Now we enter into another section, addressing more of my own disappointments of 2009. Some of these films are good films yet still disappointed me in certain ways, and others I found god awful and insulting. Let’s see what made it!
10) A Serious Man
While I do not consider this to be a bad film, I do consider it a slight disappointment when compared to the previous Coen Bros’ outings. Maybe this disappointment will melt away in time, but upon leaving the cinema, my brother put it best - “(the Coen Bros’) are the Kings of fucking with you”.
The story of a Jewish man’s life falling to pieces in the 1960’s is one that is slow and frustrating, one that makes you hope for some form of magic in the end to make the whole film feel worth it. However, this never exactly comes, leaving you feeling insanely depressed and confused one you leave the cinema.
Granted, there are many fantastic things about this film. The largely unknown cast led by Michael Stuhlberg as the protagonist Larry Gopnick is fantastic and believable and very Coen-esq (although funnily enough one of the joys of a Coen Bros’ comedy experience is seeing notable actors entering a Coen Bros’ world and likely make awesome fools of themselves). The cinematography is as usual fantastic, and presents the period authentically. The script has its moments of great drama, hilariousness (standouts being the Korean student and Rabbi’s Jefferson Airplane mutterings), character (Uncle Arthur and Sy Ableman will become Coen classics) as well as quite a detailed and personal look at a Jewish upbringing
What makes it a disappointment is purely the fact I wanted more from this film. Like No Country for Old Men, it has a deep ambiguity flowing through the film, yet i was entertained and put on the edge of my seat the whole time. This film lacked that excitement. Maybe on more viewings I will be able to grasp the pure thickly layer metaphor and find some form of excitement in the narrative. But for now it remains a Coen Bros’ disappointment for me, which is much better than the average fare.
9) Drag Me to Hell
Sam Raimi is one of the greatest directors of horror in cinema history, with his unique blend of loud, fast, and insanely terrifying visual horror as well as outrageous comedy which made his classic Evil Dead trilogy so very great. So it was with my great excitement to hear that finally Sam was to return to his horror roots from his big budget Spiderman films for the first time in over 20 years.
The end product that is Drag Me to Hell ended up to be quite an innovative and thrilling experience, yet in the end, quite a disappointment.
The pros of this film are that it gives what it promises. The first minutes of the film show that Raimi is back to horror with a BANG, with loud and horrifying style. I found myself jumping out of my seat on many occasions during the runtime. This is because unlike less talented horror directors, Raimi is willing to toy with structure. So when you may expect something to jump out, you find you have had the shit scared out of you because he has already thrown the scare on you.
He pulls the emotional strings. He makes you scream, he then suddenly makes you laugh, then suddenly grosses you out, and then laugh and then scream and so forth. In terms of horror and comedy, he has still got it.
What lets the film down is the script. The film has a simple yet promising premise; a young ambitious loan officer in a moment of self-greed is cursed by an old gypsy Madame Ganush, turning her life into a living hell before being literally dragged to be damned in hell. This premise makes for great horror and comedy, as well as a fantastic antagonist in Madame Ganush, who is extremely terrifying. However, as the events unfold, its clear how the film will end, as good as an ending it could have been, but it’s as if Raimi were to dangle the ending in front of our very faces before we were to reach it, definitely disappointing.
The script also includes a very unlikeable protagonist, to which I find it difficult to see it was the script or Alison Lohman’s fault for making so very difficult to care for Christine Brown. I would like to think it being the latter, as Bruce Campbell managed to make his character so very likable in the Evil Dead series. That doesn’t make Lohman a bad actress, as she is actually quite a young talent (so very likable in Ridley Scott’s Matchstick Men), but here, it is so hard to care what happens to her in the end, and for a film, to not care for your protagonist is indeed tragic.
Here’s hoping that this isn’t Raimi’s last entry into the horror genre, as he is one of the greats (he will have more time to do these things now that he has sadly left Spiderman behind him). Let’s hope he partners with the legendary Bruce Campbell again for another horror, or most preferably, another Evil Dead film.
8) Public Enemies
Now this is a movie that instilled much promise. Firstly, the fantastic subject matter of John Dillinger, one just itching for a modern adaptation. Secondly, it’s the new film of Michael Mann, who has brought such modern classics as Heat, The Insider and Collateral, and thirdly, the star quality of Johnny Depp as Dillinger, Christian Bale as Melvin Pervis, Marion Cotillard (fresh off her Oscar win) as Dillinger’s girl Billie Frechette and Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. Despite these elements, it makes the disappointment list.
In all it is quite an entertaining movie, the acting is quite superb from Depp and Cotillard, and there are some fantastic sequences such as the jail break-in, the cabin siege and the turn to your left and right scene in the cinema to name a few. Although what majorly hinders this film is Michael Mann’s sudden obsession with High Definition Digital Film, which gives his films, are more documentary feel. This worked for Collateral and even his average Miami Vice, but here, mixed with bad sound makes this seem a badly shot cheap historical student film, completely ruining the experience.
