Guilty Pleasure No. 36: The Legend of Billie Jean (dir by Matthew Robbins)

Posted on May 19, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Two weeks ago, while I was sick in bed, I watched The Legend of Billie Jean, a deeply silly movie from 1985.

Okay, get this. Billie Jean (Helen Slater) and her younger brother, Binx (an incredibly young Christian Slater), live in Corpus Christi, Texas. Binx has always wanted to go to Vermont. That right there should tell you just how silly this movie is. Not only does it feature a character named Binx but it also features Texans wanting to go to Vermont. I’m a native Texan who loves to travel but I can tell you right now that the last place I would ever want to go would be Vermont. In fact, down here, we tend to assume that Vermont’s just a place that was made up by the media. Bernie Sanders? He’s just an actor. Seriously, there’s no way that Vermont actually exists.

Anyway, after Binx throws a milkshake in the face of local bully, Hubie Pyatt (Barry Tubb), Hubie steals Binx’s scooter. (If you’re stuck with a name like Hubie Pyatt, it seems kinda predestined that you’re going to grow up to be a bully.) After getting nowhere with the police, Billie Jean returns home to discover that Binx has been beaten up and his scooter has been dismantled. Billie Jean goes to Hubie’s father (Richard Bradford) to demand some money to get the scooter fixed. Mr. Pyatt responds by attempting to assault Billie Jean, which leads to Binx shooting Mr. Pyatt in the shoulder.

So now, Billie Jean and Binx are on the run.

Joining them in their flight are two idiot friends (Martha Gehman and Yeardley Smith) and Lloyd (Keith Gordon), the son of the local district attorney. Because this is a movie, Billie Jean quickly becomes a media superstar. Everyone wants to meet Billie Jean. Everyone wants to help Billie Jean. A sympathetic police detective (Peter Coyote) is determined to capture Billie Jean without violence but that might be difficult with the media constantly getting in the way.

While hiding out in a motel, Billie Jean turns on the TV and watches the classic 1928 silent film, The Passion of Joan of Arc. (I have to say that I’ve stayed in a few motels around Corpus Christi and never once did I turn on the TV and just happen to come across a classic silent movie.) Moved by Renee Falconetti’s performance in the lead role, Billie Jean decides to cut her hair really, really short (though not as short as Falconetti’s). I guess Billie Jean is supposed to be a 1980s version of Joan of Arc, which really doesn’t make any sense. I mean, Joan of Arc heard the voice of God and led the French to victory over the British. Billie Jean is just trying to get some money to get her brother’s scooter fixed and pay for a trip to the imaginary state of Vermont.

Meanwhile, Mr. Pyatt has recovered from his wounds and is now selling Billie Jean merchandise in his store. The detective mentions how weird that is but Mr. Pyatt is just out to make some money. Can you blame him? The entire country is obsessed with Billie Jean!

As you might have guessed, The Legend of Billie Jean is incredibly silly but likable. Despite having an inconsistent Texas accent, Helen Slater does a good job in the lead role of Billie Jean and it’s interesting to actually see Christian Slater before he developed the sarcastic style that, for better or worse, has come to define pretty much all of his performances. Never for a second do you believe that Billie Jean would actually become a media superstar. (Nor do you ever believe that she’s the type who would have the patience to watch a silent movie.) I mean, when you get right down to it, it’s a pretty dumb movie. But, when you’re sick in bed, The Legend of Billie Jean is a perfectly acceptable way to pass the time.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 35: Valley of the Dolls by Jacqueline Susann

Posted on March 4, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Way back in January, I took the time to read the 1966 novel, Valley of the Dolls. While I had already seen the film that this work inspired, this was my first time to read the actual book.

Before I even opened to the front page, I knew that Valley of the Dolls had been a best-seller, that it inspired a countless number of imitations, and that it had a reputation for being really, really bad. As soon as I started to read the first chapter, I discovered that the book’s reputation was well-earned. To call author Jacqueline Susann’s prose clunky was a bit of an insult to clunky prose everywhere.

Opening in 1945 and covering 24 years in cultural, sexual, and drug history, Valley of the Dolls starts with Anne Welles leaving her boring home in New England and relocating to New York, where she promptly gets a job at a theatrical agency. Everyone tells Anne that she’s beautiful and should be trying to become a star but Anne says that she’s not interested in that. (You’ll be thoroughly sick of Anne’s modesty before reaching the tenth page.) Everyone says that Anne is incredibly intelligent, even though she never really does anything intelligent. Everyone says that she’s witty, even though she never says anything that’s particularly funny. In short, Anne Welles is perhaps the most annoying literary character of all time. Anne spends about 20 years waiting for her chance to marry aspiring author Lyon Burke. When she does, Lyon turns out to be a heel and drives Anne to start taking drugs. I assume it’s meant to be somewhat tragic but who knows? Maybe all of the pills (or “the dolls” as the characters in the book call them) will give Anne a personality.

