Critic Review - ReelzChannel.com

Snakes fails for the simple reason that it is a terrible, terrible movie.

January 11, 2007 Full Review Source: ReelzChannel.com | Comments (4)

Comments

snoopy13

Cathy B

ditto! However, my husband really liked the toilet scene.

Jan 7 - 03:43 AM

freezingicekirby

freezingicekirby Shafer

I terribly, terribly agree. -lol-

Apr 14 - 05:25 PM

John W.

John Woffler

This is exactly the reason it succeeds. It was intended to be terrible.

Aug 23 - 11:06 AM

TheRapist

The Rapist

I don't know if you've seen a lot of B-movies, but the reason they're so spectacular to watch is because the people making them were attempting to take everything SERIOUSLY. They were actually TRYING to make a decent movie, and then ended up failing on every level possible. I guess you could argue that a lot of these films were all-around bad: bad script, bad actors, bad production, etc. And I guess you could further argue that most of these films were, indeed, terrible. So I guess it's kind of like Hollywood in a way... Anyway...

This is the problem with SNAKES ON A PLANE and films like it (IE films that were "purposely made bad" or, in your words, "intended to be terrible"). Yes, you can intentionally try to make everything about the movie terrible, but more often than not, that's all it is: terrible. They really can't make anything *unintentionally* funny because they're so obviously being intentional. And as we are all very fucking aware, intentional humor is tough to pull off. So if they fail trying to actually make the audience laugh, then the film fails.

The budget for SNAKES was something like 35 million. Really? Not to mention they had Samuel L. Jackson and a "catchphrase" that would become more popular than the movie. They should have given them 350,000 dollars (or less), a cast of nobodies, and an incompetent or competent-but-limited crew. But of course they would never do that because this is fucking Hollywood, and they like to try to milk as much shit from the past as possible, including terrible movies. The sad part is, their intention to make something terrible really came true.

It's like if I got a team together and said, "Okay, guys, we're going to make a cult movie!" which wouldn't make any sense. The filmmaker, or filmmakers, doesn't create the cult, the audience does. In that sense, generally, most B-moviemakers weren't out to intentionally create something terrible. That was something that just happened.

Nov 5 - 04:02 PM

TheRapist

The Rapist

@John W.
I don't know if you've seen a lot of B-movies, but the reason they're so spectacular to watch is because the people making them were attempting to take everything SERIOUSLY. They were actually TRYING to make a decent movie, and then ended up failing on every level possible, thereby creating something unintentionally funny/good. I guess you could argue that a lot of these films were all-around bad: bad script, bad actors, bad production, etc. And I guess you could further argue that most of these films were, indeed, terrible. So I guess it's kind of like Hollywood in a way... Anyway...

This is the problem with SNAKES ON A PLANE and films like it (IE films that were "purposely made bad" or, in your words, "intended to be terrible"). Yes, you can intentionally try to make everything about the movie terrible, but more often than not, that's all it is: terrible. They really can't make anything *unintentionally* funny because they're so obviously being intentional. And as we are all very fucking aware, intentional humor is tough to pull off. So if they fail trying to actually make the audience laugh, then the film fails.

The budget for SNAKES was something like 35 million. Really? Not to mention they had Samuel L. Jackson and a "catchphrase" that would become more popular than the movie. They should have given them 350,000 dollars (or less), a cast of complete nobodies, and a totally incompetent or competent-but-limited crew. But of course they would never do that because this is fucking Hollywood, and they like to try to milk as much shit from the past as possible, including terrible movies. The sad part is, their intention to make something terrible really came true.

It's like if I got a team together and said, "Okay, guys, we're going to make a cult movie!" which wouldn't make any sense. The filmmaker, or filmmakers, doesn't create the cult, the audience does. In that sense, generally, most B-moviemakers weren't out to intentionally create something terrible. That was something that just happened.

Nov 5 - 04:06 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile