My bluray copy just shipped too. Cheesy FX in high def - woo-hoo!!!
If you happen to be near Burbank California, you have 5 hours to get to Dark Delicacies for a signing event featuring
Finally watched this on Vudu (in HD) and it was worth every penny. To use a phrase I think I’ve used three times in my life, OMFG. I can’t believe any filmmaker serious enough to have a DGA card could make such a thoroughly crappy work. Besides absolutely every other down-check, already adequately covered here and elsewhere, the editing seemed to be accomplished by hitting the RANDOMIZE button in Premiere/FCP. Every single cut was bad - off by a fraction of a second, mismatched, wrapped over the tag end of another reaction or line… maybe I’m criticizing the wall paint here, but editing alone can make or break a film. Even when it’s already broken.
You do realize that’s a little like criticizing the brushwork in finger painting - right?
A bit, but I’ve done enough video editing to notice details that might escape most viewers. I’ve watched complete garbage movies that had adequate or even good editing, and there are some movies that could have been great but for ham-handed edits that continually interrupt the viewer’s concentration on a level below conscious notice. (How many times has a movie sort of annoyed you and kept you a little confused for no evident reason? I’d bet it’s a poorly edited one.)
So, all heapin’ helpins of blowed-up shark aside, the truly abysmal editing contributes to the awfulness of this film.
But what do I know, criticizing a cinematic masterpiece with a respectable 91 RT rating… :dubious:
But this is what I don’t get. Sharknado is, by it’s creators own admission IIRC, a silly, stupid movie. The fact that hurricane induced water spouts are theoretically plausible just adds to the gag. The story has more holes that the brain of a cow with BSE (mad cow disease). So to be consistent, the editing would have to be sloppy. Were it otherwise, it would detract from the whole premise. It wouldn’t add up.
Ah. They *meant *to do it. Of course.
Do I detect a note of skepticism there?
You see, that’s what makes this movie a classic. It so perfectly walks the line between intentionally and unintentionally bad that people will argue forever about which it really is. I think if you read what the director and others involved with it have said, some of which I’ve linked to in this thread, you won’t have any doubt about which it is.
But really you don’t even have to bother with all of that. I think it’s obvious on it’s face if you pay attention and give the writers and director even the smallest amount of credit.
SyFy has spiraled so far down the toilet that pretending turds like Sharknado are deliberately bad or spoofs or an in-joke or whatever is simply irrelevant. It’s a stupid, badly-made piece of shit from end to end and top to bottom; everything else is irrelevant.
I don’t get any real sense from watching it that it was meant to be a turd. I think it was supposed to be serious - as were Plan 9 or Troll 2 or Star Crash or Highlander 2 - and turned out just as badly as any of those, but without the resulting b-flick charm. I think it got to the rough cut and the producers said, “Uh, it’s a joke. It’s a parody. That’s it…” So the publicity campaign was ramped into full stupid mode.
Start with the fact that none of the actors are known for comedy, and the director (who has more experience as an SFX director) has never directed anything like comedy or parody.
No, I think this is a genuine piece of shit that SyFy, for all its ineptitude, managed to score a publicity jackpot on. Brace yourselves for a genuine torrent of me-too shit from all directions, now…
I don’t watch many SyFy movies since they’re not really my speed so you may be right about that genre in general. But unless they all come from the same director, I think you’re being a bit close minded painting them all with the same brush, don’t you - as opposed to looking at each one on it’s merits.
Of course I’d expect you to respond that this movie has no merits but then you’re left trying to explain how it differs from all of the other tripe in that genre that’s produced and I think the explanation you’ve come up with is weak at best. The PR machine spent millions on John Carter and what kind of rating did that get? I mean it’s not too hard to poke some holes in that theory now is it?
Now maybe my explanation for it being a classic is bullshit too, IDK. But that doesn’t change the nature of the movie and what its obvious intent is.
As for it being comedy, I never said it was comedy. It can be a gag and funny w/o being comedy - and it was definitely funny. It was fucking hilarious. That’s what you don’t seem to get.
Oh, I laughed myself sick throughout, especially at the bimbette’s vapid recasting of Quint’s tale. But I have very broad taste and can sit down to watch almost anything except chick flicks and slash/horror with appreciation. I bought Star Crash on Blu-Ray because the Netflix version is so crappy.
But will I ever watch it again? Not voluntarily. Do I think it’s a hilarious satire or send-up or parody? It is not. Do I think there was ANY intention except filling a few two-hour time slots with something that would draw eyeballs at a minimum budget? Nope. Do I think SyFy deserves to go out of business? Absolutely. It’s shit the way most sitcoms are shit: minimal budget, minimal effort, minimal value… but every once in a while one of these turds catches a perfect storm and gets this much attention. Which is good; usually it’s because the starlet was gruesomely murdered or turns out to be a call girl or runs naked through a football game or something.
ETA: If it had meant to be “funny” on any level before the rough cut was pulled together, they could have dialed up the humor about 5% and made it a real b-classic. They didn’t. It has the leaden feel of one of those films I mentioned that was Meant To Be Serious, Dammit and had no chance; it’s only “funny” the way a family argument you’re not involved in is.
Well, you’ve obviously watched a lot more movies than I have. I’m more a tv serials person and not an especially critical viewer even there. I have an HTPC so I tend to multitask when watching and therefore I’m not too demanding for the most part.
However since you also seem to have an ax to grind I’m not really inclined to defer to your opinion either. I think I’m intelligent enough to read the signals in the movie for myself and I’ll stick with my original conclusion.
More specifically, you’re wrong about it being a parody. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the intent - at least not in the traditional sense like say Scary Movie. It was parody-like though, so I’ll give you that much. But again, that’s what was so great about it - you can’t really pigeon hole it - and I think that’s one of thing that sort of pisses film buffs like you off. You don’t really know exactly what it is so your first reaction is to try to put it into an existing category and when you do, it doesn’t really fit.
I just want to highlight this. Sharknado is indeed currently 91% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes. 10 and 1. 4 and 0 among top critics. David Hinckley at New York Daily News gives it 4 out of 5 stars.
It’s the new Titanic I tell ya.
OK, now that was just mean. 
It looks like Sharknado has become the next Rocky Horror Picture Show with midnight showings like this one at various locations around the country.
SyFy’s EVP of programming explainsthe Sharknado phenomenon. ‘How can I make you more Sharknado?’