lead the revolution against Pleasance. I’m not exactly sure who the Elders are but I think they are some sort of demi-Gods, Rider has to pass through a portal to reach their domain.

To aid him in his quest is Einstein, a computer on his motorcycle. Unlike KiT though in Knightrider though, Einstein is completely useless and even more annoying. He also has Nastasia as our love interest for the film but she gets captured freeing the Professor Mcwayne, who is her father, and that’s basically her out of the film until the end.

The Rider goes out into the wilds to recruit the savages for his revolution. He persuades them all to join him in a big fist-fight. It’s the only language these people understand.

Along the way, Rider picks up the MEGAWEAPON, an admittedly cool steel plated truck with spikes that shoots flames.

So, they get to the city and kill the guards. The sound gets a bit funny here, as they are clearly using sub-machine guns but the noise is like laser fire. Kind of. Actually, it's more like a rippling fart.

They free Nastasia who is under hypnosis and kill Prosser. Or do they? The ending sets up the possibility of a sequel. I love the optimism.

According to director David Worth, he was flown over to Italy to make this film without being given a script. He was given a poster and told, ‘make a movie out of that.’ So we should probably give him some credit for that, even if the poster did make promises it couldn’t deliver.

Number 63: Leonard, part 6 (1987)

So, it’s a Bill Cosby comedy. Lawyers on standby.

I’m stunned by this film. This is the 38^th film I’ve watched of the bottom 100 so far and it is by far and away the worst of the lot. Frighteningly, there are still 62 to go rated as worse than this. Let’s just go into. There is a lot to cover in why this is so bad, so let’s just get to it:

Bill Cosby, beloved entertainer (well, he was then) and star of the highly successful The Cosby Show, is Leonard Parker, a retired CIA agent. He is recruited back by the CIA for one last mission by Joe Don Baker who has become fatter, less charismatic and less likable then he was in Mitchell (see number 84).

The master villain in this is a vegetarian militant called Medusa, who plans to control all the animals to take over the world. Medusa is played by the late Gloria Foster, who will be best remembered for playing The Oracle in the first two Matrix movies. And she must have had a whale of a time making this as she has the best looking henchmen you will ever see all clad out in white spandex. At least someone was having fun.

Leonard is assisted by his British manservant Frayn, who also serves as narrator. Brilliant. I love narrators. Especially in comedy films. Because if there is one thing a comedy needs it’s a narrator to explain why it’s all so funny. He does at least explain why there is no part 1-5. Too dangerous apparently, so we should count our blessings.

CIA agents are being killed by animals such as squirrels, frogs and a trout. Yes, a trout. Just the one mind, not a school of them. The CIA recruit Leonard to steal a sphere Medusa is using to control the animal but he doesn’t want to do it and goes on a date with his estranged wife who he still loves instead. That doesn’t go well when he ends up with dinner all over him, so now he’s back in the game.

After a suiting up sequence, he goes off to get the sphere but not before stopping off to see a fortune teller who gives him a pair of ballet shoes. He uses the shoes to defeat Medusa’s ‘dancers’, weird hairy birdmen basically. Yeah, Bill Cosby beats them in a dance off.

He gets the sphere, brings it back to the CIA but then his wife is kidnapped. So he steals it back again to return to Medusa. This leads us to our climax and oh, is this special.

Leonard is double crossed and put in a cell with his wife. A horde of lobsters are sent in to kill them but Leonard frightens them off with some melted butter (that’s just the start of it) and they escape. They free all the animals and stop Medusa’s plan to destroy the world. Leonard fights off the henchmen by throwing meat at them. Did you know a vegetarians skin burns when it touches meat? It’s like sunlight to a vampire for them. Put a sausage in their mouth and their head will literally explode. The more you know.

With Medusa and her goons vanquished, Leonard destroys the chemical vats used to power the sphere by dropping Alka-Seltzer in them. He escapes the now increasingly filling warehouse by riding out the window riding the back of an ostrich. And once you’ve seen Bill Cosby riding on an ostrich, you can’t unsee it.

Leonard re-unites with his wife and they celebrate by pouring food all over him. 9 ½ Weeks it isn’t.

And if you think that’s all as stupid as it sounds, it is.

I suppose the lesson here is vegetarianism, not always a good thing. Can in rare cases lead to genocide (copyright Bill Bailey, although ironically Bill Cosby is now a vegetarian).

