Sharks of the Corn vs. Avalanche Sharks: Which Was Worse?

 Sharks of the Corn vs. Avalanche Sharks

Which Was Worse?

Welcome to Episode 1 of Which Was Worse? WWW? will be a recurring post here on the blog and a regular feature on the soon to be launched Cinema Wellman Podcast!

What it will attempt to do is pretty simple. Which Was Worse? will take two obviously bad films that have something in common, watch them back to back, put them through the rigorous Cinema Wellman rubric, and scientifically determine which of the movies was worse. 

The rubric isn’t really complicated. Each film will be scored on a 1 to -3 scale. Yes, the highest the film can earn in any category is a 1. The lowest score it can receive is a -3. 

Each film will be scored in the following categories:

1. Story/Plotline/Script - I put all three of these eggs in the same basket (all are equally ludicrous)

2. Acting

3. Special Effects - In this case we’re also including any “Shark Effects”

4. Self-Awareness - Did they realize what they were making? 

5. Effort - We here at Cinema Wellman always award points for effort

Each film will also be “fined” for indiscretions that are admittedly handed out in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Each infraction will be listed along with the number of points lost. Most infractions will be a (-1). 

First up is 2021’s Sharks of the Corn 

(1.8 IMDb rating)

*The poster proudly boasts “Steven Kang’s Sharks of the Corn” so a (+1) there!

*Another (+1) for starting with “The Story You Are About To See Is Based Upon True Events” even though that’s total rubbish!

*Blatant cut-rate JAWS theme portends the terrible soundtrack to come. (-1)

Minus one point (-1) for EACH of the following actual lines of dialogue from the movie:

*”I have an affinity for corn.”

*”Is that a corn cob, or are you just happy to see me?”

*”As you can see, there are sharks in the cornfield.”

*”Smile, you son of a bitch!” This gets a (-2) because you just don’t get to say Roy Scheider lines whenever you want to. 

*Gratuitous cornfield nudity. (-1)

*The shark growls. (-1)

*Actual Seinfeld reference alluding to George Costanza being a marine biologist! (+1)

*Boyfriend of dead girlfriend being interviewed by cops tells the cop that he came to the cornfield for some “Sue action”(makes hip thrusting motion). Sue’s mutilated corpse is five feet away at the time. That’s just bad form. (-2)

*People talking to each other on walkie talkies when they’re about ten feet away from each other. (-1)

*Awful FX explosion that they decided to show three different times from three different angles, so…(-3)

*Obviously plastic body parts being pawned off as real body parts. (-1)

*They cast an 11 year old girl as a member of the gangster’s goon squad. (-1)

*The soundtrack is so awful it seems like it’s part of a bad soap opera. (-1)

*At police headquarters, there’s a Ted Bundy wanted poster on the wall. I’m pretty sure they caught him. (-1)

*A serial killer of hundreds is transported by a solitary officer in her personal vehicle. (-1)

*Cornfield is located on an ancient burial ground cliche. (-1)

*Writer/director appears in the film as a cop. His uniform actually reads “COP” on the front. (-1)

*Very odd Amazon ‘parody’ when a character is delivered a package in the middle of nowhere by Amazing.com. And they mention it twice, so… (-2)

*Only the head of the obviously rubber shark is ever shown. (-1)

*Shark breaches the cornfield and takes down a helicopter. (+5) That’s what we want!

*Plot convenient rocks found in cornfields whenever needed. There are no large rocks in cornfields. (-1)

*Ends with FIN as opposed to The End. (+1)

*Post credits statement; “Special nod to Peter Benchley, Steven Spielberg, and the movie JAWS for its unending influence on pop culture and its inspiration to fans and moviemakers.” You may as well salute who you’re ripping off! (+1)

The Rubric:

Story/Plotline/Script: -1

Acting: -3

Special Effects/Shark FX: -2 

Self-Awareness: +1

Effort: 0

Total score for Sharks of the Corn: -20

And now 2014’s Avalanche Sharks

(2.3 IMDb rating)

*According to IMDb: “A bikini contest turns into a horrifying affair when it is hit by a shark avalanche.” Sure it is. (-1)

As subtracted earlier, minus one point (-1) for EACH of the following actual lines of dialogue from the movie:

*”There’s nowhere to hide from Skookum now!”

*”Snow’s gonna run red with your blood!”

*”You keep up with me, I’ll give you a sex treat.”

*”They swim through the snow like other sharks swim through water.”

*”...and they like people meat!”

*”It’s not the first time sharks have appeared on this mountain!”

