THE WORST FILMS OF 2008

 

Indy didn’t make my list, somehow, though it probably should have. Regardless, its here in spirit thanks to South Park. This took me a bit longer than imagined, and the best list is going to take even longer as I’m still trying to catch up on 2008's best offerings that I hadn’t caught yet. I’m in a TV mode currently, where I’d rather do nothing but marathon seasons of shows (currently it’s the DVD-less seasons of The Larry Sanders Show), and thus movies are more of a chore to sit through rather than the blessing they should be. No excuse, really, but it’ll have to do. I should have the best up next week, viewing pile tackled or not. In the meantime, my least of 2008.

20 Max Payne (2008, dir. John Moore, US)

Not much needs to be said, really. It’s an adaptation of a video game which manages to retain absolutely nothing but character names. What’s usually wrong with adapting video games is that the people who write the films seem to have no comprehension of the story the game followed. This case is especially glaring because Max Payne as a game FELT like playing an ultra-violent neo-noir. Through two games, they told a stellar story about revenge, redemption and love. This isn’t any of that, with the revenge story almost feeling like an afterthought. It’s also worth noting that the number one thing missing from game adaptations is LESS story and MORE action, which is kinda what video games are about as a concept. Just sayin’. Payne as a game is a balls-to-the-wall shooting experience, however you can probably count the gunshots in the film. Something is wrong. Also, Whalberg and Ludacris are especially bad, but Mila Kunis is woefully miscast as a Russian assassin (!). I wish she'd hold my penis instead of a gun. I mean that in the nicest of ways.

19 Smart People (2008, dir. Noam Murro, US)

A film made for anything but.

18 Twilight (2008, dir. Catherine Hardwicke, US)

I’m not going to rag on this so much, as it’s clearly not a film that was made with my sensibilities in mind. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and I saw a horribly directed, low budget affair with middling acting talent – and the one guy who actually showed promise was the one the producers were trying to DITCH for the sequel! Turns out he's still in and trying to beef up to play a werewolf. This is instead of actually spending more money to beef him up with effects. Cheap or not, they know they'll make money, but werewolves are so underused, I wish they'd get it right the second time around. As is, it's a successful franchise with a bad first entry. Sounds like Potter to me.

17 The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008, dir. Rob Cohen, GER/US)

Shit sandwich.

16 Eagle Eye (2008, dir. D.J. Caruso, US/GER)

Incomprehensible. Was this REALLY envisioned as a modern day take on North By Northwest? Spielberg done lost his damn mind. There’s a feeling that builds as the film progresses that not only did the script get lost in itself (if it ever knew where it was going to begin with), but director D.J. Caruso somehow lost track of what was going on as well, and started just makin’ shit up along the way. How else to describe a series of "people are watching you" scenarios with implausible actions taken to ensure...something happens, I guess. I really don’t know. Then some robot intelligence is killing people because they want to take it offline. What? It has the distinction of containing the worst visual effects in any major Hollywood effort this year. Congrats, Twilight, something was worse!

15 Mister Lonely (2007, dir. Harmony Korine, UK/FRA/IRE/US)

A film which I can only describe as "indie shit." People who claim to have loved this film can’t seem to figure out why they liked it, and likewise I can’t seem to develop any reasoning for hating it so much, it’s just not good. It centers on a group of impersonators who encounter each other. Nothing really happens. It’s dull, it’s plodding, it doesn’t have anything to say. Why does it exist? To end up on this list. Diego Luna does an amusing Michael Jackson, though, for about five minutes. If that floats your boat, have fun.

14 What We Do Is Secret (2007, dir. Rodger Grossman, US)

Biopics are a genre I have many problems with. This film dissolves all of my criteria for a successful one. A) Have someone worth telling a story about. B) Have someone convincingly meld into a character, not an impersonation. C) Make the film about something more than just telling a life story. There’s not too much to say here. It’s about the singer for this "groundbreaking" punk band The Germs, and it’s about as authentic and relevant as a biopic about a nobody who accomplished nothing could be. Horrible music, horrible acting, and a horrible film to boot.

