Listmania ’11! The Worst Movies Of The Year

It feels like a hundred years ago that I published my Best Movies list, but it was actually only 8 days ago. This post has been delayed by attempting to understand the rules to Twilight Struggle. That is an ongoing project that could take a while. Meanwhile I was also rattling through more potential bad movie nominees, which led to me finding an extra dishonorable mention as well as the number three film on the main list.

There’s a good chance that was actually the worst film I’ve seen in a long time, but as with A Separation on my best films list — which I saw on the day I hit publish, and ended up at number 4 on the list — I’m not sure it would be fair to leapfrog over the two stinkers I had above it. Those were movies that have pissed me off for months, and I want the world to know how much I hate them.

But why do I need to do this, especially now that we’re firmly embedded in 2012 like a tick? Dan Kois recently wrote a lovely article in the NY Times about why top ten lists are so important to him, and some of his reasons tallied with mine. When challenged on the usefulness of something like this, in which I attempt to quantify art and trap it in a list, I’ve often pointed out that this isn’t really about the films. It’s a snapshot of me.

When I read Kois’ article and saw that he felt the same way I almost cheered. So okay, this is about me, and as the majority of visitors to this page don’t know me and wouldn’t give a damn about me if I was in front of them in a line for a lifeboat, that means this list may only be of worth to those who want to capture these images, but I’ve tried to add some value by being very mean about these movies. Because they really stank. I hope you enjoy my ire.

25. Trespass, Drive Angry, and Season of the Witch

One can only assume that the mighty Cage has Dr. Wesley T. Snipes as an accountant. Oh Nic, it’s been hard to be one of your loyal fans in a year that saw you star in three, maybe four (I haven’t seen Seeking Justice, and neither have most people) of the year’s worst movies. Trespass was possibly the least awful, mostly because King Cage expended some effort, and seemed energised by having famed Oscar-winner and part-time Auton Nicole Kidman as a co-star, but sadly this was a movie with two strikes against it: 1) it was ineptly directed by Joel Schumacher and 2) the plot depends on a twist generated by tricking the audience with a lie embedded in a flashback. Not cool. Drive Angry was worse, but at least had a spirited performance from Amber Heard and a very entertaining turn by William Fichtner. Otherwise it was an unconvincing attempt to utilise the Grindhouse aesthetic to make something consciously trashy. While not as bad as the fundamentally dishonest, misogynistic and generally loathsome Piranha 3D it comes from the same dark pit, where a nod and a wink is supposed to excuse the slapdash execution and contempt for the audience. And then there’s Season of the Witch, which was just boring boring boring. Even more boring than Gone In 60 Seconds, the previous mogadonian collaboration between Cage and director Dominic Sena. Three absolute stinkers, all desperate cash-grabs by a fascinating performer. The moral of the story is, don’t go crazy buying castles if you’re not ready to get your tax on.

24. New Year’s Eve

Last year gave us the saccharine delights of Garry Marshall and Katherine Fugate’s Valentine’s Day, in which a dazzling collection of stars from the Hollywood firmament (not an endorsement) gurned through a number of first/third act sub-plots about falling in love in LA. SoC did not like it. And look, here we are a year later to find Marshall and Fugate have hastily cranked out another shuffled pack of cliches, written in what feels like a few days and populated by a scintillating kaleidoscope of celebrities from Hollywood’s jewel-palace or some shit in an attempt to distract the audience from noticing that this depressing franchise is made out of recycled tin and bits of broken mirror. It’s a horrible, cynical rush-job that confusingly casts two actors from the first film — Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Biel — in new roles, meaning anyone not wasting time keep close track of these movies is utterly lost. Even worse, the other characters are introduced hastily and then treated as if they’re familiar to us. Look at how Josh Duhamel is dealing with the overly-friendly family! Hold on, why should I care? I’ve only known this guy for 5 minutes, and this simple juxtaposition isn’t enough to qualify as a joke. The laziness of this writing, and the sheer gall that such lack of effort will be accepted by the audience, is just one example of the cynicism of this exercise. Let’s hope that the mediocre box office means we won’t be treated to Thanksgiving, starring the leftover actors from TV shows that couldn’t spare a day’s shooting time for this film.

23. Priest

In 2009 FX expert Scott Charles Stewart co-wrote and directed Legion, in which Paul Bettany played an angel protecting Adrianne Palicki’s child because of the coming apocalypse. It was similar to Gregory Widen’s The Prophecy but with a bigger budget and Dennis Quaid flipping burgers. It was all right. I enjoyed it well enough. Seen worse. In 2011 SCS directed this adaptation of Min-Woo Hyung’s popular graphic novel, and it wasn’t all right. I didn’t enjoy it at all. Seen MUCH better. The problem is that by now the visual aesthetic and genre-mashing seen here have become so commonplace that there’s no point in making more of these direct-to-DVD-worthy sub-par SF actioners unless there’s something unique to add to the genre. Priest is exactly the movie you think it will be from the trailers; a bit of ramping, some posing with weaponry, a dollop of Western iconography, growly villains, unconvincing FX that mistakenly act like the laws of physics can be ignored, lots of long coats, etc. Seeing this moved to a mid-summer US release, three weeks after Fast Five and a week after Thor, and treated like an event movie in the same way as The Warrior’s Way in 2010, almost made me feel sorry for it. Seeing it fail in the South Korean market, much as Ninja Assassin and Speed Racer did despite the presence of superpopstar Rain, made me feel worse. Enduring Priest‘s slow trudge through a hundred recognisable and indifferently filmed moments pilfered from better movies ended that pity. I pray for a moratorium.

22. You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger

Seemingly considered to be the 14th Woody Allen comeback before he actually made a movie that could conceivably be considered a return to the form of, say, Alice or Shadows and Fog, YWMATDS saw the formerly great director return to London for hopefully the last time. This movie’s sacrificial lambs included those talented performers Josh Brolin, Naomi Watts and Anthony Hopkins, as well as Frieda Pinto and Lucy Punch, in a tale that admittedly has more bite than his recent films. Selfish intellectuals bicker and conspire to gain money or influence within the rarified world of Belgravia, their venality hidden behind a barely functional facade, before Allen springs one of his best modern finales, one that is unexpected and unusually tense, thanks mostly to the sterling work of Watts. Sadly that moment of frisson doesn’t make up for the inclusion of prostitute Charmaine; yet another of Allen’s vile caricatures of the unsophisticated women he considers beneath him, and who must be saved from their stupidity by educated and cultured men such as himself. This is nothing new, but YWMATDS‘s greatest crime is to suddenly make the viewer see, as if scales have fallen from his or her eyes, that this patronising fetish has been around for decades. Add this to Allen’s inability to get a good performance from Pinto, or to restrain the nigh-unwatchable clowning of Punch, and this movie lays to rest the claim that Allen is a filmmaker sensitive to the inner world of the woman. He’s just the King of Mansplainers. How sad.

21. Dream House

Bond fans now have another reason to be frustrated with the post-Quantum-of-Solace delay caused by MGM’s recent troubles; the long pause means Daniel Craig has plenty of time to appear in ill-advised projects like this one. It’s possible he was attracted by the pedigree of those attached; Jim Sheridan, Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts and Caleb Deschanel are all present and correct. However, it doesn’t matter what talent gets thrown at a project like this, because if you’re filming a self-consciously tricksy Shyamalanian mystery as silly as this, you’re never going to win. Even the most innocent of viewers will suspect there is something up in Dream House‘s opening hour, as characters mysteriously walk away from conversations leaving questions hanging in the air, to the bemusement of Craig’s character; surely that can’t mean some key information is being ignored? That’s before we even get into the problem of his name – Will Atenton – which has never existed anywhere on the planet before, and gives The Number 23‘s brilliantly stupid Topsy Kretts a run for its money as the worst mystery name of all time. The eventual reveal at least comes two-thirds of the way through the story, but the final act has more than its share of risible plot twists and signposted surprises. Kudos to the talented cast for giving this creaky hogwash all of their effort, but it’s still piss-weak stuff, the kind of spec script that would have been rightly rejected as hokey by the producers of Tales of the Unexpected.

20. Larry Crowne

SoC is proud to call itself a pro-Tom Hanks blog. He’s so nice. We’d love to invite him over to play Ticket To Ride with us and Kevin Spacey. So it was with a heavy heart that we watched his second directorial effort with confusion. We assume it was an empowerment exercise for older folks, and a creditable attempt to make something old-fashioned that would appeal to a demographic ill-served during summer. That’s generous, and kinda shrewd, if it wasn’t for the fact that the finished product is so flaccid and studiedly inoffensive, so joke-free, so out-of-time. It’s almost endearing how baffled by and yet enamoured of today’s youth Hanks and co-screenwriter Vardalos seem to be; they go out of their way to prove that Larry can embrace new beginnings, but pairing him with poor Gugu Mbatha-Raw – who has to pretend to enjoy hanging around with a 90% acrylic man desperately trying to make the word “Speck-tack-alar!” into a catchphrase – is a kind of berserk cruelty. We haven’t even touched on the unpleasant performance from Julia Roberts, whose overplayed acidity is out of odds with all around her, including poor Bryan Cranston, here given the miserable task of portraying a man addicted to looking at chaste burlesque pictures of bosoms – nothing too racy to upset the elderly audience, eh Tom? It’s tempting to forgive this curio its trespasses just because it’s so bafflingly, uniquely wrong, but no. It’s the kind of movie you ponder for years, but never ever enjoy.

19. Sucker Punch

Poor Emily Browning. This year she was stripped naked and thrown around a room like a sexy frisbee by some sad old men in Julia Leigh’s self-consciously spartan Sleeping Beauty, but even the indignity of lashings of nudity and a bit of ugly-crying are nothing compared to the things she had to go through here. Zack Snyder’s Remedial Feminism for Nerds fell between two stools; too preachy for the fapping masses of the arrested adolescents, too lascivious (and stupid) for the righteous feminists. There’s a message about subverting the power of the Male Gaze here but it’s submerged in a sea of pop culture iconography, all made up of jumbled nerdobilia, so we get totes rad mash-ups with steampunk Nazis, robot samurai, pirate zombies, alien vampires, Jedi Vulcans, Cylons bitten by radioactive spiders, er… It’s as if a copy of Previews came to life. By seeking to be a one-stop shop of nerd culture, it actually insults us all, that we could only accept Snyder’s garbled and patronising message about respecting the hot chicks by dressing it up with dragons and Sailor Moon cosplay. Unfortunately for him, no one wanted to see his ambitious message movie, and so I guess nerds will carry on being misogynists despite his intervention. Well, I say unfortunately for him, when in fact he’s going to bring his “visionary director” (shurely shome mishtake – Ed.) shtick to the new Superman movie, which means tons of ramping and slow-motion. At least that gives us time to ponder just how intellectually hollow his approach is.

18. The Help

There is an incredible story to be told here, a bleak indictment of a terrible time in America’s history. Tate Taylor’s adaptation of the bestseller by Kathryn Stockett features numerous moments that will cut you to the core, made worse by the realisation that the segregation and open racism depicted here happened within the last 60 years, and never went away. It remains an open wound, and salt pours in every day. The scenes that capture that sense of desperation are the best things here, but are betrayed by various unnecessary plotlines. What could have been focused and righteously angry unfortunately bites off more than it can chew by taking on the less compelling troubles of affluent white women. A Mad-Menian attempt to depict the stirrings of feminism in conservative America is commendable, but here it has the effect of offsetting the social ostracisation of Celia (Jessica Chastain in unbearable ham mode) and protagonist Skeeter’s difficulty in finding a boyfriend with the assassination of Medgar Evers and the reality that African-Americans lived with the constant fear of murder. There’s not really an equivalence there. The leaden humour might make this bitter pill more palatable, and the movie’s box office success is testimony to that, but Taylor’s nervous directorial tic – in which the camera cuts to one of the white cast members mid-emotion whenever an African-American actor relates a horrific event from their past – betrays its insulting timidity. So yes, an essential story, diluted by wrong-headed nervousness.

17. The Resident

Nice of Hammer Films to give a small role to Christopher Lee in their first release in so long; a nifty way of maintaining some continuity with the past. Shame nothing else here respects that heritage. Even if you think the output of Britain’s primary horror studio was a bit shonky, that’s nothing compared to this low-rent bit of sub-Sliver tedium, which seems to be almost entirely composed of shots of Jeffrey Dean Morgan weeping in dark rooms, or Hilary Swank explaining every single thing she thinks and feels in order to save the writer and director from working out any elegant method of dramatising her predicament. Seeing this Oscar-winning actress forced to stumble backwards and forwards through gloomy crawlspaces for what feels like a week while thudding music desperately tries to generate some tension is one of the most dispiriting experiences of the movie-going year. What could have been a very dull 45-minute horror anthology installment becomes a double-dose of sheer boredom injected straight into our eyeball, offering no frisson, no deeper point, no imagination, just barrel-scraping woman-in-jeopardy horseshit, with plenty of creepy rape terror lazily offered up as if we were watching some straight-to-DVD offering from a disreputable cheap-ass studio who have no intention of treating the genre seriously, or the audience with any respect. Hammer Films may have returned, but this is the worst statement-of-intent imaginable. Consign it to the toilet where it belongs.