*“We should be either high or drunk or both.” As they say on Cinema Sins, “Actual dialogue between the scriptwriters makes it into the movie.” (-1)

*Scary old geezer who tells everyone they’re going to die cliche. (-1)

*Actual ski resort (Mammoth Mountain) allows their name to be all over this mess, and yet they don’t advertise it on their website! (-1)

*Girlfriend forcing boyfriend to say “I love you” cliche. (-1)

*Mayor is a total asshole cliche. (-1)

*Girl awards herself to the winner of a race between two dudes cliche. Haven’t we advanced past this? (-2)

*Routine snowmobiling edited to appear like exciting snowmobiling. (-1)

*Non-American character not understanding English played for comedic effect. (-1)

*Grotesque mercy killing after an argument about carrying out said mercy killing. Argument took place while one of the people was being eaten by a shark.  (-1)

*At one point they allow a character to explain the entire story to us. That was appreciated. It didn’t help much, but it was appreciated. (+1)

The Rubric:

Story/Plotline/Script: 0

Acting: 0

Special Effects/Shark FX: 0 

Self-Awareness: -1

Effort: -1

Total score for Avalanche Sharks: -18

So it appears that Cinema Wellman and IMDb are in agreement with these two movies. Sharks of the Corn is slightly worse than Avalanche Sharks. Watch either at your own risk. You’ve been warned by the crazy old geezer and Cinema Wellman. 

Scheduled Which Was Worse? Match-Ups:

Turbulent Skies	vs.	Air Collision
2010 (3.1)		2012 (2.8)
Boa vs. Python	vs.	Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus
2004 (2.8)		2010 (2.4)
Bus Party to Hell	vs.	Creep Van
2017 (3.9)		2012 (4.0)
Jurassic Domination	vs.	Top Gunner: Danger Zone
2022 (6.4)		2022 (1.7)

If you have an idea for WWW? let us know on Instagram or Twitter!

Follow us!

@cinemawellman

You know we’ll watch anything here!

The official podcast of Cinema Wellman is closer than ever! 

Stay tuned for launch details!

Spoiler Alert...America is still Guilty

 Spoiler Alert…America is still Guilty

The precedent was set decades ago, so this is nothing new. I will cite a few of the more egregious examples.

To wit:

In Order of Disappearance (2014) Norway vs. Cold Pursuit (2019)

Let the Right One In (2008) Sweden vs. Let Me In (2010)

Force Majeure (2014) Sweden vs. Downhill (2020)

Ringu (1998) Japan vs. The Ring (2002)

La Femme Nikita (1990) France vs. Point of No Return (1993)

The Vanishing (1988) the Netherlands/France vs. The Vanishing (1993)

If you’ve seen any of these foreign films and their American counterparts, you know where I’m headed with this. Whenever you see an American remake of a foreign movie, you can bet money that the Americans will screw it up in some way and give you an inferior product. I’m not suggesting all of the American versions are trash. Some of them are fine, but they are never (in my viewings of at least two dozen of these circumstances) as good as the original/foreign version. 

Why is this? Well, I’m not sure, but I do have some ideas. Short answer being that “we” meaning American filmmakers/studios see something that “we” didn’t make that was creative and compelling and original. “We” then make an “American” version of that film, many times with a well known, box office proven, money making star. This rarely, if ever, works. 

I really don’t have a problem with the remakes in general. I get it. “We” realize that a majority of the American audience doesn’t want to read a movie, and they prefer movies with stars in them. I get that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. 

The problem I have is when “we” totally change the very things that made the original such a great film in the first place. There are times I’ll be watching a foreign film and I find myself thinking of how long it’ll be before “we” remake it and how “we” will change it to ruin it. I guess there are themes that American audiences just can’t handle, which surprises me. 

This segment is titled Spoiler Alert and it WILL contain some spoilers, but you will be warned whenever that’s about to happen. For example, I’m about to give a quick rundown of the 12 movies listed above and there will be NO SPOILERS. Overall plot will be laid out, but I won’t give you any details that would spoil a future viewing of any of these films foreign or domestic.

Let’s begin:

In Order of Disappearance (2014) Norway vs. Cold Pursuit (2019)

vs.

This is the story of a snowplow driver who is out for revenge when his son is murdered by drug dealers. Revenge movies are excellent, especially when the “avenger” is a normal, everyday person. Stellan Skarsgard is the avenger in the original, and he does a wonderful job. You are definitely rooting for him as he carries out his work. 

Five years later we get the Americanized version and we get Liam Neeson as the revenge seeking snow plow driving dad. Right off the bat, bad choice. I love Liam, but this dad is supposed to be an everyday, normal dad who drives a snowplow. Have you seen Liam Neeson?! He’s gigantic. He’s not a normal anything. Cold Pursuit wasn’t bad, but it goes into the category of “No Need to Be Made.” Point: Norway. 

Let the Right One In (2008) Sweden vs. Let Me In (2010)

vs.

Leave it to Sweden to give us a tender drama about a bullied outcast who finds his first love in a beautiful, but odd new neighbor. She also just happens to be a vampire. 

Another foreign revenge film that was Americanized two years later. Again, the American version wasn’t bad. It features a young Kodi Smit-McPhee who was recently nominated for an Oscar for his performance in The Power of the Dog. Chloe Grace Moretz plays the neighbor, and Richard Jenkins is also in a strong cast. 

Once again, the original gets a nod. Point: Sweden

Force Majeure (2014) Sweden vs. Downhill (2020)

vs.