They certainly worl wonders for everyone else in the book. Neely O’Hara is constantly taking pills and she’s the best character in the book. Unlike Anne, she’s never modest. She’s never quiet. She’s actually funny. Even more importantly, she doesn’t spend the whole book obsessing over one man. Instead, she’s always either throwing a tantrum or having an affair or abandoning her children or getting sent to a mental institution. Neely’s a lot of fun. Unfortunately, we don’t really get to see much of Neely until after having to slog through a hundred or so pages of Anne being boring.

The other major character is Jennifer North, a starlet who was apparently based on Marilyn Monroe. The parts of the book dealing with Jennifer are actually about as close as Valley of the Dolls actually gets to being, for lack of a better term, good. In fact, if the book just dealt with Jennifer’s tragice story, it would probably be remembered as a minor classic. Instead, Jennifer is often overshadowed by Neely (which is understandable since Neely’s insane and therefore capable of saying anything) and Anne (who, as I mentioned before, is the most annoying literary characters of all time).

Why is Valley of the Dolls a guilty pleasure? A lot of it is because of all of the sexual melodrama and pill-popping, the descriptions of which are often so overwritten that they’re unintentionally hilarious. Most of it is because Neely O’Hara goes crazy with so much overwrought style. Whenever the book focuses on Neely, Susann’s inartful prose is replaced with a stream-of-consciousness tour of Neely’s paranoid and petty mind. Interestingly enough, some of the most infamous scenes from the movie are also present in the novel. Remember that scene where Neely rips off Helen Lawson’s wig and then flushes it down a toilet? That’s actually in the book!

Anyway, it’s an incredibly silly but compulsively readable book … or, at least, it is if you can make it through all the boring stuff with Anne at the beginning. Then again, as annoying as Anne is, she doesn’t exactly get a happy ending. Perhaps that’s why Valley of the Dolls is such a guilty pleasure.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 34: Healed by Grace (dir by David Weese)

Posted on May 26, 2017 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(Hi! I’m currently in the process of cleaning out my DVR. I recorded 2012’s Healed By Grace off of channel 58 — that’s a local station down here in Dallas — on March 21st.)

Healed by Grace tells the story of two 19 year-old dancers who have the same last name, despite the fact that they aren’t related and can’t stand each other.

Riley Adams (Natalie Weese) is an extremely sweet, sincere, and good-natured person, her only flaw being that she’s regularly running late and she doesn’t appear to be a very good driver. Riley is also a committed Christian, the type who gives a college presentation on the historical probability of the Great Flood. “Bible thumber,” one student says. “Cute bible thumper,’ another replies. Riley’s father is constantly telling her to pray for everyone, even the people who she doesn’t necessarily like.

And then there’s Aleah Adams (April Oberlin), who is rude and self-centered and who like totally rocks. Of course, the film doesn’t acknowledge that she totally rocks, at least not at first. In fact, I think that we’re supposed to dislike her because she’s always talking about how much better she is than Riley and, when they compete at a regional dance competition, Aleah is not a gracious winner. When Riley congratulates her, Aleah says that she knew she would win and then taunts Riley over the fact that her father couldn’t come to see her dance…

But here’s the thing. We get to see both Riley and Aleah dance. Riley is a boring dancer, with lots of technique but very little passion. Aleah is a much more wild and creative dancer. Riley dances to dull piano music. Aleah dances to EDM. Riley is St. Photini while Aleah is Salome. And while neither one of them is really that good (despite the number of times that we’re told that they are the best dancers in the country), Aleah is still a hundred times better than Riley. And, look, I get what the film was going for. When their coach asks them how they’re feeling after rehearsal, Aleah says that she knows she’s going to win while Riley says that she feels she did well but she could do better. I understand. We’re supposed to love Riley for being humble and resent Aleah for being full of herself and blah blah blah.

But, honestly, modesty is overrated. If you know you’re good, why shouldn’t you admit it? Speaking from my own personal experience, confidence is often mistaken for arrogance, in much the same way that determination is often mistaken for being self-centered. To be truly good at anything, you have to know that you’re good. Where’s the shame in admitting what you know to be true?

