Tonight’s Discord Double Feature
Extremely good movies and extremely bad movies are both liable to make me think about the subjectivity of film criticism in very different ways. Tonight, I was forced to think in one way and then another.
I am prone to enjoy many-a-thing in life, just some of these things are a good movie, a really bad movie, a laugh with some friends and leaving the house as little as possible. Screen sharing a movie over Discord gives me the opportunity to experience all of the above at once.
Watching a movie together online (and in person too) is not at all uncommon with my group of friends. Utilizing Discord can be especially useful when watching a “so bad its good” film, as there is no need for fanfare or decent picture quality, but there is a need for viewing buddies. We’ll still watch a decent film or a new film here and there as well. Sometimes, I like to do a double feature, despite the groans of any of my friends who might have something important to do in the morning. Tonight’s double feature was a sporadic one.
The first film we watched was one I did not believe existed until I was provided with irrefutable evidence. I had just finished proposing some deranged hypothetical scenario to one of my friends in which Rosie O’Donnell was an integral character. After dodging my hypothetical, he said, “You know there’s a T.V. movie where Rosie O’Donnell plays a retarded girl who rides buses with her sister right?” I accused him of lying (after mailing him a lengthy letter explaining how inappropriate the use of the word ‘retarded’ is in literally any scenario in modern society of course). He said, “Yeah its called like, ‘Riding the Bus with My Sister’ or something.” I laughed out loud at the ridiculous, temporary faux-title his mind surely invented while trying to recall the actual title.
Feature One: “Riding the Bus with My Sister”
“Riding the Bus with My Sister,” is a 2005… I think dramady(?) based on a book of the same name. It tells the story of a mentally disabled woman’s relationship with her sister as they deal with the death of their father together.
Riding the Bus with My Sister rides the line between so bad its funny and just bad. I have seen very few T.V. movies, and from what I can gather from those few, plus the ones I’ve been somehow made aware of, they’re all like this. The film suffers from all the things other T.V. movies suffer from, low production value, poor writing, the worst extras you’ve ever seen, but it has its own, more unique problems that make you wish you were either drunk or dead.
The plot is about as predictable as you’d expect. Within an instant, perhaps even before turning the movie on, you know what’s going to happen and what the character arcs are going to be. Rosie O’Donnell’s character, Beth, teaches her sister, Rachel, to be more sympathetic and blah blah blah I’m falling asleep just writing about it. But it somehow manages to be more boring than strictly sticking to this simplistic Disney Channel formula would be. Why? Because nothing happens in this movie. Someone had this terrible idea of telling the story of a mentally disabled woman bonding with her closed-off sister and ultimately teaching her to let other people in, but they had no idea what to put in between the premise and the cheap resolution. So, the movie is full of garbage to pad out the run time. Some pointless characters, WAY too many flashbacks to tell some sort of nonsense origin story, a bland romance B-plot. etc.. If it weren’t for the accidental comedy, this movie would be worth turning off.
Before I get to complain-y, I’ll mention all the things that make this movie hilarious. First of all, seeing Rosie O’Donnell’s performance as Beth is just funny. Its honestly not even that bad of a performance, but come on. Its a comedian playing a disabled woman who runs around like a gremlin, says ridiculous shit while riding public transportation for no reason and stuffs her face with donuts 24/7. I was often laughing because I kept thinking about the set. Imaging O’Donnell shutting her retarded mode on and off during filming, everyone trying to keep a straight face as she does that stupid run across the set, there’s plenty of hilarity to picture in your head. Its all very reminiscent of the fictional movie-within-the-movie film Simple Jack from Tropic Thunder. And we all know what Robert Downey Jr.’s character says about that movie. A friend and I even joked that perhaps she was a method actor, and never broke character during filming, brashly screaming at her coworkers while hobbling about the set.
Another hilariously bad aspect of the film is pretty much everything about the production. The movie begins with what sounds like royalty-free sitcom music playing over establishing shots while the opening credits appear in— you guessed it— Comic Sans. This theme, which sounds like it would play during a shot of a car driving about in Full House, is terrible the first time you hear it and is subsequently overused throughout the film to an abusive degree. The only other thing I remember about the score is this overused semblance of Spanish guitar riffs that always plays during the flashback segments. Not only does it sound like piss poor restaurant ambience, but it literally never, not once fits the scene it accompanies. All of my friends and I groaned at each new appearance.