13 The Love Guru (2008, dir. , US/CAN/GER)

I don’t have much of any love for the comedy heroes of my youth. Eddie Murphy has been (mostly) slumming it up for about 15 years, Steve Martin (mostly) stopped making funny films after L.A. Story, John Candy died, Jim Carrey stayed stagnant and stale, and my beloved Wayne and Garth fell apart. Dana Carvey got cancer, took a lot of time off, and came back to The Master of Disguise, and last year a lackluster comedy special on HBO. Meanwhile, Mike Meyers squandered away all good faith by milking Austin Powers and Shrek to death. So much so, that he made this flop starring a character that appears to be a rejected villain idea from the last Powers film. The comedy is exactly the same, and it’s shit. Nothing but wink-winks to the audience, spelling out the broadest scatological jokes imaginable that were completely obvious to begin with. This movie is bad enough to hopefully end Meyers egotistical, controlling ways and for studios to make him funny again (if possible). Also, stop using Verne Troyer. He isn’t funny.

12 Hamlet 2 (2008, dir. Andrew Fleming, US)

Focus Features dumped a record breaking 10 million for this at Sundance last year after a bidding war. The movie, frankly, isn’t worth a fraction of it. Steve Coogan is one of those comedy heroes of the UK who is destined to remain unnoticed. His style just isn’t something that’s adaptable for a US crowd, and while this is about as close as it’s gonna get, it’s gonna stay that way -close, but not really. This film is an absolute mess, hopping from scene to scene and spanning time with no real reason or logic, and it’s full of one-note characters who are all completely unlikable. The film does muster up some scattered funny moments, but they’re too far between the film trying, and failing, to make an immoral comedy. There's a mentality to make an inspirational teaching story that's a joke, but whole watching the short doc on the DVD, you discover that they actually feel the film accidently became touching because of it. Delusional, and for their accidental intentions it gets even worse in my mind.

11 An American Carol (2008, dir. David Zucker, US)

I’m all for equal-opportunity comedy. There’s plenty to make fun of on both sides of the political spectrum, and more power if someone can somehow get the funding to make a conservative comedy in Hollywood. However, the stipulation is that is should be humorous. This is a smirk-less affair, that made me chuckle twice, and groan and squirm for the rest of the time. Taking shots at the liberals is simply too easy for the powers here, and thus they mistake that taking the easy shots will translate into comedy gold. It doesn’t. This is all from one of the most comically gifted directors of all time, too, and it’s so, so bad when I can find merit in even his lowest slumps like Scary Movie 3 and 4 when in comparison to this laughless heap of shit. For conservatives to get out of this "red collar hillbilly" mentality that the rest of the world seems to think, drastic steps must be made to un-perpetuate the (mostly true) stereotype. This, sadly, isn’t a step in the right direction. No pun intended.

10 88 Minutes/Righteous Kill (2007/2008, dir. Jon Avnet, US/GER/CAN) aka. The star power dupes.

As working in a video store has taught me, the general public is stupid. They believe that there are a certain sect of once-great actors who are only in good things, even though they haven’t intentionally been a part of anything good in about a decade, let alone given a noteworthy performance. Morgan Freeman is iffy, but Denzel Washington, Anthony Hopkins, Julia Roberts, and the brilliant duo of Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro are guaranteed. However, in 2008, both Pacino and DeNiro were the victim of some hack director with two insanely dumb scripts, and thus the public have yet again been duped. By displaying this star power in the marketing and promotion, these two abominations get people believing that the film actually has a shot at being good. Neither of these actors have given a great performance since the last time they united with Heat, and peoples minds likely go back to that with Kill. It’s a shame that these actors couldn’t have found a better vehicle to work together on, but it’s a bigger shame that the public is fooled into seeing this one, where both are sleepwalking. As for 88 Minutes, well, it’s longer than the title, and that’s punishment enough. The script is incredibly limp, filled with dumb thriller cliches, and a predictable surprise ending. It’s one of the worst films to get a wide release in 2008, and it’s only thanks to Righteous Kill being not AS bad that the pair of them ended up this low on the worst.

9 College (2008, dir. Deb Hagan, US)

Ride the coattails of Judd Apatow, and ye shall face the WRATH! Following very, very closely to Superbad’s formula -- complete with a pudgy kid with a foul mouth, a sensitive guy, and a super-dork – this heap of un-funny follows a group of high school kids visiting a college for a weekend and getting into trouble. Superbad is the worst kind of film to try to copy because A) it was already a copy of other "young kids in antics" kind of film, and B) it was far too funny for anything attempting to rehash coming close to. Plus, that "Chicken Little" kid from American Idol should never, ever have a public career doing anything ever again.