16. Cars 2

Fans of Pixar’s many great movies were understandably frustrated that their annual dose of CGI magic would this year be a continuation of John Lasseter’s ode to driving. While it has its defenders, the first Cars movie still feels off-kilter compared to their other efforts, but at least it’s about something – the slow death of towns along the roads that cross America, now neglected due to the introduction of freeways. Cars 2 might represent the first subtext-free Pixar movie, and no, the irritatingly-rendered crisis of confidence experienced by Mater doesn’t count. Though it’s refreshing to see a sequel pick up a different character’s story instead of complicating the emotional progress of the original’s protagonist, that means we’re stuck with Larry the Cable Guy’s irksome shtick, as the redneck tow-truck gets to do them fancy things whut thuh city folk does; i.e. get embroiled in an incongruous espionage plot. That out-of-place idea is a redirection too far from the original, which was pleasantly innocent. Rather that movie’s yearning for simpler times than this movie’s charmlessness, scenes of car torture/death, and confused environmental message. And if there was any doubt that this was made to capitalise on the incredible success of Cars merchandise, check out the scene where Mater transforms into a number of different paint jobs; there’s five more Mater toy variants that your kids are gonna bug you about. Thanks Pixar.

15. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

The first two sequels to Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski’s surprise smash hit Pirates movie were pilloried for being cynical cash-ins, but Shades of Caruso always thought they were quite the opposite. The attempt to create an entire fantasy world deriving its rules and laws from those of nautical myth was, in the end, far too ambitious to succeed, but for a while there it was exciting to see writers Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio go for broke with their plots, counter-plots and counter-counter plots. As if to prove this blog’s point, the fourth Pirates movie sloped into view to show what a cynically produced Pirates movie looks like, and it wasn’t pretty. Or funny. Or coherent. Or energetic. Or anything, really, other than a colossal, expensive, tedious waste of everyone’s time and talent. Rob Marshall deserves a lot of the blame for this. The inertia generated by his unimaginative direction infects the actors, who behave like the cast of a parochial pantomime at the end of its run. Fans of Elliott and Rossio might want to argue that it’s the listless editing that did the most damage to the movie, as a few clever plot payoffs near the end make a case that there were greater treasures there that could have been plundered with a bit more discipline. But let’s be honest, this was one of the most blatant cash-ins of the year. No amount of spreadsheets and revised drafts can convince Shades of Caruso that anyone involved gave a crap about making a good movie, merely a profitable one.

14. The Three Musketeers

Well, at least it’s better than the last Resident Evil movie. That can be attributed to two things; the uncharacteristic lightness of some of the jokes here (I’d like to think that the amusing running joke about fashion is down to co-screenwriter Andrew Davies), and plot elements that are unchanged from previous incarnations of Dumas’ novel. Sadly, this is a Paul W.S. Anderson movie. He has been called “the worst storyteller in the world” by a fairly reliable source (scroll down to number 2), and I’m inclined to agree. This classic tale had to be sullied by his filthy fingerprints, and the result is the inclusion of some listless steampunk nonsense and wirework for Lady DeWinter, here reinvented as crinoline-bedecked cat burglar and assassin Milady and played by Mrs. W.S. Anderson using her trademark acting scowl to full effect. That’s the least of this idiotic movie’s problems, though. The addition of flying ships and anachronistic booby-trap sequences only serve to make a fun story tedious; the face off between the Musketeers and evil Rochefort – conducted on different sets – is some of the laziest filmmaking of the year. The contempt Anderson has for his audience is astonishing, expending as little effort as possible to churn out his standard lowest-common denominator dreck. And I haven’t even mentioned James Corden’s charmless mugging, insulting the memory of Roy Kinnear’s work as Planchett in Richard Lester’s classic version. Unforgivable.

13. Straw Dogs

More on this ill-advised remake in a forthcoming post (there’s too much to say here), but suffice to say, Rod Lurie takes an already problematic (though bold and questioning) movie and remakes it in such a way that its most controversial moment ends up being even more objectionable than the original was thought to be. And it totally wastes acting titan Walton Goggins. An unforgivable crime.

12. The Hangover Part II

Yes, Part II, just like The Godfather had a Part II. Todd Phillips has proved so inept at directing comedy that it’s hard to tell if the title is meant to be a joke or a statement of some weird intent, that this is something that the filmmakers are proud of. Because that’s a bit hard to swallow considering the script was written by taking the first movie’s screenplay, hitting Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-O, Ctrl-V, Save As – thehangoverptIIlulz.doc, find = Vegas, replace = Bangkok. And why Bangkok, pray tell? For the ladyboy jokes, of course. In fact, I had a bet with myself as to how long it would take for a transsexual to show up for the gay panic jokes, and it turned out to be about 51 minutes. I’m surprised it took that long. Thailand is here treated like a stained fuckhole where the lowlife are insane and the rich are stuck-up assholes waiting to be told how to live by the Americans. Those fratboy Yanks sure know how to par-tay, right, and those boring jerks will rue the day. And at the end, when a guy loses a finger and possibly damages his career chances he’s just fine with this because he got drunk once. Life lesson learned! And the adoring women laugh as the men bond, even though Alan is now near-sociopathic, (oh Zach Galafianakis, please get out of this malignant franchise), Phil is becoming worrying violent (Bradley Cooper deletes any good will earned from his turn in Limitless), and look who’s back! Everyone’s favourite rapist thug Mike Tyson! THP2 is pure hatred, depicting male friendship as a gnarled, hostile parody of the real thing.

11. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part One

For the past few years Shades of Caruso blogposts have received numerous one-star ratings from Twi-Hards as we railed against the world’s worst franchise and screenwriter Melissa “Dexter” Rosenberg’s preposterous insistence on faithfully adapting those awful event-light books. Three movies have already been adapted from the equivalent of about one and a half acts of a short story, padding out hours of yearning stares with dull love triangles, poorly defined clan squabbles and many shots of wet forests. We’re approaching the merciful end of this interminable saga, and yet this penultimate chapter offers up nothing but more forestry, more pouting from Jacob, and seemingly endless scenes of poorly-acted angst. This might actually be the best of the series so far, thanks to a modicum of sustained low-level tension, but even so, barely anything happens, with only the hint of some Grand Quignol reproductive horror at the end providing even a hint of dramatic power. Other than that we have a hilarious growly werewolf summit, a couple of shots of lovely Michael Sheen gnawing on scenery, and way too much of Stephenie Meyer’s dodgy gender politics. On an aesthetic level the tedium of Bill Condon and Rosenberg’s adaptation is shocking; on a political level, Meyer’s concept of the passive womb-carrier that is Bella, punished with death for her lust even within wedlock, and redeemed by a return to chastity (here depicted by a hallucinogenic shot of a flower closing as she becomes a vampire), is truly odious.

10. No Strings Attached

Amazing how tone and energy can make such a difference to a movie. Will Gluck’s Friends With Benefits uses its irreverent script as a springboard for all sorts of frank and funny conversations about the complications caused by casual sex between friends. Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake are endearing and uninhibited, their relationship made appealing in both before and after forms. In Ivan Reitman and Elizabeth Meriweather’s movie, the first scene depicts two young teenagers (Emma and Adam) awkwardly flirting, at the end of which Adam asks Emma if he can finger her. And with a glum clang, the movie is lost. From then on the tone is alienating, as Adam and Emma’s reason for delaying their inevitable romantic relationship is revealed to be pain and personal anguish, and their casual sexual relationship is depicted as an unfortunate consequence of their dysfunction. This makes No Strings Attached a darker experience, not helped by Portman’s choice to play Emma as dour and seemingly traumatised. That’d be fine if this was a character piece that had something to say about damaged individuals, but as it keeps throwing in lazy romcom staples like wacky friends, broad villains and inconvenient complicating relationships (complicationships!), Kutcher’s listlessness and Portman’s spikiness is out of place. As a comedy the jokes don’t land, but as a drama it’s too flippant; errors compounded by Reitman’s soporific direction. What we’re left with is overlong, charm-free, and too cowardly to realise its full dramatic ambition.

9. The Dilemma

Readers of SoC who checked out last year’s worst movies list may have noticed the high placing of The Switch, the truly dire reproduction comedy that featured the accidental insemination of Jennifer Aniston by Jason Bateman. That sprang from an article by Jeffrey Eugenides, then adapted by producer and writer Allan Loeb, who failed to explore the ethical quandaries involved, preferring instead to make baffling joke-flavoured noises about the subject. This year Mr. Loeb posed another, far less pressing question; should you tell your friend if you saw his wife cheating on him? The answer is yes, you should. And now I have saved you from having to watch Vince Vaughn wrestle with this problem for 100 minute of padding, improbable obstacles, cartoonish caricaturisation, and yet more of these now trademark LoebJokes; lines delivered like humour but otherwise unrecognisable as comedy. The result is a mystifying experiment. Who greenlit this movie? What was Ron Howard thinking? What was anyone else thinking, for that matter? You know you’re in trouble when the audience is grateful for the appearance of Channing Tatum to alleviate the tedium. For once he’s the only person in the movie to stay awake; a total reversal of the usual state of affairs. Epic poems will be written about SoC’s battle to get to the end of this unnecessary film. We only hope that whichever studio head/producer won the bet for who could make the most boring movie of 2011 donated the money to an orphanage.

8. The Change-Up

As if foisting the noisome Hangover onto the world wasn’t bad enough, screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore also poured this fetid waste over the heads of the 12 cinemagoers masochistic enough to sit through two hours of Jason Bateman robotically saying, “I’ll ruin that bitch” over and over again. SoC is no prude, but this miserable fashion for R-rated comedies triggered by the success of Judd Apatow’s recent adult-themed movies has completely lost sight of the fact that his movies understood and sympathised with humans, and were more frank than profane. The Change-Up is a miserable experience by comparison, bereft of compassion or empathy, as phony as any knock-off Prada handbag, as mechanical as any mass-produced soon-to-malfunction off-brand gadget. The formula here is that single Ryan Reynolds and married Jason Bateman swap bodies and see how the other half lives; Freaky Friday for Nuts readers. The least director David “Wedding Crashers” Dobkin could do is slot the relevant story parts into place with some form of competence, but he can’t even keep the characters consistent. Reynolds’ sex-mad slacker begins the movie as a foul-mouthed loser; an hour later, in Bateman’s body, he’s a noxious, sociopathic piece-of-shit who should be euthanised. And don’t get me started on Leslie Mann and Olivia Wilde, forced to be little more than signifiers of virtue and lust respectively. Sitting in a bath of cyanide-laced horseshit would be preferable to watching this empty, cynical enterprise trail slime across the finish line.

7. One Day

Early reports that Lone Scherfig and David Nicholl’s adaptation of his global megaselling novel was not that great were generous, to say the least. What could have been the tragic romance of the year is in fact indistinguishable from some kind of unhinged parody, and for that SoC is grateful. Any possibility of emotional connection between character and audience is ruined by the gimmicky structure, leaping through time from one improbable event to another as we see two poorly-realised caricatures do and say things you only find in badly-written books. Every possible cliché of the romance genre is crammed in, leaving no room to explore a thought or express an emotion; everything here is exposition, a cacophony of out-of-tune notes blasted at a disbelieving audience. It’s hard to say what is the funniest thing here; the movie-wide overacting, the overwrought plot twists, the dearth of honest feeling, Rafe Spall’s godawful caricature of a nerd — apparently Nicholl’s mockery of himself, but dangerously close to being an assault on my brethren. This bloodless monstrosity is the kind of thing that the British film industry could do without; a pompous confection for a middle-class audience who, sadly for these patronising filmmakers, saw right through its micron-thick sheen of “classiness”. It’s regrettable the same audience also focused their ire on Anne Hathaway and her wandering accent, ignoring the fact that she’s the only person in the cast to give a performance with any modulation or imagination.

6. Mars Needs Moms

The year’s most notorious flop is the kind of movie that SoC likes to champion. It’s critically reviled, it’s sci-fi, and it’s made using performance capture, a technique that we’ve previously defended. But despite interesting production design by Doug Chiang and a fun score by John Powell, this is a project riven with flaws. Simon Wells’ parable is technically assured but also joyless; these are the sorts of problems that should be addressed before committing $150m to its production. The rash decision to forgo revision means ImageMovers Digital are either the dream production company for allowing Wells to go forward without intervention, or they’re idiots who signed off on this, which would make their subsequent closure a little easier to take. Either way, it seems they approved of the movie’s hateful anti-feminist message, where those goddamn castration-happy lesbo Martian feminazis conspire to discard all of the poor fun-loving men who didn’t help with the childcare because they just wanted to enjoy life, thus leaving the kids to be cared for by machines; you know, like today with the TVs and those video games. As if that pissy comment on single mothers and their “responsibility” for the breakdown of society isn’t enough, the movie ends with the Martians embracing the nuclear family unit with a sense of obnoxious wonder, before learning life-lessons from a hippy in a sitcom. More baby boomer worship and hatred of modernity, then. In that case, its box office failure is a success for progressive ideals. Which is nice.

