Fone Bone
Matt Zimmer
Howard The Duck
First of all this is a negative review. A VERY negative review. The film is terrible. But I'm not only casting shade on this movie. I think movies of this era were so bad that Howard's badness is a symptom of the problem rather than an anomaly of the era.
I mentioned in my recent review to Cool World that it was a bad film. But the script was not actually any worse than the average film from that era. I can't say the same defense for Howard The Duck, but all of the negative reviews and bad press drives me crazy in hindsight because I feel like there were ill-intentions behind all of it. Yes, the movie is worse than most stuff from back then. But most stuff was so bad it's not actually MUCH worse. And it pisses me off that while that's true, the movie was piled on and on. Critics and audiences made it a punchline because it was the first movie in a long time worse than the lousy stuff both audiences, and yes, even CRITICS accepted. Back then a LOT of crappy movies did great box office. And many of them got good reviews too. I feel like the pile-on on this movie feels so egregious because it's ridiculous a movie had to specifically be THIS bad to create any distance in acceptance of quality from stuff like Police Academy, Porky's, and The Goonies. Now none of those films are as bad as this. But they aren't THAT much better and are still terrible. And I feel like this specific pile-on was easier for audiences and critics to do rather than a self-reflection of their own low standards. The fact that Howard The Duck is the actual line is embarrassing.
I haven't reviewed Ishtar or Hudson Hawk yet, but if I did I imagine I'd feel the same way. Critics in the 1980's never argued in good faith. So I will concede the movie is horrible and worse than most stuff back then. And I still think the level of vitriol aimed at it is entirely disproportionate and totally unfair. *.
First of all this is a negative review. A VERY negative review. The film is terrible. But I'm not only casting shade on this movie. I think movies of this era were so bad that Howard's badness is a symptom of the problem rather than an anomaly of the era.
I mentioned in my recent review to Cool World that it was a bad film. But the script was not actually any worse than the average film from that era. I can't say the same defense for Howard The Duck, but all of the negative reviews and bad press drives me crazy in hindsight because I feel like there were ill-intentions behind all of it. Yes, the movie is worse than most stuff from back then. But most stuff was so bad it's not actually MUCH worse. And it pisses me off that while that's true, the movie was piled on and on. Critics and audiences made it a punchline because it was the first movie in a long time worse than the lousy stuff both audiences, and yes, even CRITICS accepted. Back then a LOT of crappy movies did great box office. And many of them got good reviews too. I feel like the pile-on on this movie feels so egregious because it's ridiculous a movie had to specifically be THIS bad to create any distance in acceptance of quality from stuff like Police Academy, Porky's, and The Goonies. Now none of those films are as bad as this. But they aren't THAT much better and are still terrible. And I feel like this specific pile-on was easier for audiences and critics to do rather than a self-reflection of their own low standards. The fact that Howard The Duck is the actual line is embarrassing.
I haven't reviewed Ishtar or Hudson Hawk yet, but if I did I imagine I'd feel the same way. Critics in the 1980's never argued in good faith. So I will concede the movie is horrible and worse than most stuff back then. And I still think the level of vitriol aimed at it is entirely disproportionate and totally unfair. *.