8 Mamma Mia! (2008, dir. Phyllida Lloyd, UK/USA/GER)

Here’s an idea: gather up a cast for your musical who can’t really sing, fill your film with awful green screen effects, make it all a mess, and give it a made for ABC Family budget. The only thing this has going for it is the great music of ABBA, which, oddly enough, isn’t very good because the cast can’t sing the songs worth a shit. Blech.

7 Donkey Punch/Gutterballs (2008, dir. Oliver Blackburn/Ryan Nicholson, UK/CAN) aka. The imported douchebag awards.

In 2008 the UK and Canada showcased that they, too, have a sect of people which us Yanks refer to as "douchebags." In both cases, the films set themselves up by introducing a sect of characters who are entirely unlikable, and then the waiting game for them to die begins. In Donkey Punch, they end up killing each other on a boat in the middle of the sea after a sexual accident divides the passengers. In Gutterballs, they’re picked off in 80s fashion at a bowling alley by a killer with a bowling-bag mask. Gutterballs almost works in a really vile way, like a Troma film without any of the fun, but manages to be a smile-less homage to the soulless slasher films of yesteryear, amplified by a modern sensibility. It’s not bright enough to achieve what it’s setting out to do, with a non-existent script that’s just a set up for a painfully extended rape sequence, dialogue full of (seriously) nothing but expletives, and later some terrific gore content. The gore wasn’t enough for me, though I suppose it could be for the horror fans who are amused by anything of the like. Donkey Punch’s most interesting thing is the title. It’s oddly not fun to watch these people unravel and argue their way into violence like you’d think it would be, and I kept wanting SOMETHING unexpected to happen. Never. It paints by numbers, and it’s boring as shit. Both are complete wastes.

6 10,000 BC (2008, dir. Rolland Emmerich, US)

It’s Rolland Emmerich here, so we’re not exactly expecting highbrow. It was dumped in March, which should have been a sure sign. It’s a primitive action piece full of large battles and creatures, and it’s PG-13. Also, it’s in English, everyone is manicured with perfect, pearly white teeth, and it’s like Apocalypto for the average-American film-goer. It’s as good as that sounds. I was, inexplicably, really looking forward to this. The trailer really, really sold this movie, and it’s the only reason it made a nice chunk of money for Warner. It’s wretched, I’ve talked about it before, enough said.

5 The Happening (2008, dir. M. Night Shayamalan, US/IND)

Doesn’t that image look riveting?? I feel enough’s been said about Shayamalan’s disaster movie where I can’t really speak at length and feel like I’ve said anything new. My theory? This is indeed an intentionally horrible movie, and the ruse is on everyone for believing that it was intended to be a serious film. How else to explain that the trees are attacking us for revenge? Or that trainer offering his limbs to his tigers? Or that man laying in front of the lawnmower? These "chilling" things could only have been conceived as comedic ideas, parody of disaster movies and global warming paranoia, as there’s no way a single person could find anything approaching "fear" as a feeling involved in the watching of this still-birth. It’s a riot. It also explains Zooey Deschanel and Mark Whalberg’s inability to act and react in any realistic fashion, as only a director with a vision of humility could motivate these two to be as plastic and fake. Or maybe he’s just a horrible director who made two great films, only to discover he had nothing else to give to cinema, and has been wasting everyone’s time and money since. You be the judge?

4 Hancock/Seven Pounds (2008, dir. Peter Berg/Gabriele Muccino, US) aka. Will Smith = EPIC FAIL.

Two entirely different films, both signifying that Will Smith needs to get a new agent, or get better taste. Hancock felt like the abridged version of a much larger, better story, filtered through too many people like a game of telephone so that the film arrived on the other side resembling very little of what the original product may have looked like. There are glimpses of an unusual story with some wicked humor, backed by some really broad, dumb bits, and it doesn’t make any sense between the two tones. It boasts some horrible effects work, and a really weak third act which could have saved the whole thing, but ends up burying the movie further under a cloud of underwhelming. I found it mildly entertaining, though, especially in comparison to something as awful as Seven Pounds. It’s something that made its way on to the infamous "black list" of the best unproduced screenplays on the market, and one must really wonder what went wrong along the way. The team of Pursuit of Happyness behind the project inspired hoped, as I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked that film, but that must have been a fluke. How else to explain this incredible level of schmaltzy, manipulative tripe falling on ANY acclaimed list of writing achievements. This gave me the same manipulative, meaningless self-sacrificial bullshit that The Life of David Gale milked years back, and that’s one of the worst films I’ve ever seen, so it wasn’t exactly a welcome comparison. The jellyfish ending of Seven Pounds apparently works with audiences in a comedic way. I don’t think it was intended as such, but it got me chuckling too. This marks the first official year where Will Smith has taken a critical drubbing. Hancock made boatloads, but was a critical failure, and let’s just say that the film didn’t have a lot of repeat viewers, or "fans" to support it beyond the pocketbooks. Unfortunately, that’s about all it takes to equal a success in Hollywood. Will Smith, to me, is now a failure. It’ll take a lot of work to get back to good. Call it hasty, but it is what it is. I got burned twice in one year.