5. W.E.

Upon leaving the screening of this memorably silly biopic, SoC wiped tears of giddy mirth from its eyes and began proclaiming on Twitter that it had seen the worst movie of the year. It’s a farrago! It’s a catastrophe! It’s Showgirls meets The King’s Speech, written by Jackie Collins and directed by a distaff Oliver Stone! Though SoC has not changed its mind on those damning comparisons, it has grown immensely fond of Madonna’s vanity project, as much for its peek into her questionable taste in subject matter and what it says about her self-image as for its hilariously off-kilter direction and sub-Mills-and-Boon writing. Many long and dreary days since have been enlivened thinking about Andrea Riseborough dancing the twist while while wearing Gary Oldman’s Herr Dracool wig, or James  D’Arcy’s visit to a Welsh town filled with stuttering, worshipful peasants, or Richard Coyle’s eye-watering turn as the whiskey-swigging abusive cad who torments poor virtuous Abbie Cornish, or any number of staggering moments of bad-movie genius. Of course it also features a hasty bit of apologia for Wallis and Edward’s pro-Nazi behaviour, not to mention a scene featuring a fake Mohammed Al-Fayed intended to draw a parallel between the Windsor’s treatment of Wallis and Diana Spencer, and numerous other problematic choices, but the main thing to remember about W.E. is that it’s the best kind of terrible; a frenetic camp melodrama with no concept of its own ineptitude. I can’t wait to see it again.

4. Restless

Even the best directors have off days, but how many have taken their critical reputation, set fire to it and thrown it off a cliff into a lake of petrol-soaked faeces? Even die-hard fans of Gus Van Sant, who have previously defended his choice to make Good Will Hunting – a project that gave him enough clout to make the clout-evaporating Psycho remake — cannot even begin to explain the thinking behind this catastrophe. Henry Hopper and Mia Wasikowska play a Harold and Young Maude-esque couple who face the prospect of death with an onslaught of twee role-playing, Indie™ mumbly dialogue, excellent but wasted Harris Savides photography, cutesy philosophising about mortality, and the addition of a ghostly Japanese kamikaze pilot who facilitates many many life lessons. It’s like a sick joke from Van Sant, a weird art project in which he burns his credibility to the ground in order to build it back up somehow. Sadly this is more than just burning something to ashes; this is salting the ground and casting a hex on it too. It’ll take approximately 3 Gerrys, 6 Elephants and 9 Paranoid Parks to restore Van Sant’s Artistic Power Bar back to full strength. If you do have to watch this godawful, lightweight student-film parody, make sure you carry a syringe full of insulin, otherwise you may succumb to its claustrophic, relentless sugariness and expire, photogenically, in a cloud of reality-defying magic dust, after which your friends will learn valuable lessons about embracing life and laughter. Carpe fucking diem.

3. Blubberella

Thin-skinned artistic colossus Dr. Uwe Boll and his crew of cinematic titans last year filmed Bloodrayne: The Third Reich in Croatia, and much as the cast and crew of Little Shop of Horrors cranked out their movie in two days on a free set, Boll took advantage of his shooting schedule to make this knock-off piece of excrement. Let me list the crimes: Adolf Hitler (played by Dr. Boll) playing Risk with a blacked-up, jive-talking ally and repeatedly invading Africa to annoy him. Holocaust jokes. Michael Paré being turned into a vampire after being forced to drink Blubberella’s breast milk. A torrent of predictable fat jokes. A bitchy, effeminate gay man called Vadge Isil who has very little physical strength. An onscreen credit that explains Blubberella lives in “The Jew-y part of town”. Rape jokes. A fantasy dream sequence spoofing Precious, with Blubberella making food for her abusive mother, here played by a white man in blackface and drag. That fucking title. Attempts to explain away the awfulness by explicitly referring to said awfulness. The end credit, “Extra special thank you to Adolf Hitler for making so many great movies possible”. There’s an argument for irreverence and cocking a snook at civilised behaviour, but this overblown, ill-advised DVD extra is definitely not it. Enduring this childish, sniggering prank, which barely counts as a movie, made me feel like the audience watching the opening number of Springtime For Hitler. Boll might think he’s daring, but in fact he’s just a belligerent idiot, and an unclassy one at that.

2. Green Lantern

For a committed Green Lantern fan, this was a difficult viewing experience. The characters were present and correct, the mythology of the Green Lantern Corps was rendered fairly accurately, and considering the fringe nature of the comic franchise, some effort had been made to bring it to life. Perhaps the fans should be grateful for that, but considering that this debacle felt wrong on every other level, perhaps not. How can something so costly look so cheap? How can a reliable – sometimes surprising – director like Martin Campbell create something so flaccid and hollow? Every aspect of Green Lantern is either, at best, slightly off or, as is too often the case, disastrously wrong.

Who thought that a big mid-movie showdown between the hero and one of the main villains — which amounts to two men lying on the floor touching each other’s foreheads — would make for compelling summer cinema? Who could imagine that pitting a rubbery-looking superdouche against a wafty shitcloud would suffice as a rousing finale? Why is Sinestro evil at the end, other than as a patronising sop to the fans and a lazy set-up for a sequel that no one wants? Why are the Guardians of Oa stuck to their pointlessly high chairs, like intergalactic toddlers in a restaurant that has no tables?

Come to mention it, why does the Corps disappear for the majority of the movie when they’re obviously the key selling-point of the franchise? Couldn’t we have sidelined a couple of characters — including Hal’s obnoxiously anti-fun comedy flatmate — in order to get us some quality-time with Ganthet, surely one of the most important characters in the GL canon? Does the fact that Hal Jordan learns how to take down the supervillains in something like an afternoon count as a kind of space-racism against the alien Green Lanterns who have been training for years and yet are about as helpful as a green ring light-construct in a custard factory? (#Nerd)

Why did no one with any objectivity speak up about the ghastly neon lighting scheme, or the comically-bad CGI costume, or the castastrophic miscasting and misinterpretation of Hal Jordan as a glib wiseacre when portraying him as the more interesting and dramatically valid stoic grouch of comic lore might have meant fewer misfiring jokes but would have at least grounded the tone of this confused jumble? What could have been DC’s Iron Man is instead another Supergirl. The wonder of the beloved comic is here translated into a listless, ugly farrago, an embarrassing and obscenely expensive failure that irrevocably taints something wonderful. Please, please let the movie franchise end here, so the promising animated series can try to repair the damage done to this amazing character.

1. Atlas Shrugged: Part I

The long process of adapting Ayn Rand’s bloated novel is testament to the enthusiasm of her acolytes, which is why it’s especially delicious that the only reason we saw an Atlas Shrugged movie in 2011 is not because someone just said, “Fuck it, I’m putting up my money for this because the world needs it,” but because the novel’s rights were about to lapse and it was this or nothing. Considering how strenuously Rand’s ethos denies the beauty of life, merely the glory of money and selfish achievement, it’s fitting that this movie — a movie so opposed to the notion of organic life that one of the publicity photos on IMDb is of a bridge that isn’t even in it – was borne of pragmatism and not passion.

And what a perfunctory, half-arsed effort it is, something so ugly and soulless that producer and co-writer John Aglialoro might as well have linked together pictures of the first 2916 pages of that inhuman block of hate with a flashing caption saying, “Will this do?” Of course the uncinematic nature of Atlas Shrugged is likely because the movie’s budget ended up being much smaller than Randfans hoped, with only Aglioloro funding it, and a five-week shooting schedule that didn’t allow for errors, but hey, at least he got it made, and he got to adapt it. That, to me, feels like he’s desperate to ride on Rand’s coat-tails, but that’s not how Randians behave, right?

It’s perhaps wrong to say that this wretched movie’s worst crime is to render Rand’s vision as this prosaic procession of meetings and stern conversations, when the daft asshole-empowering nutter’s book is already repetitive, overlong, and devoted to reducing humanity to its most unappealing characteristics, but as pointed out to me by Anne Billson and Daisyhellcakes, you only have to look at King Vidor’s improbably entertaining The Fountainhead to see that the one thing Rand’s writing had going for it — a demented grasp of the epic — can be used as raw material to create vivid and appealing cinema. Vidor took Rand’s screenplay and went nuts with it, casting iconic actors Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal to embody Rand’s almost godlike protagonists. The Fountainhead still has that miserable, compassion-denying message at its heart, but it works as a compelling movie; just look at that brilliant final shot.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I would barely pass muster as a 90-minute Powerpoint presentation. Co-writer Brian O’Toole has pooh-poohed criticism of the low budget and the unstarry cast (all of whom will forever reside on SoC’s shitlist for agreeing to work on this), saying that the ideas are more important, but sadly Rand’s ideas are so… well, counterintuitive is the nicest way of saying it, though antithetical to the human spirit is closer to the truth… that the movie needed to be super-extra-compelling to work as propaganda for the glory of the 1%, and Atlas Shrugged: Part I really doesn’t count.

The camera is located in exactly the worst place in every shot, the palette is murky, the performances muted, the craziness strangled. It needed starpower, glamour of some kind. Instead we get Michael Lerner, the captain of the Kahana from Lost, and An Actress as Dagny standing awkwardly in some brown rooms. Some have complained that the movie has failed in not featuring the character of Richard Halley, the artistic genius rejected by the fad-obsessed mediocrity-praising critterati of the day, but his absence is telling; I doubt the team behind this artless farrago ever found Rand’s discussions of culture as interesting as her pro-money defence of rapacious capitalism. What piece of art is as beautiful (to these robots) as a bank statement from the Cayman Islands?

To make matters worse, Aglioloro, O’Toole and director Paul Johansson haven’t even stayed true to the book. The version of Dagny Taggart seen here does not resemble the character in the book. She alternates between confidence and hesitance, stoicism and irrational emotion, begging banks to give her loans to invest in the John Galt line and actually willingly responds to Hank Rearden’s sexual advances instead of fighting him off until he has to take her by force. I mean, that’s good because yay less rapey weirdness, but it’s not how Rand sees the world. How would she feel if she knew her sub-dom fantasies had been replaced with a chaste smoochy scene? Even Vidor didn’t shy away from Howard Roark’s dominance of Dominique Francon, and that was during the time of the Hays code. So much for respecting the audience’s ability to take on even the most unpleasant aspects of Rand’s book.

But to be honest these complaints about the uncinematic nature of the movie, the inability of the “creative” team to breathe life into this project, the cheap and nasty visuals… they’re missing the point. The worst thing about the Atlas Shrugged movie is that the Atlas Shrugged movie exists. Rand’s thinking has played a key role in making this world into the volatile, unjust hellhole that it currently is, and any attempt to celebrate or popularise her philosophy — which boils down to, “Thou shalt pay no taxes to the looters because thou art totes awesome” — instantly puts my back up. I mean, for fuck’s sake, she paints a picture of a world where regulation and nationalisation of the rail system is to be dreaded, and yet I live in a country where privatisation of the rail service has been one of the most scandalous disasters ever to befall it. So much for her vision.

To hear actors talking about the evil of generosity, or claiming that self-interest is the highest ideal, or howling in horror at a burning oilfield not because of the environmental impact but because oilfields themselves represent something beautiful… these are things that make me sick. Isn’t life hard enough to get through without having to endure the automaton-like moneymen of the world promoting a philosophy that reduces us to little more than sentient bank accounts, with PINs for souls? This is a movie treated like an event by the Koch Brothers — the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Perdition. Inviting their Archon followers for dinner and the equivalent of a spreadsheet convention; if only they considered that the punishment that I felt it to be.

The book Atlas Shrugged is a vile thing partially redeemed by the rubberneck value of seeing an author’s scarred psyche and bigotry transformed into a meticulously thought-out yet repellent philosophy that denies the existence of abstract beauty or humanity. Reading it is an alternately hilarious and disturbing experience, but it helps you understand the workings of the moneymen who arrogantly and incorrectly assume that their blind luck and ruthlessness in gaming the system is evidence of their Übermenschian superiority over the riff-raff.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I can’t even get that right. It’s incoherent and tedious, as soulless as the people who find value in it, and yet mundanely evil. It advocates the worst behaviour, it celebrates the worst of our species, it gives Wall Street psychopaths an argument for their pillaging, and it’s proud of its ethical crimes, like Hannibal Lecter gloating in front of the families of his victims. This is the worst movie of the year. This is the worst thing of the year. This is the nadir of cultural history. Avoid as if your soul depends on it.

