Our pal Warren J. Cantrell over at 10rant.com is known for his over-the-top persona. This list will no doubt be as controversial as some of his other man-tastic past Top 10s. If you have an idea for your own Top 10, email me at eric@scene-stealers.com. Here’s Warren:

Like a regrettable relationship, sometimes the true nature of a film only pulls into focus after a healthy dose of time and perspective. What we once enjoyed and maybe even defended against less confused peers can sometimes emerge from the time-fog as a shamefully regrettable “phase” that etches an embarrassing low-water mark for all films (or romances) to follow. As it concerns movies, any number of factors can contribute to this miscalculation, be it awesome pre-release hype, back-seat-opinion influence, and/or genre stigma. The last of these is important, for it’s easy for both those making and watching a film to get lost in a popular trend or fad that invariably gets played out and cliché after the fifty or sixtieth re-tread. It is for this reason that a movie’s ability to “stand the test of time” is such an important factor in determining its worth: perfectly executed harmonies between performances, content, and cinematic craftsmanship rare in films even to this day. Some films pulled this feat off and continue to do so even after a few decades on the shelf, and can rightfully be termed “classics,” as they dealt with themes that are a central part of the motion picture industry and the larger human experience (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?, 12 Angry Men, Psycho, and Paratroop Command come to mind). Other films got it wrong from the get-go, yet because of nostalgic vice-grips on memories or experiences associated with the pictures, people refuse to re-think the movies with a critical 21st century eye. Yes, while many claim that the films below are indispensable members of the holy Hollywood fraternity of screen gems, I’d ask that you take a harder look at what these “classics” were saying to their audience, examining the larger messages at play, and the complete picture from a distance.

10. The Sound of Music (1965)

This movie played around with some fairly interesting components, what with the lush Austrian scenery, horny nuns, and Nazi invaders. Having obviously decided that a plot that focused on the confluence of love and war couldn’t possibly carry the weight of two whole hours, the picture turned instead to song. Yes, to fill gaps that might otherwise have been plugged by Panzer divisions making ninety miles a day and a back-alley Fascist network that was paving the way for invasion with murder, the audience got a full soundtrack of delightful family sing-alongs. Good Christ: what was going on in ’65? I mean, I know Kennedy had his head opened up a couple years earlier, and the country was generally feeling “escapist,” but why deny the people some proper WWII action when the table had pretty much already been set? Was the movie based on a pre-existing musical? Yes. Did the film have fairly serious expectations to fill as it concerned its stage predecessor? Most definitely. Does this mean a flick can’t screw around a little to make a painfully underutilized plot more interesting and dynamic, giving the audience something other than shattered expectations when the Von Trapp’s didn’t kill that greasy little cunt Rolf? Hell no! Give this movie some action that ties in to the monumentally historical events unfolding around the main characters, ditch the songs, and stick with what works: killing Nazis to escape to freedom. Speaking of freedom, we may as well mention the elephant in the room, for after this list’s posting and the beating this next movie’s about to get at my hands, Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola and the rest of the Hollywood elite will make sure I am cast into the abyss, all liberties lost to he who dares criticize…

9. Citizen Kane (1941)

Indeed, there’s a lot to like in this film, yet in a way that puts it into an entirely different category than “The Sound of Music.” Truly, the innovate narrative structure, camerawork, and audio mixing put it into that rare class of film that defines the modern cinematic experience. To call this film a classic, however, is like claiming the Army Field Manual is an indispensable pillar of American literature. Let’s just be honest: while an admittedly important movie, its story is about as interesting as a barnacle convention. Though the movie dealt with a newspaper tycoon with money to burn and the world at his feet, the plot minced through tedious reviews, and re-reviews of the rich asshole’s love life. His love life! The film could have delved into any number of strikes he brutally repressed, or more details surrounding the wars he felt like starting with his newspaper. But no! Instead, the picture took a hard left directly off the shit-cliff into a shit-gulley, setting up very pretty shots with good cuts for a film that didn’t have the story to keep a person even remotely interested. It didn’t help that the film’s characters and the situations they were involved in register on the believability scale right on par with the expected fare in a daytime soap opera. Cartoonish in their presentation, Kane, his wives, and even the butler, acted with such ham-fisted amateur-hour proficiency that a person blushes, almost feeling sorry for the film before remembering how much blind devotion it elicits. The ultimate standard for modern filmmaking techniques and the Nouvelle Vague? Perhaps. Entertaining fare with an engaging plot and realistic performances? Not on your life.

