"Lieutenant Jangles" - Someone finally finished their high school movie.

Josh
Dec 25, 2024
4 min read

Nic Champeaux (2018)

"I'm covered in cum!"

The 80s was a magical time for film. Some of the largest pop-culture phenomena wormed their way into the public consciousness, most of which we’re still feeling the shockwaves of today. But also with the release of the Sony Betacam, there was a flourish of shot-on-video movies. Anyone with a camera and zero skills in filmmaking, other than knowing what a movie is, could make their very own movie and get it on the shelf in a video store. Mostly taking the form of horror or action movies as they’re easier to shoot and develop without any skill. Don’t have a good script? Just have fun fight scenes. Don’t have money for elaborate sets? Just shoot in the woods or an abandoned warehouse. It’s no secret that a lot of these movies sucked. Some were clever and could utilise their limitations to make something good, the most well-known shot-on-video film is The McPherson Tape (1989) by Dean Alioto. And this amateur filmmaking has not left the zeitgeist, it’s just upscaled to HD. Everyone has a phone with a camera or can get some cheaply from Amazon, and a lot of industry-standard software has become readily available to everyone for free. Modern versions of shot-on-video come in the form of short films or cringe skit videos found on Youtube, complex narratives in the form of analog horror or 80s quality schlock captured in HD making its way onto Prime. Yet some of these low-budget movies manage to stand out amongst the rest. Like Lieutenant Jangles. Stands out not in the sense that it looks professional but stands out in the sense that it feels like some kids finally finished their backyard project.

Theoretically taking place in 80’s Brisbane, Australia, the bogan chainsmoking dishonoured police officer Lieutenant Jangles (Matt Dickie) and his crew are trying to track down a notorious crime syndicate known for kidnapping buff men off the streets. I say "theoretically takes place in the 80s" because you never get the sense that it actually takes place during that period. Shooting on location the film-maker, Nic Champeaux, was at the mercy of what he had access to and a measly $15,000. But, seeing modern cars and decor is something I can look past being low-budget although this could’ve been hidden via aesthetics. Similarly, Kung Fury (2015) is a tongue-in-cheek throwback to the cheesy action movies of the 80s. Going for a much more stylised approach, the layers of filters added in post did give the vibe of a lost VHS tape. Something like this could’ve elevated the feeling of the era to Lieutenant Jangles, yet at some points, it felt like the colour grading was nudging towards this but it was very inconsistent.

As a comedy, Lieutenant Jangles takes on a juvenile high-schooler level of humour. Almost every joke revolves around something sexual or a dick-related joke. In the beginning, these seemed pretty charming and cute, but they got old rather quickly. Again, unlike Kung Fury which reaches levels of over-the-top comedy, the world becomes surreal, and Lieutenant Jangles hits a mild level of surrealism. Which acts as a cool glass of fresh water in the sea of dicks we’ve been exposed to. Like another action parody, Hot Fuzz (2007), there is an attempt to make the script itself a joke. Yet, we don’t even find out what the stakes are surrounding the villain's plan until right at the very end. I can see the “story” not being a priority over jokes, but when the villain's plot is a joke and the payoff is so weak and unsatisfying then it does cause some deflation.

So thinking of the sea of parodies, both high and low budget, I need to ask the question… is this a movie where the negatives increase the charm of the shot-on-video era or do they act as a detriment to the film? Is there a meta layer of the so-bad-its-good sub-genre or does it just make it bad? I suppose it depends on your tolerance for sloppiness. If you want to look at this as a modern companion piece to Samurai Cop (1991) or Miami Connection (1987), then you can probably view everything as done on purpose. For me, it doesn’t fully translate as the movies they’re pulling inspiration from are bad and sloppy for a different reason. The directors tried to make a good movie but the people behind the scenes had such levels of incompetence that it bleeds through every frame to such a degree that people can’t help but laugh. This is an experience that can’t be replicated on purpose. But. You can replicat with a nod and smirk but rarely was the nod obvious enough to pass as a known joke. Instead at points the filmmaking just felt sloppy. An example, at one point I thought the aforementioned colour grading was altering as a joke, like in Freddy Got Fingered (2001) within the scene with Drew Barrymore. But then it continued to be inconsistent and it just became obvious that colour grading wasn’t a strength.

I don't want to beat down on the little guys. It's obvious that everyone had fun making this and kept it light-hearted. I can imagine sitting down and having a beer with the director he would take the piss out of it with passion. All though this isn't for me, I can think of a group of people who will laugh at this, so check it out if you can.