In addition to this, if one were to research Dillinger, one would discover that many moments of the film are out of synch, such as the death of Pretty Boy Floyd, which actually occurred after the death of Dillinger. Another detail is Dillinger actually changed his appearance becoming almost unrecognizable. So, with a Hollywood feature starring Johnny Depp, this detail had to be omitted, but the victim of this is historical correctness, which the film seems to set out to show.
In all, it’s an entertaining film that could have been great, but really turns out to only be good, almost average.
7) Observe and Report
The films of Seth Rogan have been one of the best things to happen to comedy in the past few years and have provided me with much joy. Now that Seth has been doing the same shtick for years now, Observe and Report plays as an attempt to go for more serious territory. Does it work though? Not entirely.
The dark tale of a Mall Cop Ronnie Barnhardt (not Paul Blart) played by Rogan, who suffers from a pointless, lonely existence is one that oscillates awkwardly from comedy and drama, not to mention a mostly silly plot. It’s good to see Rogan try to expand into this territory, although it’s the silliness of the film that lets this down, becoming just another comedy on the production line.
There are some nice moments, like the relationship with the coffee lady, and the eventual end to the crime (quite funny). But all in all it’s a Taxi Driver comedy wannabe. It drags in many places and other performances are merely tacked on, such as Michael Pena (who’s better in dramas), Ray Liotta (who does really well to look old), and Anna Faris (disgustingly over-dramatic), to eventually end on a depressing and unsatisfied note.
It was a noble attempt in all, but in the end this film will eventually drift into obscurity.
6) Funny People
Judd Apatow has spearheaded a new adult comedy revolution in the noughties, directing two of the most commercially and critically successful comedies of the decade, being The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. While he has produced many new comedy gems in the past few years, Funny People marked his third directorial effort, one which aimed to not only be funny but to be more serious fare than usual. You would think this would mean award worthy stuff, but what comes off is something of an epic mess.
The film presents Adam Sandler as a widely successful comedian George Simmons, who stars in ridiculous movies for ridiculous amounts of money (sound familiar), who is diagnosed with cancer. At the same time he meets Ira, an up and coming stand up comedian played by an extremely healthier looking Seth Rogan. What transpires is an epic set of events involving putting George’s life in perspective and make the most of it, fix his love life with his ex-fiancé (Leslie Mann aka Mrs. Apatow) who is married to Clarke (Eric Bana), helping Ira with his career, along the way making jokes about dicks in almost EVERY SINGLE SCENE!
Where his previous films target fairly simple straightforward subjects in life, Funny People attacks MULTIPLE subjects and attempts to be both hilariously funny as well as seriously dramatic, in the end falling in one depressing heap. You are so very numbed by the finish of this film you could not care less about the characters. For Sandler’s George Simmons, this is less of an impact, because audiences would have stopped caring about him a while back, this is because he is so very unlikeable here. Apatow wanted to show a man who has a life changing illness who in the end learns nothing and stays an asshole. Well, that’s all well and good Judd, you were successful there…you make up not stand your main character.
There are some nice moments, Ira and his buddies (Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman) do have humourous exchanges, the best however spoiled in the trailer. The cameos from multiple famous celebrities are insanely funny, possibly the best element to the piece, mainly because they are that vulgar, that satirical of their persona and just spontaneously hilarious. But one funny cameo, James Taylor says it best - “Do you ever get tired of talking about your dick?”. YES! There are enough dick jokes to make it seem like homo-erotica, completely loosing meaning after the 10th joke.
It is a noble attempt to chronicle the lives of up and coming comics, as well as successful comics and their world. There is a great personal touch to this aspect, especially the implementation of the real footage of Sandler’s early 90’s prank calls, a great reminder of the young man he was, and the megastar he is now. There is also one moment where Simmons reflects on his long and lonely career, the hardships, the lost friends, which is completely touching as it is all real. That is the kind of drama the audience wants to see. Not a clichéd cancer plot, nor a love triangle. Maybe there will be that movie one day, it will be interesting stuff.
As for Apatow, he tried, he failed, and therefore must realize that he already had the right amount of comedy and drama in his last two films. This was just torture. Bring down the runtime, make it more even, less dick jokes, more interesting stuff, then you’ll be make another winning film.
5) Transformers 2
It’s not surprising that this film was a disappointment. What was so surprising was how much I enjoyed the first Transformers film by Michael Bay. However here we have a film that suffers from power, money, and sequelitus.
While the film extends slightly on the history of the Transformers and Deceptacons, but the novelty has worn off, it makes for nothing more than a big budget wet dream for Michael Bay. There are more explosions and robots that you can poke a stick at, in the end making the human characters become thin and unimportant, only left with horrible dialogue.
Shia LeBeouf’s Sam Witwicky was a fresh and engaging character in the first installment, yet here (infused with LeBeouf’s new super stardom) has become dull, it’s the same thing. Megan Fox makes sure to beef up her sex appeal and pouts as much as she can at the camera to please Michael Bay, her job is done well, her acting however is horrible. Josh Duhamel’s Major Lennox had character depth in the first installment, yet here lacks all character motivation and seems to just be waiting for his check to come in. John Turturro makes for some entertainment, but very little. You feel the film cheapened in the acting department, loosing talent like Jon Voight, replaced with such wooden fare like Ramon Rodriguez and Isabel Lucas (who is obviously channeling a poor T-1000).
