peter jackson chapter i: bad taste on a bright sunny day sometime in 1983 somewhere in new zealand a young man by the name of peter jackson decided to make a movie. it would be a comedy and a horror film and it would be filled with gore and crazy camera angles. it would star friends and locals and it would be made on the cheap. but jackson couldn't afford to buy cranes or dollies or special effects so he decided to do everything himself. he created the prosthetics in his oven and he built cranes and dollies in his backyard out of unused lumber. he could also only film when his cast and crew were available so that meant weekends and the odd day here and there on weekdays. four years later the film was complete. it was called bad taste and it was released around new zealand in small doses. jackson and company thought it was fun to make but that was about it. someone thought otherwise and sent it off to a festival or two and perhaps a studio or two. the next thing jackson new the film was playing all around the world. in 1993 (or thereabouts) i happened to see the cover of bad taste on the shelves of my local awesome video store. it was intriguing to say the least and so i rented it. i loved it. it was funny and gory and a blast from start to finish. i returned it a day or two later and that was that for bad taste until 2001. in 2001, after jackson become a household name (we will get to that) bad taste was remastered and released on dvd. i, being a huge jackson fan, and having fond memories of this film (although i could not remember it that well) purchased it immediately. i watched it and then watched the documentary on the second disc called good taste made bad taste. the film was a blast once again and the documentary demonstrated in a short 25 minutes what a genius jackson was and why and how he become one of hollywood's and cinema's greats. now, in november 2014, i am working my way through the so far released catalogue of peter jackson. up first was of course bad taste. i'm a little older, i'm a little wiser, i'm an amateur reviewer on this site called letterboxd. so last night i popped bad taste into my blu ray player and spent the next 90 odd minutes reliving 2001 and 1993 (or thereabouts). now at first glance bad taste is a terrible movie. it's terrible because the acting is god-awful, it's as if a bunch of friends got together and tried to make a movie, which is exactly what happened. this is some of the worst acting to grace my tv screen in some time. there are two performances that actually are pretty good. craig smith comes off pretty good as giles, the collector and doug wren, as lord crumb the head honcho of the alien invasion, delivers a sinister and funny performance that would fit well in a big budget, a-list movie. the rest of the cast (jackson acts here too) have a moment or two where they shine, or a line or two that comes off better than the rest, but generally they just seem like non-actors. bad taste also starts out with some pretty bad music. again, it sounds very amateurish in it's construction and use of instruments but soon after it picks up and actually gets quite good. it delivers punches and thrills and it complements the actions on screen very nicely. there is one other thing that needs to be mentioned at this point. the camerawork. like the music, the film starts and the camerawork feels very shoddy. it's shaky and poorly framed at times. it's like they pointed the camera and shot, with no regard for framing or steadiness. but very shortly after the first few shots we get a crazy shot where the camera follows an actor, scoops up into the air, tracks over a shed and comes back down to follow another actor. from this point on there is plenty of crazy camera shots, lots of inventive angles and the crappy work at the beginning is all but forgotten. so far bad taste wasn't living up to memories, although knowing (and you really need to take this into account when watching) that this was made in jackson's backyard virtually all by himself you can forgive the acting and music and not as tight as it could be editing that is prevalent throughout the film. all that aside, if you look at the story and screenplay for bad taste, it is actually pretty good. aliens from afar, who run an intergalactic fast food chain, have discovered earth on their radar. they come, they taste the species known as human, and they realize they have a top seller on their hands. when they take over a small town, the new zealand government send in 'the boys' to clean things up. there are some great jokes scattered amongst the action of the story. there are a few that don't work, but there is plenty that does. it also starts right away, with very little extraneous exposition. jackson puts you in the invasion from 'the boys' perspective right from the get go. it never drags in story and it actually ends up being a rather clever, well written, solid story that would work just as well with a high budget and a studio behind it (although they would probably ruin it by cutting out all the gore). but where the film really shines is in the special effects and make-up. the prosthetics and the brains and the blood and the guts and the aliens and the explosions and the rocket ships are unbelievable. they look amazing. they do not look like a guy made them in his kitchen, they look like low budget professional effects. i have seen movies with a fairly large budget that look much much worse than this. and jackson does not hold back on the gore. it's gross and ghastly but in a funny way and you end up being grossed out while laughing at the same time. the effects are so good you forget about the acting and the very 'homemade' feel to the film whenever they appear on screen. it's a real joy to watch and again, knowing how jackson did this, makes it even better. so overall, after 20 years of watching bad taste, i can forgive many of it's faults and see it for what it is: a fun filled, gore soaked comedy horror action romp made by friends in their backyards. i enjoyed it more when i was younger as i was oblivious to it's faults but this time around, by films end, i was still very much into it. it has it's problems, as all first time filmmakers films do. it even has more problems than most, as this isn't even a first time filmmaker film or a student film; it's more so a guy in his mum's house who said 'i can make a movie' pre feature. this is something i would of loved to make myself with my friends if any of us actually had this kind of talent. but these problems are outweighed by the ingenious nature of the effects, the very solid screenplay and the inventive and crazy camerawork. jackson had the talent and he first showed the world this talent here in bad taste. he showed that he could write and direct and that he was a real wizard in prosthetics and make-up and special effects. i'm sure he never expected this film to get him where it did and i think the cinematic world and it's fans are better off that it did. the question is what would peter jackson do next? now that he was noticed and bad taste was a success where would he go and what would he make? we all know where he would go and what he ended up making but how did he get there? and is it worth it to follow him or to skip ahead? to find out we need to move on to meet the feebles... 70/100