One year ago today, I started this kooky blog, and it has been quite a fun ride since. Thanks to anyone who's read my crap. As a means of celebration, the lovely and talented Kitten suggested a run-down of my favorite bad movies - ones I actually like. To thank her for both her response and her fabulous ushering, I will dole out ten choice nuggets of entertaining
cinema le pew over the next several posts. But first, some words about the art form itself.
My annual list of favorite movies always includes a "so bad it's good" designation to single out the year's best cinematic trainwreck, something particularly awful but nonetheless fascinating. (For instance, last year's winner was the screamingly terrible visual assault
"Son of the Mask", the most expensive-looking mega-flop sequel since "The Flintstones In Viva Rock Vegas.") There is a crucial difference between bad movies and movies that are merely mediocre. A bad movie is usually not planned very well, poorly executed or at least an ill-conceived bid for commercial success by someone very confused about what the public likes. A mediocre movie is the product of a competent crew and production values, doesn't aim higher than would be appropriate and always achieves what it sets out to do.
But that crucial difference is in how much harder mediocre movies are to sit through than bad ones. A bad movie can make you spit out your beer and gasp, "Did you
see that?" or "
What did she just say?" The lighting will make the actors cast shadows. The soundtrack music will start and stop abruptly, as if operated by a monkey with a tape recorder. Exposition will confuse, annoy, sometimes even amaze with its sheer stupidity. Special effects will cause laughter rather than wonder. Sets will tremble if an actor bumps the wall. Dialogue will have you marveling at the ways language can be perverted. With a mediocre movie, you get none of these mistakes, but none of the surprise or bewilderment a bad movie can engender. It just sits there like leftover beige wall paint - inoffensive, bland and useless.
This is why I think the
Medveds, and even on occasion the MST3K crew, tended to confuse "bad" and "unwatchable." How can Ed Wood's customary craziness be considered harder to sit through than, say,
"Bed of Roses"? In what way is the thoroughly ridiculous
"Glitter" a tougher slog than something as aggressively mediocre as
"Speed"? It's been argued that bad movie fans are condescending jerks who like to laugh at other people's failings, and as a bad movie fan, I will admit there's some truth in that. However, to me, a bad big-budget movie is far more offensive than a bad cheap one, because the low-budget folks probably lacked the resources and experience, and their films are as often labors of love as get-rich-quick schemes. Bad big-budget flicks have just wasted enough money to have wiped out AIDS in Africa. I don't care one bit for
"The Blair Witch Project",
"Nowhere" or
"Gummo" (well, that one has a good soundtrack), but they're all more creative than anything
Roland Emmerich has foisted upon the public.
For the films that follow, that condescension comes with a bit of genuine admiration. The insanity they dole out is as entertaining as anything you'd get in a "good" film, just not in the same way. Of course, it's stacked toward horror movies, because I've seen more horror movies than anything else, and there are a lot of bad ones. All but two were made on the cheap, since not too many bad big budget movies are worth saluting. So, in no particular order, here's the beginning of the ten best bad movies I can think of...
"Blood Feast"
(1963)The first gore movie in history was the product of director
Herschell Gordon Lewis, an advertising genius who was working out of the Wrigley Building and had previously churned out a number of "nudie cuties," plus David F. Friedman, the legendary carnie-turned-exploitation film producer. The pair decided that since mainstream Hollywood was starting to show more skin to compete with what independent movies were doing, they would stay a step ahead by delivering something no big studio would: extreme onscreen violence. Now, I respect Friedman, but consider myself a big fan of H.G. Lewis, not just because of the blood and guts. The guy's story is amazing. I interviewed the man for a college class. There's a picture of him on my desk at work. He's my MySpace friend. Lewis is also partially responsible for the no-joke
worst movie I have ever seen:
"Monster A-Go Go", which even Joel, Servo and Crow couldn't make pleasant. But aside from the historical significance and still-extreme carnage shared by a number of his highlights, his movies are very often plain-out nuts, and "Blood Feast" is a fine introduction to that madness. Look no further than the first exchange between the homicidal Ishtar-worshipping Egyptian caterer Fuad Ramses (hammy Mal Arnold with thick brows painted on) and Mrs. Freemont (the vacuous Lyn Bolton), who is trying to set up a dinner party for her idiot daughter. Fuad says, "Have you ever had... an Egyptian FEAST?!?" and gives her the evil eye as a loud soap opera organ portends calamity. The lady's response? An enthusiastic "Why, that would be
fine!" It's so inappropriate and abruptly edited, it gives you the instant giggles. Bolton, one of the most obviously amateur cast members, later reads lines off of a script clearly visible on a table. After Fuad's first murder, a newspaper headline screams "LEGS CUT OFF!" The music, composed and performed by Lewis, is a bizarre jumble of trombones, kettle drums and organs.
However, the match of dialogue and delivery provides the biggest laughs. It's hard to properly describe, but the actors are all stagey and wooden, like a high school play rehearsal. In group scenes, everyone has to shout their ridiculous lines because there's only one microphone, a budgetary limitation that inspired John Waters to later use it for its comedic effect. I always laugh at the melodramatic rantings of the botched murder victim ("Wild eyes! He had WILD EYES!"), the awkward romantic scenes (the lead couple, upon leaving a lecture on Egyptian sacrifice rituals: "To actually eat human flesh... Pete, how
could they?" "Oh, come on, honey, let's talk about something more pleasant. Like, for example, you and me?") and the cops' forehead-slapping repartee (the hero - played by the great Bill Kerwin, going here under his frequent and appropriate stage name "Thomas Wood" - says to his boss, upon discovering gory remains: "Frank, if I'm right, these are the leftovers from the preparation of the feast of Ishtar. That's a blood feast. They take all the young girls... and they cook 'em to satisfy their goddess." Frank's reply: "Oh, no."). But the most gut-busting moments occur after a girl gets her brain scooped out on a beach, in the histrionic reactions from her wailing masher boyfriend (he goes from "Now
prove you love me!" to "Waaahh! She wanted to lee-hee-heeeave!") and grieving mother ("I made her a dress, a white dress... and now she'll
NEVER WEAR it she'll never wear i-hi-hi-hit!"). Even today, most of the gore scenes in "Blood Feast" are pretty gross, especially the chunky gunk that sluices out of Astrid Olson's mouth after the famous tongue-ripping scene. The limbs are usually very fake, though, and some will object to the opaque paint-like quality of the blood, which became a staple in all of Lewis' subsequent, more ambitious gore epics.
Others have dissected its myriad charms much more
capably and
thoroughly than I could, so I suggest you check out what they have to say. Me, I chose "Blood Feast" for this list over
"The Wizard of Gore", the best Lewis gore movie (soon to appear as a
remake with Crispin Fucking Glover in the lead role of Montag), because at a mere 65 minutes, it's shorter and more compact, thus more conducive to repeat viewings. I have seen it many times, and it still entertains - which is all Lewis and Friedman set out to do. The infamous trailer, with intro by Kerwin himself: