Wednesday, 27 June 2012

The Great Debate: Could You Outrun a Sharktopus?


I gotta be honest, the Sharktopus debate was way more interesting than the Sharktopus review. The problem is the plot, while simultaneously amusing and predictable, is so similar to other movies in the giant shark/octopus hybrid genre, that it doesn't justify describing. My plan is to provide just enough info so you're equipped for the debate.

Plot
- Killer shark-octopus hybrid, named S11, is created by scientists as a military weapon.
- S11 shakes off his maniacal manacles, goes berserk in the Caribbean.
- Sharktopus-loving scientists want to protect the misunderstood beast, while trigger-happy military types plot its destruction.

"The misunderstood beast"
Sharktopus Capabilities
- The many-toothed head of the shark delivers maximum dismemberment/carnage;
- The octopus legs allow it to grab its victims and feed them directly into the shark mouth;
- The barbed legs of the octopus portion allow the Sharktopus to stab or decapitate its foes;
- The hydrodynamic shape of the shark head, coupled with the burst speed of the octopus tentacles allows the Sharktopus to move incredibly quickly in the water;
- When Sharktopus is threatened, he can disguise his flight by muddying the waters with ink;
- Sharktopus has no problems breathing in or out of the water; and
- The octopus legs allow the Sharktopus to climb obstacles, and even walk on land.

The barbed legs of the octopus portion allow the Sharktopus to stab or decapitate its foes”
 
Are you with me? Because this is where things start to break down. We've got serious disagreement about the capacity of the Sharktopus to move on land. The first school of thought is that the Sharktopus has no trouble getting around out of the water. He/she's actually extremely nimble and quick. The second school of thought is that the Sharktopus is awkward and unseemly on land, lethal, horrible and slow.
 
Sharktopus is fast on land

Notice the sheer lengths of the octopus legs in the following shot of Sharktopus going kraken on a sail boat. We're talking appendages at least twenty feet long, possibly more. Therefore, the Shaktopusses' stride would rival the most long-legged non-mutant animals on the planet, such as the giraffe. While designed for underwater mayhem, obviously the Sharktopus can cover a huge distance with a single step.
 
"We're talking appendages at least twenty feet long, possibly more".
 Further to the pro high land speed argument is the obvious power and torque of the Sharktopusses' rubbery limbs. Seen scaling the rigging of ships and other obstacles, the Sharktopus might travel by hauling itself forward with the foremost tentacles. Perhaps the Sharktopus could achieve a Dr. Octopus or Spiderman level of speed and agility with this method. If so, it's highly likely he/she would be able to outrun a human being, particularly in an urban setting.

"Seen scaling the rigging of ships and other obstacles"
 Sharktopus is slow on land

Another stance is that the Sharktopus is a chassis built for destruction, not speed. The massive size and weight of the Shark body/head clearly skews the centre of gravity for the mutant beast as seen in the pic below. Lacking a suitable counterweight in its octopus hindquarters, the sharktopus on land, while terrifying, is an awkward beast. This awkwardness exists before you even consider that the Sharktopus is gobbling up human beings in a hideous feeding frenzy. Those unfortunate victims are only increasing the weight of the shark head/body, and throwing off the balance further.

"The Sharktopus is a chassis built for destruction, not speed."
 
What about tentacles? Even with the normal suction-cup variety, the tentacle isn't designed for land transportation, but the Sharktopusses' tentacles are topped with spear-like barbs, for even less traction. So where exactly does the rubber hit the road? Considering this limitation, and how his/her octopus-body lacks a skeleton, the fact that Sharktopus has mastered even slow locomotion on land is incredible.

So whaddya think? Do you think you could outrun the Sharktopus? Maybe you need to borrow the DVD?

Friday, 11 May 2012



Bad Movie Mondays Review
Two Headed Shark Attack

“1 body, 2 heads, and 6000 teeth!” The movie’s snappy poster warns. Sharing the screen with the conjoined shark are Brooke Hogan and Carmen Electra, whose acting prowess, being somewhat better than the sharks, lends considerable credibility to the film. It was this credibility that inspired Bad Movie critics Simon and Matt to dive into the aquatic nightmare of Two Headed Shark Attack.


