Someone suggested the 1986 horror comedy “House” as a candidate for Eric’s Bad Movies, and while it looked promising — some fairly negative reviews, William Katt from “The Greatest American Hero” as its star — it wasn’t an obvious slam-dunk like some films are. So I called my friend Scott Weinberg, who has seen every horror film ever made, to get his expert opinion. He said it probably wasn’t bad enough for Eric’s Bad Movies, but if I wanted something REALLY awful I should check out the sequel, “House II: The Second Story.”

This I did. On the one hand, Weinberg’s advice proved to be highly useful, as “House II: The Second Story” — which has nothing whatsoever to do with the first “House” — is indeed terrible. But on the other hand, Weinberg advised me to watch “House II: The Second Story,” which is not something that a person should ever encourage a friend to do. It’s an excruciating movie, full of bad comedy done badly and a story that makes absolutely no sense. It caused much moaning and agony in the Eric D. Snider Memorial Screening Room. (Yes, I have named my screening room after myself, and in memory of me, even though I have not yet died.)

Meanwhile, for What’s the Big Deal? this week I covered “Rebel Without a Cause,” a noteworthy film from 1955. Several people mentioned it last week when I asked for suggestions for this column; coincidentally, it was already on my schedule anyway. We think alike, you people who suggested it and me.

These columns will not appear next week because of South By Southwest, which I will be at.

So a friend of mine, for reasons known only to him, watched “Texas Chainsaw Massacre II” not long ago, and told me it would be suitable for Eric’s Bad Movies. I believed him. However, I knew that there were two more theatrical sequels in that franchise, and that if I didn’t want to cover all of them (which I didn’t) I should probably choose the worst one. These things generally get worse as they go, so I went with the fourth and final installment, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation.” If parts 2 and 3 are worse than this, they are very bad indeed. I know they don’t have the combination of Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey, though.

For What’s the Big Deal?, I wrote about “Days of Heaven,” a 1978 film by Terrence Malick that’s well known for its gorgeous cinematography. It stars Richard Gere, who was 32 years younger when he appeared in that than he was when he appeared in “Brooklyn’s Finest,” which opens Friday. My point is that Richard Gere is now very old.

About four months ago, I started a new weekly column at Film.com called What’s the Big Deal?, in which we examine a movie widely considered to be “great” or a “classic” and lay out what, exactly, the big deal about it is. Here’s the introduction I gave at the time, which explains the column’s premise in greater detail.

Since I’m in the mood for suggestions (don’t forget to help out with Eric’s Bad Movies!) I’d like to get your ideas for future editions of WTBD. It might help to draw from personal experience: What’s a “classic” movie you’ve watched that made you think, “Eh, that was OK, but what’s the big deal?” It could even be a film you actively hated. The point is that it’s supposed to be great but its greatness is not self-evident, at least not to you.

I think certain titles are bound to show up a lot. “2001: A Space Odyssey” — a movie that everyone either loves or doesn’t get at all — was built for this. “Citizen Kane” often gets the top spot on “best movies ever made” lists, leading many first-time viewers to check it out and come away wondering what they were supposed to have seen in it that they didn’t. Those are the kinds of movies I’m looking for.

There’s going to be a lot of subjectivity, of course. When I first introduced the column, someone suggested “Casablanca,” and I thought, “What’s the big deal about ‘Casablanca’?? It’s romantic and funny and entertaining! How could anyone watch it and not see that??” But then a friend of mine told me he finds “Citizen Kane” just as self-evidently fantastic, and that’s a movie that I think needs some explainin’.

Continue reading…

Ever since Eric’s Bad Movies debuted at Film.com, almost two years ago, you guys have been extremely helpful in suggesting suitable films. In fact, of the 95 movies I’ve covered as of this week, probably 15 of them were ones I’d never even heard of until you recommended them. This puts me in the unusual position of being grateful to have discovered “Gymkata,” for example, a movie that I doubt had previously ever produced positive feelings of any kind.

It’s getting harder to find good material — especially as the list of films I’ve already covered grows and grows — and so I come to you again now for more suggestions. Post them in the comments, or feel free to send me an e-mail or a tweet. The guidelines are below, along with a list of what I’ve already covered (including tomorrow’s entry! See if you can spot it among the already-rans!).

Thanks for your help! Eric’s Bad Movies is really a community effort, except that I’m the only one who gets paid for it.

Guidelines for Eric’s Bad Movies

1. It needs to be really bad. Films that are merely mediocre are a waste of time.

2. The film should be considered bad by most people, not just you. I don’t want to have to convince the reader that the movie is bad; I want us to be on the same page from the get-go. I know it’s hard to gauge a consensus sometimes, but use common sense. No matter how much you happen to hate “Titanic” personally, surely you understand that yours is not the prevailing opinion.

