Xander's Film Registry: Failure is too an Option!

Once again, folks, I have grown incredibly tired of the stupidity of the world around me, and we all know what that means: it's time for more admissions to the not-so-elite XFR hall of fame! (Commence applause and/or booing now.)

As promised, today's entry is dedicated to films that failed to find substantial paying audiences in their initial theatrical releases-- known rather closed-mindedly as "flops." Sometimes, a movie flops because it was released behind the curve (case in point, almost any musical from 1967-1969). Others, it was simply too expensive to make back the money it cost to make it (c.i.p., Cleopatra). Yet sometimes there is absolutely no reason why the film should have failed; in fact, they should have succeeded (c.i.p., Serenity-- where were all the people who begged and pleaded for that movie to be made?!)

So today, we focus on five films that were financial disasters but are actually quite pleasant to watch. Enjoy.

Sweet Charity (1969)-- Irony is huuuuuuuge and blunt in this musical dud based on a Neil Simon play, in turn based on a 1957 Fellini movie. It's the story of a woman named Charity Hope Valentine (see the irony?) whose entanglements with the opposite sex-- a shady gangster, an Italian movie star (played by Ricardo Montalban-- "Khan" to all you Trek fans), and a wacked-out, highly phobic insurance employee-- all end badly. And we're talking sitcom-date badly. In spite of being a major chick flick, this actually has a lot of appeal because it appears right on the border between the pre-60s era and the counterculture movement. Especially enjoyable is a scene with Sammy Davis Jr. as the leader of a weirdo hippie cult with a commandment forbidding the use of marijuana. Visually, there are some bewildering choices made by director Bob Fosse (like the freeze-framing), but it works more often than not.

Dragonslayer (1981)-- Ralph Richardson lends a much-needed touch of Shakespearean dignity to this gory fantasy, which plays out a little bit like a Tim Burton adaptation of a Tolkien story with Roman Polanski as a visual consultant. It's the quintessential dragon fantasy, with superstitious villagers terrorized by the huge lizard but skirting repetitive large-scale disasters by appeasing the dragon with the occasional virgin sacrifice. For 1981, the special effects are outstanding, and that awesome, awesome music you'll hear is by none other than Alex North (Spartacus, Cleopatra). Plus, be on the lookout for Ian "Emperor Palpatine" McDiarmid.

Legend (1985)-- Most fantasy movies released in the 80s flopped-- but not the nauseating, supremely obnoxious Neverending Story-- and it's easy to imagine why this one did: bad performances, stylistic excesses that scream Eighties!!!!, and Tim Curry with huge rubber horns that bounce around when he runs. But the film is by far one of the most imaginitive ever made, and the European director's cut-- which features 25 extra minutes, plus the replacement of Tangerine Dream's bizarre score with a more appropriate, entertaining orchestral one by Jerry Goldsmith-- is particularly good. It's all about a plot to take over the world by killing the unicorns, the guardians of light. Sometimes thinly veiled allegories are priceless.

Howard the Duck (1986)-- There goes any chance I ever would have had to be taken seriously as a film critic, but hear me out. Widely criticized as one of the worst movies ever made, this George Lucas-produced Marvel adaptation casts eight actors and puppeteers as Howard, an abrasive, vice-riddled drake from a planet similar to Earth, but with ducks instead of people. Pulled to Earth against his will, Howard is forced to contend with forces beyond his ken to (a) get home and (b) defeat the Dark Overlord of the Universe. Along the way, he meets and befriends Beverly (Back to the Future's Lea Thompson), a struggling punk singer who sees in him a kindred spirit, oddly enough. It's not exactly a romance they share, although that seems to be most people's impression. And contrary to popular belief, there is no human/duck sex in the movie. Whew! People make this movie sound like a porno, but it's really just a campy sci-fi action adventure fantasy that should never be taken seriously. It is based on a comic book, after all. A little lightness is good, lest the film descend into the pitch-black entrapment of The Dark Knight, which is waaaaaaay too serious for its own good.

