Mission Statement: Under Duress

            Everybody appreciates a classic, especially if it’s a movie.  Flicks like “The Godfather,” “Citizen Kane,” and “Lawrence of Arabia” are just a few films that are constantly heralded as some of the greatest films in the history of film.  There is no shortage of film analysis and criticism on these works because they are grandiose and important.  However, this self aggrandizing way of thinking about films presents a fallacy in cinematic criticism, because it ignores an often overlooked segment of the population, namely the bad movie.  Any film buff can critically consider the work of David Lean, Francis Ford Coppola, and Alfred Hitchcock, but how many critics consciously and seriously choose to analyze the films of Ed Wood, Uwe Boll, and Michael Oblowitz?  Movies like “Out for a Kill,” The House of the Dead,” and “Bride of the Monster” undoubtedly lack the quality necessary to make even a passable movie, but this kind of thinking misses the point; low quality movies like these make the film goer appreciate the classics even more.  These bad movies also possess a kind of charm and slap-happy energy that make them more entertaining than, say, any modern day romantic comedy, for example.  Anybody who claims to be serious about expanding their knowledge of motion pictures cannot ignore the bad movies because, as painful as it is, they are part of the film world, too.

          My blog will tirelessly unearth the worst of the worst and examine them, just as one would examine the classics.  I want to find out why these movies stink, so that future generations will not have to suffer through the same cinematic dreck.  No colorful adjective will be spared, and no one’s feelings will be considered in my quest to educate the public about the seedy underbelly of film.  The bad film cannot and will not be ignored, and it is my job to keep it that way.