(Much) Better Versions of Terrible Films

I'm not going mention remakes, etc. because I think that it's been established at this point that only in very rare circumstances is the re-make better than the original (i.e. the new 'True Grit' compared to the old 'True Grit' is a good example), as well as I wanted to draw parallels for films whose connections/similarities, and thus contrasts in quality, might not be as obvious.

Secretary (2002); a FAR better version of 50 Shades of Grey (2015)

I deliberately chose pretty SFW pictures for both these films but I have to warn anyone who dares watch either at them, they're pretty scandalous in their own respective ways, and more ways than one. Now 50 Shades of Grey is a film I've tried to be an apologist for in some ways as I do think Sam Taylor-Johnson's direction is not without its share of good points, and Dakota Johnson I actually think is pretty good in showing the natural progression of her Anastasia Steele, and her reactions to the ludicrous circumstances around her 'contract' with Jamie Dornan's Christian Grey. Otherwise however, I have to decry the film as almost completely terrible. Jamie Dornan gives a dreadfully stiff performance as Grey (I want to see The Fall soon because apparently he's extremely good in that, and so I can confirm that this was but a little blip in his career), but a lot of the fault has to go to the script which seems almost wilfully cheesy and repetitive in the worst possible way. 

This Cinemasins video is a pretty good summary of all the bad qualities of the film so I won't get into more detail, also very subjective but I find it poor in taste in general. 

And no it's not because I'm a prude or can't bear any sort of sexual/explicit detail in my cinematic viewings. Secretary, James Spader and Maggie Gyllenhaal, is a far better examination of the potentially interesting territory of sexual sadomasochism. Now I have to warn prospective viewers it's nowhere near as 'sensual' in its intent as Fifty Shades of Grey is, and you may not find Gyllenhaal + Spader as appealing a couple as Johnson + Dornan. Although in my very subjective opinion, Gyllenhaal is a fine actress who is very attractive in her own way, the genes in that family are good, and though Spader was already fairly well into middle age at this point he still carries so much of the charm and smouldering virility that powered his performances as the bad boy of the 80's Brat Pack, and his amazing, amazing performance as one very strange voyeur in sex, lies and videotape (which is another much better film than Fifty Shades of Grey about sexual fetishes). 

Yeah this was Ultron at a young age, people, before he became a great character actor he was
....still a great character actor and occasional leading man. Seriously how underrated is Mr Spader?

Also, Ultron and Tony Stark in the 80's (this is next on my 'to-see' list)

It may not have been as popular among audiences for whatever reason, but it's a finely made film about a kooky attorney (Spader) who takes a young, sensitive and emotionally awkward girl (Gyllenhaal) under his wing as an overqualified secretary. The way their relationship blossoms through the world of BDSM, depicted in surreal and sometimes uncomfortable, but always visually interesting imagery, is still very questionable, but unlike Fifty Shades of Grey does not attempt to glorify it. Instead, it depicts both the romanticized aspects and darker shades of such a relationship in an objective view and lets the viewer decide for him or herself, what they think of its conclusion. 

The Fifth Element (1997); a FAR better version of Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Okay I think I've talked enough trash about Jupiter Ascending on here, but if you really want a recap of my vitriol for this film then here we go: http://actorvsactor.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/top-10-worst-filmsperformances-of-2015.html. I probably don't hate it nearly as much as Fifty Shades of Grey since even though it's the more poorly directed film overall, it has a certain entertainment value to its badness I still can't figure out whether is intentional or not in some regards (hello Eddie Redmayne).

However, I will not call it a The Room or Plan 9 From Outer Space level sort of masterpiece in its badness since there's a lot of poor qualities to it that aren't fun to watch at all, like some of the very strange special effects, the disorientating action sequences that waste a huge budget that could've been used to brush up a confusing and incoherent script, and Mila Kunis somehow managing to come across as both out of her element and fittingly bad with the rest of her film (how Dakota Johnson won the Razzie over her I cannot comprehend, conceive, or bear the thought of).