In other words, I related to Aleah, which probably indicates that I’m not audience that this movie was made for. (Admittedly, Aleah should not have spilled her drinking water on the floor right before Riley started dancing but we all make mistakes.)

Anyway, long story short — Riley gets involved in a horrific traffic accident, spends a few weeks in a coma, and suffers slight brain damage. Riley is determined to dance again but it becomes obvious that she never will. However, she finds a new love: horses. And, when it turns out that Aleah is related to the stablehand that Riley now has a crush on, the two rivals become friends…

In the past, I probably would have been totally snarky about this movie and, while I was watching it, I will admit to rolling my eyes a little. This is a low-budget and, in many ways, amateurish movie, specifically made for the faith-based market. This was especially obvious in the dance scenes. Riley is such an overwhelmingly upbeat character that I found myself getting annoyed with her.

And yet…

The movie’s just so positive! Normally, I scoff at movies that are too positive in the their outlook but, considering the overwhelming negativity of the world today, it was kind of nice to spend two hours watching a movie that didn’t have a single dark thought in its head. It was a break, so to speak, from the usual morbidity of my cinematic diet. It’s a sweet movie and, compared to most faith-based movies, remarkably unpreachy. Nobody was condemned to Hell. The Antichrist never showed up. No unbelievers were punished. Refreshingly, there were no anti-Catholic conspiracy theories. Instead, this was a nice movie about a girl and her horse and what’s wrong with that?

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Lisa Cleans Out Her DVR: Guilty Pleasure No. 33: In the Mix (dir by Ron Underwood)

Posted on March 21, 2017 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Back in January, I had to get a new cable box. Sadly, when the boxes were switched, I lost everything that I had saved on the DVR. Over a hundred movies and TV shows were wiped away! However, I did not let this get me down. Instead, I decided to take advantage of the fact that I now had a lot more free space by literally recording anything that looked the least bit interesting.

Well, the day of reckoning has finally arrived. It is now March 21st and the DVR is nearly full. So, for the next few weeks, I am going to clean out my DVR and review what I watch! Now, I can’t say how long this is going to take. In the past, I’ve always given myself unrealistic deadlines. So, this time, I’m not giving myself a time limit. Instead, I’m just going to start watching what I’ve got recorded and hope that I’m done by 2018. We’ll see how it goes.

Anyway, I started things off by watching the 2005 mafia romance film, In the Mix.

I recorded In The Mix off of Starz on March 16th. I did this despite the fact that I’ve actually seen In The Mix quite a few times. In The Mix, which is technically a beyond terrible movie, is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. It’s a bit like From Justin To Kelly or On The Line. Even though all my instincts as a movie snob tell me not to do it, I can’t help but watch it.

In the Mix stars Usher as Darrell, the hottest DJ in New York. Every woman wants him and every man wants to be him. However, all Usher wants to do is hang out with the family of the local mob boss. It turns out that Don Frank (Chazz Palminteri) was friends with Darrell’s father and Darrell is now friends with Frank’s son, Frankie Jr. (Anthony Fazio). Frank hires Darrell to DJ his daughter’s birthday party.

(Frankie, Jr. is a white kid who wants to be black. Personally, I think there’s probably an interesting story in the idea of the son of an old-fashioned Italian mafia don who idolizes — or appropriates, depending on how you look at it — black culture but Frankie, Jr.’s characterization pretty much starts and ends with him saying, “Yo.”)

At the party, Darrell quickly falls in love with Frank’s daughter, Dolly (Emmanuelle Chriqui) and Dolly likes him too. Especially after he takes a bullet that was intended for her father. While Darrell is recuperating at the mansion, Frank tells Dolly that she can’t go outside unless she has a bodyguard. Dolly says that’s fine as long as the bodyguard is Darrell.

And you know what that means! It’s time for a makeover montage as Darrell gets a whole new wardrobe! Yay!

Anyway, the plot is about as predictable as the casting of Kevin Hart as Usher’s comedic sidekick and Robert Davi as a sinister gangster. Dolly and Darrell fall in love but you already knew that was going to happen. You also probably already guessed that Dolly already has a boring boyfriend named Chad (Geoff Stults) and that Darrell has a crazy ex-girlfriend named Cherise (K.D. Aubert). And, of course, Frank is not initially happy with the idea of Dolly leaving her rich lawyer boyfriend so that she can be with Darrell. However, Darrell eventually gets a chance to prove himself by rescuing Dolly from some rival gangsters and he’s welcomed into the crime family. Of course, he gets shot a second time. “If the ghetto’s so dangerous,” he says as he lies on the ground, “how come I keep getting shot by white people?” Everyone has a good laugh as they wait for the ambulance. That’s the type of movie that In The Mix is.