8. Singing In the Rain (1952)

Speaking of foaming-at-the-mouth devotion for no conceivable reason, this sorry excuse for a movie has to get some ink, for nothing occurs throughout this picture that a half-hour sitcom episode couldn’t tidily wrap up. Personally, I couldn’t give a damn about the struggles of a successful movie star in the 1950s, and his headaches concerning famous girlfriends and studio hassles that revolved around the next big “talkie” release. Apparently back in the 50s people stared at clothes drying and watched the leaves change colors for entertainment, hence this exciting brand of storytelling got a bit of attention. After the advent of the flamethrower, however, you’d think this kind of shit would get shelved for more interesting fare, but alas, they still made this crap. And why? So that people could learn how to deceive a popular audience via lip-synching techniques and film slight-of-hand beneath the larger guise of a breezy romantic comedy? By all means, make a love story or a movie about the mid-20th century film industry, but if it’s going to stand up as “classic” 50 years later, don’t you think some endearing truth other than “love perseveres” should stand out? This movie was helpful in the grand scheme of things, however, which is why it’s not near the top slots. Indeed, this movie is proof that in order to make a buck with a film, all a person REALLY needs to do is choreograph a fancy dancing scene and slap together a non-threatening love triangle, and the money, adulation, and “classic” status will obediently fall into line.

7. The Wizard of Oz (1939)

First off, why did we even go to Oz? Why didn’t Dorothy shack up with some lousy, good-for-nothing petty thief and borderline-masochist, going Bonnie and Clyde on the Midwest with her new beau to reclaim dog and honor? Seriously? Who gets a court order to take away a 12-year old’s dog after beating it with a rake? Setting up a great revenge thread that was woefully under-utilized, the film transitioned from there into an alternate universe where the streets were paved with gold and the only impediment to Dorothy’s total domination of the new realm was midgets and witches that immediately melted when introduced to liquids. Naïve country bumpkin that she was, Dorothy spent the rest of the movie opining about her Midwestern farm life, battling flying monkeys (which still terrify me to this day, unholy beasts that they are) and forming uneasy alliances with mutant lion, tin, and straw creatures. And for what? To get back to Kansas, where communities stood gutted by the Great Depression and dogs were taken spitefully from sweet-natured little girls? With a bucket of water and the support of the local Munchkin unions, Dorothy could have solidified a power base that would have lasted in perpetuity. Ultimately, the film was telling its audience that despite all indicators suggesting otherwise, a person should reinvest and commit to a political and economic system that was well into its eighth year of ruin. Though the movie was based on a novel with equally powerful subtext, at least the author of the book made no qualms about his metaphors and insinuations, presenting fairly obvious symbolic and thematic elements to his tale. Almost all of the book’s themes were discarded for the film, a picture that spoke volumes about the movie’s support of United States isolationist policies despite Nazi aggression in Poland, and a devastating war in China. Dorothy was the film’s presentation of U.S. policy at the time, one which refused direct intervention and global dominance, that is until the witch came across the pond, and started dropping bombs on Kansas (would have been perfect for the sequel). But by that point, everybody was willing to accept that the tale was little more than a feel-good musical about a girl, her dog, and a land called Oz that could have been Dorothy’s had she been provoked enough to take it.

6. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

For a cartoon, this movie came with some pretty awesome assets: conspiracy, contract murder, deceit, poison, and even witchcraft. This brings us to our first problem, however. Mainly, this flick didn’t know what it wanted from itself. When you set up your story by introducing a woman looking to have the heart of an innocent young girl cut out and brought to her in a box, the first thing that comes to mind probably isn’t that you’d figure this as a sure-fire bet to capture the G-rated 5-12 year old demographic. Second, the movie gave us a comely young lass wandering into the bedroom of seven men living isolated in the middle of nowhere, providing nothing in the way of realistic resolution. And when I say “realistic resolution,” I mean “gang bang.” Come on, you really think seven dudes working like galley-slaves in the armpit of a diamond mine wouldn’t immediately turn out some tasty piece of ass that broke into their cottage and fell asleep on their beds? What are we even talking about, here? Third, where’s the revenge? Seriously! Some half-mad bitch of a stepmother puts a contract out on you and later tries to finish the job herself via poison, and a renegade bolt of lightning ultimately kills her? I take no issue with the fact that the movie is a cartoon, or even that it’s rife with extraneous musical numbers: but to set up a good character thread and abandon it so that dashing princes can arrive and NOT stab the crap out of something! Unforgiveable.

5. Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)

When I saw this movie, I kept waiting for the male lead to come to his senses, ditch the loopy bitch upstairs, get a cigar, and start working on making a plan come together. That Hannibal of all people had to suffer the indignity of a man checking his balls at the start of the first act makes this entire picture inexcusable. A fiendishly hot Audrey Hepburn though she may have been, she was a whore! Peppard’s character, on the other hand, was a writer with an endless train of gravy practically coming out of the tap via a rich, it-could-be-worse-looking socialite that wanted nothing more than to keep a man-slut on the side, even if that meant sharing him with other, younger, women. This guy had a gig where a woman was paying his bills and keeping him in style, allowing him to concentrate entirely on his writing while his sugar momma wasn’t even asking the guy to be exclusive. Crapping this divinely ordained arrangement down his leg so that he could chase a good-for-nothing cocktease harboring more issues than the Washington Post, the film’s lead ultimately got his prize in the end (a happy twist left out of the novel). But is that supposed to be a good thing? Wracked with guilt and anguish over her dead brother, mangled childhood, lost riches, and whore life, what kind of victory are we to assume for Hannibal and his new woman? He gave up his chance at getting some good ink time in without worry of bills or the taxman as a result of his “kept-man” status. Having thrown that away, and almost certainly in need of a real job to sustain his and the new girlfriend’s plush New York City lifestyle, what drab, sour existence can the audience expect from two people looking to accomplish little more than to keep from whoring themselves back out to high society to get by? Had the lead simply stuck it out a bit longer with the rich old broad to give him time to write and get established instead of chasing crazy high-end call girls, he might have ended up as more than the fractured shell of a man he almost certainly became.

4. Gone With the Wind (1939)

What a pain in the ass this movie is! There wasn’t a pragmatic, straight-thinking character in the whole friggin’ mess of a story: Even borderline-tough Rhett absolutely out of his mind as it concerned Scarlett. This didn’t put Clark Gable’s character into exclusive territory, however, as Ms. O’Hara was hopelessly in love with Ashley (a dude) who was already hooked up with Scarlett’s good friend Melanie. Throughout the course of the American Civil War and the subsequent reconstruction (both historical periods teeming with interesting plot possibilities) the movie looked only at the relationships of confused, hopelessly deranged maniacs, giving the audience plot twists that resembled a mediocre “Real World” episode. The whole thing played out like the narrative in a grocery store romance novel, Scarlett pining over some stupid asshole with a chick’s name while whoring herself out to whatever rich dickhead felt compelled to give the increasingly fat socialite a dick-tickle. By the time anybody came to their senses, the Civil War was over, children and parents had died, and three unrecoverable hours were gone. Though I do give some credit to Rhett for telling Scarlett to screw off at the end, it came too little too late. Had Gable’s character done this at the beginning of the film, it might instead have given the audience time to get to know the slick Reb. blockade runner and all-around bad-ass. Instead, we were forced to endure what felt like months of some incomprehensible love octagon with no real resolution except that everybody got screwed at the end. While I support so challenging a conclusion, this movie took pretty much the longest, most painful route to get to that conclusion, something the next film can certainly relate to …

3. The Searchers (1956)

There are few “classics” out there that get as much positive attention while still embracing so striking a racist pose as this legendary western. While there were certainly moments of cinematic splendor in the movie that challenged audiences in a way that forced them to re-conceptualize their filmgoing experience (Director John Ford knew how to shoot and cut a good-looking picture.), the story was horrific on multiple levels. In a reversal of the actual scenario of menace to the western plains in the mid-19th century, it’s Native Americans and not whites that were terrorizing innocents in this picture, with John Wayne’s Ethan avenging ethnic-cleansing on behalf of his people. Despite the well-documented reality of the genocide perpetrated against these people, widely known even at the time of this picture’s release, the movie embraced the idea of the Comanche’s faceless savagery as seen most clearly through their Chief Scar. This antagonist’s very name represented his people’s depiction in the film, standing in as an ugly blemish upon the divinely sanctioned American expansion west. Disregarding the safety of the very woman he was charged to rescue on several occasions to exact his revenge on Scar and his people, the Duke did what came most natural to the man: killing Injuns in the name of racial purity. Going so far as to turn his pistol on “Debbie” after learning that she’d acclimated to Comanche society, it’s only after Ethan actually scalped another human being that he realized that maybe, possibly, he might have some issues. Never apologizing for his five-plus year struggle to prevent or otherwise avenge the crime of miscegenation, Wayne’s character leaves the frame in the final shot a triumphant hero, having returned a white woman to her “people.” Say what you will about “Birth of a Nation,” at least people universally recognize that that movie was putrid in message if not in form, something that cannot so easily be said about this or the following entry …