Dishonorable Mentions:

I Don’t Know How She Does It: ”It” being getting nits, stumbling over chairs, talking to the camera as a lazy narrative device, and agonising at length over the literally hours she spends not being in happy montages with her children. As for the women in the movie who don’t want kids or men, don’t worry! By the time the credits roll, you’ll fucking get them and you’ll LIKE IT. Can’t wait for the sequel; I Don’t Know Why We Gave Those Chicks The Vote.

The Rite: Mikael Hafstrom’s dreary horroresque dramatisation of reportedly true exorcisms is notable for featuring such a dramatic gulf in talent between its leads. Anthony Hopkins gets to unload a heaping pile of acting tics all over poor unprepared Colin O’Donahue, who looks alternately perplexed and sleepy. Other than that it’s a sucky morass of cliche: call it William Peter Crappy’s The Exorshit. Or The Rong.

In Time: Andrew Niccol’s metaphorical use of time as a currency is an ingenious one (don’t sue me, Harlan Ellison), making a salient and timely point about wage inequality, corruption and the 1%. That’s the first act. Then it becomes an increasingly unfocused Bonnie-and-Clyde narrative with Justin Timberlake badly miscast as a rebel without a pause (geddit). By the end all the potency is gone, and we’re left with sub-Equilibrium posturing. Disappointing.

Bad Teacher: For once, SoC bête noire Cameron Diaz makes some effort as the teaching equivalent of Billy Bob Thornton’s Bad Santa. This movie, however, features a last-act conversion to sociability that makes no narrative sense; a dreadful cop-out that undermines the unpleasant build-up. This also features 2011′s other unwatchable Lucy Punch performance; a vortex of desperate gurning in need of stronger direction. Between this and The New Girl, what’s Jake Kasdan playing at?

Conan The Barbarian: “Conan, what is worst in life?” “To see a popular character treated to der vurst kind of brainless simplification, to be saddled viz a cliched revenge plot that even John Milius treated viz more delicacy, to feature incoherently shot action scenes furder ruined by der awful post-conversion 3D dat makes der movie too dark to vatch, and to hear der lamentations of der fanboys.”

More to come, and yes, I’m aware that it’s now practically the middle of 2012 and I’m still going on about last year.

BFI LFF 2011: Children Who Chase Lost Voices From Deep Below / Restless

After a burst of Western interest in Japanese animation triggered by screenings of Katsuhiro Otomo’s masterpiece Akira in 1991, cinema releases of anime seem to have dried up, at least in the UK. It feels like only Studio Ghibli movies get any attention any more; other than a couple of festival appearances we didn’t get to see Satoshi Kon’s Paprika or Mamoru Oshii’s The Sky Crawlers on the big screen, while DVD releases come out pretty regularly. It’s not all bad; at least we’re getting to see new Ghibli movies. Nevertheless it’s easy to forget that there are other filmmakers out there producing distinctive anime that isn’t about armoured cyborg cops or sword-wielding vampires (disclaimer: I have no problem with movies about armoured cyborg cops or sword-wielding vampires).

I haven’t seen anything by Makoto Shinkai before, though I had noticed he has a gift for adding evocative and unwieldy titles to his movies. Voices From A Distant Star, 5 Centimeters Per Second, The Place Promised In Our Early Days: they’re poetic and just pretentious enough to pique my interest. Children Who Chase Lost Voices From Deep Below (a pretty accurate description of this movie’s content) was one of my 2011 London Film Festival wildcards, except that the presence of an animated movie from Japan in a schedule that contained what mostly seemed to be movies illustrated in the BFI’s lovely 2011 programme by pictures of sad people looking out of car windows was instantly appealing to me. I didn’t know anything about Shinkai (though I soon discovered this lovely poetic little thing about a cat in love with his owner), but I had high hopes that Children… would be an otherwise undiscovered gem.

And it was. Shinkai’s melancholy fantasy follows Asuna, a young girl whose run-in with a mysterious and terrifying creature leads to a meeting with a mysterious boy, Shun, who saves her at the cost of his life. This encounter brings her to the attention of a vaguely sinister substitute teacher, Ryūji, who tells her of his theories about an underground world called Agartha. He believes this subterranean realm is analogous to the Underworld of ancient myth, and as such could be the place where he can find the soul of his dead wife. Asuna is similarly bereaved; her father is dead, and her mother is a nurse who is never at home. At first friendly, it becomes apparent that Ryūji’s real motives for approaching Asuna and seeking out Agartha might not be as innocent as it seems. Soon after meeting Shin, Shun’s aggressive brother, Asuna and Ryūji find themselves in a menacing world of great beauty, where their grief drives them toward a showdown with infinite, terrifying forces.

Daisyhellcakes reads a lot of novels for children and young adults for her job, and had told me about the tropes that occur frequently. Many of the plot devices Shinkai uses here — the other world, the dead loved ones, the possibility that they might be resurrected — are so familiar that I wondered if this was an adaptation of a Western children’s novel in the same way that Ghibli adapted and transformed Howl’s Moving Castle and The Borrowers. Turns out it isn’t, but the reliance on such oft-used devices makes Children… seem at first like it will be travelling down some disappointingly familiar paths.

Thankfully that’s not the case. Before long Children… has settled into a hypnotic pattern of tension and reflection while creating an intriguing and complex mythology for Agartha and the multivarious clans and creatures that live there. Shinkai’s fantasy is a feast for the eyes and the mind, transforming some familiar ideas (floating Viking vessels, spirit guides) and making them unique to this vast world, all while keeping their essence. For all its visual dazzle and culturally specific detail, the world of Agartha is recognisable to all audiences, as if Shinkai has tapped into the collective unconscious.

One could quibble and say that this familiarity means Children… doesn’t have the pleasantly discombobulating atmospherics and primal surreality of, say, Miyazaki’s classics Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke, but there are still visual and conceptual pyrotechnics here, especially during the movie’s hallucinatory finale, which operates on a terrifying scale that dwarfs our characters. The stakes for Asuna and Ryūji, and for the denizens of Agartha, become desperately serious, as the price Ryūji has to pay to fulfil his desire becomes apparent. The seeds of this final resolution are sewn throughout the rest of the movie, in its quietest moments. For instance, a particularly memorable scene near the end sees Asuna, exhausted and trapped by terrifying shadow creatures, reveal her reasons for embarking on this hazardous trip. Until that moment her motivation was frustratingly unclear; in this quiet, wrenching moment Asuna’s sadness is made clear. I won’t lie; tears were shed.

The finale is darker than you’d expect, and includes some pleasingly unconventional aspects. Miyazaki is a master of subverting the traditional Manichean conflicts used by most storytellers to power their tales. There is often a sense during his final acts that the characters who have opposed each other throughout are not the enemies you would have expected, and often face a greater threat than each other. Without getting too far into spoiler territory, it’s fair to say that a similar thing happens here. Asuna and Ryūji’s fate when facing forces of gigantic power is tied up with their own real-world problems, and though they appear to be antagonists, they are actually kindred spirits facing a greater opponent. Shinkai brilliantly plays out the final reckoning on both micro and macro levels; the resolution is awe-inspiring and moving in equal measure.

Children Who Chase Lost Voices From Deep Below is a gratifying success, a mind-expanding meditation on loss and loneliness that doesn’t stint on adventure and suspense. It feels honest and real even as Shinkai takes the viewer into a dazzling  fantastical world. There’s much said here about what it is to be a human in the face of unavoidable sadness, and how we can reconcile ourselves with emotions and events that are beyond our control. It is, in other words, the polar opposite of Gus Van Sant’s Restless, which is easily the most facile, absurd and shallow movie of that director’s long and fascinating career.

Adapted by Jason Lew from his play, Restless unites Enoch (Henry Hopper), a death-obsessed young man and Annabel (Mia Wasikowska), a terminally-ill young woman suffering from movie cancer, i.e. she looks healthier than me, barring a single non-traumatic seizure that pales in comparison to the harrowing ones suffered by Michael Shannon and Gwyneth Paltrow in Take Shelter and Contagion respectively. Enoch’s habit of loitering at funerals is his way of coping with the death of his parents; he’s like Ed Norton hanging out in cancer recovery groups in Fight Club, but even paler and weaker. He even has his own imaginary friend in the form of the ghost of a WWII Japanese pilot, Hiroshi (Ryo Kase), who is his Tyler Durden, if Tyler Durden liked to play Battleships and sulk instead of shagging Marla Singer.

Both Children… and Restless depict the efforts of the bereaved to find a state of grace and acceptance, but while Shinkai’s fantasy touches on deep emotional truths, Van Sant and Lew’s phony exercise in Harold-and-Maude-esque quirkiness is depressingly shallow. Van Sant has worked on commercial projects before; Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester have been dismissed as mainstream confections taken on to bankroll his more experimental projects. I’m on the record as being a fan of Good Will Hunting (back off, folks), and I haven’t seen Finding Forrester, but I can’t imagine it’s worse than Restless. This is the kind of cataclysmic misjudgement that sinks a career. I won’t feel good about this until Van Sant makes another good movie, to dispel this bad karma.

What’s so bad about it? As many other critics have pointed out, it’s almost unbearably cloying and cutesy, treating the subject of death with a disappointingly glossy approach so far away from Van Sant’s usual experimentalism that it almost verges on an avant-avant-garde trick, an intentional reversal of his previous aesthetic, as if the arty filmmaker had travelled back around a spectrum of seriousness toward twee emotionally-retarded stupidity. It’s Van Sant satirising himself, if you want to be generous. Trust me, though, after sitting through something as excruciating as this, generous is the last thing you want to be.

At least in the middle of the mess is a charming performance from Wasikowska, but what she’s asked to do — to be a beatific force of empowerment for the benefit of this unappealing collection of quirky character details indifferently performed by Hopper — is just unacceptable. It’s the worst kind of Sweet November / Manic Pixie Dream Girl bullshit; the saintly woman who experiences life at its most intense and donates that viewpoint to the poor man who is transformed. Thanks for dying, lively girl with a selection of endearing eccentricities! Now that you’re dead I can enjoy looking at flowers again or something. It’s telling that this hoary old trope, when done this badly, is less problematic than the inclusion of the ghost of a kamikaze pilot.

I’m not opposed to MPDGs in principle; it could be argued that Glen in Andrew Haigh’s lovely Weekend could be the Manic Pixie Dream Boy who brings lonely Russell out of his shell. That wasn’t a problem in the context of that story, especially as Glen is empowered by Russell to embrace intimacy just as his sudden vulnerability gives Russell strength to face down his enemies. Annabel, on the other hand, resembles a human about as much as a wire-frame pre-viz of Bumblebee in Transformers: Dark of the Moon does. She’s a stew of “endearing” cliches, a writerly concoction who should never be able to die as she has never been alive.

This goes double for Enoch, whose intangibility as a character is not helped by an underpowered performance by Hopper. It’s the kind of hesitant work you’d expect to see in a low-budget indie movie by the press-ganged friend of a first-time director, but here we have someone who knows their shit behind the camera, and the amateur dramatics and obvious hammering of well-worn narrative beats are just inexplicable. How can this have been made by the guy who made Elephant? It’s only the photography by the ever-brilliant Harris Savides that pushes this above the level of — dare I say it — Sundance Audience Award Winning Movie That Can’t Even Get A Distributor. There’s a short mid-movie love scene that is luminous and almost magical, but it only features as a short respite from the inconsequential and frankly cringe-inducing miasma.

Spoiler paragraph! What’s even worse is that Lew and Van Sant satirise the use of photogenic cliche in Hollywood depictions of terminal illness even as they rely on such triteness. A short sequence near the end of the movie features Enoch and Annabel acting out her death with silly soap-opera histrionics as a kind of weird QUIRKY joke ha ha. However they disagree on the best way to perform this morbid skit, and end up arguing about the rights and wrongs of airbrushing depictions of mortality. By this point, with Annabel’s only apparent symptom of terminal brain cancer being her Mia-Farrow-in-Rosemary’s-Baby-esque hair, that’s already a bit cheeky, but her eventual offscreen death and sappy funeral scene — in which Enoch learns how to laugh / simper at all the lessons he has learned– render this choice utterly bizarre. Will Gluck’s Friends With Benefits recently did a similar thing — mocking the conventions of romcoms before embracing them at the end — but that was entirely appropriate considering the arc of the characters from cynics to romantics. There’s no such arc here, no satirical point or character note. The movie is just so badly made that it thinks it can have its cancer-cake and eat it. Spoilers end!

Turns out Van Sant was a contender to direct The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part One; even though that franchise is one I consider almost comically bad, I would pay hypothetical billions to have seen Van Sant make that instead of Restless. You can imagine that he could take the most interesting aspects of Stephenie Meyer’s drama — Bella’s loneliness, the heightened emotions, the idea of adolescence as a kind of prison — and make them sing, as well as bring some beauty and artistry to that most mundane and ugly of franchises. Instead we’re left with this childish mis-step in one of the most interesting careers in modern American independent cinema.

