Film Friday: Piranha 3D (2010)

I don’t often call for the brutal murder of an entire film crew, but in the case of Piranha, I think it’s necessary. Do not see this film. Seriously. Don’t. Normally, I’m a sucker for these kinds of films, but this is an atrocity.

** spoilers. . . yeah, whatever **

"Plot"

Piranha or Piranha 3D or Piranha 3Ds and an F or whatever it’s called is the story of what happens when an earthquake opens a passage from an underground lake containing super-aggressive, two million year old piranhas to a lake used by hundreds of drunken college kids for spring break. Meanwhile, there’s a subplot involving the sheriff (Elisabeth Shue) who must save her kids, who have gone out on the water on a boat with Jerry O’Connell (Sliders), a porno director, and two porn stars. There’s also a scene with Richard Dreyfus which is supposed to be an homage to Jaws, but isn’t. Jim from Taxi (Christopher Lloyd) has a scene as a scientist. Ving Rhames has a speaking part as a deputy. The rest is sex or carnage.

No. . . Just No.

When I first heard about Piranha, I was actually a little excited. I’m a sucker for films like this because they’re pure escapism. Indeed, when it comes to mindless fun, there’s nothing better than watching some washed up star or never-has-been chasing a giant Dinocroc or Sharktopus or the Abominable Panda. Horrid acting, bad dialog, lousy effects, plots that make no sense and moral dilemmas written by ten year olds. . . it’s all fun. And when these films somehow get a budget and some real actors, the fun goes up a notch!

But Piranha was not fun, it was revolting.

Piranha combines the most violent gross-out moments of Saw or similar torture porn with the over-the-top sleaze of Girls Gone Wild. You will be treated to several minutes of lesbian sex, followed by more naked girls, followed by about 20 minutes of the most disgusting dissections of humans ever. If you can think of something disgusting to do to a human body, they do it in this film. And like all filmmakers with nothing to offer except shock, they carry this on way too long. I’m not kidding when I say the massacre lasts about 20 minutes, with each moment trying to get more disgusting than the prior moment. And this is on top of the gruesome killings that dot the rest of the film.

Cult Classic? Hardly.

Piranha wanted to become a “cult film.” Cult films somehow develop a fanbase despite being truly awful. And those fans will spend money on these films for decades. But like Snakes on a Plane and other manufactured wannabe cult films, Piranha failed. There are two reasons for this.

First, these manufactured films fail because they are marketed wrong. People who enjoy cult films do so because they feel they’ve stumbled upon something the rest of the world missed. A movie like Piranha, by comparison, is sold as a “cool” movie. It’s the difference between finding a cool bar in the bad part of town and having a commercial bar made up to look like a dive. The cult film crowd knows the difference. And if you’re trying to reach the cool kids with your advertising, don’t expect these people to fall for your pitch.

But even more importantly, the whole concept of how they try to manufacture films like Piranha is wrong. Most cult films are truly earnest. The creator had a vision which they loved and they set out to see their vision made into a film. Evil Dead was shot over a period of a year and a half, on a shoestring budget, despite numerous hurdles. Sam Raimi didn’t set out to make a bad movie, he set out to put his vision on film the best he could. Rocky Horror Picture Show, perhaps the greatest cult classic, started out as a play written by a man trying to sort out his gender issues. Neither filmmaker expected commercial success, far from it, but they genuinely believed in what they were making and they weren’t trying to make something that would be mocked.

Piranha on the other hand, like Snakes on a Plane and other attempts at creating a cult classic, was made to be mocked. Studios think the common thread in cult classics is that they are bad films. Indeed, they are so bad and so campy that they seem to a professional as if they were meant to be bad. Hence, studios cynically set out to make bad, campy films when they try to create cult films.

But this completely misses what fans see in cult films. Cult fans aren’t looking for bad movies, they are looking for earnest movies that turned out all wrong. They are looking for films made with a lot of love, but little talent. They see the diamond in the rough, even if no one else does. What Piranha offers is a diamond that’s been scratched up to look rough. Indeed, whereas Evil Dead or Rocky Horror strove to reach their full potential, it’s obvious to anyone watching that Piranha never even tried. Think of it this way, we love the minor league player who gets his shot but just can’t pull it off. . . yet we despise the pro who only gives it half his best effort.

What’s more, the studio is so afraid of being tagged with having made a bad film that they fill these fake cult films with signals to tell you they intended the film to stink. This is downright insulting. It’s like an author taking a chance on some unusual style for their book but then constantly inserting editor's notes to tell you what they did is intentional. Have faith in your work or don’t bother.

Finally, let’s cut to the truth about Piranha. Piranha stinks not because the studio tried to make a bad film, but because it is a bad film. If the studio had any idea how to make this a good film, it would have done so. When it realized it didn't know how to make this film work, it came up with this bullship idea of intentionally making a bad film. In other words, this was the best the studio could do, and all the rest is a cover up. . . it's sour grapes ("I could have done better, but I didn't try."). What’s more, like the studios do with other failures, it tried to hide its failure with over-the-top sex and gore, which it then pretended is all part of the gag. Tell me you can't hear the executives laughing at the "idiots who will buy anything."

So it is without heavy heart that I am calling for the brutal murder of the entire cast and crew of this film. . . except Ving Rhames, I like him.

What are your favorite cult classic? Or giant monster film?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Adventures in Babysitting (1987)

I love Adventures in Babysitting. It’s a funny film with a great story and great characters. It also does three things you just don’t see very often in Hollywood: (1) it perfectly captures real suburban angst, (2) it sends all the right messages, and (3) it has the rarest of rarities in Hollywood, a “strong” female role. They don’t make them like this anymore. . . notwithstanding rumors of a remake next year.