There, a review of a Bill Cosby movie and not a single reference to him being a sexual deviant. Oh damn.

IMDB Bottom 100: No's 66 & 65: Nine Lives and Brothers in Arms

Number 66: Nine Lives (2002)

Yeah, Paris Hilton. You know this is going to be a classy movie.

Hilton plays a rich, self-obsessed bimbo in this horror movie. She plays herself basically. She goes to a Scottish manor with a group of other equally obnoxious but British friends (there’s nine of them in total, hence the title). We get to see their boring conversations, with some awkward editing, all culminating in them saying their old latin school motto which they say means ‘To follow the exploits of our ancestors’ (it doesn’t, I checked). Whatever is going to kill them all can’t come soon enough.

It would seem there was an old 14^th century warrior called Murray who was former owner of the mansion and has now returned to reclaim his property after it had been seized by the English.

Now the problem you will immediately spot with this is that shots of the interior and exterior will tell you the house is nowhere near that old.

Luckily, we don’t have to put up with Miss Hilton for too long as she’s the first to be killed off around the 20 minute mark. Murray takes over the body of one of the group and starts to kill the group off. However, if the body Murray is currently in is killed he transfers to the body of his killer so he can carry on. To be fair, it’s a pretty decent plot device and a good twist on the unstoppable monster theme. So the survivors have to figure out a way to stop the ghost without killing it.

One of them does survive to the end, the Scottish one. He suggests it’s only because he’s Scottish he was spared and Murray just wanted to kill the English ones and Paris Hilton (well, why not?). There is no evidence to support this though other than the Scots undying hatred for the English. And Paris Hilton.

The film is probably guilty by association and the cast is pretty obnoxious and unlikable but I did like the idea they were put in a situation where they couldn’t kill the enemy without becoming the monster themselves. Apart from that, it’s pretty standard horror but none of the kills are particularly creative which is what these kind of movies really thrive on.

It’s ok. Better than most the Friday the 13^th movies anyway.

Number 65: Brothers in Arms (2005)

It’s different, that’s one thing you can say for Brothers in Arms. It is positively Tarantino-esque in its disregard for historical accuracy.

It’s set in the Old West and is centred round a gang planning a bank heist. They are most notable for being an almost all black gang (plus one Mexican and technically one of them is supposed to be half-native American), a rarity to see in a Western. You’d think race would play more into it but apart from one use of the n-word at the start, it doesn’t ever come up again. This is a far more multi-cultural community than you would expect in a western.

The gang itself is introduced in a Guy Ritchie style of cuts, explaining their skills and a bit about their backgrounds. So for example, there is Slim played by Jean Claude LaMarre (who is also writer and director) who is the smooth operator of the group able to talk his way out of any situation. The most notable member of the group for film and TV buffs is the Reverend, played by Raymond Cruz better known for his role as Tuco in Breaking Bad.

The clothing the gang wear can’t go unmentioned, the gang all clad out in frilly black leather and denim jeans. Mara, the only female member of the group, appears to be wearing Jennifer Garner’s Elektra outfit from Daredevil. This is very distracting and breaks all suspension of disbelief. The only person dressed appropriately to the period is the Reverend, which just makes it harder to swallow. Tarantino plays fast and loose with history but at least you can buy his characters as being from that period, the same cannot be said here.

So, to the story. As mentioned earlier, the gang are planning to rob a bank in a cliché cardboard cut-out Old West town. It always bothers me when I see those towns: you have the saloon, a few stores 

but where are the houses? Where do all these people live?

The town is controlled by Mr Driscoll, played by David Carradine (yeah, sorry, another Tarantino connection). He is essentially a Mr Potter character who owns everything in town. Unfortunately, there was no George Bailey in this town to stop him and it’s now been renamed Driscollville.

The gang’s plans get messed up when they kill Driscoll’s son and he hires a gang of bounty hunters to kill them. They hide out in the hills for a sequence that goes on far too long before returning to rob the bank. I appreciate the director is trying to flesh out their characters but it could have been done in half the time this takes.

They go to rob the bank but get trapped inside with hostages. This is where the movie just stops dead. We know they aren’t getting out of this so now we’re just killing time until the climax.

A female sheriff comes to try and get them to come out. We learn she had a prior relationship with Linc, the leader of the gang. Until that point, gender aside, she came across like every world weary sheriff that exists in every western. She abandons her duties and tries to help them escape but is gunned down by Driscoll for her efforts.