As I watched In The Mix, I realized that it was actually a lot worse than I remembered and yet, I still enjoyed it. Why? To be honest, it all comes down to Usher and Emmauelle Chriqui, both of whom look really, really good and who have enough chemistry that they can overcome an amazingly clunky script. You reallydo believe that the two of them actually are into each other and you hope that things will work out for them because they’re such a ludicrously attractive couple. In The Mix is an incredibly shallow and silly movie but the stars both look good when they kiss and, ultimately, that’s what a movie like this is all about.

That said, in the future, I probably won’t bother to set the DVR for it again.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 32: It’s So Cold In The D by T-Baby (a.k.a. My Excuse For Not Getting More Accomplished Today)

Posted on November 21, 2016 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I’m supposed to be writing right now but I can’t get this damn song out of my head…

Oh well — I’m going to try to get something of value written and posted tonight, even if I do have an 8 year-old meme stuck in my head…

WISH ME LUCK!

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 31: Hail, Caesar! (dir by the Coen Brothers)

Posted on July 26, 2016 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Sometimes, I wonder if I was the only filmgoer who actually enjoyed Hail, Caesar! when it was released in February.

Oh, don’t met wrong. I know that I’m being a bit overdramatic when I say that. It got some good reviews from the critics, though the praise was rather muted when compared to the reviews that traditionally greet the latest film from the Coen Brothers. I know more than a few people who have agreed with me that Hail, Caesar! was an entertaining lark of a film.

But I know a lot more people who absolutely hated Hail, Caesar! Of course, no film is going to please everyone and the Coen Brothers have always had a tendency to attempt to deliberately alienate their audience. But what has always struck me is the fact that the people who disliked Hail, Caesar seem to really, really dislike it. Talk to them and you get the feeling that they view Hail, Caesar as almost being some sort of a crime against both humanity and cinema.

Taking place in a stylized Hollywood in 1951, Hail, Caesar! tells the story of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin). Eddie is a shadowy figure. As head of production at Capitol Pictures, Eddie’s job is to keep the “bad” behavior of the stars from getting out into the press. (The press is represented by Tilda Swinton who, in a typical Coen Brothers twist, plays twin sisters who are rival gossip columnists. If the thought of that makes you smile, you are potentially a part of the right audience for Hail Caesar. If it makes you roll your eyes, you should probably avoid the film.) Eddie is the most powerful man in Hollywood and he will do anything to protect the image of the American film industry. He will lie. He will cheat. He will threaten. He is so ruthless and so good at his job that even Lockheed Martin is trying to hire him away from Capitol. And yet, at the same time, Eddie is also a family man and a Catholic who is so devout that he goes to confession on a nearly hourly basis.

(For all you non-Catholics out there, Pope Francis only goes to confession twice a month.)

Hail, Caesar! follows Eddie as he deals with a series of potential problems. Temperamental director Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes) is upset because he’s been forced to cast Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich, giving the film’s best performance), a good-natured but inarticulate cowboy star, in his sophisticated comedy. Synchronized swimmer DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansoon) is not only pregnant but unmarried as well! (It’s the 50s, remember.)

However, the biggest crisis is that Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) has vanished from the set of his latest film. A mysterious group known as The Future has taken credit for kidnapping him. It’s not really much of a spoiler to reveal that The Future is a cell of communist scriptwriters and they are determined to convert the rather dumb Baird to the struggle. As opposed to most films about Hollywood in the 50s, the communist screenwriters are portrayed as being a bunch of self-righteous and rather cowardly nags, the majority of whom spend more time debating minutiae than actually trying to the overthrow capitalism. In many ways, Hail, Caesar is the anti-Trumbo.

As you might guess from the plot description, there’s a lot going on in Hail, Caesar but none of it really adds up too much. Nor is it supposed to. We’re encouraged to laugh at these frantic characters, as opposed to sympathize with them. Eddie Mannix and Hobie Doyle both emerge as heroes because they’re the only characters who remain calm and confident, regardless of what strangeness is happening onscreen. Eddie may be ruthless, the film tells us, but at least he gets results. Hobie may not be the smartest or most talented guy in Hollywood, we are told, but at least he doesn’t pretend to be anything other than who he is.