Speaking of the flashback scenes, they suck and there’s way too many of them. Every flashback is overlayed with what I would describe as that flashback filter. Its all blue and sort of blurry, like a dramatic reenactment of the moments leading up to a murder in a true crime documentary. Almost every time there’s a flashback, we are treated to a cheesy digital zoom towards Rachel’s face, usually after we hear a trigger word, as if she’s saying, “Wait, that reminds me of…” For example, there’s a scene where attendees of Beth and Rachel’s father’s funeral are throwing a bit of dirt over the coffin and this triggers a flashback to Rachel remembering the time, and I’m not joking about this, Beth was eating dirt when they were children. They always got a chuckle out of me.
By the way, the flashbacks really do nothing for the movie, and only present a premise slightly less vague that the hints about their childhood given by the characters via dialogue. Yet, since they’re obviously there to pad out the runtime, these flashbacks easily make up like a fifth of the movie. If they’re taking up that much of the movie, they shouldn’t be campy digital zoom flashbacks, they should just be scenes. And all those ugly filters and other post-production garbage should be gotten rid of.
One thing that never failed to make me grin was how laughably and unrealistically cruel some of the characters are to Beth. She’ll be, you know, being mentally handicapped on the bus and random strangers would essentially be like “I HATE her,” “She needs to get a damn job,” “She’s a nuisance to everyone!” I found myself yelling at the screen because she’s clearly mentally disabled, yet a bizarrely inordinate amount of people were constantly vocally expressing their extreme distaste for her very existence. One such person is actually her own sister Rachel, but we’ll get to her in a bit.
Lets talk about the core of the movie; Beth and Rachel. Beth and Rachel’s relationship should be the bread and butter of the movie. The problem is both Beth and Rachel are extremely unlikable and annoying characters. Beth is, of course, more excusable since she’s mentally handicapped, but still. To be frank, as far as writing a mentally handicapped person goes, the writers could’ve done worse in the realism department. A lot of her behaviors and dialogue are relatively believable. The main problem is that her negative actions go beyond the unconscious slip-ups and social awkwardness you might see in someone at a similar mental level. Beth doesn’t just talk too loud and piss people off, she actively antagonizes them. She yells at people, she argues with them, she calls them names, she refuses to listen to anyone yet demands their respect and even obedience. She’s genuinely irritating to watch.
But Beth is nothing compared to Rachel. Rachel is extremely poorly written, so much so that she’s one of the funniest parts of the movie. I think the writers were going for like, a semi-relatable, hard-working but stressed out woman who is struggling to carve out time for the important things in life. Instead, she comes across as a complete and total psychopath. She doesn’t just prioritize her career and accidentally leave her loved ones by the wayside, she seems to actively not understand why anyone would even want to be with their loved ones. When she first starts staying at Beth’s house, she is ridiculously cruel to her. She calls her fat, she expects her to act like a normal person, she constantly chastises her, she is overall completely impatient with her disability. She barely reacts when she breaks up with her Australian boyfriend. Hell, she barely reacts when she finds out her father is dead. She lives in this absurdly over-stylized Japanese themed house with Japanese-style sliding doors and Zen gardens and 50,000 bonsai trees. Every time she was at home I was overanalyzing that stupid set that’s probably been used for a million other T.V. movies. Things get especially funny when the film progresses and she starts asking other characters what they think love is, and, although I’m sure its supposed to be her trying to see what they think of love, due to her prior behavior and her cold, dead gaze, it comes across as her having no concept of love herself, and desperately trying to understand it through others. I would not even be remotely surprised if there was a scene where Rachel watched a sick puppy be put to sleep without a single discernable shift in her facial expression. I loved her.
Don’t like what I’ve described so far? Well that’s most of the film. I have no urge to go into the details of the plot or any of the side characters. But wait, there has to be something redeemable about this film. Was there anything I liked at all? A few things I suppose. The usage of the buses as a vehicle (no pun intended) for the plot I think is rather effective. Beth’s life is riding the buses around, which seems like something a mentally handicapped person to her degree might realistically take up as a special interest. It also provides a decent backdrop to see how Beth interacts with the people she cares about, the tribulations of the world, and for Beth and Rachel to interact. I am also fine with Rosie O’Donnell’s performance. Its sometimes believable, sometimes funny, often both, none of which I can fault her for. The guy who plays Rachel’s temporary love interest is fine too. That’s basically it.
When you see a movie this bad, you have to examine the subjectivity of its circumstance. For me, its hard to judge a movie without considering the context in which it was made and received. Yet I also second guess the credibility of my critiques when I inject too much subjectiveness. With Riding the Bus with My Sister, there isn’t too much to glean, but the entire time I was watching this movie, I couldn’t stop thinking “Why? Why was this movie made? Who is this movie for? Why did Rosie O’Donnell agree to this? Is this supposed to be funny at all? What was the budget for this?” I don’t have the answers to those questions, but the fact that I couldn’t stop internally asking them works to the film’s critical detriment.