The Top One Hundred and Six Movies of the Oughts (30-16)

As I approach the end of this project that was meant to be over in a day (it kinda ran out of control), I find that more and more of my choices are populist crowdpleasers, mostly because I’ve watched them with greater frequency and taken them into my heart. Nevertheless, even though they’re frowned upon, I don’t think they should be missed off lists like this. It’s no easy feat to create movies that can entertain large groups of people without heading for the bottom of the barrel, and in fact, I’d argue that aiming for the lowest common denominator fails to please crowds any way. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was meant to be a big dumb action flick for big crowds of hooting boys of all ages, but it didn’t set the world alight. I’d like to think it was because people have more discerning tastes than they’re credited with. And now, someone somewhere is thinking, “But what about the success of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?” I got nothing. [/sheepish]

And now, the movies I missed off part of this list business. Yes, I didn’t put Pan’s Labyrinth in the list. It honestly left me cold first time I saw it, though I did like it a lot, and thought Ivana Baquero and Sergi López were excellent. For the record, Daisyhellcakes loved it enough for both of us. My reservations were the same as I always have for Guillermo Del Toro’s movies, that for all his incredible flights of fantasy and attention to detail, they often feel like the work of a very talented adolescent who has not quite reached maturity. Pan’s Labyrinth is the closest he has come to this, but still it struck me that maybe Del Toro had bitten off more than he could chew. He also has terrible problems with pacing, choosing slow and steady but occasionally shooting off on tangents that make his movies grind to a frustrating halt.

That said, his eye is incredible, and all of the movies he has made this decade are staggeringly beautiful. For that alone I should give him some list props, but if I was honest, the movie I would choose would either be Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (which I praised here), or Blade 2. Both of them were more fun and filled with memorable images, but lacking the critical cachet that his homage to Spirit of the Beehive did. No matter. They both rocked my socks off. Consider them honorary mentions. And if I get to see Pan’s Labyrinth again, there’s always the chance that it will win me over. I hope so.

That brings me to the penultimate part of this list. Hopefully I can finish it all off today just so I can chill out over the weekend.

30. The Bourne Ultimatum

There is no slack in the rousing conclusion to the Bourne trilogy. Has there ever been a movie this propulsive, this energetic, this exhausting? Paul Greengrass strips every shot down to its essence, his camera focusing on every salient detail like a laser. Even better, he brings Bourne’s story to a satisfying close, turning the deadly assassin into a Spy Jesus who “dies” for the sins of his brothers. Arguably the best action movie since Die Hard.

29. The Insider

Featuring Russell Crowe’s first great US performance and Al Pacino’s last, Michael Mann’s 21st Century masterpiece pitches two men on the side of truth against the unfeeling machine of modern capitalism. As thrilling as the most hectic action movie you can imagine, and beautifully shot by Dante Spinotti, it’s also the best corporate thriller of recent times.

28. Unbreakable

M. Night Shyamalan’s best movie was treated like a failure upon release, but as his work becomes more erratic with every year, we can now look back on this love letter to comics with clearer eyes. His stately aesthetic was never used better than in telling the tale of a reluctant superhero and his hidden nemesis, and he deserves praise for extracting such a sensitive and quiet performance from Bruce Willis.

27. Magnolia

Paul Thomas Anderson’s sprawling patchwork might be self-indulgent, but it was also playful, emotional, and performed to perfection by a magnificent cast. Anderson has always been confident, but here he found a vehicle for his storytelling ideas that matched that ambition, something loose enough to allow for all the meta-narrative trickery. It also featured this jarring but unforgettable moment:

26. The Fountain

On first viewing, Darren Aronofsky’s meditation on life and death seems like an over-ambitious but impressive failure. Repeated viewings reveal its depth, its thematic strength, its perfect fusion of sound and image, building to a finale of terrifying and humbling power. In decades to come, it will be rightly hailed as a masterpiece.

25. Kung Fu Panda

An exhilarating rush of lovable enthusiasm from a company who had previously made nothing but forgettable chaff. Dreamworks Animation paid homage to Chinese culture with respect and style, aided by a never-better Jack Black playing a fanboy given a chance to live his dream. It’s pure escapist joy from start to finish.

24. Rushmore

Wes Anderson’s second movie was the one that turned his name into a adjective used to describe whimsical, cutesy indie nonsense. Thankfully his movies are cleverer than most, plus he has a weapon that many critics ignore in favour of whining about his formalism: crackerjack comic timing. Though I love all of Anderson’s movies, this was my introduction to that skewed universe, delivering the Shock of the New with a smirk and discerning use of Who songs.

23. Three Kings

David O. Russell manages to capture some of the genius of Catch-22 in his tale of soldiers hustling to steal Saddam’s gold as the first Gulf War winds down. It’s also a work of almost avant-garde oddness that bends cinema convention while providing laughs, pathos and action. A near-miraculous mixture of genres and tones.

22. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Ignored on first release, Shane Black’s hard-boiled detective homage is slowly gathering a following of fans in love with its word games and playful distortion of genre expectations. It’s also a perfect showcase for the talents of Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer, who prove to be one of the great movie double-acts.

21. Galaxy Quest

Half satire of genre convention, half love letter to the genre and its fanbase, Dean Parisot, David Howard, and Robert Gordon’s hybrid of Star Trek and The Magnificent Seven is quite possibly a perfect movie, and qualifies as the best work many of its cast has ever done. For example, is this moment Alan Rickman’s finest?

20. X2: X-Men United

Bryan Singer’s first X-Men movie was good enough to kickstart the superhero genre’s domination of the decade’s box office, but his sequel was on a whole new level. The satisfyingly complex narrative is a great starting point, but Singer then adds a series of bravura action setpieces that would only fail to melt the heart of the most obstinate and aggrieved fanboy. I may have yelped like a joyful puppy more than once during my first viewing.

19. Rachel Getting Married

The triumphant return of Jonathan Demme to filmmaking greatness. Even though he had not used it in a mainstream movie for a while, his loose aesthetic proved to be a perfect fit for Jenny Lumet’s piercing script about a family trying to enjoy a wedding while Anne Hathaway’s Kym — the living reminder of an awful tragedy — shows up and tries to bring everyone down.

18. Zodiac

David Fincher’s movie about the San Francisco Zodiac killings pretty much ate itself here, as he turned his obsession with the case into an exploration of how it possessed all those who tried to solve it. Is this as close as we’ll get to a personal movie from this impersonal perfectionist? No matter. What counts is his total mastery of mood and mise en scene, and his ability to make crowd-pleasing entertainment out of such dark material.

17. Memento

This mindbending crime thriller had a brilliant conceit that attracted all of the attention. The tale of vengeance-seeking Leonard (Guy Pierce) cleverly mimics his neurological disorder, and is told backwards and forwards simultaneously, meeting in the middle. Nevertheless, as with Christopher Nolan’s Prestige, it’s really a tragic story of how a man’s dark heart will bring him to destroy himself and others for the stupidest reasons.

16. Elephant

The award-winning centrepiece of Gus Van Sant’s Béla-Tarr-period is a hypnotic and gut-wrenching cinematic experience, and the best depiction of youthful nihilism since Tim Hunter’s River’s Edge. Harnessing long tracking shots, a fractured narrative, and the amazing soundwork of Leslie Shatz to discombobulate the viewer, Van Sant’s movie captures only a fraction of the horror of the Columbine school shootings, but that fraction is enough to chill the blood.

And now I embark on the final leg of this journey, with exhaustion gripping my branes. Wish me luck.

Where I Am Felix To The Academy’s Oscar

Tonight is the night when we feeble schlubs get to dip our toes in the lake of glamour that is the Academy Awards, staring in disbelief at the staggering beauty of our betters. I say this without sarcasm, as I am powerless to resist it. The award period is like my Christmas (with the summer season of robots, monsters, superheroes and explosions being my extended birthday). This year, though, has been particularly frustrating, as the likely winners seem more predictable than ever. It’s obvious that, by now, Slumdog Millionaire is going to win most awards. That frustrates me enough as I’m on record as hating the damnable thing, but also because it has robbed us of some speculation fun. Last year I might have had a terrible time picking winners, but it was a lot more fun guessing.

Before revealing my picks (can you bear the suspense?), first the results of our poll to find out the most popular longshot Oscar winner from this year’s nominations. It was pretty clear who was the favourite.

  • Kung Fu Panda (Animated Feature Film) – 6 (50%)
  • Martin McDonagh (Original Screenplay – In Bruges) – 3 (25%)
  • Richard Jenkins (Actor- The Visitor) – 2 (16%)
  • Melissa Leo (Actress – Frozen River) – 1 (8%)
  • Michael Shannon (Supporting Actor – Revolutionary Road) – 0 (0%)
  • Viola Davis (Supporting Actress – Doubt) – 0 (0%)
  • Gus Van Sant (Director – Milk) – 0 (0%)
  • Thomas Newman (Soundtrack – Wall*E) – 0 (0%)
  • Peter Morgan (Adapted Screenplay – Frost/Nixon) – 0 (0%)
  • Wally Pfister (Cinematography – The Dark Knight) – 0 (0%)
  • The Baader Meinhof Complex (Foreign Language Film) – 0 (0%)
  • Milk (Picture) – 0 (0%)
  • Iron Man (Visual Effects) – 0 (0%)
  • Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Makeup) – 0 (0%)
  • The Dark Knight (Sound Editing) – 0 (0%)
  • Wanted (Sound Mixing) – 0 (0%)
  • Kung Fu Panda‘s win in this most insignificant of polls warms my heart. KFP has been damned with faint praise since its release (“It’s surprisingly good for a Dreamworks movie!” “It’s a lot of fun, but it’s not profound like the Pixar film!” etc.), though that didn’t stop it sweeping the board at the Annies, recently. Recently I rewatched Wall*E, hoping I would like it more second time around, but sadly no. As usual, I offer the usual caveats. It’s beautiful, it’s got a lot of incredible ideas and imagery, and the sound design is stunning, but the second half is flat, and Wall*E spends far too much of the movie falling over or having things land on him. In Kung Fu Panda the slapstick has a purpose (Po’s clumsiness is the source of his kung fu strengths, as his unpredictability makes him unstoppable), whereas in Wall*E it’s more like punctuation at the end of scenes, something I have a real problem with. The analogy I ended up with was that Kung Fu Panda was a Buster Keaton movie (it’s all about the story and the spectacle), and Wall*E was a Charlie Chaplin movie (convinced of its own importance, and deeply unfunny). Keaton beats Chaplin any day of the week. Sorry, Pixar.

    The votes for Martin McDonagh, Richard Jenkins (who had a really good year with great work in Burn After Reading and Step Brothers as well), and Melissa Leo were cool too, but the latter two are in categories that seem decided already. Martin McDonagh has a better chance, as his category of Best Original Screenplay is kinda weak, but even so, In Bruges was too filthy and odd to win votes from the staid Academy members. Shame. No one else got a single vote. Maybe I chose badly, or maybe readers of this blog haven’t seen the movies I picked. No matter. Thanks to everyone who participated.

    And now, my picks for this year. Except for a couple of categories, it was a no-brainer. Even if the Weinsteins have been trying to turn people against Slumdog, it’s just not going to happen. To be honest, I may have hated Slumdog, but I might hate The Reader more. Not only is it of questionable value as a comment on post-Nazi German guilt (I think these comments and these reviews sum up my feelings far better than I could express), it’s also a really stupid and pompous movie, filled with wall-to-wall cliches and laughable dialogue. David Hare and Stephen Daldry should hang their heads in shame. The list of nominees seems even worse now that I’ve seen that fucking appalling exercise in static worthiness. And so, I think the Oscars will, should, and can’t (due to stupidity) go to the following…

    Best Picture:

    Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
    Should Win: Milk
    Should’ve Been Nominated: The Dark Knight / Rachel Getting Married / The Wrestler

    I may have had some reservations about Milk, but it’s far and away the best movie of a really poor bunch, and by an order of magnitude in the case of Slumdog and The Reader. The snubs for the three films I have listed truly grate on me. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; this is the worst nominations list I can remember, which is another thing that has robbed me of my enthusiasm.

    Best Director:

    Will Win: Danny Boyle – Slumdog Millionaire
    Should Win: David Fincher – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Christopher Nolan – The Dark Knight / Jonathan Demme – Rachel Getting Married

    An easy pick, though I chose Fincher as the Should Win as there was so much work done on Benjamin Button that I thought he edged it over Van Sant, who also did excellent work on Milk (though, as I’ve said before I would have liked a bit more unconventionality in it). None of this matters, though. Boyle will win it for the worst film of his career. Yuk.