2. Casablanca (1942)

What a pussy! That bitch leaves Rick in Paris without a word of explanation, without an apology or even a see-you-later fuck, and he takes her back? I don’t care that her husband had escaped from a Nazi concentration camp: for all I care it could have been a goddamn whale! Once a woman runs out on a man, favors immediately die. Ladies, break a guy’s heart if you want, but never do either of the following things afterwards: leave them a pen as a parting gift, and/or come back later asking favors. Ingrid Bergman’s Ilsa batted her eyes at Rick for all of a minute and in no time the guy was arranging covert transport, lying to military police, and even shooting people to cover his ex-girlfriend’s tracks. And for what? This film did immeasurable damage to men for decades to follow, the reverberations of the catastrophe felt to this day. This movie informed a generation of women that they could freely abuse, use, leave, and re-use men without worry of retribution or refusal. Because of this film, women are still of the understanding that it’s okay to toy with a man’s emotions and grind his heart into inhalable powder, that even after shattering his life and re-emerging with a new guy, that the ex will still be there because that’s what “classic” men do. Well thanks a lot, Bogey! Because of your baffling lack of backbone and the immediate collapse of your resolve, men will forever suffer at the hands of cruel, lazy, inconsiderate women who think nothing of leaving a guy, parading the new product in front of his face, and begging favors from emotionally-crippled souls. Who else needs a drink?

1. It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

When it comes to unredeemable crocks of shit, it doesn’t get much more deceptive than Frank Capra’s most egregious assault against America, the flag, and apple pie. In his 2008 write-up, Wendell Jamieson said that “‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams,” making an excellent point about a movie that is practically on repeat every Christmas. Yes, on the holiday when people are feeling their most vulnerable to influence and sentimentality, this movie comes around like clockwork, pushing people toward a miserable existence that will not ultimately be saved by angels, faith, and the kindness of one’s community. No, in real life, the REAL world outside of Hollywood and Never-Never Land, there is no angel to stop you from taking a header off the bridge, no Dickens-esque retreat into an unseen present. For actual human beings living in the non-fiction realm, the sacrifice of ambition and one’s life’s pursuits, the seemingly endless series of compromises that extinguish the noblest aspirations of the soul: they destroy us lock, stock, and barrel. George’s dilemma before his encounter with Clarence was legitimate for a man who never realistically took stock of his life or what he truly wanted for himself. That he ended up turning on his children and spouse, emerging thereafter from a bar en route to a suicide bridge should come as no surprise to anybody who has traded the dreams of tomorrow for today’s familiar and convenient gratification. George realized on that bridge that his life had been for shit, and despite doing the technically “right” thing by staying behind and printing a sign on his back that read “doormat,” he had nothing to show for his existence than pending collections litigation, divorce, and homelessness. That this film is shown on television regularly, and on a recognized holiday that guarantees its capacity to influence children is astonishing and, unbelievably, not upsetting to nearly enough of you out there. For shame.

Tags: awful, bad, classic, classic movies that suck, classics, films, Good, movies, no, overpraised, overrated, suck, terrible, wrong

Ever wondered what a special effects-driven disaster movie like the upcoming “2012″ would look like if all the FX were removed? Well, an editor has done just that, posting a minute and a half of footage from “2012″ with just the actors. John Cusack and company do a lot of screaming and reacting, and it’s hilarious. Want to know what the end of the world really looks like? Stick around for the closing shot!

