Snowboard Academy (1996)

How to make an winner of a feature film in 5 easy steps:

1. Set the film at a ski resort, because, hey, you know how many masterpieces are set at ski resorts.

2. Cast SCTV alumnus Joe Flaherty as the lead. Better yet, make him the ski resort's proprietor. Yeah.

3. Cast Corey Haim as his slacker/snowboarder son. You know,... ...for the ladies.

4. Cast Brigette Nielsen as Flaherty's wife. You know,... ...for the guys (ahem).

5. Cast Jim 'Ernest P. Worrell' Varney as the resort's wacky maintenance man. Better yet, let's also have him moonlight as the evening entertainment/emcee,... ...because, you know, he IS a funny guy, and it'd be a real gas to get a full scope of his range as an actor.

For the record, this isn't MY checklist. I could've never have conceived that combination of elements,... ...but it's apparently SOMEBODY'S, because people actually went and made this list a celluloid reality (a reality that we, at Cinema Junkie, mercifully administer a single-cup rating). I'm at an absolute loss as to why; this, in execution, is one of the most awesomely bad films I've ever subjected my senses to. Each of those elements, on their own, have proven themselves catastrophes. Alarm bells go off in people's heads when they manifest themselves as passing thoughts, they're that bad.

First off, take Flaherty. While SCTV alumni Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara are getting the best roles of their careers, and the films Harold Ramis writes and directs consistently get 3000-theatre releases, and Andrea Martin, Rick Moranis, and Dave Thomas are still eking out fairly good livings (the latter two are currently pairing in a major Disney release), Flaherty's career has is hardly what you'd call lustrous. Oh, he's definitely a familiar face, and probably a capable actor, but given his career choices in the past decade, one would mistake him for a man with a bad barometer of choice as the result of a devastatingly narrow range. Truth be told, the majority of characters he's portrayed with conviction can be easily placed in two categories: needy/annoying (e.g. 'Happy Gilmore' (1996), where his a role that has the aura of table scrap), or constipated (virtually every other role he's ever had, including this one). Whether or not he's capable of more remains to be seen, but I wonder if Flaherty's career, to date, is what gives Robin Duke a reason to get out of bed, in the morning.

Haim has never realized the potential he'd demonstrated in 'Lucas' (1986), but at least he's deviating from the norm by appearing in a film sans Corey 'the OTHER Corey' Feldman. Nielsen's resume, on the other hand, speaks for itself: 'Red Sonja' (1985), 'Rocky IV' (1985), 'Cobra' (1986). And those are the GOOD films.

And let it be said about Varney (with clenched teeth and a touch of nausea) that he is sometimes a capable actor, with more range than one would think, but only with the right words and direction. His contributions to 'Atlantis: The Lost Empire' (2001) and the 'Toy Story' movies were professional, and granted, even his work as Jed Clampett in 'The Beverly Hillbillies' (1993) was a drop of water in a bucket of sewage. He WOULD'VE had a great career in supporting work/voice-over work, were his credibility not fatally-crippled by those lazy, indulgent, seriously-obnoxious, and audience-insulting 'Ernest' vehicles (which are, when you think about it, a VERY insulting satire of middle-America).

I suppose whoever'd conceived the notion of putting those four actors together presumed the results a novelty worth the price of admission, interesting and attention-grabbing in the same way a four-car collision is infinitely more interesting and attention-grabbing than a one-car collision. Or perhaps that all those negative elements would seriously negate each other. But I don't care what your physics teacher says, the only positive four negatives like THESE could possibly make is POSITIVELY BAD.

Surprisingly, the actors are largely free from blame. As respects the individual performers in their individual roles, they actually aren't that badly cast. Flaherty is actually well-suited to the role of a financially-strapped lodge owner (and a father with a heart of gold) who's being run ragged by a spoiled, obnoxious wife. Nielsen (who, at thirty-three, looks as bewilderingly-attractive as Sophia Loren did at sixty-four), despite an atrocious accent that would have Dostoyevsky stepping up out of his grave to complain, convinces as a spoiled, obnoxious wife who utilizes free room service to the hilt, and floosies about with every man in sight. Haim is a convincing slacker/snowboarder (then again, I can't imagine that to be much of a stretch for him, at that point in his career), while Varney was born to play cheesy, low-rent Catskills-type entertainment (that, I suppose, also moonlights as a bumbling handyman).

It's just the COMBINATION of these people that's so cosmically staggering. I've seen mismatched couples before, in real life and on the screen, but what genius envisioned Flaherty and Nielsen as a couple? Even an estranged couple? One would've loved to have been a spectator during their courtship, or at their wedding; did the priest keep a straight face?