The gangs’ numbers slowly get whittled down until it’s just Linc and his brother Kansas (played by rapper Kurrupt which explains the hip hop soundtrack). Linc makes the ultimate sacrifice so his brother can escape through a back window (why they didn’t do that earlier?). With his last bit of strength, Linc shoots Driscoll between the eyes. This would have been more dramatic if they had any interaction beforehand but they never spoke a word to each other in the whole film. It’s a shame really, as for the few minutes Carradine was on screen he was hugely entertaining. As if he knew this was a stupid movie and he was just having fun with it.

I suppose as a Western based around a black character that pays no heed to historical accuracy, I’m going to have to mention Django Unchained. Now Brothers in Arms came out several years before Django so it’s not a knock-off but how does it compare? Not very well you’ll be shocked to hear. As noted before, Quentin Tarantino plays fast and loose with history but you can buy into his characters and the stories are very enjoyable. You just can’t say the same here: the story is nothing special, the characters look out of time and they just aren’t all that interesting anyway.

Apart from Tuco, he’s always badass.

IMDB Bottom 100: No.s 68 & 67 - Hobgoblins and Time Chasers

Number 68: Hobgoblins (1988)

As noted in my review of Devouring Waves/Devilfish, a popular successful movie is certain to launch its own wave of imitators. In this case, it’s Gremlins.

We all know Gremlins is a bit goofy and probably tries to be a bit too clever for its own good but it was good fun. Hobgoblins is very bland in comparison.

The hobgoblins of the title are little gremlinesque creatures kept inside a vault in a Hollywood backlot that an eight year old could break into. The goblins are like yoda toys but with white fur stuck on.

Their unique gift however is they will fulfil your fantasies before they kill you. For one guy it’s to perform on stage, for another guy it’s to be a real life Rambo. For one girl, it’s to become a big slut.

After the hobgoblins escape their vault they kill exactly…zero people. Yes, they really are the most terrifying creatures in cinema history. Even a guy who is burned alive turns up at the end with only minor injuries.

I might as well explain what happens: a young guy called Kevin is working as a security guard at the Hollywood backlot and accidentally lets the creatures loose. He goes out looking for them and out of all the thousands of people in town, the hobgoblins are interested in a group of teens that happens to include Kevin’s girlfriend, Amy. Who is well out of order towards Kevin by the way, getting the hump with him because he unsurprisingly lost a friendly stick fight with rakes to a guy on leave from the army.

The goblins cause mayhem, nearly kill some of the group but don’t and are chased back into their vault. Then an old guy who had been guarding them for 30 years blows them up to end their menace. He could have done that 30 years ago. Just saying.

And the film stops dead half way through when they visit a punk nightclub and there is a whole song played by a band. The whole song. I might have to check this but I don’t think the camera changes in the whole thing, just one long shot of the band playing. There was no need for it.

That’s really all there is to it. The humour is weak, the story is stupid and the goblins look rubbish.

It’s a cheap Gremlins rip off, lacking any of its charm or humour.

Number 67: Time Chasers (1994)

Time travel is always a tricky issue in movies, chiefly because writers have little concept of causality.

The classic example of the problems with time travel is the grandfather paradox, as described by science fiction writer Nathaniel Schachner. Suppose time travel is possible, imagine you end up going back in time and killing your grandfather (let’s not worry about the whys of this) before your father was born. This is impossible as you would not exist, so you could not kill your grandfather. Therefore, you must exist and time is caught in an endless loop.

I do love a good paradox.

Time Chasers takes the slightly easier option of having our protagonists travelling forward in time.

The film was released in 1994 but looks like it was made in 1982. Everything about it looks cheap.

The star of our film is Matthew Bruch as Nick, and he does not look like a movie hero icon. He has a stupid mullet, big thick-rimmed glasses and an enormous chin. But you know what, well done to director David Giancola for challenging our preconceptions of what a film star should look like. That’s the story I’m going with rather than the more probable reason that he just picked him up from a local community theatre group.

So Nick turns his plane into a time machine, no explanation of how it works but that’s fine as it probably wouldn’t make sense anyway. Let’s just say it has a flux capacitor. He demonstrates to his friend by flying 50 years into the future, where it’s a lot as it is now but people smile more. They plan to sell it to a corporation, for the advancement of mankind. But shock, horror it turns out they are an evil corporation. Nick discovers this when he takes his journalist girlfriend on a date and they end up at the same time in the future as before, only now it’s all decayed into ruins.

