Failed Films (Pt. 1)

I own a lot of DVDs... at least 800, easily. I'm not bragging, most of them I bought at op shops for about a dollar or two; and I literally buy any movie that catches my interest. So, I've seen a lot of movies.
In fact, I have this system where I watch the DVDs I own, and if I don't really enjoy them, I add them to the donation pile, so I can send them back to an op shop for someone else to buy.
Because of this, I only keep the movies that are really good... or, really bad. See, because I buy these at op shops, a lot of these movies are kind of bad. I'm talking low-budget family movies; poorly filmed horror; high-concept fantasy or sci-fi movies that fail to explain their premise. I've seen the full gamut from amazing, classic and thought-provoking cinema... to absolute dogshit. But, when a movie is really bad, it can be more entertaining - you've probably heard of the term So Bad It's Good. A film could have Dialogue or action that's accidentally funny, plot points that are absurd, special effects that look ridiculous, acting so bad it makes primary school plays look good or scenes that are so over-the-top they become awesome.
But, as with most things in life, films aren't simply "bad" or "good", there's a spectrum; meaning there's a whole variety of bad films. From the "Mockbuster" to the "Exploitation Film" to the "Passion Project", bad films come in all shapes and sizes... but there's a specific kind of bad film I want to talk about today and that's the "Failed Concept".
See, even a film like Sharknado, whilst it is a dumb movie that a lot of people enjoy ironically it's not a failure. They set out to make a movie about a tornado full of sharks, so whether you loved or hated that film it succeeded at its goal. It's arguably a dumb goal, but they met it nonetheless.
That's the defining feature of a Failed Concept - it has a clear target, an idea or concept it wants to explore, but by the end, it fails. This doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad or unenjoyable film - I may well list some movies here that you enjoy - but it does mean that the writer or director had a vision in mind, and they failed to really bring it to life on screen.
If you're still not sure exactly what I mean by that, allow me to show you some of the most pertinent examples that I've seen. Also, because I'm talking about how these films failed, this list will contain HEAVY SPOILERS - if you wish to avoid that for any of the titles listed, you may have to skip its entry in this list. With that out of the way, let's get into...

THE A.W.N.'s TOP 10 MOVIES THAT FAILED (10-7)

10. JOKER
Well, this is a great way to annoy the internet, tell a bunch of comicbook nerds, and a bunch of men, that their opinion is wrong. That's going to go over well... but I'm not the only person who didn't like this movie. See, Joker is an origin story for the character of "The Joker", Batman's arch-villain and a supervillain, known for his tenacity, in some incarnations brutality, insanity and (of course) his dark sense of humour. This film chose to be a dramatic piece, losing the colour and flamboyance of comicbook superheroes to present a sombre, dark and personal piece about how an underprivileged, mentally ill man is pushed to his breaking point, so we can finally understand how this simple man became The Joker.
Where it Failed: Who is the Joker? Seriously, the character from the movie, who is he? Is he an activist? Is he a criminal? Is he a madman? Is he a victim?
Uh, kinda, not really... I mean, he's a bit of this and that, but he's not really any of those things, so it's hard to tell. But, that makes no sense. This is meant to be an *origin story*, the whole idea if which is elucidating upon a character, so we can understand what defines them, what guides them, and who they are. But, this movie utterly fails at that because it doesn't seem to know who the Joker is and in its attempt, it just muddies the waters. A lot of people have pointed out how this film's script is basically a remix of "The King of Comedy" & "Taxi Driver" with Batman iconography thrown in, and that's not necessarily a bad thing (I like homage as much as anyone else), but because this film is busy recreating the themes and concepts of these two films, it fails to fundamentally create its own identity, and so it cannot help to identify the Joker.
But, the Joker isn't that complicated... obviously, he can be, you cam add complexity to anything - but the basis of the Joker is - he is a character that finds crime funny. That's the heart of it. Now, you can have it that he finds it funny because he's so good at it, so to him it's a lot of fun; you can have him be so twisted that his morals are effectively backwards and he enjoys pain and bloodshed; or, you can even have him be a nihilist and an absurdist who delights in shattering the veil of civility - that's kind of the way Heath Ledger played him in The Dark Knight, he sees civilized society as a mockery of brutal human nature, and fragile human psychology.
But... this character doesn't seem to find crime funny. Sometimes he's angry and commits crime for vengeance, at one point he brutally kills people because he's crazy and the film makes it clear he's "off his meds", which is particularly tone-deaf considering how common mental illness is. And by the end of the film he kills one character for no established reason at all...
When I first watched this film, I was excited to learn about who the Joker was, what drives him, why he became a villain. As the credits rolled, the only answer I was left with was "he did it because he's crazy". What?! That's not how origin movies work, that's certainly not how criminals work... that's not even how INSANITY works! So, no, this film failed to truly explain who and what the Joker is, and since that's the whole point of an origin movie, that is why it failed.

