GUILTY PLEASURE #3: THE CRAZIES (1973)

A remake of George Romero's "The Crazies" came out in February of this year. I read a few reviews, mostly ho-hum, but I haven't seen it.  It takes place in a small Iowa town where something in the water is making the residents go crazy.  Neighbors are killing neighbors in rather unique ways.


Go back in time 27 years to 1973's original version in which the military accidentally drops a chemical weapon on the town. It certainly had political overtones of the day, yet it was a very low-budget film. 


It was lame, really lame.  

Yet, I loved the original version because the people going crazy in "The Crazies" were neighbors ---I mean they were my real neighbors, for I live in the town where it was filmed and many of the townspeople in the film were played by locals. George Romero must love this town, because he made his original "Night of the Living Dead" in this area, too.


"The Crazies" (1973) was so bad, it was good. The newer version apparently has slicker special effects that, in my opinion, usually don't make a movie any better, only take away from its charm.

GUILTY PLEASURE #2

        I hate reality shows. I watched one episode of Survivor and hated it.  I watched one episode of The Great Race when I knew they were going to be in Brazil ---saw almost none of the country and never watched again. I don't watch American Idol, Big Brother, American's Top Model, Dancing With the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, The Apprentice ---none of those.  I would never watch The Bachelor ---choosing a partner on a show like that is so unreal, I don't know how it fits into the "reality" category.
       But one of my guilty pleasures is America's Got Talent. I'm not sure why it has struck such a chord with me, but at least part of the reason is that I like seeing someone who has talent, but has never been "discovered," making it big.

What I especially like about the show:
        I like the variety of acts. Idol has only singers, but I like seeing comedians, magicians, dancers, ventriloquists, acrobats, and even some of the more bizarre acts.
        And even though he is often booed by the audience, I think Piers Morgan is nearly always right in his assessment of the acts.

What I don't like about the show:
        Too many acts make it to the edited TV broadcast who should be weeded out even before getting to the stage. Only the very best of those who audition ---and there seem to be thousands, so surely there are hundreds who have decent acts ---should get on the broadcast. Then the judges should weed out those who don't have that "something special" that makes for star quality.
        There should be a separate Kids Got Talent. Too many very cute children get sent on to Vegas, but they really aren't talented enough or have enough experience, poise or stage presence to win. Cute should not be enough.  I'm not sure what the cut-off age should be, but anyone under 18 should probably not be performing on Vegas stages, so I would say anyone who is not of legal age, should not be permitted on the show unless, perhaps, they are in a group that includes mostly older members.

        Meanwhile, even with it's flaws I do enjoy America's Got Talent. I usually tape it. As soon as a bad act comes on, I fast-forward through it. Therefore, it takes me 30 minutes (or fewer) to watch an hour-long show.
        Do I vote? Not usually ---the voting is usually closed by the time I watch my tape. Do I have favorites? Of course. Usually they end up in the top 5.

GUILTY PLEASURE #1

        We all have guilty pleasures. Some of us love foods that aren't good for us. Some of us love trashy novels.  
        In Following the Equator (1897) Mark Twain said, “Everyone is a moon and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody.” Some of us have guilty pleasures that we would never confess.


        One of my guilty pleasures is a movie. A movie that's so bad, that it's good.
        Most films star a few people whose names I recognize ---two, maybe three. I might think other names sound familiar. I've heard them before, but I can't picture the person in my head.  
        My husband has a theory that the number of big-name stars in a film is indirectly proportional to the quality of the film. If that is true, this film has to be the worst movie ever made because it stars:
        Jack Nicholson          Glenn Close          Annette Bening          Pierce Brosnan          Danny DeVito          Martin Short          Michael J. Fox          Rod Steiger          Sarah Jessica Parker          Tom Jones          Jim Brown          Lukas Haas          Natalie Portman         Sylvia Sydney          Lisa Marie          Jack Black          Paul Winfield          Joe Don Baker         Christina Applegate          Pam Grier          Sarah Michelle Gellar


        The first time I saw this film was at a gathering of Mensans. I was probably the only person in the room who was not a sci-fi geek. (I admit to being geeky ---and I'm even sort of proud of that ---but I'm not into sci-fi.) Throughout the entire film, the viewers constantly piped in with references to old sci-fi films.  "Oh, that looks just like the scene from _______," they'd say, naming a lame sci-fi B-film from the 1950s or 60s. Of course, I was clueless. But they were so full of enthusiasm and laughter, that it was infectious. 

        Loosely based on an obscure 1960s Topps bubble-gum trading card series (some of which are pictured here) it is a Tim Burton film, so of course, it is bizarre. But it is also incredibly funny. 
        In 1996 when it came out, film critics almost universally panned it, but the movie has some great moments. First of all, it is a parody of so many sci-fi films that went before it. In addition, it makes great fun of pompous politicians, the military, science, the media, talk shows, alien abductions, new age religions, greed, power, Las Vegas, pop culture, and much more. Even Tom Jones tries to make fun of himself in this film, but of course it is impossible to parody what is already a parody. It was made for laughs and never meant to be serious about any of it.
        More recent disaster sci-fi movies filled with all manner of special effects are often preachy and feature heroes who are smarter, faster, and stronger than anyone else. In this film the heroes are a tongue-tied teenager who works in a donut shop and his grandmother who loves listening to Slim Whitman music. The special effects appear to be rather low-tech ---on purpose ---meant to look more like the sci-fi films of past decades than the sleek effects of films like Independence Day, which came out at roughly the same time. And the cast, including many award-winning actors, hams it up. Their bad acting only adds to the charm.

        Now, I can't say the film is without flaws. While everyone else is playing for laughs, Pam Grier's part is so serious that it seems out-of-place in this film. Danny DeVito's small role could have been eliminated. There was no point in having Jack Nicholson play two parts when another big-name could have taken one of them, but then, perhaps Nicholson demanded a certain amount of screen time and this was a way of giving it to him. And, occasionally, once we get the point, extended scenes could have been shortened or eliminated.


        It seems that most people either love this film or hate it.  I'm one of the ones who loves it. The film is silly, yes, but I enjoy silly sometimes.

        If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm telling you that one of my guilty pleasures that I need to watch about once a year is "Mars Attacks!"