And Haim as Flaherty's son? Actually, no. Whew. Thank heavens, his character is adopted (though I suppose I WOULD have bought it if he were Flaherty and Nielsen's baby; any freak permutation of THEIR genes I'd give the benefit of a doubt, but in this film, Nielsen is merely his adoptive mother, which is good, because it'd otherwise imply having to envision Flaherty and Nielsen making a baby, a thought too unsettling for words).

Wait a minute, I'm sorry. Goodness me, I haven't even touched upon the plot, yet. All I've done, to now, is actor-bash, so perhaps it's time I put my prejudices aside, and provide you with the valuable information you came here for, in the first place?

Well, fat chance of that. If you've seen any other film set at a ski lodge, you already know pretty much about 90% of what's going on, and what's going to happen. The remainder is the usual 'you have X number of days to pay X or meet X standards, or we can't insure you and you lose the lodge', which is as sophisticated a plot engine as has been concocted at such a setting since 'The Pink Panther' (1964) (with the possible exception of 'Dumb and Dumber' (1994), though it's a stretch to use the word 'sophisticated' where THAT movie is concerned).

That, and the snowboarding, and how rebellious those who partake in it are. This film is, in a sense, a bit of a time capsule, because snowboarding, if you remember, was less tolerated in 1996 than it is now, and a large part of this movie concerns the growing tolerance of snowboarders, who are yelled at and chided at the beginning of the film, but eventually earn the respect of everyone, and are accepted at the end (largely because they also mean badly-needed revenue). The snowboarding element provides, besides the title of the film, a second clichéd plot element: the big race/competition at the end (where snowboarders compete against skiers to determine whether snowboarding remains allowed on the hills), which plays itself out about as cloyingly as one would expect of such a film.

The snowboarding, itself, is photographed rather blandly, in the 'let's leave the camera in one spot and let all the snowboarders do the work' motif not dissimilar to the majority of Van Damme's old cheapies. Paralleled with bad 'pipeline' music (likely because using the more famous pipeline music would necessitate royalty payments) and badly-foleyed 'yee-hahs', the segments play ad-nauseum to where even the comatose would be able to discern, with certainty, what the film is about.

Most of the dialogue in this movie is pretty bad (although there are some admittedly funny moments, many of them concerning how colossally stupid the Varney character is, and there's another segment where a lady skiier with a strong Swedish accent is looking for 'Mt. Happiness'), as is pretty much everything else, in the film, I haven't touched on.

But the 'icing' on this 'cake' of cinematic merde is the only other actor of note in this film (of note because you can't ignore him, not even if you try to force yourself), relative newcomer Andreas Apergis as 'Red Eagle One', a man who takes his job in the ski patrol more seriously than possibly any other person of his kind, in the history of EVER. This is a real conundrum of a character. Imagine 'Screech' from 'Saved by the Bell' in black Spandex (sorry for making you picture that), riffing Rambo, all the while walking and talking like he's one of those Thunderbird marionettes. He uses words like 'Roger' and 'Over and Out' all the time, and spends the half of the film he's visible rolling about as if either trying to avoid bullets or remain inconspicuous (ludicrous, considering 'Red Eagle One' is one of the most conspicuous characters I've ever seen in the movies).

He hasn't accomplished much, since (I recently saw in him in the Stephen Dorff cheapie, 'Steal' (2002)), but at least he was a large part in what made this movie so compulsively watchable,... ...which is extremely strange. There are some films so hideously, insipidly bad I would never see, again; 'Free Enterprise' (1998) and 'Bollywood/Hollywood' (2002) are probably at the very top of the list. I've seen this movie four times, now (and've subjected a group of my friends to it, on a few occasions,... ...which reminds me, I've yet to hear a thank you), and often wonder what sets 'Snowboard Academy' apart, when the production values and quality of craftsmanship are identical.

My theory, it's attitude. 'Enterprise' and 'Bollywood' are smug, monotonous, and pretentious castaway efforts from people who don't depend on this film to pay their bills. 'Snowboard Academy', on the other hand, is like a pathetic runt puppy dog that just wants to be loved, and is desperate to be loved (a quality that makes Ed Wood's films so endearing, despite their awesome badness). That, and it's such a unique jumble of elements that one isn't likely to ever see such a combination, again, in a hundred lifetimes.

P.S. The most hilarious thing about the movie is actually free; it's the box it comes in. Check the back of it, and you'll know precisely what I mean. Remember what I said about 'Flaherty' and 'constipated'?

Gabriel Noël, © 2003