Jupiter Ascending is thus just mostly just downright painful and frustrating to watch in many regards, not least in that 3 years ago, The Wachowskis directed Cloud Atlas and the Neo Seoul segment, which follows many of the same storyline beats Cloud Atlas does, only done in a far more exciting, emotional, insightful and just all-round more effective manner. IT'S SO WEIRD. Why didn't they just get Doona Bae and Jim Sturgess (who had great chemistry together) and make a small variation on that storyline to turn it into a feature-length film? What happened in the three-year span in between? Hopefully this is just a little stain on the records of The Wachowskis as I've pretty much liked everything they've directed, yes The Matrix sequels are not without merits, especially compared to Jupiter Ascending.

In terms of feature-length films that are far better versions of Jupiter Ascending however, look no further than the Luc Besson's The Fifth Element. Besson is a director I find who, for better or worse, always finds a distinct vision for his films. They sometimes might come across as overly stylized and not work that effectively (The Big Blue, The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, and apparently some of his more recent efforts). When he's on form however, like in Leon: The Professional or La Femme Nikita, he's marvellous, and The Fifth Element is a great example of him at the height of his powers.

I'll be the first to admit that the film is a bit messy and could've benefited from a bit of cutting here and there of extraneous characters (I have a soft spot for Chris Tucker's bit part as an extravagant talk show host from outer space but is he really necessary to the plot?), but overall it's quite a blast. I enjoyed watching this tale of Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis), an ex-special forces Major and current cabbie who finds the fate of planet Earth in his hands when an alien with the key to stopping EVIL FORCES falls onto his cab. Sounds kind of like the plot of Jupiter Ascending doesn't it? Well unlike that film it's told with much more humour and charm. Every frame is designed with such care to detail that rivals Star Wars at its very best. In terms of universe building it was definitely worth of even more exploration as each scene is just a crammed chock-full of science fiction beauty and oddities.

Most importantly, it better Jupiter Ascending by miles in terms of making characters interesting, and for the audience to hate or love. Willis gives a lesson to Channing Tatum on how to make a stoic hero also badass and have some deadpan humour to spare as essentially John McClane in Space (not that there's anything wrong with that). Mila Jovovich is sweet, funny and portrays her Leeloo, the potential saviour of the world, with just the right amount of kookiness that makes her far more appealing a heroine than Kunis' stick in the mud. The supporting cast, ranging from Ian Holm to Charlie Creed-Miles and of course, Tucker, all add a bit to the scene with their eccentricities, unlike the forgettable supporting cast of Jupiter Ascending,

And then there's GARY OLDMAN as Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg (yes, you read that correctly). Possibly his weirdest performance, not his best that's for sure, but he's still a delight to watch as he adds ham after ham to his layered performance of unapologetic absurdity.

The Lost Boys (1987); a FAR better version of the Twilight films

http://blogitude.com/tag/twilight/

Okay, let me just say that while I think that the Twilight films are generally terrible, they're nowhere near as bad as the last two films I mentioned, and are a far sight better than the source material they're based upon (I must confess I never got through a single book from that series whereas the films are generally watchable I guess). However even though I can stand watching them doesn't mean I don't think they had poor qualities aplenty. I've never thought Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattison, as Bella Swan and Edward Cullen, were as bad as everyone made them out to be, I mean they were literally playing the characters to a tee as the novels and scripts depicted them, so I guess the problem must then definitely lie with the piss-poor characterizations of the aimless teenager and mysterious sexy vampire who share a dysnfuctional, unappealing, and frankly quite fucked up relationship that instead of potentially being explored as a horror story, a subversive sort of Dracula in high school about unhealthy romances, is treated as sweet and endearing.

I found generally all the vampire characters to be either hopelessly bland (Edward's entire family) or hopelessly over the top to the point of ridiculousness (oh Michael Sheen and your paychecks), the werewolves on the other hand did have some potential (and again I don't think Taylor Lautner's as terrible as some make him out to be) but they always feel a bit extraneous to the plot, and also forces a very, very forced romantic triangle that leads to some truly cringe-worthy scenes like the one below from Twilight: Eclipse (which I do enjoy to an extent because it's so lame. And personally, I think Lautner, and Pattison were well aware of that and are ironically delivering their lines):

All in all these are terrible films and made more so by the fact that there's never a feeling of intrigue or urgency to any of it; it all just kind of nicely meanders along. A better example of the 'teenage vampire' film, directed with a great deal more energy and style is Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys. Now I like the Twilight soundtrack to an extent (I'm a Paramore and Muse fan so there's really no way I could hate it) but The Lost Boys uses its 80's beats in a more streamlined way that's fitting to the story.