    Best Actor:

    Will Win: Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler
    Should Win: Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Robert Downey Jr. – Iron Man

    This has to happen. If someone else won it would be the biggest upset of the night. And by upset, I mean, I would turn off the TV and not bother watching to the end. Come on, Mickey!

    Best Actress:

    Will Win: Kate Winslet – The Reader
    Should Win: Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Kate Winslet – Revolutionary Road / Julianne Moore – Blindness

    I love Winslet and think she’s one of the great actors of our time (seriously), but for The Reader? Nuh-uh. She’s good in it, but that movie deserves no reward. Having her nominated for that and not the far superior (and not despicable) Revolutionary Road is testament to the efficacy of the Weinstein’s strong-arming tactics, but that’s little consolation to us. I’d love for Anne Hathaway to win instead, just to rob the Weinstein’s of their little victory, but that would also rob Winslet, who has deserved Academy recognition for about ten years at least.

    Best Supporting Actor:

    Will Win: Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
    Should Win: Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Aaron Eckhart – The Dark Knight / Bill Irwin – Rachel Getting Married

    Another no-brainer. And deservedly so.

    Best Supporting Actress:

    Will Win: Penélope Cruz – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
    Should Win: Marisa Tomei – The Wrestler
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Rosemarie DeWitt – Rachel Getting Married

    I would have plumped for someone else in this category, but Tomei isn’t winning (even though the Academy might like to legitimise her Vinny award), and Cruz will get it for losing out on a justified award for Volver.

    Best Original Screenplay:

    Will Win: Milk – Dustin Lance Black
    Should Win: In Bruges – Martin McDonagh
    Should’ve Been Nominated: The Wrestler – Robert D. Seigel

    See above for my feelings on this. Milk wasn’t a bad screenplay, but it was pretty unimaginative, and filled with clunky exposition. Seigel’s work on The Wrestler, on the other hand, was feather-light. It would have been nice for a former Onion employee to get a nod.

    Best Adapted Screenplay:

    Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire – Simon Beaufoy
    Should Win: Frost/Nixon – Peter Morgan
    Should’ve Been Nominated: The Dark Knight – Christopher Nolan / Jonathan Nolan / David Goyer

    A particularly weak field. Beaufoy’s script is shockingly poor, a stream of one-dimensional characters, contrivance, phony uplift, and childish humour. That said, David Hare’s adaptation of Bernard Schlink’s novel is equally vapid. I would love for them both to lose to Peter Morgan, even if his screenplay was also loaded with some silly Cliff Notes-style exposition to help the viewer along (though the amount of contextual information in that film has to go somewhere if it’s going to be less than fifteen hours long).

    Best Animated Feature:

    Will Win: WALL-E – Andrew Stanton
    Should Win: Kung Fu Panda – Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Fear(s) of the Dark – Various

    I’ve not even seen Fear(s) of the Dark, but it sounds great, and it would be fun to see Charles Burns getting a nomination (read Black Hole; it’s awesome). That would have meant Bolt misses out, which is a shame, as it’s a lot of fun, and the nomination is a nice present to Disney Animation, which has had a difficult couple of years.

    Best Foreign Language Film:

    Will Win: The Class (France) in French – Laurent Cantet
    Should Win: Waltz with Bashir (Israel) in Hebrew – Ari Folman
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Gomorrah (Italy) – Matteo Girrone

    I suspect The Class will win as much for its quality as for not being the far more controversial Waltz With Bashir. I’ve not yet seen The Class, and it might be amazing, but I can vouch for the incredible Bashir, a film that moved me to horrible tears. I just can’t see something that bleak winning an Oscar. Though it would ruin my spread, I’m hoping for a Bashir win here.

    Best Animated Short:

    Will Win: This Way Up – Alan Smith and Adam Foulkes

    As I’ve not seen anything in this category, I don’t feel right commenting on what should or shouldn’t have been nominated, but I will make this prediction, based on my super-scientific method of picking the one I’ve heard of (this short was profiled in the Times this week). Besides, it looks pretty cool.

    Best Art Direction:

    Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
    Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Hellboy II: The Golden Army – Stephen Scott

    The wide-range of time periods for this movie, and the amount of work in replicating them, ensures this win. Either that or The Duchess will win for Removal of Contemporary Items From Stately Homes. Yawn.

    Best Cinematography:

    Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Claudio Miranda
    Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Claudio Miranda
    Should’ve Been Nominated: The Spiderwick Chronicles – Caleb Deschanel / The Fall – Colin Watkinson

    It was ravishing! How can it lose? It won’t win anything not in the non-technical categories, so this is a sure thing (he said with obnoxious over-confidence).

    Best Costume Design:

    Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Jacqueline West
    Should Win: Milk – Danny Glicker
    Should’ve Been Nominated: The Fall – Eiko Ishioka

    As in the previous category, an egregious snub for The Fall. I know the movie wasn’t seen by many people, but even just looking at the trailer should be enough of a showreel to get some attention. It was one of the most beautiful movies ever made, and no one noticed. I’d feel sorry for the director, for which this was a work of great personal significance, but I imagine worldly things do not matter to the mighty… TARSEM!

    Best Documentary Feature:

    Will Win: Trouble the Water
    Should Win: Man on Wire
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Standard Operating Procedure

    Boy, I was looking forward to watching Trouble The Water on More4 this week, but our Sky+ record function has gone kerflooey, so that’s not happening any time soon. I would think that will win over Man On Wire due to the subject matter, no matter how good it is (I hear it’s wonderful, but I wouldn’t know). Maybe I’m being too cynical. I’ll happily eat my words later, if necessary.

    Best Documentary Short:

    Will Win: The Conscience of Nhem En – Steven Okazaki

    As with the animation short, I’ve not seen any of the nominees in this category, so I won’t insult everyone here, and will plump for this nominee as I have heard of it as well.

    Best Film Editing:

    Will Win: The Dark Knight – Lee Smith
    Should Win: The Dark Knight – Lee Smith
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Speed Racer – Roger Barton, Zach Staenberg

    There is an awful error in The Dark Knight, during the Batpod sequence, where Batman shoots a glass door, drives through a building, shoots another glass door, and then is back in the building even though it should have driven out. GAH! It drives me crazy every time I watch it. Even so, the editors do an amazing job of cutting a big complex movie down to a manageable size (it should have been a lot longer).

    Best Live Action Short:

    Will Win: On the Line (Auf der Strecke)

    Here is where my foolproof method for selecting the hard-to-find nominees fails. I’ve not heard anything about any of these movies. ::sigh:: Sorry, short film filmmakers. I’m going for On The Line as it’s the top of the list. Oy, that’s some crappy motivation.

    Best Makeup:

    Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Greg Cannom
    Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Greg Cannom

    I didn’t select a film that should have been nominated, as I think they picked the best three films of the year, though I will say I suspect Tropic Thunder didn’t get picked for Robert Downey Jr.’s blackface makeup as the Kodak theatre would explode from the white liberal confusion over it. I think Ben Stiller et al have a good defense when they say that the character of Kirk Lazarus is a lampoon of actorly pretension, and it’s a hilarious turn, but I really don’t think we’re ready to be handing out awards for that kind of divisive and explosive makeup just yet.

    Best Original Score:

    Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Alexandre Desplat
    Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Alexandre Desplat
    Should’ve Been Nominated: The Dark Knight – Hans Zimmer, James Newton Howard

    Doesn’t it seem ironic now that The Dark Knight‘s ineligibility caused so much fuss, and all for nothing? Repeated viewings have shown how complex, unorthodox, and stirring that soundtrack is. The eventual snub is deeply frustrating. And why did I choose Desplat’s soundtrack over A.R. Rahman? Because Desplat is super-awesome and I just don’t want Slumdog to keep winning things. Please?!

    Best Original Song:

    Will Win: “Down to Earth” from WALL-E – Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman (music), Peter Gabriel (lyrics)
    Should Win: “Down to Earth” from WALL-E – Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman (music), Peter Gabriel (lyrics)
    Should’ve Been Nominated: “The Wrestler” from The Wrestler – Bruce Springsteen

    This category is utter bullshit this year. I can understand Slumdog and Wall*E getting a nomination each, but leaving out Springsteen makes absolutely no sense. It’s good news for Peter Gabriel, though. Slumdog should, again, win, but I suspect (as does Richard Corliss in his picks) that the Slumdog vote will be split, leaving Gabriel free and clear to win.

    Best Sound Editing:

    Will Win: WALL-E – Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood
    Should Win: WALL-E – Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Speed Racer – Dane A. Davis, Mike Chock, Drew Yerys

    Big no-brainer. Burtt’s work is the main reason Wall*E works at all.

    Best Sound Mixing:

    Will Win: The Dark Knight – Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick
    Should Win: The Dark Knight – Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Speed Racer – Felix Andriessens, Christian Wegner

    The Dark Knight is the big action film of the year. This is the way this kind of voting goes.

    Best Visual Effects:

    Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron
    Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron
    Should’ve Been Nominated: Speed Racer – John Gaeta

    The last no-brainer, though I’m still upset with the FX voters for yet again snubbing John Gaeta’s work. The same thing happened with the two Matrix sequels. No matter what you think of those films, the effects were ground-breaking and beautiful. Who has this guy pissed off in the FX community to keep getting snubbed like this? I’d put Speed Racer above the competent Iron Man work any day of the week.

    And that’s that. Sorry for going on at such great length. After tonight I hope to stop thinking about this for at least eight months. Getting annoyed by something so trivial is exhausting.

    I Semi-Promise This Will Be The Last Oscar-Related Poll…

    One last poll before the big day (Feb 22nd), when some really mediocre movies get handed awards, and hopefully, just to make the whole thing not a total disaster, Mickey Rourke and the FX teams on Benjamin Button get their gold-plated just desserts too. By now it’s probable that even though Slumdog has mysteriously been hit with all sorts of unsavoury accusations of child exploitation and dismissal by India, it’s going to romp home. Though I am on record as not being best pleased about that, I’ll just be happy if people stop referring to it as the longshot. It really isn’t. By now people desperately want it to succeed, and it will. Benjamin Button will go home with some technical stuff, and Slumdog will get the biggies, a decision that will be the sanity-twisting equivalent of this…


    …and, eventually, just as regrettable and embarrassing for the Academy members and the folks at home as this.


    That inevitability aside, there are some actual longshots in that list. The ones no one thinks to bet on. In some awards the longshot occasionally wins (no one expected Bryan Cranston to get an Emmy for his Breaking Bad work as there were other, better known nominees there), but with the Oscars it pretty much never does. That doesn’t mean they should be ignored though. Hence this new poll. Which longshot nominee would you most like to see score an upset and win?

  • Richard Jenkins (Best Actor for The Visitor)
  • Melissa Leo (Best Actress for Frozen River)
  • Michael Shannon (Best Supporting Actor for Revolutionary Road)
  • Viola Davis (Best Supporting Actress for Doubt)
  • Gus Van Sant (Best Director for Milk)
  • Thomas Newman (Best Soundtrack for Wall*E)
  • Martin McDonagh (Best Original Screenplay for In Bruges)
  • Peter Morgan (Best Adapted Screenplay for Frost/Nixon)
  • Wally Pfister (Best Cinematography for The Dark Knight)
  • Kung Fu Panda (Best Animated Feature Film)
  • The Baader Meinhof Complex (Best Foreign Language Film)
  • Milk (Best Picture)
  • Iron Man (Best Visual Effects)
  • Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Best Makeup)
  • The Dark Knight (Best Sound Editing)
  • Wanted (Best Sound Mixing)
  • I will admit, I have no idea if Wanted really had amazingly well mixed sound. I just want to know if anyone out there is eager for a movie featuring a Loom of Fate, bullet-curving, and bomb-rats to win an Oscar. If anyone votes for it, I’ll assume Mark Millar popped by. Anyway, have at it, my pretties.

    Let Down By The Academy Again

    The nominations are out as of yesterday, and in my annual mid-January funk I have looked at them, blinked, and mentally walked away to do something else (i.e. job searching). Recently I added a poll about outlandish potential nominations to the sidebar, and when I did it I figured I had come up with some odd choices, but maybe one or two long shots. Now I see that unless the movie’s title contains the words Slumdog or Curious, or is about a Nazi cougar, its chances were slimmer than a creepily enyoungenised CGI Cate Blanchett. Here are the results of that ill-fated poll…

    Which Highly Unlikely Oscar Nom Would Please You Most?

