Super Mario Bros. has earned a pretty sinister reputation since its debut in 1993. It was so bad that Nintendo did not allow another live-action movie of any of its properties to be made since its release, as it was a critical and commercial box office disaster. And it's completely understandable as to why it has earned that ire.
Based on the Mario Bros. franchise, the film has gained somewhat of a cult following in the decades since its release, as there is an assortment of things to enjoy, whether with serious or ironic intent. So here's look at what some of those aspects working for and against the movie's interests are.
BAD: Koopa
Koopa, AKA Bowser, is downright awful in the film. He's portrayed by Dennis Hopper, which certainly helps, but it's not enough to save the portrayal of the big baddie. He is a human for 99% of his screentime and occasionally displays reptilian tendencies, but that's as close to the classic Bowser that he ever comes, not including a brief transformation into a dinosaur for a few seconds. Hopper played the part in his usual goofy and over the top demeanor, but he never came across as menacing, and Koopa doesn't really distinguish himself from other '90s villains in cheesy suits with bad hair. And as far as the final boss fight went, it was pretty pitiful.
NOT BAD: The Mario Brothers
John Leguizamo as Luigi was a pretty great fit, and Bob Hoskins as Mario was a godsend. The pair of talented actors had believable chemistry with each other, and although Hoskins was much older than Leguizamo, they made the older/younger brother relationship work nicely. In particular, their delivery of lines, no matter the mediocrity, were well-executed. It's also admirable seeing as the two actors had a dreadful time on set. Perhaps that chemistry came from their bonding over the lackluster experience.
BAD: The Leaps From Source Material
While Koopa is guilty of this transgression, he earned his own spot because he was an underwhelming main antagonist. But there are dozens upon dozens of other baffling design choices in the film that range from nonsensical to hilarious.
Yoshi went from a cute green dinosaur to a hideous little yellow raptor. Big Bertha went from a large fish to a club bouncer who flirts with Mario. Toad went from a little guy with a mushroom hat to a punk rocker. And perhaps most confusingly, the goombas, which have big heads and little bodies, are instead dinosaur-esque humanoids with big bodies and little heads. All of this is only the tip of the iceberg.
NOT BAD: Some Of The Comedy
Maybe it's because Bob Hoskins' tough guy routine is incredibly charismatic or because John Leguizamo's obliviousness is somewhat endearing, but there are a lot of gags and moments in Super Mario Bros. that shouldn't work, but for some reason, they inexplicably do. In perhaps the prime example of this conundrum, there is a joke in which Mario and Luigi have to give their names to an authority figure. Their last name comes up, and is revealed to be "Mario," which makes sense because they are called "The Mario Brothers," but it was never something that really comes to mind when playing the video games. Hearing the delivery of "Luigi Mario" and "Mario Mario" as given is actually pretty funny.
BAD: The Plot
The film's plot is a completely overcomplicated mess. To sum up the entire Mario franchise, you could just say "Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach, Mario and Luigi go and save her." But for this movie, that simplicity is lost. There's a parallel dimension, de-evolution, complicated power struggles, Princess Daisy has some kind of destined purpose and a romance with Luigi, and forced references to the original games that get in the way of the story. Everything is convoluted and hard to follow.
NOT BAD: The Pacing
Despite the convoluted nature of the plot, things do more pretty quickly. The Mario Brothers get down to business right away after a few scenes as regular plumbers in New York.
The film also runs at an hour and 40 minutes, so the fact that it didn't even hit the 2-hour mark is something to be thankful for. There's a lot of action and the movie actually feels justified in terms of being made to look and feel like a big-screen adventure, so it's clear there was effort despite the fast plot pace.
BAD: The Dialogue
The film's dialogue could be summarized quite easily. It's about 33% exposition, 33% screaming, and 33% attempts at humor. The final 1% would probably be the audience groaning, as that is inevitably a part of the film in its own way. The dialogue always comes across as vapid filler, just something to keep the audience quasi-engaged to explain the action piece that is to come. It's the epitome of bad '90s action movie screenwriting that doesn't bother to put in effort beyond the bare minimum.
NOT BAD: The Practical Effects
Yoshi's puppet might look nothing like the video game character, but it's not bad for a $500,000 dollar puppet. Seeing the Mario Brothers cause chaos in a chase in a Mad Max-style car is neat, too. And simply seeing tangible objects, props, sets, and costumes is always a win, even if they're off-base with the source material. It's much better than using CGI as a crutch and not utilizing more creative avenues to bring a film to life.
BAD: The Video Game Movie Tropes
Like virtually every video game movie, Super Mario Bros. suffers tremendously in having to force in video game references, despite being so off-base with its source material. In order to ground the movie, everything required an explanation for general audiences, rather than simply allowing the movie to be more fantastical and just allow fun. Likewise, filling in a thousand half-baked concepts alluding to the game rather than solidly focusing on a few good adaptations was a fatal flaw.
NOT BAD: It's So Bad It's Good
Much like The Room or Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Super Mario Bros is a pretty fun fiasco to sit through, even if it drags occasionally. The overall experience is one that feels like it's trying to be fun, even if it isn't and there isn't anything inherently offensive or soul-draining in the film. The colossal misfires can be really engaging when the movie is firing on all engines, and there is something fascinating in analyzing a failure, so it's also entertaining/educational in its awful nature. It's a pretty good study of those dreadful '90s attempted blockbusters.