There’s plenty more to laugh at in “Riding the Bus with My Sister;” weird moments where Beth talks about sex, Rachel taking photos (I neglected to mention that Rachel is a photographer because who cares) of Beth’s simple life rather than her normal work which are supposed to be emotional but come out as blurry screenshots of the film reel, an extremely predictable ending where Rachel exhibits said photos in black & white sort of implying they’re even more beautiful than her normal work (I called that one out loud like an hour before it happened), Beth’s insistence on going to the store “Super Saver” to buy the discounted soda, etc., but listing every single one might ruin someone else’s future enjoyment. If you heard the core premise of this film and thought “yes, that is something I need to see” like I did, you’ll get a kick out of it. Just make sure you have enough friends, booze, or both.
Feature Two: “Hundreds of Beavers”
I don’t care who you are or what your taste in movies is, unless you don’t like movies at all, go watch “Hundreds of Beavers” right now. Hundreds of Beavers, a mostly silent, absurdist comedy epic about a man prone to temptation being forced to work hard to better himself and get revenge after his former lifestyle is taken from him, is probably the most versatile film I’ve ever seen. I am truly hard-pressed to think of a demographic that wouldn’t get at least something out of this film. It works as a comedy, a satire, a piece of art, and a film with its core concepts in check.
Hundreds of Beavers is about the temptation of earthly pleasures, revenge, learning to work both hard and smart, the cruelty of nature, luck, the mass murder of a seemingly intelligent society of beings, but its also about a bunch of people in animal costumes performing slapstick bits. This was my second watch through of Hundreds of Beavers. On the first watch through, the themes were apparent enough to me, but even more so on the second. There is nothing overly complex, but if you pay attention, its nothing one dimensional either. Part of what’s great about Hundreds of Beavers is that it can be enjoyed both as dumb fun and as thematically and technically well-done film. In between the bits of slapstick and clever uses of different technical elements are hints of emotion and meaning.
Technically, Hundreds of Beavers is very impressive. Its clever use of greenscreens, static images and sprinkles of visual effects all add to the unique charm of the film. Somehow it manages to feel like an old silent comedy and an avant garde new age sketch at the same time. All the elements on the technically superior film checklist are checked off, but I was especially impressed with the sound design. When it comes to movies with good sound design, its usually pretty obvious to me when I come across one that’s perfectly crisp and effective. Hundreds of Beavers is a great example. The sound is particularly important in this film since there’s almost no dialogue, so sound is used for a lot of the storytelling and punchlines. The sound effects are comedic, unique and undeniable in what they intend to express. The foley is great. Everything your ear hears emphasizes what your eyes see.
Hundreds of Beavers is a great lesson in storytelling. Even without dialogue, you are never confused as to what is going on or why characters are behaving the way that they do. The film uses several devices to get this across. Expressive acting, visual devices like the map, recognizable sets, all of these contribute to a cohesive— albeit often insane— story. Hundreds of Beavers is the living definition of show, don’t tell.
The film grabs you, and doesn’t fail to maintain your attention for a single second. It is jam packed with everything that makes a film entertaining; action, comedy, impressive visuals. It is hard to watch Hundreds of Beavers without laughing. There are surprises at every corner. The pacing couldn’t be more effective, everything gradually escalates more and more.
Stepping back and thinking about the film subjectively for a bit, I wonder how much of Hundreds of Beavers is so entertaining simply because of how different it is compared to the rest of modern Hollywood. Is anything that doesn’t conform to the usual complaints of sequels and remakes and superhero movies overpraised just because it feels so refreshing? I really don’t think this is the case with Hundreds of Beavers. Part of this is due to the fact that if you took the film and plopped it in the era of slapstick black and white films, its not like you’d have just another example of one. In fact, you wouldn’t even have a really great one. There are so many unique technical elements in Hundreds of Beavers that serve to make it both amazing and unique. Hundreds of Beavers is both different and refreshing in the modern era, but that does not mean it is inherently overhyped or owes all its success to bringing something new to the table. Trust me, it is very capable of standing on its on two legs. In fact, we’ve now reached the part of the mini review where I tell you that the film is so good that I feel like I’m doing a disservice to you even talking about it any further. If you really want to know exactly what makes Hundreds of Beavers great, go see it for yourself. I promise you, you’ll be entertained.