  • Actor – Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man) – 7 (33%)
  • Original Screenplay – Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (Pineapple Express) – 4 (19%)
  • Director – Martin McDonagh (In Bruges) – 3 (14%)
  • Supporting Actor – Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight) – 3 (14%)
  • Actress – Frances McDormand (Burn After Reading) – 1 (4%)
  • Photography – Caleb Deschanel (The Spiderwick Chronicles) – 1 (4%)
  • Art Direction – Peter Francis (Hellboy 2) – 1 (4%)
  • Visual Effects – Speed Racer – 1 (4%)
  • Supporting Actress – Emily Mortimer (Redbelt) – 0 (0%)
  • Costume Design – Eiko Ishioka (The Fall) – 0 (0%)
  • Foreign Language Picture – Let The Right One In – 0 (0%)
  • Adapted Screenplay – David Gordon Green (Snow Angels) – 0 (0%)

  • Winning the poll with ease was Robert Downey Jr. For his pitch-perfect personification of Tony Stark in Iron Man. As the nomination date approached it became increasingly obvious that he would be given a nod for his work as Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder, but I had still hoped that we would see a superhero getting some Best Actor love. It’s hard to be bitter about it, though. Of the four actor nominations I’ve seen, three are definitely worthy, and the fourth, Brad Pitt, was good but varied little through the running time of the film. We’ve not yet seen The Visitor, but Richard Jenkins is wonderful in everything (he’s very funny in Step Brothers), so I can’t imagine he would suddenly suck in this.


    Next up is Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg for their Pineapple Express script, which shares Superbad’s seemingly effortless air while being drumtight and superbly structured. In fact, possibly the only other original script that surpasses this for structural brilliance and comic genius is Martin McDonagh’s phenomenally good work on In Bruges, which got a well-deserved nomination. Though I think McDonagh should walk it, I reckon Dustin Lance Black will get it for Milk. As Canyon said to me earlier, Best Original Script often goes to the movie that has been nominated for a few big prizes but doesn’t win them (Good Will Hunting and Fargo spring to mind), and Milk won’t get any of the more visible awards, so it’ll win here instead. Wall*E is guaranteed Best Animated Picture, Frozen River might have a shot though it would be a very long one (another movie we’ve not yet seen so I can’t judge that with 100% accuracy), and In Bruges and Happy-Go-Lucky have no other nominations to lose, so this one’s in the bag for the Big Love writer. I may not have liked how closely it hewed to the biopic template, and it was on the nose a bit too often for my liking, but it was by no means terrible.


    Speaking of In Bruges, some people agreed with me that McDonagh deserved a nomination for his sure-handed direction. Though I think the most impressive directorial debut of the year was Steve McQueen on Hunger, McDonagh did great work on In Bruges, especially on the low budget he had. Of the actual nominees, the most personally upsetting is David Fincher. I’ve long adored the guy’s work, but now he gets praise for his flattest movie. I’ll defend everything else he’s done, and yes that means Alien3, The Game and Panic Room, all of which I like/love, but this is a nothing movie that just happens to contain some of the most amazing technical film work of the decade. If it were up to me, someone would hand over the award to Gus Van Sant right now (Canyon has even admitted a Ron Howard win would make her happy, as she loved Frost/Nixon so much), but instead it’ll be Fincher or Boyle. The money is on the latter right now.


    Aaron Eckhart’s superb work as Harvey Dent didn’t just thrill me, I’m very happy to say, but again, not enough Academy members agreed. I guess he could accept Heath Ledger’s Oscar when he inevitably wins. Again, that would be a win I could live with, though it’s hard to generate that much enthusiasm for it. No amount of awards is going to bring him back, after all. Other than that, I did enjoy Michael Shannon’s hatstand performance as The Craziest Man In Suburbia in Revolutionary Road, but I don’t think it should win.


    Frances McDormand gets a single vote for her terrific work in Burn After Reading, and believe me, I considered adding Brad Pitt to this list as well; he’s almost there in Benjamin Button but he totally nails it in this. His scenes with McDormand are the highlights of the movie. Anyway, she didn’t get a nomination (for a comedy?!?! Are you mad?!!?!!?!?!???!), but Kate “Gather” Winslet did for The Reader, and not her blistering work as The Unhappiest Woman In Suburbia in Revolutionary Road. We’ve not yet see The Reader (actually, we’ve not seen any of the Best Actress films, shamefully, though we’re working on it), but no matter how good she is, it does smack of self-parody that the Academy has given her a nomination for playing an illiterate former Nazi from youth to old age. They really don’t give a shit about how ridiculous their choices seem, do they.


    Someone else saw The Spiderwick Chronicles! And they loved Caleb Deschanel’s radiant photography as much as I did, which is nice. It’s one of the most visually impressive movies of the year, with some lovely naturalistic effects that look as beautifully lit as the sets. If only more people were interested in seeing it. Of the actual nominees, I’m pleased to see the awesome Wally Pfister get recognition for his Dark Knight photography, and am convinced Claudio Miranda will walk it for making Benjamin Button look so gorgeous. That said, I’ve not seen Changeling or The Reader, and Daldry’s Nazi-sex-book-fest is lit by the unstoppable double-team of Chris Menges and King Deakin (whose work here is hopefully more interesting than Revolutionary Road), so that stands a very good chance. As long as Anthony Dod Mantle doesn’t win for his gaudy Slumdog photography, a seriously headache-inducing melange of nasty colours, showy focus-tricks, and those fucking Dutch tilts. Compared to Robert Yeoman’s pristine work on The Darjeeling Limited from 2007, Dod Mantle’s obnoxious work looks empty, ugly, and needlessly complex.


    Peter Francis’ art direction on Hellboy II, which got a single vote here, was ignored by the Academy, and I have to say, this was one of the longshots I thought might pay off (the other being Eiko Ishioka’s costume design for TARSEM!s sumptuous The Fall). Instead, the customary praise for the costume dramas means the Troll Market, the BPRD HQ, the Devil’s Causeway, the Brooklyn Bridge set, and the home of the Golden Army gets snubbed, even though they comprise some of the most beautiful environments on screens last year. That snub genuinely angers me, as I had thought Hellboy II had sewn up nominations in a few categories. The make-up nom eases my pain a bit, but it’s still not good enough. Even though I’m happy The Dark Knight got a nomination in this category, I’d rather that went to the Hellboy team instead. Very sad.


    Speed Racer gets a little love, certainly more than was handed to it by the effects community that votes in this category. Just as with John Gaeta’s effects work on Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, the envelope was well and truly pushed, with new technologies developed, but none of that mattered. The effects work on the three nominees is certainly good (in the case of Benjamin Button, it’s exemplary), but Speed Racer deserved recognition. I guess the Academy members are more desperate to avoid the taint of failure than I had imagined (see also E.T.‘s victory over Blade Runner). Of course, if they had picked Speed Racer they would have been vindicated by history, but they are cowards. COWARDS! [/Crazy John Givings]


    Sadly, some Oscar losers didn’t even get a face-saving vote in this most prestigious of polls. Excluded from Best Supporting Actress, arguably the category containing the worst nominations (Penelope Cruz over Rebecca Hall for Vicky Cristina Barcelona? Taraji P. Henson for her wheezing overacting?), Emily Mortimer wuz robbed, but then she did appear in a limited release martial arts flick from a writer whose recent ramblings about politics have probably made him persona non grata in Hollywood. It’s a shame, as Mortimer gets better with every film, and I gather she was even better in Brad Anderson’s Transiberia.


    I have little to say about the lack of a costume design nomination for Eiko Ishioka on The Fall other than that big blowsy gowns for Keira Knightley are worthy of praise but the astonishing imagination on display in Tarsem’s mad vision get nothing? Are these costume dramas getting nominated solely for research and the amount of work put in? In what universe does The Fall lose out on a nomination, other than our stupid one with shitty taste? Probably none. It’s rare that awesome clothes will make me want to see a movie, but that’s pretty much what happened here. Clothes, people. That’s how good that work was.


    While I’m angry at the Academy voters for that error of judgement, I can’t blame them for not including Let The Right One In, the most intentionally depressing vampire movie ever made. While I’d hesitate to call it ZOMG Best Vampire Tale Ever Told, it’s still a startling and bold movie filled with memorable setpieces and a stunning performance by Lena Leandersson. And yet Sweden was not about to be represented by a horror movie, even one as critically adored as this one, and so entered Everlasting Moments into competition instead. I also gather Let The Right One In was released too late for Sweden to endorse it, so who knows, it might be around next year instead. To be honest, originally I was going to put Gomorrah in this section, but I figured it was bound to get a nomination. This time the snub was due to Academy rules, and this omission is one of many frustrating moviegoers and critics. Well, apparently The Class is very good, and Waltz With Bashir looks interesting even as just a technical showcase, but still, this category has made me sad.


    And Snow Angels got nothing at all either. I honestly thought it would be one of those indies that caught people’s attention even though it was released early in the year, but by December any chatter about Hott Sam Rockwell was about his performance in Choke, and Kate Beckinsale was attracting buzz about Nothing But The Truth with little mention of her impressive work here, and that was all she wrote. A shame. The actual adapted screenplay nominees contain zero surprises. At a push I would pick Frost/Nixon (though who knows what I will think of The Reader or Doubt), but I know it’s going to Eric Roth for The Pointless Repeat of Forrest Gump. Either that or Slumdog. It makes me weep. Or consider weeping. Whatever. It makes me not happy, anyway.

    Is this the worst list of nominees in memory? The little victories (Richard Jenkins, In Bruges) pale next to the wrong (Benjamin Button should not be leading the noms), the frustrating (Dark Knight missing out on Best Picture), the criminal (The Boss not getting Best Song), and the anomalous (Wanted got as many nominations as Frozen River and The Wrestler). ::sigh:: I’ll find some things to root for on the night, but it’s a dispiriting list, full of cowardice and compromise. Anyway, a new poll is on the way. Watch this sporadically updated space!

    Oscar Season = XXXtreme Biopic Frenzy

    Never did I think that I would ever prefer a film by Ron Howard over one by Gus Van Sant, but that may have happened this week. We were lucky enough to see both Frost/Nixon and Milk, and while both movies were excellent, they paled into insignificance next to the goosebump-inducing magnificence of John Woo’s Red Cliff, or Matteo Girrone’s stunning Gomorra, both of which thrilled me recently.


    Frost/Nixon was, as is well known, originally a play by Peter Morgan which, through bad luck and torpor on my part, we missed when it played at the Donmar Warehouse (best theatre in London, for realsies). Seeing the movie made me regret that even more, as I have no idea what Morgan added to his screenplay in order to flesh out the story, which, as a two-header, could have been utterly uncinematic in the hands of Howard. Throughout the film I fretted about the potential differences, unsure whether every clumsy bit of exposition (such as the commentary provided by the chorus of Oliver Platt, Hott Sam Rockwell, and Matthew MacFadyen) was added by Morgan at the behest of Howard, which complicated my assessment of it. Did the play feature such anvillicious statements? Theatre, certainly highly-regarded theatre, is usually more elegant than that (we caught the Pulitzer-Prize-winning August: Osage County at the National recently, and there is zero slack in that. But I digress…).


    Nevertheless, we were hugely impressed by it, and especially the outrageously good cast. I could watch Oliver Platt and Hott Sam Rockwell all day long already, and putting them together just multiplied their awesomeness, even if they were just stating the obvious for a long time. Matthew MacFadyen is an unknown quantity to me, but he was fine. Regrettably, he was playing John Birt, of “Croak-voiced Dalek” fame, the anti-creative engineer who created the BBC’s impenetrably complicated internal market, an act of baffling stupidity that very nearly wrecked the greatest public service broadcaster in the world. Seeing the man being portrayed as a heroic and amusing guy hanging out with Rockwell and Platt over booze was utterly confounding. In the finale he strips naked and runs into the ocean due to a euphoria overload. Really? John Birt? Minister for “Blue Skies Thinking”, experiencing an outpouring of emotion? Really? No matter how good MacFadyen was, I just couldn’t reconcile the current John Birt with the version portrayed here.

    Best of all were the two leads, Frank Langella and Michael Sheen, transferring their acclaimed performances from the original production. Sheen starts out like a mere impressionist, mimicking Sir David Frost’s voice and mannerisms so perfectly I almost lost track of whether he was actually any good. Of course he was, playing up Frost’s shallowness, desperation, doubt, and eventual conversion to journalist of integrity. The lack of an Oscar nomination for his performance as Tony Blair in The Queen was a disgrace, so hopefully he’ll get some recognition here.


    Langella was even better. I’ve not seen Altman’s Secret Honor yet, so I can’t say whether Philip Baker Hall’s performance is really the best screen Nixon (tasteful people maintain it is), but I do think Sir Anthony Hopkins’ Nixon is one of my favourite performances of all time. Langella’s didn’t excite me as much, partially because less time is spent showing Nixon’s vulnerable side (prior to his emotional slip-up at the end of his final interview), but it’s still phenomenal work. Surely he’s odds-on favourite for the Best Actor Oscar.