** spoiler alert **

Babysitting is the story of Chris Parker (Elisabeth Shue), who agrees to babysit Brad and Sara Anderson and Brad’s friend Daryl Coopersmith, who decides to stay over. While the night initially appears like it will be uneventful, things change when Chris’s friend Brenda calls. Brenda has run away from her home and needs Chris to pick her up from a bus station downtown. And thus, they are off to THE CITY.

The Angst. . . The Angst. . .

The first thing that makes Babysitting a special movie is that it perfectly captures suburban angst. No, I’m not talking about the laughable oppression and desperation of literary fiction angst, I’m talking about genuine angst: everyone who grew up in suburbia knows there be monsters in THE CITY: gangs, criminals, car thieves, perverts, rapists, rats, and nobody will lift a finger to help you. If you get a flat tire in the wrong neighborhood, you’re dead! This film plays on all of that.

Indeed, just as they enter the city, Chris’s car gets a flat tire and she has no spare. This puts them at the mercy of a tow truck driver who naturally looks like a pirate and has a hook for a hand. When he stops briefly at his home to catch another man with his wife, the kids find themselves in the middle of a shootout. This leads in short order to being chased by car thieves, a tour of the seamy underbelly of Chicago including a hilarious stop at an all-black blues club, and finding themselves in the middle of a gang fight. Along the way, Chris learns something about her boyfriend, they end up at a frat party, they meet Thor (Vincent D’Onofrio), and they top it all off with a wild chase scene on top of a skyscraper. Can they make it home before the parents?

This is exactly what white suburban kids fear is going on in the city at night, and what parents fear will happen if they get the wrong babysitter. That’s why this film speaks to so many people -- it gently pokes fun at our overblown fears and we're laughing at ourselves as much as the characters.

All The Right Messages

Babysitting isn’t a message movie. It does not beat you over the head with any trendy social theories or any obvious philosophy. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a meaningful message. Indeed, what it does do is at every turn, the film supports the right kinds of messages. Consider these:

● We learn not to judge people based on our preconceived notions when tow truck driver Pruitt turns out to be a good guy who wants to help them, when car thief Joe turns out to save them, when the seemingly angry blacks at the blues club warm to the white kids once the kids make an effort to fit in, and as the kids show themselves to be mature and possessing of moral courage you never would have guessed they have.

● The bad guys don’t prosper.

● Chris does the right thing helping Brenda and gets rewarded at the end with a happier life. But she does the wrong thing by taking the kids, which causes her problems.

● Brenda learns that running away from home is a mistake, and she pays a price.

● Chris learns not to stick with cheating boyfriend Mike, and is rewarded when someone better (frat guy Dan) comes along.

● Dawson/Thor does the right thing by helping the kids even though they don’t have enough money, when he realizes he’s a role model for Sara.

● Car thief Joe shows us that life is more important than property.

● Brad and Sara show us that we should care for our siblings and our friends.

● Brad learns not to be obsessed with Chris and to be happy for her happiness.

● Frat guy Dan wins Chris by being a gentleman and defending her against his friends who see her as a centerfold and by going out of his way to return Sara’s skate. Dan also clues us in that real life beauty beats airbrushed beauty every time.

These are all solid messages -- good deeds/traits are rewarded, bad deeds/traits get punished. This is very refreshing as most movies today don’t consistently provide such positive messages and they rarely do so in a seemingly “message free” environment, i.e. most films today are heavy-handed about what you’re supposed to “learn.” It’s nice to see a movie that doesn’t preach, but also isn't morally vacant.

Strong Female Role

Finally, I’ve spoken before about the problem Hollywood has with women. Generally, actresses have been relegated to only a couple types of roles, none of which are all that flattering or interesting. In recent years, many actresses have claimed to find “strong roles” in over-sexed cartoony dominatrix killers, but that’s ludicrous. In fact, it makes me wonder what these actresses really mean when they say “strong roles”? Personally, I’ve always considered a strong role to be any character you would respect in real life. And that is Chris Parker.


"Don't f*ck with the babysitter!"


There is nothing Chris cannot do. And she does it with her wits, her will power, her courage and whatever authority she can muster. In many ways, she’s the civilian version of the young lieutenant in a war film who earns the respect of his troops and leads them safely through difficult odds. Consider that she is in the nightmare suburban scenario, a world of hidden dangers with which she is entirely unfamiliar. Yet, she finds a way to get her car fixed, get Brad medical treatment after the gang fight, avoid the car thieves, rescue Brenda, and still get the kids home on time.

Even better, at no point does she use sex to solve her problems (the typical Hollywood solution for female characters). This is significant for two reasons. First, a “strong woman” would never use sex as a bargaining chip. The leather-clad dominatrixes and slinky spies are not demonstrating some strength of character within themselves, they're acting out a male sexual fantasy. Secondly, you can’t be a strong character if you don’t have a moral code because strong characters must stand for something and you can't pull that off when you don’t believe in anything. Chris has a moral code, as she demonstrates repeatedly. There are many times she could easily make the kinds of “deal with the devil” Hollywood favors to get out of the situations she finds herself in, but she doesn’t. Instead, in each case, she finds a way to solve her problem while still maintaining her self-respect.

Conclusion

This is what makes Adventures in Babysitting such a special film. The individual incidents are funny, but nothing special. Where they become special is in seeing a group of kids doing the right thing in the face of the ultimate suburban nightmare. And topping it all off is the performance of Elisabeth Shue who nails the Chris character as she grows and matures on screen and proves that not all female characters need to sell their bodies to the audience. Strong characters in general are hard to find in Hollywood, but strong female characters are nearly impossible.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...