MYST #1 – Birdemic: Shock and Terror

Good bad movies have become an important part of film culture. From Ed Wood to Tommy Wiseau, some men have that misguided drive of filmmaking that results in messy, confusing, and contorted attempts at art. But, if they're good enough (or, bad enough), it will spark a cult following full of midnight screenings, hilarity, and good times for all, as evident from movies like The Room, Rocky Horror Picture Show, and any Mystery Science 3000 screening.

It had come to my attention that another film was graciously to this list, a movie entitle Bidemic: Shock and Terror. From the title alone, I knew I was in for one heck of a ride. It's not like I was oblivious to this film; I had previously dug up some info about this movie from various critics and humor sites, one of which stated that the movie will "change your life." Obviously this got my attention, so I decided "Hey, why not? It's probably better than sitting in front of YouTube all day anyway." So on to Netflix I went, pulled up Birdemic, gathered a bowl Cheez-its and pretzels, and sat through it, beginning to end.

Oh, boy. Ooooooooh, boy. Oof, they were right when they said it'll change your life, but in all the wrong reasons.

Lemme break it down for you.

The story:

The first act of the story follows Rod, a software salesman, living his successful life in his suburban home. That's it. I mean, really, that's all there is to it in the first act. The first three minutes of opening credits are just of him driving in a highway. They even get a shot of him filling his tank with gas. Look, I know that setting the mood of the scene, but you don't do that with stock footage of reality TV shows.

I mean, there is this romantic subplot between Rod and a fashion model named Natalie, but that's hardly as interesting as Roddy buying a pack of gum.

Speaking of which, before I move on I need to address this Rod guy's actor.

Throughout the movie, he seems to be doing one fundamental acting philosophy very wrong. ACTING. I mean, my god! There's drywall with finer characteristics than what this guys is putting on the screen. Don't get me wrong, none of the other actors qualify for the Oscars, but they look like an army of Marlon Brandos compared to this man.

Anyway, back to the (lack of) story.

So, we see him live his life, becoming successful at his job, watching TV, and having awkward sexy-times with his new girlfriend(?).

But wait, where are the birds? I mean, the movie is Birdemic. Seriously, it's 40 minutes, not kidding, 40 MINUTES into the movie, and I have not seen a single...

Oh...oh my.

So yeah, the birds are attacking everything. And they are exploding into houses kamikaze style.

I mean WOW! This came literally out of nowhere! I was just watching Roddy and his Victoria Secret model girlfriend getting it on, and now everything turned into a Michael Bay reboot of The Birds.

Speaking of birds, let's take a look at these cutting edge bird special effects:

M...mind...mindblowing...

Ok, so after our protagonists realize they've been surrounded by killer birds, they rush out and get their friends in hopes of escaping the terror. With limited supplies, they turn to the only weapons they can find: coat hangers?

Ok, this movie wasn't making a whole bunch of sense as it is. Let's focus on something that does make sense in this movie: subtle environmental messages! And by subtle, I mean it's screaming in your ears through five stereos while dubstep about polar bears plays in the background.

I know that making movies for a good cause is one thing, but it's another thing to be making something for the Discovery Channel, especially if you get this guy involved:

So yeah, it's an environmental horror/thriller/disaster/whatever movie about a guy who falls in love with a girl who then has to survive exploding birds. I won't spoil the spectacular ending for you. (Note the sarcasm.)

But wait, I'm not done! There are a few other things I want to cover.

Writing:

What? Storytelling? I'm sorry, I though this was a special for the SyFy channel.

Sound design:

Non-existent, aside from the boring soundtrack (both in the sense of bored boring and it's boring into my skull boring).

Acting:

See Roddy above.

Camera work:

"Are you a cinematographer?"

"Uh...I've taken pictures on my iPhone..."

"That's good enough for me! You're hired!"

Visual effects:

I have no words. Just...just look:

This movie, all in all, is TERRIBLE. Everything about is wrong, wrong, wrong. But...that's why I loved it in the end. It's another one of those movies that it so bad good, like I mentioned earlier. Nothing makes sense, no one seems to know a lick about making movies, and that's how the movies stands. It is the best worst movie I've seen and, dare I say, ever made.

If your bored on a weekend, grab a group of friends and whip up this motion picture masterpiece. You'll cry, cringe, and laugh your butts off all the way through. It is an experience that is meant to shared and remembered.



I give this movie

0/10 for quality.

100/10 for watchability!


I hope you all enjoyed my review of Birdemic: Shock and Terror.


Fond regards,
~Grant Dunderman
October 2013
Film Studies Period 10

Film Crit Hulk (aka The best film analyzer I have ever come across)

To give you proof, here's his article "Film Crit Hulk Smash: THE IMPORTANCE OF DRAMATIZING CHARACTER".

Short Film of the Week!

#1: The Backwater Gospel

~Contains language and graphic imagery.~

Review of the Reviews!