Hail, Caesar! is a bit of a lark, a celebration of style over substance. As far as Coen Brother films go, Hail, Caesar has more in common with Burn After Reading than No Country For Old Men. The film is largely an inside joke aimed at people who know the history of Hollywood, which is perhaps why some viewers reacted so negatively. Inside jokes are fun when you’re in on the joke. When you’re not in on it, though, they’re just annoying.

As for me, I thoroughly enjoyed Hail, Caesar! It may not be the Coens at their best but it’s a lot of fun and it appealed me as both a history nerd and a lover of old movies. The best parts of Hail, Caesar! are the scenes that parody the largely forgotten, big-budget studio productions of the 1950s. This is the rare film that acknowledges that not every film made before the 1960s was a masterpiece. The Coens love movies but that doesn’t keep them from getting a little bit snarky. For example, check out this production number featuring Channing Tatum:

Is Hail, Caesar self-indulgent?

Yes.

Is it largely an inside joke?

Yes.

Did I absolutely adore it?

You better believe I did.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 30: Wolfen (dir. by Michael Wadleigh)

Posted on May 28, 2016 by Leonard Wilson

Wolfen_1981 A guilty pleasure is a film that we might enjoy, but isn’t as loved by others overall. It’s the kind of film that you can watch on any given day, but to speak of it may cause raised eyebrows among your peers. Everyone has at least one film or two that they treasure in this way.

My Guilty Pleasure pick is 1981’s Wolfen, directed by Michael Wadleigh. Loosely based off the novel by Whitley Strieber, the film focuses on two homicide investigators who learn that the case they’re working may actually be caused by animal attacks. Often mistaken as a werewolf film, I really wouldn’t group Wolfen into that category. It’s supernatural in some ways, yes, but you won’t find any serious werewolf activity in it. Surprisingly enough, Wolfen was released in the theatre just a few months after Joe Dante’s The Howling. This makes me wonder how audiences took to Wolfen after seeing all of the make-up effects in Dante’s work. From an effects standpoint, Wolfen’s big claim to fame is the negative photography used to showcase the animals’ point of view. I can’t imagine it was incredibly amazing when comparing the two, but on it’s own, it’s not bad. It’s one of the few movies I’d like to see get a remake, if only to have the story match Strieber’s book better.

When a millionaire land developer and his wife are found brutally murdered in Battery Park, Detective Dewey Wilson is brought on to investigate. Albert Finney (Miller’s Crossing, The Bourne Ultimatum, Skyfall) easily carries the film as Wilson, feeling a lot like the owner of your favorite corner deli. Wilson’s detective work is subtle in the film, and Finney plays to that with a relaxed alertness. He comes across as calm, questioning, but you get the sense that if it came to blows, he’d be ready to react. I suppose most detectives are that way. When the murder is believed to be a possible terrorist attack, a Security Agency brings in a psychological expert named Rebecca Neff, played by Diane Venora (Heat, William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet). Wolfen was Venora’s first film and she’s good in this, though the screenplay is written in a way where it’s more Dewey’s tale to tell. The book did Neff’s character more justice than the movie, overall. Rounding out the casting is Gregory Hines (Running Scared, The Cotton Club – also with Venora) as a forensics expert, Edward James Olmos (Miami Vice, Battlestar Galactica) as a Native American worker who may know more than he says and Tom Noonan (Manhunter, The Last Action Hero, F/X – once again, with Diane Venora) as a Zoo Worker who’s just a little to into wolves in general. That’s just my opinion, though Noonan’s been known to play creepy very well. The performances here are all pretty good. No one is really out of place here, as far as I could tell.

If Wolfen suffers from any major problem, it’s in the writing. In adapting the novel, they had the chance to really bring the terror from the novel on screen. In the book, we’re given an understanding of what the Wolfen are – creatures older, faster and more terrifying than your typical canine. They came complete with their own way of communicating with one another, and Strieber’s novel even referenced his other story about Vampires, The Hunger. The final standoff of the book was a fight similar to From Dusk Till Dawn, with the hope that our heroes could maybe hold off what was coming. The movie decided to go a different route. Not terrible in any way, but it could have been really good if they stayed on track.

I could be off here, but I believe the film elected to try to make the story more relevant for its time by circling the murder around terrorism and using the Security Agency. The Security Agency has so little to do with the film outside of bringing Neff on the case, it’s incredible. About every 20 minutes, the film cuts back to this crew of personnel at their computers, watching footage of attacks (that have little to do with the original victim) in an attempt to piece together why this death happened. Meanwhile, Wilson walks into bar and gets the whole solution handed to him in a short story over a beer. I wonder if Wadleigh (who co-wrote the script) was trying to say that with all the technology at their disposal, all it really took to solve a crime was just regular legwork. To quote Olmos’ character “It’s the 20th Century. We got it all figured out.” That’s just my speculation on that.