3 Disaster Movie/Meet the Spartans (2008, dir. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, US)

An insult to stupidity on every level. STOP funding these cocksucking, motherfucking assholes so they can make their unfunny "parodies" of the trailers they saw recently.

2 Gran Torino (2008, dir. Clint Eastwood, US)

Perhaps I saw a different film than you dumbshit critics. And perhaps, just maybe, everyone is forgetting about just how touchable the untouchable Clint Eastwood really is. Did anybody see Pink Cadillac? Absolute Power? What about True Crime, or Space Cowboys? How about that miserable Blood Work? Remember those two monkey movies he made? Exactly. For the highs that Eastwood’s been running during awards season in recent years, it made me laugh out loud to even fathom the idea of this being something the academy would even wink at. Eastwood plays a grumpy, tough guy with an undercurrent of heart, which is nothing new. He’s unlikably likeable, but in no way that he’s showing off anything we haven’t seen him do a hundred times better a few years ago with Million Dollar Baby. And when you THINK he’s going to give us Harry Callahan again, he twists the ending into a mindless, derivative, sentimental hodgepodge of convenience and "feel-good" happiness that made me shout "SERIOUSLY?" at the top of my lungs. Every actor in the film besides Eastwood is an amateur, especially this boy that Eastwood sorta takes under his wing (with racism) and thus none of the emotional ideas or themes resonated with me in the least. This reminded me entirely too much of that Eastwood that made True Crime and Blood Work; someone with a competence for filmmkaing aesthetics, but none of the tools at his hand to make it noteworthy whatsoever. In fact, it’s pretty fucking poor.

1 Australia (2008, dir. Baz Luhrmann, AUS/US)

FLASHYFLASHYINYOURFACECOLORFULGAYGAYGAY! That’s the general state of Baz Luhrmann’s films to date, and what a pleasant surprise that Australia isn’t of that speed. It is, however, equally as poorly made as his previous efforts. I know his films have a lot of (single) female fans out there, and it’s no crime to like Moulin Rouge for it’s heart-on-it’s-sleeve, weepy mentality that females seem to love. I obviously don’t. I also can’t stand his modern-but-not take on Romeo + Juliet. He’s one of the most visually distinguishable directors out there, and he has a true vision – BUT, he’s got no clue how to tell a story. Here he takes the idea of doing an old Warner Brothers epic, a sweeping picture set in Australia with big visuals and a big, powerful story. What those films had, what things like Lawrence of Arabia had, was a scope and a story to tell (with a fantastic script). Australia feels like a set of vignettes strung together by some set of problems that arise from time to time, which is the opposite of epic. Nothing is cohesive or flowing, and for the love story that’s supposed to be here, it felt non-existent to me. Maybe it was the lack of chemistry between Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman, or maybe it was the fact that Kidman’s too frigid, or Jackman’s too gay. At any rate, it didn’t work. Neither did caring about anything that was happening, as when you think the film is heading towards a, um, conflict, it’s solved and we’re supposed to worry about something else. This is not how I've been taught to write, because this kind of writing doesn't work, especially not for this kind of film. Do you understand how much I hated this? I almost walked out on a film for the second time ever. The only thing that kept me from walking out and getting my money back within 30 minutes was that I was too sleepy to drive home. I may have dozed off twice, but I don’t think it really affected my enjoyment, or lack thereof. I can’t imagine actually being Australian and having this be the film titled after my homeland. It’s not at all about the history or forming of this beautiful country, but is just the backdrop with some minor cultural influence in the story, which could have been universally altered to fit ANY country’s history. Insulting, just a bit, is the fact that I’m pretty sure Razorback has better cinematography. Razorback's gorgeous, by the way. Everything looks too polished and fake to actually be real here, and it was shot on location! It’s dreadfully sentimental when we don’t care, weepy without eliciting tears, boring as shit, and ultimately not about anything at all, and thus is a failure on everything it was trying to be. For the intentions and result, it’s the worst thing I saw in 2008 hands down. -M