Continue reading…

One of the earliest subjects of Eric’s Bad Movies at Film.com was “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.” I knew in my heart that “Superman III” was also a good candidate, but I resisted it because I had fond memories of it from my childhood. I was 9 when it came out, and I’m pretty sure I hadn’t seen it since then. I was concerned that it might not be bad enough for Eric’s Bad Movies. Then I watched it the other day and within five minutes realized I had nothing to worry about. Holy crap, what an awful thing this is. I didn’t even write about several significant bad elements of it, just because I didn’t want the piece to be 8,000 words long. Anyway, here’s “Superman III” at Film.com.

My other weekly column, What’s the Big Deal?, is about “Rashomon” (1950), which introduced Japanese cinema to the rest of the world. All those “Godzilla” movies? Totally “Rashomon’s” fault. YOU’RE WELCOME.

This week’s edition of Eric’s Bad Movies at Film.com deals with the redundantly titled “D-War: Dragon Wars,” a direct-to-video movie that somehow finagled its way into actual theaters in 2007. This is the most recent film I’ve done in Eric’s Bad Movies — usually things from the 2000s are off-limits because I reviewed them when they came out. But “D-War: Dragon Wars” wasn’t screened for critics when it opened (big surprise), and I never got around to seeing it until now. It’s been sitting there, ripe, awaiting mockery all this time.

Then there is What’s the Big Deal? at Film.com, this week addressing Charlie Chaplin’s “City Lights” (1931), one of the best films from the silent era. (Actually, it came out after the silent era. That’s one of the interesting aspects covered in the article. Go read it.)

Man, you go out of town for 11 days, then come home for four, then leave again for four, and everything just piles up on you. Between Sundance and last weekend’s delightful experience at the Oxford Film Festival, I feel like I’m still recovering from traveling and eating and not sleeping (and then sleeping too much), and overdoing some things and underdoing other things. That is why this post is late, I guess.

Eric’s Bad Movies at Film.com is a famously lame monster film, “Night of the Lepus,” in which rabbits are enlarged and become carnivorous. I remember seeing part of this on TV once when I was young, and being practically giddy at the thought of a movie — an actual MOVIE, with famous actors and everything — being so terrible. It seemed inconceivable. Now, of course, I understand that this is commonplace. The dewy patina of my youth has washed away, revealing a cankered and gnarled soul.

What’s the Big Deal? at Film.com focuses on “Bicycle Thieves” (aka “The Bicycle Thief”), a beautiful Italian film from 1948. It’s one of the best films I’ve ever seen about the theft of a bicycle, next to “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure,” of course.

The Sundance Film Festival ran from Jan. 21-31; here, merely eight days later, is a summary of all the Sundance-related content I produced, gathered into one handy location.

My daily diary entries are gathered into one feature article here: Eric D. Snider’s 2010 Sundance Film Festival Diary

Here are my reviews, all currently hosted either at Film.com or Cinematical:

Blue Valentine B
Buried B
Cyrus A-
Enter the Void B+
Four Lions A-
The Freebie B+
Frozen B-
Please Give B
The Runaways C
Splice B+

Here’s a wrap-up piece I wrote for Cinematical: 10 Sundance Films to Watch For

For some reason, a reporter from Salt Lake City’s Deseret News wrote a profile piece about me that ran during the festival: Former BYU humorist returns as a Sundance film critic

David Chen of Slashfilm is a prolific and highly skilled podcaster, to the extent that he can sometimes record a couple episodes while you thought he was just having lunch. I appeared in three of his on-the-fly reports at Sundance:

We meet for the first time (note the scholarly photo).
We talk about the Sundance films I didn’t like.
We talk about public screenings vs. press screenings.

Finally, if you click the “Sundance Film Festival” link under the “Movie Reviews” tab at the top of EricDSnider.com, you’ll see where additional reviews will appear as they are produced.

Want to see Macaulay Culkin turn into a cartoon and be harassed by sentient hardcover books? It’s actually not as good as it sounds. It’s “The Pagemaster,” and it’s the subject of this week’s edition of Eric’s Bad Movies at Film.com.

Hey, remember “Easy Rider”? That movie’s pretty highly regarded. But what’s the big deal? My new-ish column, What’s the Big Deal?, sets out to answer that very question this week.

I had never heard of “Wizards of the Demon Sword” until it was recommended to me by a friend who knows a lot — some would say too much — about bad movies. He did not steer me wrong. It is the subject of this week’s edition of Eric’s Bad Movies at Film.com. If you have Netflix, it’s available to watch instantly. You would do well to check out the first few minutes of it.

Also at Film.com is What’s the Big Deal?, which this week addresses “Nashville” (the movie, not the city).

Eric’s Bad Movies and What’s the Big Deal? will both be off next week because of the Sundance Film Festival. I’m in Park City now, having just arrived at the condo I’m sharing with 582 other guys. There is one bathroom, and the door doesn’t close all the way, so there’s a paint can in there that you use to keep it shut. LIVING THE DREAM.