From a Cinematography viewpoint, Wolfen has some impressive scenes, particularly those of the Manhattan landscape. For a city that doesn’t sleep, the streets as they’re filmed here are barren, with lots of shadows. One scene in particular has Finney and Olmos’ characters talking on top of a bridge, and I have to wonder not only how they were able to get that shot, but how the actors maintained their composure. One wrong slip and either of them could have fell. I also love seeing New York City in the early 80’s, where most of the Bronx and Brooklyn looked like warzones. Both Wolfen and Nighthawks (also released in the same year) are great examples of how bad the city really was during that time.

Wolfen was also one of James Horner’s first scores. Listening to it, you can hear elements of what you’d find in Aliens, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and his other pieces.

Overall, Wolfen is a good film if you find yourself running into it late at night and there’s nothing else to catch. I watch it on purpose, but that’s just me. We all have our tastes. If at all possible, consider reading the novel as well.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 28: Swimfan (dir by John Polson)

Posted on February 26, 2016 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Oh my God, y’all — Swimfan was on last night!

Do you remember Swimfan? It originally came out in 2002 and it starred Jesse Bradford, the hot guy from Bring It On, and Erika Christensen, the drug addicted runaway from Traffic. The movie is like a high school version of Fatal Attraction. Jesse swims for the high school swim team. Erika is a psycho stalker who is obsessed with swimmers. Chaos follows.

I was on a high school date when I first saw Swimfan. Fortunately, the movie offered up some very important life lessons.

Probably the film’s most important lesson was that you should always put out because, if you don’t, your dumbass boyfriend is going to end up cheating on you with some psycho bitch who is going to go all obsessive on his ass and end up framing him for murder. When Swimfan starts, Ben (Jesse Bradford!) is dating Amy (Shiri Appleby) and they’re a cute couple but Amy is more into studying and planning for the future than in having sex with Ben.

So, of course, Ben ends up cheating on her with the new girl at school, Madison Bell (Erika Christensen). He does this despite the fact that Madison is obviously unbalanced from the minute that he meets her, has a major case of the crazy eyes, and tends to come across as being a little bit robotic. It’s only one night and Ben says that he feels terrible about it but Madison still decides that Ben is her man now.

It all leads to this scene:

(I have to admit that the artful placement of the camera in this scene makes me laugh every time. The filmmakers were obviously really determined to get that PG-13 rating. Also, just a little tip — if you’re taking nudes for your man, try smiling.)

When Ben keeps rejecting her, Madison conspires to get him kicked off the swim team. She also kills the swimmer who takes Ben’s place on the team and frames Ben for the crime. (The exact same thing happened to Michael Phelps but you never hear about it because all the media wants to talk about is that time he got his picture taken at that party.) And then she tries to kill Amy and, the movie tells us, this all could have been avoided if only Amy hadn’t spent so much time worrying about which college to go to. Keep your man happy, girls, the movie tells us, or be prepared to deal with the consequences. Boys will be boys!

The other life lesson is that you should really learn how to swim. Since this movie is called Swimfan and it features a gigantic subplot about swimming, you can already guess that it’s all going to end with a big fight in a pool. Ben can swim. Madison and Amy can’t. Can you guess what happens? Watching Swimfan last night reminded me that I still need to learn how to swim. Thank you, Swimfan!

Anyway, Swimfan is definitely a guilty pleasure. I mean, if you want to get technical about it, this is a really, really bad movie. The plot is derivative of every single stalker thriller that you’ve ever seen. Jesse Bradford is pretty good but Erika Christensen appears to be in a daze. And yet, whenever I see that it’s on, I can’t help but watch it. Some of it, of course, is because Swimfan appeals to the same nostalgia that still causes me to sing …Baby One More Time, at the top of my lungs, whenever I’m driving home despite the fact that Britney’s later songs are so much better. But beyond the nostalgia appeal, Swimfan is just so ludicrous and silly and over the top. How can you not be a fan of Swimfan?

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 27: Sex Decoy: Love Stings

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

First off, a tweet from five years ago:

Has anyone seen this Love Decoy show on Fox Reality? OMG, I watched a bit earlier today. So bad and so funny..

