joem18b Blog

Under discussion:

What Dreams May Come  (1998)

Elf  (2003)

Knowing  (2009)

No sooner did I post my thoughts on the worst movie ever made, than Simon Mayo, Mark Kermode's sidekick, weighed in with Knowing as his "worst" candidate, on their 3/27 podcast. Kermode properly told Mayo the same thing that I wrote in my post: Dude, you've missed a lot of bad movies if Knowing is the worst you've ever seen. But then Kermode, who ought to know better, turned around and suggested What Dreams May Come as a reasonable "worst" candidate of his own. Proving that no one is immune to worstitis, the irresistable urge to go the limit when describing a movie that you (you) didn't like.

It's never just once with these worst-enders. I know because I've checked. Can it be that each time they name a new "worst," it's truly worse than the last worst one that they named? Do they announce their worst car when they buy it? Their worst house? Their worst wife? Their worst newborn?

Tell me that the movies aren't just getting worster and worster. Tell me that there is bestitis out there as well.

I googled "Greatest Movie Ever Made." 79,700 hits, including Citizen Kane, of course, and IMDB's Shawshank, and The Dark Knight from the fanboys. But also Conan the Barbarian, I Am Legend, Last Year at Marienbad, Shogun Assassin, and Elf.

I'm ignoring Peter Igluishvilli's choice of Lions for Lambs as his "worst," as he is only ten years old, just arrived from the woods east of Kutaisi on the Rioni river, and in his life has seen only one other movie, "The House Bunny" (his "greatest").

It seems that "best" and "worst" appraisals are skewed toward the young, not the old, where the judgement would be based upon a greater number of movies seen. Suppose, for example, that a 110-year-old individual has been watching 100 movies/year since the age of 10. Now suppose that I ask him or her to name the "best" movie out of those 10,000 movies that he or she has seen, and suppose that he or she responds, "Elf." That would indicate some advanced degree of dementia in the cinematic portion of his or her brainpan.

"Greatest Movie I've Ever Seen" 2,370. Shattered, Hancock, Revolver, Valkyrie, Titanic.

"Best Movie I've Seen" 85,500 Hmm. Best in a while. Best this year. Best of its kind. Best is more provisional than worst, it seems.

"Best Movie Ever Made" 110,000. Well, well. "The Best Movie Ever Made" (1997). Directed by Steve Bencich. Otherwise, Easy Rider, Commando ("This is the best movie ever made, it should have won 1 million Oscars." Nice), Showgirls, Crash.

There seem to be more worsts than bests. Easier to make a bad movie than a good one? "Greatest" picks are less great than "Worst" picks are worse. That is, "greatest" picks are more often bad than "worst" picks are good. What does this mean? That movies are generally worse than we imagine, but, hey, not that bad? Or is it that the motivations behind choosing best and worst are entirely different? Worst springs from disappointment and hurt and a cynical abandonment of hope, a cry for help, abuse from the abused, denial of death, turning away from the void, a disgust at wasting 10 bucks or so, plus parking, coke, and popcorn. Best is warmed cockles or weepy moments or laughter (forgetting) or relief that it wasn't you, or whatever it is that makes art art.

Since there's a thin line between love and hate, it's no suprise that there are movies listed as both the best and worst ever made. Showgirls, Crash, Hancock, and Citizen Kane all qualify. The U.S. elected George Bush, twice, and then Barak Obama, so why can't Hancock and Kane be brothers?

I called a guy who listed Zombie Breakfast as his worst. I thought Breakfast wasn't bad. Bad? he said. It was terrible! Undoubtedly the worst movie ever made! I asked him if he'd seen the sequel, Zombie Brunch, a real stinker. Seen it? he said. Yeah, I saw it. It was ten times as bad as Zombie Breakfast. The worst!

Under discussion:

Homo Erectus  (2007)

aka National Lampoon's Stoned Age. NL has produced a closetful of clunkers over the years, but Adam Rifkin gets this genre film right, the genre being Movies To Watch While You're Drunk. I was and it was.

 It's all here:

David Carradine as MooKoo, proving once again that he will do literally anything for a paycheck. He's especially good in the scenes where he's carrying his head under his arm.

Talia Shire as his wife, mother of the clan, who will do anything for a fur, even if it's off an australeamoustisimus.

Ron Jeremy as Oog, who doesn't show it, but at this point doesn't really have to anymore. Anybody who cares has memorized it by now.

Gary Busey as Krutz, who doesn't have to act crazy to be crazy.

Ali Larter as Fardart, showing off the best set of prehistoric choppers in film history, although Raquel Welch still beats her from the neck down.

Carol Alt as Queen Fallopia. "You turn me down?? Every Neanderthal between here and the volcano wants to get into this lizard-skin thong!"

Kansas Carradine as the pregnant cavewoman. David's daughter adds her oiled belly to several of the scenes wherein the women drop their pelts.

and Adam Rifkin, who gets hit in the head by large rocks twenty, no, twenty-two, no... I was too far gone to keep track.

The movie poses the question, If you paste large shaggy patches of fake pubic fur over the female actors' actual areas, is that still full-frontal, or what?