I’m sorry to say but tis true

That movie was awful but it had a little something that made it funny

Maybe it was because both actors were hella drunk during the whole movie, just a wild guess

The Mario movie isn’t a good movie to use when discussing video game movies because.. it wasn’t a video game movie and was a mess. The directors were inexperienced and by most accounts terrible to work with- but beyond that they weren’t shooting a Mario movie. They wanted to make a dystopian cyber punk film and so they tried to shoot that using Mario branding to get the approval and budget. The studio and Nintendo obviously weren’t happy with much of what they wanted to do. So every step of the way is a team trying to make a dark hard R film being reigned in to make a PG13 family movie. Imagine if Disney was financing, and while Tarantino was filming reservoir dogs or pulp fiction the studio kept saying that any scene or plot point that wasn’t PG family friendly needed redone on the spot more or less. You wouldn’t get a cinema classic but a mess.

There was also additional studio involvement and other issues- so even if you had the best directors and writers make a work of art- they can’t change the parts the studio throws in. Joss Weadon has done some great stuff but was also a writer on Alien Resurrection- to show you what re writes and re shoots and conflicting visions can do. The actors largely had no idea anything about the source material nor did the studio or directors- and the directors didn’t care. So you’ve got utterly confused actors working in conditions where scripts are be delivered as they shoot scenes, and the actors resented it as well as the directors. No one really speaks fondly of making that movie. It MIGHT have been a great or at least decent cyberpunk film of the directors got to make the film they wanted, and might have been decent as much as video game movies can be if things weren’t so muddled up with conflicting visions. It’s at best “video game influenced.”

Its just a play on his name.

That would be a possible reason to respect those making the film- not the film itself. Steven Spielberg is a great director who’s behind many classics- but when he makes a bad film it’s still bad. What’s more one can respect the effort one put into a thing without respecting the results or appreciating them. There’s also a valid case to be made that it’s worth disrespecting for the fact they redid it.I can respect when a person tries to make good or when they realize they could try harder or do better and try to do so...

... but that still doesn’t excuse that the fact one is willing and able to redo a thing means they didn’t try their best the first time. If they have the ability to improve the animation- they had the ability to do a better job the first time and didn’t. It’s not that the technology wasn’t there or the money- if they are able to do so now. When an artist creates because they have a vision, or something to say, or because they like a thing and want to share it- when it is a genuine effort at art- it is what it is. You make the thing that comes from you as it flows, and people like it or don’t. One could argue a lack of integrity of vision- that you aren’t saying anything that needs said but merely telling people what you think they want to hear. Most people aren’t artists- that’s why we rely on artists to produce art. I doubt I’d like to read a book written by 90% of the general public.

I hope you never die you beautiful beast