“1 body, 2 heads, and 6000 teeth!”
  Bad Movie Moments

-Close up of the shark looks like a sock puppet
-A Mexican deckhand/stereotype is named “Tequila”
-Size of shark varies greatly from shot to shot
-Actors react inconsistently to being devoured
-Hull breach drawn with marker
A fascination with many-headed monsters has echoed throughout pop culture as well as classical mythology. From the three-headed Cerberus, guardian of Hades, to the indomitable hydra, enemy of Hercules, these beasts possess several advantages over their single-headed brethren. Multi-headed beasts can attack in a wide swath and are difficult to surprise and surround. They can also multi-task; one head can gorge on prey while the other scans the horizons for threats. Our two-headed shark uses his particular mutation with great results. When both heads are gnawing on the same surfer, it creates a kind of tug-of-war effect, often tearing soon-to-be-corpses completely in half. 

"the three-headed Cerberus, guardian of Hades"
The movie opens with such a display of two-headed skill. Two wake boarders, towed behind speedboats, are simultaneously and voraciously devoured by the twin maws of the shark. This is the Cerberus-shark at its finest: swift, powerful, hungry and free. As the blood and human remains darkened the water Simon was moved to utter “the intro leaves me breathless. For real.” Sadly the sensational opening moments only make the inevitable fall into disappointment all the more heartfelt.
The plot revolves around a group of students embroiled in a “semester at sea.” At first glance the class consist of various high school stereotypes: the jocks, the nerds, the princesses and the skanks. All were apparently chosen to show off their tight, bronzed bodies, with the obvious exception of Carmen Electra, the professor’s wife/acting veteran. As their ship is damaged by two-headed shark attacks, the class flees to a nearby small island (or atoll). Naturally the atoll begins to sink, trapping the protagonists between attempting to repair the boat, which would expose them to the dual-headed beast, or wait for rescue, and risk the possibility that the atoll’s sinking might cast them into the shark’s domain.
"apparently chosen to show off their tight, bronzed bodies, with the obvious exception of Carmen Electra"
These concerns coincide with the obligatory, yet gratuitous sunbathing scenes. The fine line between B movies and pornography is further blurred when three of the students, two girls and one guy, slip away from the group for some watery intimacy. Based of the levels of nudity, the audience presumes the young man’s pubescent threesome fantasy is about to be realized. But he doesn’t make his move fast enough! The Cerberus-shark hauls away and consumes the two ladies while the young man watches; his arousal melting into abject horror and loss (we assume.) At this point in the movie we paused to discuss the ramifications of what had happened. What if, I asked my esteemed Bad Movie colleague Simon, the shark let this guy live? What kind of grey, meaningless life would this traumatized man endure? Oh, to have known such intimacy only to have it wrenched away would be the sickest of tortures, suitable for a villain of Deathbed proportions! We soon unpaused, and the shark mercifully finished the job.

The Cerberus-shark hauls away and consumes the two ladies while the young man watches
As the shark picks its way through her classmates, the lantern-jawed Brooke Hogan emerges from obscurity and begins to lead the remnants of her class via mechanical expertise and white trash grit. With the help of a nerd she has trapped in the friend zone, she dreams up ways to distract, blow up, elude, and electrify the diabolical shark. Her tough, powerful character is arguably an important role model for young women. Despite this (or perhaps, because of it) the monstrous shark saves Brooke and her pet nerd for last, the surviving head battling on even after its twin has been slain.
"Her tough, powerful character is arguably an important role model for young women."
It is in these last fleeting moments that the director begins to introduce close-ups of the shark in order to keep things dramatic and fresh. These close up shots, intended to cause fear and horror, only inspired unintentional humour. One Bad Movie Monday guest even declared “Oh my God, rewind that! It looks like a f______ stuffed animal!” Quickly dubbed “Ol’ Button Eye” the puppet shark encapsulated in the screen capture below is the true tragedy of this film. What happened, noble Cerberus-Shark? You were so powerful at the beginning, when you devoured those wake-boarders. You were truly alive, embracing your inexplicable mutation with skill, artfully flinging your victims into your mouth. You even surfed in a tsunami as the atoll collapsed, striding the world like a Colossus. And now look at you, Ol’ Button Eye: beaten, ludicrous, and laughable.