When I first saw Force Majeure I couldn’t stop talking about it. The opening sequence was so mind blowing I couldn’t wait to tell people about it. It was like nothing I had ever seen before.

A family of four is on a ski vacation at a resort. They’re having lunch on an outdoor veranda when a cannon fires and causes a controlled avalanche. I didn’t know much about controlled avalanches, so I did some research. Very cool!

In any event, as the onrushing wave of snow approaches at a rapid rate, people begin to wonder if it is going to hit the veranda and cause severe damage.

It’s at this moment when the father gets up and runs away to safety. He abandons his wife. He abandons his children. He saves himself.

And then the avalanche stops short. Everyone is safe. There is no damage to people or property.

The dad returns to the table, and everyone knows what he did.

AND THAT’S THE OPENING!

It’s a black comedy that only the Swedes could do justice to. That statement was proven when Downhill was made six years later. Not even close here. Point: Sweden

Ringu (1998) Japan vs. The Ring (2002)

vs.

This one was pretty cut and dried for me. It’s simple due to the genre. Horror movies should be scary. The Japanese version was very scary, the American version wasn’t scary at all. Point: Japan

La Femme Nikita (1990) France vs. Point of No Return (1993)

vs.

I’m a big fan of La Femme Nikita. Wonderful premise of a convicted felon junkie who is captured and converted into a top secret spy/assassin. Anne Parillaud is amazing as Nikita and director Luc Besson does an admirable job giving her character some depth. 

Three years later we get Bridget Fonda as “Maggie” and it’s just not the same. Fonda is overmatched. Point: France

The Vanishing (1988) the Netherlands/France vs. The Vanishing (1993)

vs.

This is the one that aggravates me the most. The original version of The Vanishing features one of the best endings in film history. That’s all I’ll say. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it.

Five years after its release the same director is at the helm for the American version that features a cast of actors I like. The problem is the ending. That ending that I referred to as one of the best in film history? They changed it. They totally changed it. I was gobsmacked.

Double Points: the Netherlands & France

HERE COME THE SPOILER ALERTS!

The following will give away plot points for both versions of The Guilty. Both are actually worth seeing, but the Danish version is better. No spoilers there! Feel free to watch first and come back later for the closing. 

The Guilty (2018) Denmark vs. The Guilty (2021)

vs.

I hadn’t heard of the Danish version until I saw a trailer for the Americanization of it. I like Jake Gyllenhaal and I like director Antoine Fuqua, so I decided to watch it. Pre-viewing research unearthed the Danish original, so I watched them back to back. 

Some, but not all, of the matchups listed above were done in one sitting. If you’d like to test my views on those movies, I highly recommend screening them back to back. Always screen the original first. That’s only fair.

The Guilty is about a police officer who is on suspension due to a suspicious shooting in which he was involved. Part of the suspension is logging duty on the Emergency Services hotline.

The American version is pretty much a carbon copy of the original. Much of the dialogue is word for word and it’s very loyal to the Danish version. Fuqua also does a good job matching the tension and suspense. 

The movie revolves around a call from a woman in distress. She is a passenger in a car being driven by her abductor. The driver thinks she is speaking with her daughter instead of the Emergency Services officer. (112 in Denmark/911 in America).

The protagonist dispatcher is obviously under a tremendous amount of pressure with his hearing scheduled for the next day. It’s also heavily suggested that the shooting was not “clean,” and that his partner is prepared to lie on the stand to clear him. 

For some reason, the American version also throws in the old “Marriage on the rocks” trope to pile on the emotions. It is not needed. Not at all. No reason for its addition, and it actually clutters things up.

The woman on the line continues to mention her children at home, and it is revealed that the person driving the car is her estranged husband. 

The dispatcher talks to the daughter who is still at home. He asks her to check on her baby brother and tells her the police are on their way.

When the police arrive, they tell the dispatcher that the baby was dead. Someone had cut the baby with a knife. We obviously think the father did this.

In a plot twist that gave me chills, the mother tells the dispatcher that, “The baby stopped crying because I took out the snakes. The snakes were in his belly, and I took them out.” Oh. My. God! This is a game changer. Turns out that the mom has a history of mental illness and that the husband was trying to drive her to an institution to get her help.  There is no abduction at all. 

As I watched the American version things were pretty even (except for the unneeded strained marriage). The tension was there, the suspense was there, even the character development was there. I was ready to write a post about how I was wrong!

And then it happened. They changed something. They added something. For no reason at all. 

At the very end Jake Gyllenhaal is told by another officer that the baby is alive. He then places a phone call, and that’s it. That’s the end. The baby surviving didn’t really change the plot at all. Was it just letting the viewer off the hook?  

These films were so similar, that I went back and re-watched the ending of the Danish film wondering if I had missed something. I didn’t.

Point, Set, Match: Denmark

Stay tuned for another episode of Spoiler Alert. I may go deep into the whole Vanishing thing. That story needs to be told!