— Lisa Marie Bowman (@LisaMarieBowman) January 2, 2010

I cannot begin to put into words just how much I miss the Fox Reality Channel! From 2005 until it went off the air in 2010, Fox Reality was the channel to go to if you wanted to watch some of television’s greatest guilty pleasures. It was all reality tv all the time, a mix of original programming with reruns of shows like The Amazing Race, American Idol, Hell’s Kitchen, and about a hundred different dating shows. Occasionally, they would devote an entire weekend to showing just one show and I have many fond memories of binge watching Paradise Hotel on Fox Reality.

Fox Reality also showed its share of cheap original programming as well, including today’s guilty pleasure. If you were watching the Fox Reality Channel in 2009 (as I was and I have the tweets to prove it), there’s a good chance that you saw this commercial:

Now, of course, after seeing that commercial, you probably said, “Oh my God, I have to watch this show! I mean, it says ‘sex’ right there in the title so it has to be good!”

So, you tuned into the Fox Reality Channel and, after sitting through the last 15 minutes of a rerun of The Rebel Billionaire: Richard Branson’s Quest For The Best, you watched Sex Decoy: Love Stings.

Fortunately, just in case you were unsure about what you were about to watch, the opening credits explained the whole concept behind this “reality” show:

All 8 episodes of Love Stings started out the same way, with Arizona P.I. Sandra Hope talking about how worried she is about her three daughters: Kashmir, Jasmine, and Xanadu. It upsets Sandra that all three of them dislike her nerdy boyfriend and business partner, Tom. It also upsets Sandra that all three of her daughters work as strippers whenever they are running low on funds. (But, if Sandra is so worried about all of her daughters becoming strippers, why did she give them all stereotypical stripper names? That’s what I’ve always wondered…) Then the daughters show up and make fun of Tom and complain that Sandra doesn’t treat them like adults…

It’s probably around this time that you, the viewer, came to realize that Sex Decoy: Love Stings was obviously an attempt to create a hybrid of Cheaters and Keeping Up With The Kardashians. Much like the Kardashians, Sex Decoy was obviously scripted. However, Sandra and her daughters made Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, and even Kris look like Oscar-winning thespians by comparison. Sandra, in particular, had an amazingly robotic voice. Her dialogue and her interactions with Tom and her daughters were so lacking in emotion and spontaneity that they became odd portraits of existential dread. And when Sandra robotically talked about how much money she made by exposing cheaters, it almost felt as if we were watching one of Jean-Luc Godard’s experimental attacks on capitalism.

Anyway, after each episode’s family crisis had been set up, we would then meet this week’s client and get around to exposing their mate as being a cheater. This, of course, involved a lot of secret cameras and a sex decoy who would be brought in to seduce the cheater while the client watched in a nearby trailer. (Often times, Sandra would use her own daughters as the decoy which was kind of icky. A running subplot, throughout the series, was that Kashmir felt she was never properly used as a decoy and, as a result, would threaten to go back to stripping.) The client, naturally, would often get very upset and eventually, the cheater would end up being confronted while the cameras rolled.

And again, what made this so fascinating was the total inability of Sandra or her daughters to show any hint of human emotion. The client would get upset and start yelling. The cheater would try to talk his way out of it and occasionally beg for forgiveness. Meanwhile, Sandra and the daughters would watch and say things like, “He. Is. A. Cheater.” It was almost as if they were aliens sent down to Earth to expose cheaters.

Each show would end with Sandra, Tom, and the daughters doing some sort of family activity. Sandra would often brag that Sex Decoy was a family business but, being a robot, it always came out as, “After. All. We. Are. A. Family. Business.”

It was seriously just so strange to watch and that strangeness made it the epitome of a guilty pleasure. Sadly, Fox Reality is gone but Sex Decoy lives on! You can watch every episode on Hulu. And, fortunately, there’s only 8 of them so, right when the novelty of the show starts to wear off, it’s over!

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 26: Project Greenlight

Posted on September 28, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Project Greenlight may be the most guiltiest pleasure to be found on television right now.

The show, which is currently airing its fourth season on HBO, was one of the earliest reality shows. The concept behind the show is deceptively simple. Every season, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon have held an online competition for aspiring filmmakers. The winner of the contest gets to direct a feature film, with the understanding that there will be TV cameras present to record every decision, argument, and screw up. At the end of the season, the film is released and hopefully, a major new filmmaker is discovered.

The pleasure part is obvious. If you’re like me and you love movies, there’s no way you can’t be fascinated by the chance to go behind-the-scenes of an actual production. It’s always fun to watch as the director struggles to maintain his (so far, all of the directors have been male) vision against the whims of studio execs who, often time, seem to be annoyed by the director’s very existence.