It looks like a f______ stuffed animal!”
On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 10 is Deathbed: The Bed that Eats) Two Headed Shark Attack merits a 7.5 due to entertainment value, unintentional comedy, and soft core appeal. A highly enjoyable Bad Movie, this flick represents an enormous step backwards in giant shark puppetry, a niche expertise which Simon and I have developed through close scrutiny of Bad Movies, specifically monster-shark Bad Movies.





Thursday, 19 April 2012

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats

Sure, you've got a man-eating bed, but does it explode at the end? In a genre dominated by carnivorous plants, zombies, and maniacs, how can a possessed bed make the cut? Avid B-movie watchers/critics Simon and Matt descend into the hellish world of Death Bed: The Bed that Eats despite the high probability of disappointment.



“High probability of disappointment[?]”


Of course we were hooked by the title. In fact, we were only hooked by the title. The best bad movies always sport outlandish, preposterous titles. These are designed to grab our fickle four-second attention spans, so that when we reach for Casablanca in the movie store we don't realize we picked up Death Bed until we're already at the checkout, and then it's too late. At least, that's what I wish happened.

Instead Simon, my bad-movie watching colleague, heard about Death Bed from Patton Oswald's standup comedy routine. Oswald refers to this classic 70's horror film as “Death Bed: The Bed that Eats People.” Neither Simon nor myself condone this modification to the film's title, despite the fact that Oswald's version is clearly more amusing. Sadly, our support was not withdrawn because we felt the modified title sabotaged the credibility of the film, but instead because the bed is not limited to eating people. He/It also eats luggage, fruit, clothes and at one point self-administers a bottle of Pepto Bismol to ease the passage of several college students.



“To ease the passage of several college students”

If you're like me, as your continued reading suggests, you're probably wondering what's the deal with the bed, right? How does a normally inanimate object relate to and interact with the world? Well, one of the reasons Simon and I have shouldered the Atlas-like effort of watching these terrible movies is so that you don't have to. <SPOILER ALERT> The deathbed is an old-school four-poster bed hung with ornamental curtains. Contrary to my initial expectations, it doesn't possess massive gnashing teeth like a shark, or slimy, groping tentacles like an octopus. It also lacks the hideous combination of teeth and tentacles that makes Sharktopus a bad movie classic. (Stay tuned for an upcoming Bad Movie review!)

Instead, the blankets provide a comfortable-looking veil for a yellowish pit of digestive juices. The bed is easily king-sized, demonstrated when it eats an orgy of at least eight people. The bed possesses a primitive intellect, insatiable hunger, malevolent cruelty, and some telekinetic/otherworldly powers. Whenever the bed grows excited about the opportunity to eat someone (or molest with its powers and then eat) a man's heavy breathing dominates the soundtrack. This breathing sometimes degenerates into small, perverted whimpers, moans and lip-smacking. These grotesque noises indicate a mind that delights in causing anguish and suffering, experiences the deathbed incites whenever possible.

The anguish of the narrator is one example of the bed's malevolence. The tale is narrated by a young artist who was dying of consumption and decided to draw a picture of his deathbed. As he passed on, the demon-bed trapped the artist's soul within the painting. Frozen in his dying misery, the artist is forced to watch the deathbed's numerous atrocities. The other characters in the movie, secondary to the artist/deathbed dynamic, only serve to highlight the bed's capacity for cruelty, and the artist's desire to flee his painting-prison. Eventually the artist manages to speak beyond his painting and convinces some of the bed-fodder to conduct the ritual that will destroy the bed- yes, in a fiery explosion- and free his soul.