Tags: 2012, actors, CGI, cusack, cut, effects, funny, Hilarious, no, video

Why Paramount isn’t showing “G.I. Joe” to critics

Here’s an AP article about why Paramount isn’t showing “G.I. Joe” to critics. All I can say is that if they were so worried by the “critical trashing ‘Transformers: Rise of the Fallen’ received,” then what do they have to fear? Here in KC, there’s been lots of advance screenings, but the press were intentionally kept out. We had a screening we were invited to that was actually canceled. When they say they “want audiences to define this film,” what they mean is that they want to get one big box office weekend in before word gets out that it’s terrible. After all, they’ve got $175 million to recoup.

You know those people who say: “Well, if it’s number one, somebody must like it!” Wrong. It means a lot of somebodies WANTED to like it. They liked the idea of it. The ad campaign. The stars, maybe. But people pay BEFORE they see a film, not afterwards.

This story is a joke. It’s a piece of regurgitated PR. Enjoy!

Associated Press
Posted: Tue., Aug. 4, 2009, 8:24am
Paramount won’t show ‘Joe’
Studio denies critics a sneak peek
By Christy Lemire, ASSOCIATED PRESS

It’s the biggest movie of the summer that practically no one has seen.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” opens Friday, but Paramount Pictures isn’t screening the blockbuster for critics beforehand. Only a select few writers from blogs and movie Web sites have seen it for review - such as Harry Knowles, the self-professed “Head Geek” from Ain’t It Cool News - and their opinions have been mostly positive.

Instead, the studio says it’s intentionally aiming the movie at the heartland, at cities and audiences outside the entertainment vortexes of New York and Los Angeles. Paramount held a screening Friday for 1,000 military service members and their families at Andrews Air Force Base; it’s also focusing marketing efforts in places like Kansas City, Charlotte, N.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

While appealing to a sense of patriotism nationwide, the plan also is inspired by the disparity that existed between the critical trashing “Transformers: Rise of the Fallen” received and the massive crowds it drew at the box office.

“`G.I. Joe’ is a big, fun, summer event movie - one that we’ve seen audiences enjoy everywhere from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to Phoenix, Ariz.,” said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures. “After the chasm we experienced with `Transformers 2′ between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote `G.I. Joe.’ We want audiences to define this film.”

With a reported production budget of $175 million and a cast that includes Dennis Quaid, Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller, Marlon Wayans and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, “G.I. Joe” follows the adventures of an elite team using high-tech spy and military equipment to take down a corrupt arms dealer. It comes from director Stephen Sommers, whose previous films include “The Mummy” and “Van Helsing.”

Long before anyone saw the completed product, though, “G.I. Joe” drew mixed buzz at best for its trailer, which premiered during the Super Bowl. Now it’s the final action picture of the summer - and it has a lot in common with the highest-grossing film so far this year, the “Transformers” sequel. Both are effects-laden spectacles based on Hasbro toys and both are Paramount releases from producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura.

“Transformers” has gone on to gross more than $388 million in the United States alone since its opening six weeks ago, despite receiving just 20 percent positive reviews on the Web site Rotten Tomatoes, a critical aggregator. The withholding of “G.I. Joe” from mainstream critics suggests that the studios believe they can succeed at the box office without them.

It’s a tactic normally reserved for horror movies or other genre pictures with built-in fans who don’t necessarily care about reviews - ones based on video games, for example - not summer blockbusters. Still, “G.I. Joe” has been tracking well because it represents the last big bang of the season, said Paul Dergarabedian, box-office analyst for Hollywood.com.

“They don’t need (to screen) it and there’s no upside to negative reviews. The film is going to open well no matter what,” Dergarabedian said. “They’re being very strategic in who they show the movie to. If they can win over their core audience from these reviews, that’s good for the movie.”

Devin Faraci from the film Web site CHUD.com is one of the few writers who have seen it for review purposes, and not just for junket interviews. He’s among the critics who’ve contributed to the movie’s 88-percent positive rating as tabulated by Rotten Tomatoes, saying: “If I was 10 years old, `G.I. Joe’ would be one of the best movies I had ever seen.”

Faraci said he was in Toronto recently when he received a phone call at 8:30 a.m. Los Angeles time, asking if he could come to the Paramount lot that day for a “G.I. Joe” screening. He flew back, got off the plane and headed right over.

“It’s silly. It’s a film that plays on its own terms,” he said. “I don’t think reviews will kill it but I think it’ll get a more positive response than they expect. It’s a big, silly, pulpy, cartoony action film and it makes no apologies for being that way.”