9. CHERRY FALLS
This is a slasher horror movie, set in the fictional town of Cherry Falls, where a killer appears in town, and starts killing several young teenagers. But there's a twist, and this is the main conceit of the movie - the killer has a calling card where they carve the word "VIRGIN" into the thighs of their victims, and so the only lead the police have on the killer is that they do, indeed, appear to be targeting teens that are virgins. After a town meeting where police warn the parents, teenagers learn of this, gossip spreads quickly, and all the teens at the local high school realize that, if they simply have sex, they won't be targeted by the killer.
So, the whole premise of this movie exists as a conceit to show a lot of gore, blood and murder, as well as nudity, sex and softcore pornography. Honestly, that's a clever idea for a movie, especially if you love blood and boobs.
Where It Failed: This cheeky horror film has a lot of sexy blood, but it barely has any bloody sex! The main character, played by Brittany Murphy, is a virgin, and whilst she nearly sleeps with her boyfriend on two occasions, she ultimately fails. And, when the school as a whole learns about the "only kills virgin" thing, they organize an orgy at an abandoned hunting lodge in town. Now, I want to remind you, this is meant to be an orgy - a wild sex party with several people - and they refer to it as a fuck-fest, or an orgy, several times in the film. So, when the camera cut to a scene of the hunting lodge, and I saw dozens and dozens of teenagers paired up, slow-dancing, I burst out laughing. Sure, some of the teens kiss and make awkward sex jokes, but it feels like this "orgy" was written by a prude. Sure, these kids aren't exactly "leaving room for Jesus", but it's the most sexless orgy I've ever seen. In a later scene, when the killer attacks this "orgy", they gatecrash several people in their underwear, making out under blankets, and they go running out of the house in bras and boxer shorts. So, this movie, where a major plot point is losing your virginity, and includes several scenes at an orgy, has no sex scenes in it.
Now, obviously, you don't need sex in your plot to make it interesting, and I did find this movie kind of interesting, but this movie was being sold on the horror and sex. The copy of the DVD I own has a quote from Playboy saying "It's American Pie with a body count." and the advertising all focuses on that idea of whether you'd give up your virginity, if it could save your life.
Now, this isn't a bad film by any stretch. The killer has long, black hair, and wears dark clothing, and when Brittany Murphy's character describes them to a sketch artist, the police identify the killer as a woman called Lora Lee Sherman, a rape victim who failed to receive help, because her rapists were four popular high school boys - that's darkly realistic and relevant. And one of my favourite scenes in the movie is when one of these rapists is killed, the words "VIRGIN NOT" is carved into his forehead, which dials up the danger, as we realize that the "safety" the kids are (apparently) seeking out by having sex, is nothing but false hope.
I also want to make it clear, this wasn't entirely the film-maker's fault. This film was classified as R in Australia, and NC-17 in America, but according to the writer, they had originally devised the "orgy" scene to have a lot more nudity, and originally was written to have them all writhing under blankets, but they had to change it in order to avoid an X Rating.
I'm not going to lie, one thing I found disappointing is that the killer is eventually revealed to be a man in women's clothing, with some hints that he is crazy and enjoys dressing up like a woman; and frankly, I'm sick to death of the "depraved, trans killer" trope. But, it's mostly implied that they dress up mostly as a dark reminder of the woman raped by some of the popular boys, who have now become important men in the town's community, so that's not a deal-breaker. And the film is deliberately playing with tropes, since horror films have a history of killing anyone even slightly promiscuous, so there was a lot of potential here which they managed to play with. But, that doesn't change the fact that this film failed its ultimate premise.
In fact, Ken Selden, the writer of this film, is quoted as saying he first wrote this film because he was "interested in writing a teen orgy scene", but he also thought Hollywood would never go for it until he came up this idea of it being an orgy interrupted by a slasher killer. This was the heart and soul of this movie... and for the sake of avoiding an X-Rating, it was changed. So, whilst I do not think this film is a bad movie, it definitely failed at its premise of being all about sex and violence, because people who are incredibly weird seem to find sex more offensive than death...