“The blankets provide a comfortable-looking veil for a yellowish pit of digestive juices”

The artist's curious knowledge of this ritual is merely one of a multitude of facts that he couldn't possibly know within the context of this movie. How the artist knows about the atrocities the bed committed before he himself was entrapped is never explained. These are the bad movie moments that Simon and I live for. Awkward, porno-quality acting could not quite overshadow the discomfiting sound effects; the squeal of a door hinge sounds distressingly like a whoopie cushion. Late in the film, one of the indistinguishable bed-victims attempts to slay the bed with a knife. Instead, the bed devours his hands and sinews, leaving the mutilated man with skeletal appendages. Tragically, the low budget of the film shines through in this moment, leading Simon to remark, “It looks like shitty Halloween bones.” That being said, at least the man had the decency to scream as his hands were being digested. Most of the actors couldn't decide on the ideal reaction as the bed ate them; in consequence the reactions range from terror, pain, confusion and anger. Rarely, in fact, do the victims of the deathbed scream from the pain of digestion, preferring more subtle ways of dying. Simon and I paused the movie at this point to discuss what the proper reaction to being digested by a demon-bed should be, an ultimately inconclusive debate since we both lacked experienced in the matter.



“Shitty Halloween bones”

One thing that Simon and I have become experienced in, however, is watching bad movies. And we've noticed that every now and then in the midst of some drab, overcast plot, a ray of sunshine will break through the clouds and illuminate something, making it almost beautiful. I guess your expectations are just so low that any type of directorial skill seems like a stroke of genius. Take, for example, the artist trapped in his painting. The artist is confined to being a spectator, forced to view and critique the actions of the deathbed. Like ourselves, the artist is outside looking in. His voyeurism of the deathbed makes we critics aware of our own voyeurism of him. And suddenly we're actually having real thoughts about B-movies and that's what makes the process so enjoyable, irrespective of the writer or the director's intent.

And now I must confess, despite my complicity with the artist, that I was rooting for the bed all along. It's not the bed's fault that it was animated by demon tears and consequently filled with rage and malice. In the absence of real role-models and parents, is it reasonable to expect the bed to share the same moral code as the human beings he so relishes? And what about hunger, people!? The bed has the same urge to live as every other 'species.' Due to a coincidence completely out of the control of the deathbed itself, the bed's corporeal form was designed by humans for their comfort. Should he then abstain from eating people who willingly lie on him? Despite the fact that the bed has gone months between meals at times, should he ignore his hunger and make peace with his slow, dwindling starvation? Would you?

But then the deathbed lost my support. When one of the indistinguishable college students attempts to save another anonymous character from being sucked into the bed and devoured, she finds herself drawn in as well. So begins ten minutes of the most grotesque, uncomfortable and generally hideous cinematography of my movie-watching career. The women is strong and fit, refusing to be eaten, she writhes mightily against the mysterious force the bed employs to create its powerful vacuum. Perhaps noticing the fish-like flopping Simon quipped, “She's struggling like a forty pounder!” She even manages to withdraw from the bed's 'grasp', falling onto the floor. Her legs are clearly supposed to be ruined and mostly digested, as evidenced by the actresses' wails and the amount of blood. In the next five full minutes of hauling herself away from the bed, we had ample time to note how only the top of her legs were blood-covered, denying the audience the satisfaction of a blood trail. Agonizing her ruined legs up a small flight of stairs for another four minutes the woman nearly reaches the front door and freedom. But here the diabolical bed sends forth a sheet-tentacle, which quickly wraps around her, hauling her into the bed-maw just as the hope of safety was nearly realized. This toying with its prey is one way the director successfully manages to project human qualities-like cruelty- onto the bed. The fact that he manages to do so at all is astonishing.


She's struggling like a forty pounder!”

Due to its title, preposterous concept, transparent bad movie moments and unexpected gems of enjoyment, DeathBed: The Bed that Eats is the standard by which all bad movies will be judged. Despite the low budget, the director has laudably created a thoughtful, horrifying and grisly tale that will leave you paranoid about going to sleep for many restless nights... but not really.