Over the weekend, in good preparation, I watched the 2008 Quentin Tarantino WWII flick Ingloriuos Basterds. Even though this was my 6th time through, I still regard it as one of my favorite movies. Memorable characters, spectacular writing, and a villain to blow out all other villains put this film up top as one of the best movies of the decade, bettering Slumdog Millionaire, Gladiator, The Departed, and all Harry Potter movies combined.

Dumbledore ain't got nothin' on this.

This, however, is all based on my personal opinion, and I'm just a high school senior who isn't even in his first month of Film Studies. So, I took the liberty upon myself (well, more so for the assignment) to find out if people who write about movies for a living think likewise of my opinion.

First up on the plate: Tom Charity from CNN

Being from a predominantly news-oriented site, I didn't expect much in-depth analysis. It followed how most publications would tend to write reviews. He gave a gist of the story line and the setting it takes place in; he lists off the actors and their respective roles; and he gives us an idea of whether this movie is worth seeing or not. He even brought in criticism from opponents of the film.

However, I was impressed with how in-depth he seemed to go into a particular scene and character. He extensively foes into detail about how important the first scene is to the movie, stating that it is "bleakly comic and incredibly suspenseful" and how it shows us that "words speak louder than action."On the same note, he praises Christoph Waltz's performance as the "silky, polyglot" SS officer, and villian, Hans Landa, citing his reasoning that "he is a man we will love to hate."

This guy.

Mr. Charity concludes by saying, "It's hard to see it converting many skeptics, but the filmmaker's fans should be more than satisfied, and curious newbies will discover a dense, literate, audacious and prodigious talent, still one of the best of his generation."

Now, with good praises there is always bound to be criticism.

Enter our second reviewer: Kelly Vance from East Bay Express

The site that the review itself is published on is a local reporting site, offering many stories and reviews on various places, foods, news, and, of course, movies. But being on the "Top Critic" section of Rotten Tomatoes must've taken some bit of effort, so I gave it a chance and read it through.

Turns out, it was a double-review/comparison with Basterds on one end and some Danish movie called Flame and Citron on the other. She began with Basterds, and it didn't take long to realize that this wasn't his favorite movie. He writes as if this movie was a mediocre student assignment, going into detail of the references Basterds made to other movies rather than focusing on the film's own story. Right after, he singles out specific scenes that he thought was weird/stupid and explicitly tells us why he thought they were weird/stupid. He then ends the Basterds portion of the review in the strangest reference imaginable: "Remember the 'Royale with Cheese' routine in Pulp Fiction? They're inventing a new junk-food product line for Inglourious Basterds — the White Elephant Supreme."

...Um...McDonald's eat your heart out?

The next half of the review is just him gushing over this Danish movie Flame and Citron, which I didn't even know existed until this reviewer came along. I'm sure it's a fine movie, but I'm not going to go into that. The review was very biased and the author sounded very pretentious. The only plus I can give to the review was that it also praised Christoph Waltz for the "nutsy villain" Hans Landa.

This guy...again.

Now while there are many things I agree with in one review and not with the other, both at least said something that I myself feel confident in agreeing with. Tom Charity, remarking on the film's structure, said, "For two and a half hours in the dark, anything goes." I find that comment, whether it may be flattering or not, is very true in regards to the motif that the movie hammered into us. There are no set rules in a war. You want to win? You gotta play your cards right, even if that includes playing dirty (with lots of blood, of course, like any Tarantino movie). As for Kelly Vance's review? Well, he did have a point when she said, "Tarantino lavishes the same sort of attention on [Christoph Waltz] that he once devoted to Samuel L. Jackson." Did Waltz steal the spotlight? Yes. Was it partly due to Tarantino's direction. Absolutely. But that's not an issue in this case. Tarantino saw the power that Waltz was able to convey in his acting, he didn't want to miss an opportunity to showcase it. Which is what he did, and in the end we got the best Hans Landa that anyone could've asked for.

And again! This guy!

Now, bear with me if you may, but let's say that I was completely oblivious to this movie and the only two sources of review were these two articles. Which one would I be more convinced by? The CNN Special Tom Charity or the Danish-film-fanatic Kelly Vance? I definitely would've lean toward CNN's Tom. I know that Kelly was very vehement at times and very passionate about his knowledge of cinema, but his pretentiousness would've been a bit of a turn-off. That, and I'd honestly trust something coming from CNN rather than some local paper based out of Oakland.

If I had to write an effective review, I'd definitely include more than either of these reviews put out. One thing that neither of them mentioned was if the movie left an impact on them or the audience, and with a movie about war and killing Nazis that'd be a nice incentive for the clueless movie-goer if they want to gain something from watching it. I'd also like to add a bit more analysis rather than synopsis. Instead of droning on what it's about I'd say what about it is different and interesting, to spice it up a bit and give that "Ooooh, that sounds cool!" factor.

And, I'd definitely leave out any weird and contorted references to other movies. Especially if they relate to elephants.

"Did you order the White Elephant Supreme?"

But anyway, hopefully you gained something out of this when it comes to reading reviews. Look out for biased opinions and check for credibility. Do it, or else Hans Landa will crack down on you.

Don't ever mess with this guy.

~Grant Dunderman

September 2013

Film Studies Period 10