Anyway, The Lost Boys is centered on two brothers (Corey Haim and Jason Patric) who move to a small suburban town with their mother (Dianne Wiest), where the older one, Michael (Patric) soon comes under the spell of a local biker gang, led by Kiefer Sutherland's David, and a girl (Jami Gertz). He is soon initiated into the gang - but the catch is that they're a gang of vampires, which means Michael's not far off from turning completely into one himself...

If that all sounds very 80's it's because that's precisely what it's going for. Some might call it dated, I call it brilliant. It's a horror comedy that utilizes all the elements of 80's teen culture it can muster to depict not only the allure of the vampire cult (watch Sutherland play his Stand By Me role with more material and a more biting, pun intended, edge), but also the vampire killers in the form of the frog brothers (Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander) who are a great deal of fun to watch as they bust out all the vampire tropes in their search to hunt down vampires. It may all be a bit style over substance but what style it is. Don't let Batman and Robin deceive you; Schumacher is more than capable a director when given material that suits him.

Citizen X (1995); a FAR better version of Child 44 (2015)

Child 44 was a pretty big missed opportunity. Adapted from a critically acclaimed novel based loosely on the crimes of Andrei Chikatilo, also known as the Rostov Ripper, the Butcher of Rostov, and the Red Ripper, who was convicted of and executed for 52 murders in the Soviet Union, and the difficulties of the investigators of the crimes due to the 'no crime' image the Soviet Union wished to maintain. Now I'll get onto why a more straightforward adaptation of the crimes would be even more interesting, but the potential for a good adaptation of a novel was here, with a stellar cast (Tom Hardy, Noomi Rapace reuniting for the first time after the brilliant and underrated The Drop, Gary Oldman, Charles Dance, Jason Clarke, Paddy Considine). Unfortunately none of the cast really adds up to much besides Hardy and Considine, and to an extent Rapace, as every character is so one-dimensional and paper-thin, designed seemingly as only plot devices to push the none too interesting plot along, there are scenes of gore and violence but they're all strangely unaffecting, the procedural feels very dull, the accents though not terrible feel very out of place and slightly off. It's more forgettable than terrible I guess, well besides Joel Kinnaman's villain who is both terribly written and terribly performed, but it wastes a lot of the impact it could have potentially had with less of a typical 'thriller' style it employs, and with more intelligence and verve to it. 

Now Citizen X is both an entirely different film altogether but also not without similarities. I really want to get into it in more detail in a future post since it's one of my favourite television films (in fact it's probably my absolute favourite), so I'll leave my extended thoughts till then. It's a direct depiction of the hunt for serial killer Andrei Chikatilo, here played by Jeffrey DeMunn in an absolutely terrifying portrayal of repressed homicidal tendencies, which are revealed to the audience in only brief but very effective, viscerally haunting spurts. Stephen Rea, as the lead investigator and forensic expert Burakov, gives a tremendous lead performance in his unique leading man style of being both understated and affectingly emotional. He's supported well by Donald Sutherland as a very unique sort of Soviet general, Max Von Sydow's nervy psychiatrist, Imelda Staunton's headstrong wife, Joss Ackland's perverted senior official, and all other smaller characters add so much to the film, and also none of the Russian accents on display distract. The direction of Chris Gerolmo expertly treads the fine line between the horror of the events and the perseverance of the human spirit, all culminating in a nail-biting last act as the stakes are upped and you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. I'll talk more about it in a future post but for now, contrast the two clips below. Where Child 44 features characters shouting at each other in indecipherable fashion and expressing very obvious messages, Citizen X features writing of utmost subtlety, intelligence and even humour to develop the relationship between Rea and Sutherland's characters. 

Captain America: Civil War (2015); a FAR better version of Batman v.s. Superman (2015)

