Many things inspire films. For some, inspiration comes from an event in one’s life that needs to be expressed for cathartic relief. For others, inspiration comes from dendrites connecting what you see to various emotions. In the case of “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” inspiration came from looking around a prop room and grabbing the first five things filmmakers John De Bello and Costa Dillon saw. Now if I have set this up as a negative review, do not be fooled. I have never seen a finer film then this cult classic. So, now for the plot.
Giant man-eating tomatoes. Done.
There’s no love story, there’s very little back-story, there’s no STORY, and random elements are constantly thrown in. For instance, in one scene a man assassinates various people and is eaten by the giant, killer fruits. Was he ever introduced before? No. Was he significant to the demise of the killer tomatoes? Not in the least. His presence in the film was a total non sequitur. Eventually, some similar characters begin to reoccur from scene to scene and it becomes clear that there is some group of people trying to stop the tomato invasion. However, overall, there is about as little in the plot department as there is going on in John Bobbitt’s pants. What is most shocking is that this was actually based on an earlier student film by John De Bello of even poorer quality.
I truly, to this day, wonder if there was any acting being done in the film. If so, it must just be so good that its subtlety shot right over my head. The person who comes closest to actually mimicking human emotion is supporting actor George Wilson. If you were thinking of the secondary character from the novel The Great Gatsby then you would be absolutely correct; it is, in fact, a fictional character from the 1920’s who steps up to play this role.
In terms of directing and general production, the movie was made on $90,000 and what is essentially a super 8 camera. The special effects are either worse than a film by Ed D. Wood Jr. or completely nonexistent. The director made a bold choice by using the “point the camera at the actors and yell action” method. The sets are…just real places, absolutely nothing fabricated. And, to top all this off, there’s a musical number in the middle of the bloody film. WHOSE CREATIVE DECISION WAS THAT? One character sings a song directly to the camera and then it is never referenced later. I would like to think this is what a film by Temple Grandin would be like. I apologize to Ms. Grandin for that remark; she could make a far better film.
So, if I rant so much about the major flaring cracks of this film, why did I say it wasn’t bad? There is certain point where a film can amass such a huge cult that regardless of the quality, it’s an instant classic. That’s exactly what this film is. It’s cheap, terrible, and such a treat to watch. I have never been happier watching a movie, partially because I had just shot up. But even though I was chock-full o’heroin, the mind numbing campyness of the damn thing made it far too enjoyable for a film made on $90,000. Suck it Avatar! To most accurately sum up the film, it gave me the ultimate feeling of schadenfreude. This is to say the film was like watching someone fail for eighty-seven minutes and knowing I could never do anything so poorly. Finally, the film teaches us that there is cheap art and that something doesn’t have to be good to be…good. What rings most true is that lycopene kills.
No comments:
Post a Comment