Alexander (2004)-- The first thing people criticize about this movie is the accents. Alexander the Great and Hephaistion speak with Irish brogue, and Angelina Jolie speaks with some kind of weird unidentifiable Slavic accent. But, people, if they're gonna speak English anyway, what does it matter? Romeo and Juliet is set in Italy, but everyone in it has English accents! Also, Jolie is doing an accent that's actually appropriate in a way because it reflects where her character is from. Second criticism: the dialogue, which sounds heavy and clunky to 21st-century audiences. Well, duh! It's exactly the same dialect used in the great epics of yesteryear, like Ben-Hur and Cleopatra! It may be a misfire, but it's well-intentioned and helps give the movie the atmosphere it needs. Third criticism: Colin Farrell's hair. Ummm... whoooooo cares? Unlike Troy, released in the same year, Alexander doesn't consist of creaky, glossy revisionism to make its star look manlier (yes, Brad Pitt, I'm hatin' on you, destroyer of Achilles!) Anyway, Alexander causes enough blood geisers to make up for anything else. Plus, even a performance by the great Peter O'Toole couldn't save Troy-- Alexander has Christopher Plummer and Anthony Hopkins! Oh, snap! And the best version of all is the "Final Cut" released on DVD in 2007, which runs at 214 minutes (longer than Spartacus) and features the most complete, clear telling of the story.

So there you have it. Not every financial flop is a bad movie. And not every success is a good movie (um, has anyone seen Titanic?)

Next time, the anti XFR: ten films you should avoid seeing at all costs!

Mutt-bloods and Murmurs

When it comes to dog shows, I'd rather put a salted fork in both eyes than actually watch one. Or I'd rather watch Titanic, but that's only if the fork thing doesn't work.

Yet I read with interest in the newspaper today about the climax to last night's... well, whatever the heck it was that stole White Collar's time slot on USA (rrr... ruff! ruff!) A couple protestors (ha, I almost wrote protestants!) charged onto the stage (terminology?) carrying signs about how cruel it is to breed pure-bred dogs.

This is a rare instance in which I actually agree with one of PETA's wacko slogans. (I'm sorry-- I like red meat, but fur is completely uncool.)

Just think how much stronger and smarter humans (collectively) would be if royal families the world over didn't rely on inbreeding to keep their genetic lines "pure." And then there're domesticated dogs, a shocking percentage of whom are purebred (read: inbred) to produce what their "owners" call "superior breeds."

Hello! Anyone else see the quasi-Nazi reasoning in that?

Oh, sure. Every dog owner wants a cute dog who can do lots and lots of tricks. But I'd rather have a healthy, non-miserable pooch if ever I was to own a dog. It's just basic decency, right? Dogs are supposed to be companions for your family (not, despite what the AKC seems to think, performing yappers)-- in other words, really, really hairy little friends who want nothing from you other than food and love. Is it too much to ask in return that you don't want your animals to suffer?

Inbreeding causes major genetic defects, particularly after generations of it, which can cause severe health problems for humans and animals alike. There's a reason why incest is outlawed in this country-- it's repulsive and dangerous! And it's no different for animals who get no choice in the matter, but are forced to get to it with whichever canine the breeder says. Haven't these creeps ever heard of "puppy love"?

In the kind of awesome double-whammy that only a really really awesome universe could provide, the newspapers also featured a story about how King Tut was clubfooted because of (drumroll, please)... inbreeding!

Enough is enough. This is yet another desperate situation this irate blogger wants to see rectified before you can say, "Eukanuba."

A Lesser-Known Clause of the American Constitution

Listen carefully, people, because I'm only going to say this once. I am about to let you people in on a secret that only our founding fathers knew when they wrote our Constitution. Are... are you ready? O-okay. Here goes.

The president is elected to a four-year term.

Whoa-- unbelievable! Four whole years? Incredible!

So the fact that Obama's been in office for only thirteen months does... not mean he's not going to do what he said he would?

I know this sounds like leftist propaganda, but believe me, it's there in the Constitution-- all you gotta do is read it.

That is, assuming all of you can read. Considering the American education system and No Child Left Behind, I shouldn't assume that. I could be wrong.

So, people-- what were you really upset about? Hmm? That Obama hasn't completed his whole presidential agenda in less than half the time he has in office? Or that that leads you to believe he won't get to everything?

True, it would be pretty miraculous if a president actually managed to fulfill their whole agenda, but you people are carrying on like Obama's just given up! And yes, this post has just transitioned from blatant sarcasm to full-on anger. Give the man some time before you consider him a do-nothing! He's already begun taking action on several points of his campaign promises. The only reason it's taking so long is because the Republican party (and even the disappointed Democrats) are trying to ensure he fails, setting the stage for Sarah Palin to be elected in '12. If that happens, every theory that the world ends in 2012 will be confirmed. But for the time being, let's give the guy with one of the world's most challenging jobs a tiny fraction of understanding as he copes with naysayers and our sluggish political system.

Also, watch White Collar on Tuesday nights. It's awesome.

Incensed Over Senseless Censorship!

Let's get something straight right now. Racism is not now, has never been, and never will be, cool. It was, is, and always will be pointless, despicable, and motivation for some truly unspeakable acts.