A fairly recent example and glaringly obvious, but let me muse awhile on it. Batman v.s. Superman is not a film without merits. Gal Gadot is an excellent Wonderwoman, the warehouse action scene was actually really well done. Unfortunately most of the rest of the film is pretty dreadful. There's an almost hateful tone it takes towards the DC universe so it seems, I mean killing off Jimmy Olesen, making Superman a supporting character in his own movie (I liked Cavill's rendition of the character in Man of Steel but here he's nothing more than a physical presence), completely ruining the character of Lois Lane, making Batman a hateful, murderous and mindless thug at times which nullifies a lot of the fine work done by Ben Affleck (I know there are probably versions out there of a Batman who uses similar sort of techniques to get criminals killed in jail, but as Nolan's trilogy showed there's a way of making Batman stick to his 'no killing' ideals while maintaining his ruthlessness). Then there's the terrible elements like the inexplicable dream sequences that look like Sucker Punch reborn (NO), the ludicrous screenwriting surrounding Lex Luthor's 'plan' (although to call it that might be a bit of a stretch), and Jesse Eisenberg's terrible, terrible performance just to put the icing on the cake (knowing how good of an actor Eisenberg can be in general I'm pretty sure this was all intentional, maybe someday all will make sense).

Anyway, it's a bad film, but how could that have been rectified? Look no further than Captain America: Civil War, a film which takes the same trope of 'heroes come into conflict with other heroes over matters of control' and completely demolishes Batman v.s. Superman. There's so many obvious parallels and thus ways that it betters Batman v.s. Superman. All-American hero conflicted by his duties and personal life? Whereas with Superman and Cavill it was so...vaguely handled, with Chris Evan's Captain America we get such a compelling portrayal of a super man who's divided between loyalties to the Avengers and his country, and to his friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan), and is so moving in his steadfastness and also packs such a punch in the action sequences. Where Batman/Bruce Wayne came across as such a homicidal idiot at certain points, Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark not only makes you sympathize and understand the intentions behind his aims, he also delivers a haunted, poignant performance which has an intensity of self-hate and determination to right wrongs, that matches the heart of Steve Rogers/Captain America to keep rights in check and save Bucky.

Each action sequence has a point, unlike Batman v.s. Superman where sometimes the punches and smashing all amounted to varely anything, Baron Zemo EATS Lex Luthor alive as he goes about his much more simpler and yet effective plan and even adds some pathos to it, the introduction of new characters in the form of Black Panther, and Spider-Man is eloquently handled in a way that Batman v.s. Superman very clumsily handled character introductions. To put it simply: Batman v.s. Superman is the far inferior version of Captain America: Civil War, or Captain America: Civil War is the far superior version of Batman v.s. Superman, or in the end, Civil War is just a great film and Batman v.s. Superman is dreadful.

And here's how to do a good 'bad' movie...Pompeii (2014)

Now this is very subjective, I guess, and I can imagine many will find Pompeii as terrible an experience as many of the 'terrible' films I listed above. I liked it personally for all the wrong reasons, though, and I feel like it's an example of a terrible idea that's terribly executed, but which has components of it aware of this to mend their approaches to the material to the extent that it's entertaining. Now Paul W.S. Anderson (not ot be confused with the other, far better Paul Anderson), is not much of a director, who shamelessly rips off better directors of better films like Ridley Scott and Gladiator and just about every other sand-and-swords epic for his action sequences.The script is essentially a re-working of Gladiator, from the vengeful gladiator Milo (here played by Kit Harrington) to the OTT villainous Emperor Corvus (KIEFER SUTHERLAND) and the only 'new' element being that it's set against the backdrop of the imminent eruption of Mount Vesuvius which is employed in a Titanic-style third act of action and tragedy.

As I've said it's a terrible film but still eminently watchable, which is sometimes all I need for a film. Harrington makes for a strong enough lead who is stoic and a bit uninteresting, but carries the action scenes well and nails the emotional undercurrent of the hero when need be. Sutherland is terrible but unlike Eddie Redmayne who was excruciatingly painful to watch, he's actually very watchable in his badness as he seems to relish every ridiculous line and expression of EEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLL he brings to the screen. And though I did say the film was poorly directed, the effects of the eruption are depicted with pretty impressive SFX, the side characters do have a certain poignancy to their deaths even if they're developed very poorly and the ending did pack a certain emotional punch.

The best part of the film though is Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, one of the most frequently underused actors in films, giving his all as a rival gladiator to our hero Milo, a sort of expanded variation of the role of Woody Strode in Spartacus. Atticus, who has the gravitas of his To Kill a Mockingbird namesake alongside some genuine conviction and badassery to spare, is in my top 5 2014 Supporting Actors slot and I have no shame in saying that. He gives a compelling depiction of a career warrior who gradually warms up to his rival and has one of the most epic death scenes of this decade so far.

All rights to pictures due to their original owners.