    Which is bad news for Sean Penn, who is also excellent as Harvey Milk in Gus Van Sant’s biopic, which has topped as many end of year polls as WALL*E and Slumdog Millionaire. The difference between my reaction to Milk and Frost/Nixon is similar to the way I felt about WALL*E and Kung Fu Panda; the former is more ambitious but has more problems, while the latter is more focused and has a higher success rate (though I don’t think Kung Fu Panda really does anything wrong). While Frost/Nixon packs a lot of story into its depiction of a small slice of American history, by making what should be little more than a long TV interview become a momentous event that redeems the protagonists and saves the American soul, Milk sprawls across a longer period, i.e. the last eight years of Harvey Milk’s life, showing the effect he had on the gay “ghetto” of Castro Street, his efforts to become a city official, and his battle against homophobic legislation backed by the Christian Right.


    With so much ground to cover the film skimps on a lot of detail, opening in 1970, with Milk moving to San Francisco with his lover Scott, and then skipping through the years as he becomes more politicised, despite (or because of) his failure to be elected to office. Though the movie is sprawling, and covers so much ground, I couldn’t help but be frustrated by how little we find out about who Milk is, where he comes from, why he is so militant. At times he merely seems to be motivated by frustration at how gays are mistreated. Perhaps that really all there was to it (it’s understandable, after all), but I’d like to know if there was more there. Penn does an excellent job of bringing Milk to life and showing why people were drawn to him and his enthusiasm, but without Penn there Dustin Lance Black’s script tends to leave Milk as little more than a raging ball of fury, albeit a very charming one.


    Then again, Van Sant and Black, by beginning the story so late in his life, are far more interested in his struggle against the vile Prop 6, which was an attempt to overturn the civil rights of gays in employment. How could I begrudge Van Sant that, when this year a similar and equally evil proposition to remove the hard-won rights of gays won depressingly large support in California? That Milk was less concerned with who Milk was rather than what he stood for is not actually a fault with the movie, rather it was my subjective problem with the film, as I was eager to know even more about the man. Canyon and I both felt that the movie could have run for another couple of hours filling in those blanks, which, I guess, is a kind of praise; we certainly weren’t bored, after all. Perhaps it will spur me into finally reading that copy of The Mayor of Castro Street I have lying around somewhere.

    Sadly it has its own intrinsic faults that we can’t attribute to our own thwarted curiosity in the subject matter. Though beautifully performed and shot, scored with emotive brilliance than Danny Elfman at the height of his powers, and never less than fascinating, it has the same problems that many biopics have, that of condensing too much information into scenes with obvious dialogue and occasionally sentimental emoting. Far too often pivotal scenes will feature Milk facing a big emotional and political breakthrough or setback at the same time: deciding to fight Prop 6 as an explicitly homophobic piece of legislation rather than as a civil rights issue while his insecure and unhinged boyfriend throws a tantrum in a closet upstairs; facing yet more defeats while Scott sulks elsewhere; opening a shop and immediately meeting a homophobic representative of the local shopowners association, etc.


    I get that biopics have to do that as there is so much information to get through, but those contrasts of highs and lows run like clockwork throughout almost all of them. Those contrasts are hard to swallow after seeing them satirised so deftly in Jake Kasdan’s Walk Hard. It’s possibly the most conventional genre, and I had hoped that a filmmaker as imaginative and daring as Van Sant would figure out a way to transcend those conventions, but sadly he plays by the biopic rulebook. Compare this film to Todd Haynes’ love letter to Dylan, I’m Not There, surely the most perplexing and challenging biopic of recent years. Milk is pure vanilla compared to that, though it makes sense for Milk to be linear, dealing as it does with an interesting but unambiguous life. Haynes’ masterstroke was to make a biopic whose structure mimics the playfulness and complexity of its subject, more a tone poem that resembles and reflects the man rather than a straight rendition of his life. Van Sant, on the other hand, is working from a pretty straight narrative from Lance Black (who, as one of the main writers on HBO’s best current show Big Love, is absolutely goddamn alright by us), and he tells it as it is. Was it respect for the subject matter that stayed Van Sant’s hand, or was it caution?


    Funnily enough, my frustration over the conventionality of the movie was flipped when watching Van Sant’s Paranoid Park a couple of days later. Coming at the tail-end of his minimalist arthouse period, his adaptation of Blake Nelson’s YA novel is as unconventional as it gets, with a similarly fractured narrative to Elephant, and featuring intentional super-longeurs, amateur performances of varying quality, and a baffling soundtrack of inappropriate Nina Rota tunes played over yet another incredible sound collage by super-genius Leslie Shatz. And yet AV Club considered it the most accessible of his experimental series. Damn, it nearly alienated me, and I usually eat this shit up. Surely Elephant is way more accessible, despite the morbid subject matter.

    Their point did give me a perspective on Milk‘s conservative storytelling. It’s a great way to make the subject matter accessible to a wider audience, and is partially attributable to some difficulties in making the movie the way he originally intended (an interview with AICN’s Mr. Beaks went into detail about how plans to shoot Milk in 16mm went awry. I would link to it but the site is being an asshole). However, no matter why it happened, it’s disappointing to fans of his quirkier movies, especially when he lets characters make repeated references to Milk living to a ripe old age, and worst of all, cutting from Milk’s tragic death to an early scene with Milk stating he didn’t think he would reach his fiftieth birthday. That’s not poignant, it’s crashingly obvious and distracting. What had been an emotional moment becomes patronising (the final scenes of a candlelit march redeem it, however).


    I suspect I’m being harsher on Van Sant for the flaws in Milk than on Howard for Frost/Nixon‘s missteps not only because I expect more from Van Sant but because I expected it feel more personal, more closely allied with this other movies. After making a series of films that feel like variations on a theme, this step back towards straightforward storytelling irked me. It’s perhaps even less adventurous than Good Will Hunting (a personal favourite, and I’m not ashamed to admit it), which could well be intentional, as I said, but thus doesn’t feel like it came from Van Sant’s filmography. It’s charming, funny, heart-wrenching, righteously rage-inducing, and touching, but it doesn’t feel like a Van Sant movie, and for a huge Van Sant fan, that’s a problem.


    All of this is to say that my assessment of Milk is utterly subjective, and should not be taken as a warning against seeing it. On the contrary, I thoroughly recommend it, and Frost/Nixon as well. Both are total Oscar-bait, with the added benefit of having a hefty political point to make (Milk‘s call for a united and committed struggle against establishment-endorsed bigotry, Frost/Nixon for a journalistic focus on matters of substance and not frivolity), but they’re both highly entertaining and beautifully performed (Milk features superb work from Penn, Josh Brolin, James Franco, and Emile Hirsch).

    But, for all their considerable excellence, neither film features a guy on horseback catching a spear in mid-flight.


    Red Cliff FTW.

    Movie Face/Off! Biblical Horror Edition (Results)

    The reckoning is here! The scoring is very arbitrary and specific for these films, but the last set of figures represent things I’ve found I look for in every movie. Production values are something that often mean nothing (the best looking movie can still be shit), but it’s where I’ll give bonus points for nice photography or an excellent score. Unique selling points account for cool moments that cannot be classified otherwise. Oh, and sorry for using an obnoxious corporate phrase.

    As for liveliness, a degree of coherent energy can make up for a lot of other failures, and by that I don’t mean crazy pace. Something slow-paced, e.g. Jonathan Glazer’s widely hated Birth (off the top of my head), barely moves at all, but there is an intelligence and plan for maximum effectiveness to that film that many films lack despite the frenetic editing or stunt-packed explosiveness or otherwise skillful filmmaking. It’s just apparent there’s some attention to pacing beyond making individual scenes work in a certain way, something that extends from committed and thoughtful performances on set down to the arc of the movie, and whether it works as a progressive ebb and flow from the first moment to the last, i.e. has the director figured out the movie’s parts and whole from a God position instead of just focusing on the money shots, for lack of a better word. It sounds silly and nitpicky, but I’m always surprised at how many talented or untalented directors nowadays can’t be bothered to figure that out. ::shakes cane at whippersnappers on their skateboards::

    Ugh, it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and hope to explain better in the future, as well as come up with a better word for it. Not right now, though. We’ve got facing/off to do.

    The Omen

    Cast:
    Liev Schreiber: -10
    David Thewlis: -10
    Julia Stiles: -3
    Pete Postlethwaite: +2
    Michael Gambon: +4
    Mia Farrow: +7

    Total: -10

    I will admit, kneejerk dislike of the leads didn’t help here, but as much as Schreiber and Thewlis get on my nerves, I’ll admit they’re talented, intelligent actors (cursed though they are with sinuses that function as reverb chambers). Here, though, they just give up, sleepwalking through the movie with just enough awareness to point their faces in the right direction. Gambon and Farrow bring it back through sheer insane effort, but John Moore really wasn’t paying attention to some of the performances, and thus we get a mixture of apathy and shrill annoyance.

    Plot elements specific to these films:
    Elegant transmission of exposition: -5
    Crazy deaths: +4
    Ridiculous character names: +3
    Grasp of London geography: -5
    Fair treatment of women/reproduction: -10
    Avoidance of lazy dream sequences: -4
    Survival of ethnic sidekick until final frame: N/A (Thewlis doesn’t count)

    Total: -17

    Yes, Thewlis’ death was great fun, but once cinema has offered the sight of someone sliced into pieces by a flying wire fence (as in Final Destination 2), or a skull chopped into pieces by a dislodged engine (as in Final Destination 3), you’ve got to try hard to top it.

    Miscellaneous:
    Originality: -10
    Liveliness: -7
    Enthusiasm for project: -8
    Avoidance of cliche: -10
    Unique Selling Points: -10
    Production values: +1

    Total: -42

    Lowest scores possible for originality, as it’s pretty much a Van Santing of the original movie. As for cliche, perhaps it’s a bit unfair to judge the script on that, but Moore offers nothing directorially that could sway me. Everything is filmed exactly the way you would expect it. As for offering something you can’t get elsewhere, you’ve got the superior original and the macabre Final Destination trilogy, which not only loses the religious guff (a secular horror movie about fate!) but presents pregnancy as something positive and hope-inspiring. That those movies are horribly bleak is both an unfortunate side effect and a USP. ::sigh:: I really like those movies.

    Omen overall total: -69

    A truly appalling, cynical cash-in movie, and further casting doubt on the ability of John Moore to create anything memorable in his career, other than the awesome plane crash scenes in Behind Enemy Lines and Flight of the Phoenix.

    The Reaping

    Cast:
    Hilary Swank: +6
    David “Elvis” Morrissey: +1
    Idris Elba: +1
    AnnaSophia Robb: +3
    Stephen Rea: -4
    Andrea Frankle: 0

    Total: 7

    For all the film’s faults, Hopkins did get a bunch of talented actors and didn’t get in their way too much, as opposed to Moore’s higgledy-piggledy approach. Swank especially tries hard. I just can’t hate on her. Her taste in projects is often way off, but she commits to it, at least. Andrea Frankle, playing Robb’s mother, was in the movie enough to register, but was given nothing to do other than be a red herring. She might be good given something to do, but here she was ill-served.

    Plot elements specific to this film:
    Elegant transmission of exposition: -2
    Crazy deaths: -2
    Ridiculous character names: 0
    Grasp of London geography: N/A (If you could see the London Eye above the bayou, it would win hands down.)
    Fair treatment of women/reproduction: -10
    Avoidance of lazy dream sequences: -7
    Survival of ethnic sidekick until final frame: -7

    Total = -28

    If only this film had a Bugenhagen, or death by satellite-crashing, it would register more. Instead the earnestness swamps anything, with only the staging of the locust scene making an impression. It’s the only proof that the crew were awake during the planning of the movie. However, see below.

    Miscellaneous:
    Originality: -7
    Liveliness: -8
    Enthusiasm for project: -7
    Avoidance of cliche: -8
    Unique Selling Points: -2
    Production values: +5

    Total = -27

    Not as cynical as The Omen, and certainly the dour atmosphere tends to suggest Hopkins thought he was making something more than a silly potboiler, but it doesn’t hide the lack of imagination, not to mention the derivative script. It rips off many better movies, and the best scene in it, i.e. the locust attack, is nowhere near as emotionally affecting or dramatic as the locust scenes at the end of Days of Heaven. Completely different film, but infinitely more compelling. Some nice photography and effects, though.

    Reaping overall total = -48

    Bland to the point of barely existing. It looks a lot better than it should, but it’s a film that just didn’t need to be made. Not that that’s a bad thing; lots of films don’t need to be made, but they can still transcend that and become something great. A half-hearted rehashing of better plots without the wit or imagination to rework them, play homage to them, or push them to an insane level of melodramatic hysteria, is not what I have in mind, though.

    So, in a fairish fight, The Reaping wins through superior acting and some nice production values. But as you can see from the score, it’s a Pyrrhic victory. In fact, here is an accurate representation of the Biblical Horror Movie Fightbot Face/Off, from Stuart Gordon’s massively entertaining Robot Jox.

    Oh, the humanity! Those final shots show what me and Canyon’s brains were like once the movies were over. Damn you biblical horror movies! We should have rewatched Exorcist III. And pooed ourselves with fear.