8. THUNDERPANTS
This is a very silly family movie. The basic premise is that this is the story of a boy who farts too much, because he was born with two stomachs. I mean, that doesn't make a lot of sense because farts are developed in the intestines, not the stomach, stomach gas develops burps but it's not really worth getting into the science of why that makes no sense, because this is clearly meant to be a comedy film, you're not supposed to think too much about it. I think the only reason it was even slightly popular was because it co-stars Rupert Grint (the actor who played Ron Weasley) one year after the first Harry Potter film, so it was probably trying to cash in on his celebrity... speaking of which, besides Grint this same film has several famous stars in smaller roles, such as Paul Giamatti,  Stephen Fry & Simon Callow. And the effort on display is incredible. Most of the film, as most of the film is set in this kid's English hometown, has a green tinge to all of the set dressing, costumes and several of the key props. But, what's it really "about"? Well, it's about how it's difficult for the main kid to make friends, because he farts so much, until he makes friends with Grint's character - a child genius called Allen A. Allen who has no sense of smell. And, the story seems to be about how even the least-appreciated among us can find their place, and make a difference in the world.
Where it Failed: If this film has a message at all, that message is that being a child genius will change the world. Look, I like a good fart joke, but I don't think these fart jokes are funny, since they're often presented as so extreme, it literally causes injuries to the people around Fart-boy. But, I'm not here to critique the comedy, comedy is (for the most part) subjective, and this is for kid's, kids might find this funny. No, my issue is with how this film treats Fart-boy like an object, a tool to be used, not a person. Fart-boy is the main character (his real name is Patrick, but I'm gonna keep calling him Fart-boy), we see his point of view and his struggles, but in the story after meeting his friend who can't smell, it's his friend Allen that develops a pair of pants that contain his farts. And, after NASA loses some astronauts in space, it's only by poaching his genius friend to help them fix this problem that he comes up with a way of using his friend's farts to power a rocket. Yes, there's some talk about how he joined a group of "talented children" to solve difficult problems... but, all of the other talented children are also geniuses in their own right. Fart-boy does have this monologue about how he's finally being seen as useful, but that's the thing, he's being used. They create a rocket which literally has a seat for him to sit on with a pipe in it. He's not piloting the rocket - he's presented as a naive, simple boy, not stupid but nowhere near smart enough to pilot a rocket. So, he's just the fuel tank.
And whilst they pay lip service to the idea that children can be uniquely suited to solving problems, I also got the distinct impression that Allen manufactured this whole situation just so his friend could help. After all, this is a space-rocket, we have those... it's not like this was a new invention that required a special fart-based fuel system. So, I get the distinct impression that the real hero here is Allen, the boy genius who saved some astronauts, and his friend in the process. Oh yeah, did I mention that Fart-boy was going to be executed? I can't remember why, this film is pretty forgettable, but this kid goes to court, is declared guilty (although he was innocent) and was about to be judicially murdered before his friend intervenes to get him poached for this NASA child-genius project.
I think this was trying to take some logical extreme, "hey are you bullied for being ugly or stupid or weird? Well, look, this kid farts so much, he can clear a room, and can even fart with the pressure to injure people, and he found his place in society... surely, you can too."
Aww, isn't that sweet? NO. This kid's "place in society" is as a piece of machinery, with his arse stuck to a gas-pipe, he's an interchangeable cog in a machine. That's not inspiring, it's horrifying. I mean, he was necessary for this single task - save the astronauts. What next? Either he will have to move on, continue living his life, relying on the assisting technologies of his genius friend so as to exist in a world of people without a crippling fart-disability. Or if (for reasons that defy science as I understand it) his farts are in fact the future of rocket propulsion, is he doomed to having his anus surgically grafted onto a gas-pipe, so he becomes a permanent fixture of a rocket, or a rocket-fuel factory - in either case, little more than a machine component - either for the rest of his life, or until they inevitably find a way of recreating his farts in the lab, by which time he again is forced to live life with his fart-disability. And that seems more likely than not since, according to this film, his farts come from having two stomachs... so, basically, his job could be done twice as well by any modern cow.
So, I hope you found that inspiring kids! If you're not a child-genius, and not seen as worthless by society, you're doomed to being judicially murdered or (arguably worse) being seen as little more than a disposable machine-part.