Tags: box office, critics, expensive, G.I. Joe, isn't, no, paramount, press, screening, showing, sucks, why

The opinions of Top 10 Movies Ruined by a Female Presence author Warren J. Cantrell do not reflect the opinions of anyone at Scene-Stealers and it was not written by Eric Melin, despite was the posting above says. I just posted it is all. In fact, I like to think of Warren’s writing voice as a kind of parody-inspired Stephen Colbert, except more geared toward the Uber-male demographic. If you have a Top 10 list of your own you’d like to submit, send it to eric@scene-stealers.com. Here’s Warren:

Recently, I wrote a list recognizing the heavenly glory that encompasses Danny Glover’s piece de resistance: “Predator 2.” I noted in one of my proofs of its superiority to all other Predator films that what bolstered the movie’s stock was a conspicuous lack of important female characters. I cannot stress enough how important it is to cleanse films of all female influence when pushing for a balls-to-the-wall action kill-fest. Both history and current-events don’t lie: women aren’t nearly as gun-crazy or cinematically brutal as men. For this reason, the fairer sex should be left out of films that cater to this particular section of the movie-going public. Yes, dear friends, in these hard economic times, I fear we will see an ever-increasing tendency to cross-market, forcing the upcoming remakes of “Robocop” and “The A-Team” (yeah, you heard me) to cast female counterparts to draw in the precious 18-35 female demographic. Here’s a list about what could have been had the following films taken note of such brilliant contributions as the aforementioned “Predator 2,” “The Wild Bunch” (women in that film drop like flies), and “Lawrence of Arabia” (just try to find a female speaking role). You might argue (and quite correctly) that some of the following films were not necessarily made to be relentless butcher pics, yet can you imagine what would have happened if they’d have removed the women, and let the natural course of man take charge? I can…

10. Independence Day (1996)

This one makes it onto the list, but just barely. “Independence Day” is a movie that’s so wholeheartedly awful that even if all female characters were (justifiably) removed from the screenplay, the movie would still struggle to keep itself afloat in the realm of watchable. But like many on this list, I ask you to look beyond what this film gave you, and peer into what might have been. So: Aliens invade Earth, Normandy-style, and it’s up to the air force to meet the threat in the skies above, fighting for what could be an entire third of the movie in a seemingly never-ending dogfight sequence (this aspect of the film was far too short). This is all aside from the fact that the movie completely neglected the possibilities afforded to a sub-plot/action sequence following the land invasion (which never happened)! Come on! That pretty much writes itself. Cast Denzel Washington as a ruthless Marine colonel leading his men to victory against an alien horde without air support for the first time in their history. Discard Jeff Goldblum’s and Bill Pullman’s romantic subplots, keep the story focused on the air, land, and space battles, and you’ve got a tidy, raucous 110 or so minutes of pure, undiluted action.

9. Crocodile Dundee (1986)

Who said this movie had to be a romantic comedy? The potential and ingredients are there, to be sure, so why was this so unrecognizably mangled? Well, check that, I think we all know why (immediate romantic interest insertion), but why did it have to happen this way? Couldn’t it have been a male reporter from New York who started going unnaturally tribal after a few weeks in the bush with Mick, killing poachers with massive fucking Outback knives in defense of the local aborigine broods? Why couldn’t that same reporter (male) have brought the hero back to New York, schooling Mick on the finer points of scoring coke and whores on the upper-east side at 3am? Why didn’t Dundee (Paul Hogan) and the appropriately masculine journalist fail to team up to fight crime and corruption in the Big Apple, double-wielding .45’s and Australian steel? Instead, we’re forced to endure seemingly endless hours of fish-out-of-water romantic fumblings, and a subway finale that could have improved dramatically if it took a page out of “Predator 2’”s playbook (who cares how the other-worldly creature makes it into the plot! Just work it out!).