That being said, everything mentioned above holds true for censorship, too.

Take, for instance, D.W. Griffith's silent film, The Birth of a Nation. It's a terrible movie, but there is some value to it: through the filmmaker's twisted bias, it reveals the folly, ridiculousness, and hypocrisy of racial bigotry. People have demanded for over ninety years that the film be banned forever, never to be shown in the US or any other country. That is, of course, a violation of free speech... even crude, offensive hate speech is "speech."

However, efforts have been made to restore The Birth of a Nation to its original format so people can see it the way it was meant to be seen. Once more, I hesitate to talk about this film like it was a masterpiece (because it isn't), but a lot of people think it is. It does, though, look like some of the footage is lost forever. This deprives people of a really really good example of why you should treat all races with the same respect.

People out there are trying to save a movie that depicts African Americans as ignorant savages put on Earth as an embodiment of pure evil, and yet two well-respected authors have gone and destroyed a series of children's books that contain mere stereotypes... stereotypes that are offensive and damaging, but that reflect the world at the time these books were written.

I am of course referring to Hugh Lofting's Doctor Dolittle stories, which Patricia C. and Fredrick L. McKissack felt free to "revise" and "rework" to change the author's words.

I'm sorry, that just sickens me.

I hope to one day be a published author. I would be livid if I came back decades or so after my death to discover that a couple of "well-intentioned" sanitizers removed profanity or violence from one of my books. I'd never write racially insensitive material, true-- because a) I know better and b) society knows better.

That still doesn't make censorship right. The McKissacks went out of their way in an introduction to the first novel to say that they did not support censorship, or dilution (cough *hypocrites*! cough). They also, however, said that they don't believe children should be exposed to damaging texts.

I can certainly understand where they're coming from. Of course you don't want to expose a child to something that could hurt them, but children aren't as stupid as people like this think they are! From my own experience in spending time with nieces and nephews, I know that kids have the ability to work out the world around them and determine what's good and what's bad. Children are intelligent and resourceful and know when to be offended.

The only "censorship" I condone is a parent's duty. It is the duty of each parent (or legal guardian) to determine what music/literature/cinema/television is appropriate and inappropriate for their children, to prevent them from seeing the inappopriate, and to provide them with the opportunity to experience the appropriate. If a child feels hurt by appropriate content, maybe the parent made a simple human error, but the offended child would need a discussion with his/her parent(s) about why what they saw/heard/read was hurtful. Once again, people, children can handle this kind of honesty-- in fact, parent/child discussions seem to me to be completely necessary for development. I remember my parents telling this stuff to me when the need arose. And guess what? I have no self-esteem issues that arise from seeing anti-me propaganda in print.

Furthermore, the Doctor Dolittle stories are not for young young children anyway. From the look of it, I'd put it at about a third or fourth grade reading level. Third-or-fourth-grade readers can-- you guessed it!-- decide (within reason) what books are good or bad for their self-esteem.

And, let me just say, I left the fourth grade a loooooong time ago. I had hoped to experience the Dolittle series because the Rex Harrison movie was such a memorable part of my childhood, and even the weaker Eddie Murphy remakes I hold in similar regard. I, a high-school graduate, wanted to figure out where these often-hilarious movies had their origin. Apparently, they were the brainchild of a gifted author whom the McKissacks have such little real respect for. They obviously don't have much respect for their readers, either. If a parent finds Doctor Dolittle inappropriate for their younger kids, whose responsibility is it to make sure the child has, instead, access to a friendlier tome? Ding, ding, ding! The answer is, in fact, the parent.

But-- what am I saying? These are probably the same kind of people who picketed to stop Cookie Monster from glutting himself on baked sweets. Parents (who, apparently, had nothing better to do than picket PBS-- do they know that parenting is a good way to eat up some free time if you have kids?) complained that it was Cookie Monster's example that made their children overweight and diabetic. Let me ask this: did Cookie Monster break into your homes and force-feed cookies to your children? If they did, you're keeping something in your house that could be far more damaging to a child than cookies and Dolittle. Parents feed their children by-- yup!-- parental responsibility! If you're worried your kid is going to get fat, stop feeding them sugar and cholesterol!!!! I mean, kids may be intelligent, but they still don't know boundaries in matters like this.

And you can blame Hugh Lofting and Jim Henson all you want. They didn't contribute sperm or ovum to your children (again, that's just a hope). They're not responsible for supporting your children (only partially because they're both dead). The best way to make the world better? Be an adequate parent to your children instead of resorting to blame and censorship.

And moviegoers out there-- stay away from Birth of a Nation. Seriously, it's a pile.