Nick then has to go back in time to stop himself from signing over his time machine to the Big Bad Corporation. Nick meets himself and despite Doc Brown’s warnings in Back to the Future 2, this neither renders him unconscious or results in the collapse of the entire universe.  There is a chase through time against the CEO of Big Bad that goes back to the American War of Independence.

Future Nick slays the beastly CEO and past Nick resolves not to sell his technology.

Oh, the paradox alarm is ringing. If Nick doesn’t sell his time machine to the BBC, he couldn’t have known they were evil so he couldn’t have gone back in time to stop himself from selling them his time machine. So in order to stop himself from selling his time machine, he has to allow himself to sell his time machine.

Despite that little mindboggler, maybe I’ve been watching too many bad movies in the last couple weeks but Time Chasers doesn’t seem that bad to me. But I can’t help feeling that it should. Everything is wrong but somehow so right.

IMDB Bottom 100: No.s 70 & 69: Epic Movie and Alone in the Dark

Number 70: Epic Movie (2007)

Two of the biggest criminals of modern cinema are Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.

Don’t know who they are? Well they are the ‘great’ minds that brought us Date Movie, Meet The Spartans and this, Epic Movie. Spoiler alert, but this isn’t their last appearance on this list. And yet somehow they are still making movies.

I genuinely hate these movies. When I first pulled up the list of the IMDB Bottom 100, it was Freidburg and Seltzer’s movies I was least looking forward to. The jokes are never funny and they are so lazy. Just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s funny.

Pirates of the Caribbean that was something that happened wasn’t it. And Harry Potter was popular wasn’t it. Wasn’t there a Chronicles of Narnia film that done quite well. And Cribs, kids like that don’t they?

If you want to know the story, it’s Chronicles of Narnia with pop culture references. Just watch Narnia instead, I’m not a big fan of that either but it’s better than this. I don’t even want to write about this movie anymore as each word feels like a small victory for the dumbass duo but I’m obliged to.

I’m sure you know the formula for these films by now, so I won’t waste much more time on it.

Take popular films and tv shows, stick them in a blender and see what we get. Hmm, something entirely inedible and unsatisfying.

But somehow you can make a career out of it.

Number 69: Alone in the Dark (2005)

Take one video game franchise, add one of the most notorious hack directors of recent years and what you get is Alone in the Dark.

Before addressing video game movies, let’s discuss director Uwe Boll. He is a terrible director and is in the industry for all the wrong reasons. He’s not in it to advance the medium, he’s out to make a quick buck. That’s why he makes so many video game movies as he sees gamers as an easy mark. It doesn’t even matter that his films flop badly, he still makes the money back in taxes. He lives the real life of The Producers. He’s a terrible director who makes awful movies. And all the boxing matches in the world won’t change that, Uwe (in 2005, Uwe Boll challenged all the critics of his films to boxing matches because that wins you the argument).

Video game movies don’t have a great track record to begin with and Uwe Boll has done more than anyone to cement their legacy of shit. By Boll’s own admission he doesn’t play video games, so he doesn’t care if it’s faithful to its source material. As long as it has the game’s name in the title, that’s good enough for Boll. Alone in the Dark is a perfect example of this.

Alone in the Dark is a cultish video game made in 1992. It’s not particularly obscure but it’s not widely known either. It’s credited as being the first 3d Survival horror game, way ahead of Resident Evil. And the series is very, slow paced. This is something Boll can’t get his head around and has gunfights and chase sequences going on every 5 minutes.

Let’s look at the title of the film, Alone in the Dark. You know why the developers of the game chose that title? Because it encapsulates the fear and isolation the character (and by extension, the player) are feeling in the game. In the movie lead character Edward Carnby, played by Christian Slater (oh Christian, the 00’s were not kind to you), is never at any point isolated. At no point does he ever need to be afraid.

It goes without saying, the cobbled together story makes no sense. There’s secret experiments on orphans being done which involves centipedes being shoved down their throats, people turn into vampires for a bit, there’s an invasion of xenomorphs and an invisible deity killing people. None of this has anything to do with events in the games.

The annoying thing is, in the hands of a competent director, Alone in the Dark could have been a half-decent horror flick. Someone who understands tension can be as good if not better than an explosion.

But they gave it to Uwe Boll, and sadly we’re not done with him on this list yet.