8. The Breakfast Club (1985)

Nothing calms a bunch of high-school boys down like some ass in the room. Well, wait…let’s expound. True, adding chicks to a situation is usually enough of a catalyst to get shit started between two or more dudes, yet if allowed to remain, women tend to take attention off the pursuits men follow when the opposite sex is absent–mainly, killing and otherwise fucking each other up. When you’re thinking about getting laid, you’re thinking less about how you are going to exact revenge on that dude for looking at you sideways for that one second a few minutes ago. Had Molly Ringwald and Ally Sheedy been introduced, then mercilessly withdrawn as contest-prizes to see which two of the three would henceforth be known as men, a tribal, “Lord of the Flies”-like death match might have ensued within detention (three boys enter, two men leave!). Instead we get a full-circle, introspective look at high-school culture and the awkward gap between adolescence and adulthood. Personally, I would have liked to see Anthony Michael Hall pull the upset on Judd Nelson, matching up with Emilio Estevez in a bare-knuckle brawl to see who walks away with the prom queen. John Hughes, wake the fuck up!

7. King Kong (1933/1975/2005)

In any incarnation, this is a dreadful disappointment. One simple question: do we really NEED a woman for all of this? Why can’t we just get lost, stumble onto an island, wander stupidly around, meet the giant ape-bastard, and let mayhem ensue? Why not bring him back to New York without some stupid, screaming broad, let the fuzzy asshole get loose, and allow him BOTH hands to climb and otherwise screw with the army/national guard? Seriously! What if Kong had that other fist to intercept incoming bogeys with anti-aircraft shit-fire? I’ll tell you what! The finale would have expanded at least another fifteen minutes, and the world would be a better place for it! This film is one of the earliest examples of a movie reaching beyond what was necessary in order to get women off the streets, and into the theater seats. Even though its has seen revision and reinvention over the years, it has sadly not rectified the original mistake.

6. Interview With a Vampire (1994)

While some on this list (current movie included) started their lives on paper rather than celluloid, the fact remains: any number of stories of a motley array of incarnations can quickly dissolve into shit when women are inserted into the plot. For example, this movie gets things going at a fairly brisk pace; we meet our protagonist, get some cool flashbacks about the origins of vampiredom, and immediately get into the day-to-day intricacies of “living” amongst the undead. Sure, the movie veered wildly off course by not going into further depth about how cool the life of an immortal could be (why no World War I or II scenes for fuck’s sake?), yet give credit where due: The movie takes a left turn off the shit-cliff only after Kirsten Dunst comes into the picture. Indeed, rather than explore the nuts and bolts of the vampire-community-at-large (cruelly hinted at yet, never adequately explored), we are given a female lead to derail what might have been a most superb vampire experience. So thank you, Kirsten, as well as the author of this craptastic nightmare (also a woman from what I hear), you took the guts out of a truly awesome idea, and stuffed it instead with tampons and lipstick: well done!

5. Dances With Wolves (1990)

This is the first Civil War entry on the list, but it won’t be the last, I assure you. That more movies do not harvest this seemingly endless crop of wickedly awesome possibilities is a friggin’ mystery to me. This film is off to a good, manly start, throwing the audience directly into the armpit of a Civil War field hospital right as the protagonist is about to get his goddamned leg hacked off. This is followed by an escape from the same hospital, an absurdly Herculean cavalry charge, and a recklessly unexplained descent into hostile Indian country. While slowing its roll a bit after this, one might still hold out hope for a blood-letting of Roman, maybe even Biblical proportions from such a start. That is until Stands With a Fist (Mary McDonnell) entered the film, and ruined everything that might have been. Sure enough, as soon as the hero catches sight of her, everything that was hard about the film dies (ironic, no?), and descends into a shadow of its former self. What if John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) instead joins the Sioux, goes completely native, begins overtaking Midwestern wagon trains having become irreversibly addicted to the thrill of the hunt, and carries scalps at his belt. I could keep going with ideas with the awesome premise I’ve provided, but we must save room for an even greater Civil War disgrace…

4. Cold Mountain (2003)

Another Civil War entry, yet slightly higher on the list because of the appalling waste of potential afforded to a film with twice the special effects capabilities as “Dances With Wolves.” The opening is rock solid, turning down the suck to almost inaudible levels with a fairly faithful re-creation of one of the most FUBAR military operations in recorded history. For the first fifteen or so minutes, we get cleanly shot 19th-century mayhem, watching with giddy terror as the director thrusts the audience into one of the most crucial moments during the siege of Petersburg and the Civil War at large. Then what? Flashbacks, introspective character development, personal transformations, and fucking Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger! I would even forgive (begrudgingly) a movie for moving its story away from all the awesome promise of a Civil War battle epic to explore the terrible underbelly of a homefront terrified into hostile submission. Yet even here, the movie can’t help but to drift back to its female subplots, even when focusing on a man who somehow can’t resist bringing some stupid woman to mind every five seconds.