As for me, I’ve always been fascinated by the casting process. (Don’t believe me? Check out this post that I wrote about The Godfather. And then check out this one too!) My favorite part of Project Greenlight is always the episode that deals with the casting. I love seeing who auditions, who gets turned down, and who decides that they want nothing to do with the film. It’s a lot of fun!

As for the guilty part of this guilty pleasure, it comes from knowing that a show like this thrives on conflict. As much as Ben and Matt may say that they are only interested in selecting the most talented director, it’s also obvious that the director they pick has to make for good television. If production on the film goes smoothly, that’s good for the film but it’s not necessarily good for the show. That’s just the truth when it comes to reality television.

Hence, watching Project Greenlight always leads to conflicting emotions. On the one hand, you want the movie to turn out to be a good movie. You want the director to be up to the task. On the other hand, you’re specifically watching this show to watch the director screw up and make mistakes and piss people off and get into fights. Gossip lovers that we are, we love the behind the scenes drama but it’s rare that drama actually leads to a good film.

Check out Project Greenlight‘s track record.

Season 1 started way back in 2001! (Both this season and season 2 are available on DVD and I recommend checking out both of them.) The winner was Pete Jones, a friendly nonentity who went on to direct the extremely forgettable Stolen Summer. There was a lot of behind-the-scenes conflict, mostly due to a clash of personality between certain members of the crew. From the minute the season started, it was obvious that Pete was a nice guy but essentially in over his head. And, in many ways, Season 1 taught viewers an important lesson: when it comes to the film industry, nice guys get screwed.

However, as chaotic as season 1 may have been, it was nothing compared to what happened in 2003 when season 2 aired! Whenever anyone wants to make the argument that Ben and Matt purposefully pick directors who are totally wrong for whatever film is being made, they usually point to season 2. Season 2 featured the directing team of Kyle Rankin and Efram Potelle directing The Battle of Shaker Heights. The Battle of Shaker Heights was supposed to be a quirky coming-of-age dramedy and a character study, so, of course, Ben and Matt selected two directors who were apparently incapable of human emotion. And the end result was pure chaos!

Now, I will say a few things in Kyle and Efram’s defense. When you watch season 2, the overriding theme is that these two directors totally ruined a great script. Just in case we missed that, the show even featured screenwriter Erica Beeney complaining that these two directors were totally ruining her great script. Well, sorry — the script for Battle of Shaker Heights was never that good to begin with. (“It’s about this kid — Kelly — who is really pissed off,” Erica would tell us at the beginning of every episode, as if she was the first person to ever write about a kid who was really pissed off.) I doubt anyone could have made a good movie out of that script. Picking two directors who were so totally wrong for the material only served to compound the inherent suckiness of the material.

Season 2 has got a true train wreck appeal to it. It’s one of those things that you watch with horrified fascination. (Incidentally, Shia LaBeouf is heavily featured in season 2 and I have to say that he fits right in.)

The third season of Project Greenlight aired in 2005. It was broadcast on Bravo and it’s unique in that it actually featured a good director (John Gulager) making a reasonably successful film (Feast). As such, it doesn’t quite work as a guilty pleasure because, from the minute Gulager starts directing, you don’t feel any guilt about watching him. Instead, the most interesting part of the third season comes early on when a bitchy casting director continually tries (and succeeds) at sabotaging Gulager’s attempts to get a cast with whom he feels comfortable.

(Season 3 has never been released on DVD but, the last time I checked, it was available on YouTube.)

After that third season, Project Greenlight went away for a while but now, 10 years later, it’s back! It has returned to HBO and, after three episodes, it’s starting to look like this season may be the guiltiest and most pleasurable of all! Ben and Matt were producing a comedy called Not Another Pretty Woman this time around. (Pete Jones even returned to write the script.) Not Another Pretty Woman has been described as being a broad comedy. So, of course, they selected Jason Mann, an extremely intense elitist film snob. One of the first things that Jason Mann did was try to fire Pete Jones and replace him with the screenwriter of that well-known comedy, Boys Don’t Cry. When that didn’t work, Mann abandoned Not Another Pretty Woman and instead requested to make a film called The Leisure Class instead. And, amazingly enough, he got HBO Films to agree, which means that either nobody had any faith in Pete Jones or everyone has total faith in Jason Mann!

Will that faith be rewarded or will The Leisure Class be another Battle of Shaker Heights? Will Jason Mann be another John Gulager or will he fade into the same obscurity in which Efram Potelle and Kyle Rankin currently reside?

As of right now, I don’t know.

But I can’t wait to find out!