7. AFTER.LIFE
This is a weird movie. If you've not heard of it, this movie is about a young teacher called Anna (played by Christina Ricci) who gets into a violent car wreck, and wakes up on a slab in a funeral home. There, she gets to know the mortician named Elliot (played by Liam Neeson). The mortician informs her that she is dead, but he has a supernatural gift that allows him to talk to the dead. He explains that his gift allows him to prepare people for their transition from death to the afterlife, so they can come to terms with their death. At first, Anna doubts this, but as he shows her that she has no pulse, that she is numb to the world around her and she can't move without his help, she starts to come to terms with what Elliot has told her, and accept that she is dead. Alongside this, there's a parallel story about her soon-to-be fiancé, Paul (played by Justin Long) who is struggling to come to terms with the sudden death of his girlfriend in the prime of her night, on the night when he was going to propose. So, he's in denial, struggling to accept that his girlfriend is truly dead. Or, are things not as they seem?
Where it Failed: This film relies on a ridiculous premise. When I first bought it, I was excited about the idea, because I thought it was going to be about a character coming to terms with their death. Now, that's my fault, not the movie's, but what is the film's fault is that it pretended to be about that for the majority of the runtime. See, what this film is actually about is a girl who is taken to a mortuary and told she is dead and that all appearance to the contrary is being caused by one guy's supernatural ability to talk to the dead, and all throughout it's meant to be a mystery whether she is actually dead, or if she's alive and this is all an elaborate lie on the part of the mortician. And that subplot on her potential fiancé is part of that, asking whether he's just a grieving boyfriend who won't let go, or a hero uncovering the machinations of a disturbed serial killer. And, the problem with this premise is two-fold. Firstly, both of these premises are interesting. A story about a woman dying, and struggling to accept her premature death, but coming to terms with it because of a caring, gifted mortician, that's kind of sweet and beautiful. A dark story about a mortician that tricks people into believing they're dead so he can bury them, because of a philosophy about people so useless they're "as good as dead" is darkly fascinating. But, because this film spends most of its runtime maintaining the thin veneer of a mystery, thereby flip-flopping around the potential between the two, it means it never commits to either until the end. But that's the second and more fundamental problem with this premise - the mystery is stupid. This movie ends with the revelation that, yes, Elliot was a serial killer this whole time. He pretends people are dead so that he can bury them, and have them suffocate in the casket as a kind of sick punishment for living unhappy, unfulfilled lives. But, wait, are you telling me that every single one of his victims believed not only that magic exists, and that ghosts exist, but that they were themselves were unliving corpses, despite all evidence to the contrary?!
What really annoys me are that at first, Anna lays stiff on the slab motionless, only able to speak, but eventually she's able to get up and move around. And not a single other one of his victims questioned this? Yes, she has no pulse, and feels numb, but even though she can move, Elliot claims he doesn't want people to see her like this because "you look like a corpse". So, what is meant to be happening when they get up? Is he witnessing their "soul" whilst their body is actually on the slab? Or, are they stumbling like zombies, but only he can hear their voice? Also, the reason she's numb is because of an injection Elliot gives her of a (fictional) drug which actually slows her pulse so it's unnoticeable, and numbs her body. When Elliot injects her, he claims that the chemical "loosens your muscles, and prevents rigor mortis", but that makes no sense! This woman is meant to be a teacher, yet she doesn't know that injections like that don't work without a pulse?
Look, I know this is a movie, and I've seen plenty of movies where people talk to the dead, ghosts are real and magical, mystical things are possible. But, the main character doesn't know she's in a movie. I can't empathize with this character because it makes no sense that she would find the evidence convincing - all the "evidence" that she's dead make no sense in a world where magic doesn't exist. And this guy is a serial killer. At one point, he takes a photo of Anna, and he adds her to a collection of hundreds of similar pictures of his victims, pinned to his wall. You're telling me not a single one of these people realized that they were, y'know, not dead?!
In my opinion, the best way to have made this movie would have been to save all this for the end, spend the whole movie playing it straight - this is a film about a man trying to convince a woman that she's actually dead, only for it to end with a Shocking Twist that she's alive, and he's a serial killer. That wouldn't really resolve the fundamental "Failed Biology 101" aspects of this movie, but at least they'd be less noticeable! Because this was a mystery, I was basically being asked by the movie to think about this, to judge for myself whether this was at all possible. So, when it finally reveals the reality, I'm left angry and annoyed by how much of it doesn't actually make sense. But worst of all, this film spends a lot of its runtime pretending it's actually about grief, and coming to terms with loss, acting like it has a message of "it's troubling to come to terms with your own death, or the loss of another, but you can come to accept it in time"... but, with the reveal that the girl wasn't actually dead, it turns from a story about coming to terms with grief, into a story whose ultimate moral is left as "If you're in denial about the tragic, premature death of a loved one... it's because you're right, they're not actually dead! GO SAVE THEM YOU FOOL! Don't come to terms with it, that's just a lie to keep you from finding out the truth!!!"
Yeah, uh... that sucks. I did enjoy this movie for the most part, it was well-made and well acted, but ultimately it tried to be too much all at once, and after spending so long pretending to be about a premise that I found interesting, when it revealed what it was really about it just left me feeling betrayed.

- - -

Saved by the bell... it's nearly midnight, and I have to get this posted. Well, I guess we'll have to continue this next week. I was really hoping to get at least five written before I ended, but I had way more to say here than I thought I would.
Come back tomorrow night, where we'll discuss the top 6 (I guess) films that I think ultimately failed at their premise.

Until Next Time, I'm going to keep writing, so I don't run out of time for tomorrow's post...

I'm the Ab