3. Superman (1978)

In any version or sequel, this particular superhero immediately signs his nuts over to the bond company, never to see them again. While many of his contemporaries are victims of the same crime (Spider-Man, Hulk, and even Batman in some versions, to name a few), repeatedly ruining otherwise decent films with female diversions in an absurd attempt to pad ticket sales and/or create a false sense of urgency, I’ve come to expect more from the Man of Steel. This guy isn’t some human with a vigilante streak or even some bumbling virgin with new-found powers: he’s a fucking alien whose abilities practically make him God on Earth. This fact alone allows for practically endless action-sequence possibilities involving combines, nuclear warheads, and great white sharks. While given tastes at times, these scenes always come to the audience in measured doses, as if the producers are afraid too much of the good stuff will paralyze the public into a coma of suspended awesome-shock. I issue this challenge to Bryan Singer: Give me a Superman movie without Lois Lane, and in return I will guarantee ticket sales in excess of $90 million the opening weekend. Seriously, I will cover the difference if it doesn’t meet or surpass that: That’s how sure I am that subtracting Lois and replacing her with relentless action will work. Need ideas for the script to make this happen? Just give me a call, Bryan, we can work this all out.

2. Every New Star Wars Film of the Last 10 Years

If I have to explain this to you, you shouldn’t even be reading this, you should be at a hardware store, buying the cheapest implements possible to castrate or otherwise sanitize yourself to keep from spreading your filth into the general population. True, Lucas and company didn’t exactly re-invent the cinematic wheel the first few times around, yet there was room to forgive since they were kind of making it up as they went along, inventing a new genre and franchise sub-division each step of the way. That Lucas fucked this up with all the money and optimism generated by the first three installments is and shall henceforth be listed in Webster’s under “Fuck-up.” True, Jar-Jar didn’t help, but that bastard was simply the cherry on top of an otherwise crapilicious shit sundae, begat in earnest by Natalie Portman. Again, though Hayden Christensen provided ample assistance, as did Jar-Jar before him, it was Portman and the relentless focus on a relationship nobody gave two shits about that drove this calamity into the side of the fucking mountain. That each film had a potent taste of awesome only made it worse, brief glimpses of Jedi duels and massive set-piece battles quickly brushed aside so that Anakin and Padme could stare longingly into each other’s eyes. Congrats, George, you’ve officially pissed your entire legacy down your leg. Where are you going to go? Disneyland? (My vote? Dr. Kevorkian’s trailer.)

1. Romeo & Juliet (1968/1996)

A friend of mine once told me that this is also a book, but I’ll check into that later. I’ve seen a couple different versions of this movie, and each time I keep hoping that a forward-thinking director with an actual pair between his legs will get a hold of this script and do it right. Again, like so many films on this list, the opening hits with such promise! You feel almost doubly betrayed at the cinematic cock-tease, having to endure not only a piece-of-shit movie, but also the stinging loss of what might very well have been. Seriously, it takes this movie all of two minutes to introduce some toughs and immediately get them fighting with the other gang’s crew. No set up, no character development: just jawing and dudes from both sides ripping out iron and stabbing at each other for glory, honor, and bitten thumbs. We get to our main character eventually, and with no lack of glee as we hear he’s just broken up with his girlfriend, falsely enticing the audience into believing we’re about to enter a revenge-heavy therapy-kill-fest. But no–true to real life, the whiny bitch that is Romeo immediately gets on the rebound, and drop-kicks the movie into douche-baggery. Not even his friend getting shiv’d by the only badass in Verona (Tybalt is totally hard) is enough to get Romeo to come around for much more than an accidental cry-kill, which he immediately ruins by running off as opposed to setting the corpse of his fallen foe afire, and pissing defiantly on the ashes (he totally should have). Instead, Romeo and his ever-present jail-bait die together, yet somehow alone, deserving every inch of their tragic deaths in order to compensate for ruthlessly lame, uneventful lives.

Tags: 10, best, films, list, movies, no, romantic, subplot, ten, top, Top 10 Movies Ruined by a Female Presence, Top 10 Movies Ruined by Women, Worst