Its huge and explosive but in the end predictable and hallow. and yet managed millions at the box office. Not surprising.
4) Bruno
Here is another film where two times is too much. Sasha Baron Cohen’s original creation Borat was a simple yet hilarious character study of a foreign correspondent wreaking havoc in America. Bruno however aimed to outdo Borat, in turn making a simple, unfunny, disgusting waste of time. It copies almost exactly what Borat accomplished, replacing Borat with homosexual fashionista Bruno, which turns out to be a dull experience.
Due to its closeness to Borat, it fails to become anything but a money grabber. Of course, it has its small moments of humour, making celebrities, soldiers and civilians awkward, but it is not laugh a minute like Borat. The gross out scenes in Borat were horrifically funny, but here it’s insert a penis in the hope for laughs.
As talented as Baron Cohen is, let’s hope he expands out into new types of comedy roles, or maybe bring Borat back from retirement, for Bruno is not the right direction. I think Harrison Ford puts it best in regards to the film - FUCK OFF!
3) The Informant!
Steven Soderbergh is a filmmaking machine. In 2009 he managed to release four new films. First his epic two part Che Guevara bio-pic (Che Part One and Two), his small independant porn star headliner (The Girlfriend Experience) and The Informat! It’s great that Soderbergh is such an enthusiastic filmmaker, and is definitely one of the better directors around today. Although, from watching The Informant! I could not help but be extremely let down.
Based on a true story of Mark Whitacre, played by a plump Matt Damon in a hairpiece, who from 1992 onwards was part of an investigation with the FBI as an informer for the US government against his company, an agri-business giant with a price-fixing accusation.
Soderbergh decided to turn this film into a comedy based on the ridiculousness of the real Whitacre. This was a good idea, although in terms to how funny it actually is, is another thing. The end product merely creates chuckles, not belly-graspers. The useless inner monologue of Whitacre is mildly humourous due to the complete idiocy, and uselessness of it all. Matt Damon is a complete buffoon in this role and you can tell he is having fun being such a character other than being a Bourne type.
However it’s Damons’ performance which is the only saving grace the film has. The other elements are a different story. The pacing of the film drags and becomes almost a chore to watch. The presence of mostly comedians and the use of such seasoned actors of Scott Bakula, Thomas F. Wilson (Biff Tannen) and Clancy Brown are a waste of talent. They say their lines and disappear.
The cinematography is surprisingly half-assed and poorly framed, with the camera either being off-centre or cutting off parts of the body. The lighting is even worse, with a constant overbearing light glare from the windows that makes you want to look away.
In all, it’s a rushed film, and it suffers because of it. This material would have benefitted more in the hands of The Coen Bros, who would have given it the care it needed. This movie will eventually disappear into Soderbergh’s colourful filmography. No question he will continue making many films a year, but let’s hope he takes better care.
2) X-Men Origins - Wolverine
With the swift death of the X-Men franchise under the murderous hand of Brett Ratner, X-Men Origins -Wolverine aimed to help breathe some life back into the mutant franchise with in the form of a spinoff, explaining the mysterious origins of Wolverine, played brilliantly in the X-Men series and here by Hugh Jackman.
Does Gavin Hood’s film make things all better? No…It really didn’t. In a sense, it made things worse.
Following on from his childhood, and through the ages in a cool title sequence presenting the various conflicts he and his brother Victor “Sabretooth” Creed (a fantastic Liev Schreiber) took part in, to the eventual mutant X program as seen in the X-Men movies (albeit done better in those movies), we find Logan eventually trying to adapt to a normal life, with the mutant Silver Fox. But of course peace doesn’t last long and angry Logan gets and becomes hungry for revenge.
The film does attempt to fix Ratner’s mistakes, introducing a myriad of interesting mutants unseen from the previous X-Men films. For example, The Blob, Bolt, John Wraith, Agent Zero and most importantly Remy “Gambit” LeBeau who was shameless forgotten for the X-Men films, and turns out fine here played by Taylor Kitsch (despite not being French) as well as the perfect casting of Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson, aka jabber-mouth badass Deadpool.
Somehow, they manage to fuck it up. With Logan now being the centre of attention, we see everything about him; he looses his mystery, and surprisingly his badassness. Like Han Solo turning into Luke Skywalker as I’ve so read. Danny Huston’s William Stryker is fine and Liev Schreiber’s Sabretooth is quite good, much better than the silent idiot from Bryan Singer’s X-Men. It has to be mentioned that Deadpool is one of the most innovative Marvel character’s known for being a smartass. They do show this…for literally 5 minutes before having his mouth sewn up and becoming a villain rather than an anti-hero, a SIN (it’s lucky Reynolds is doing a faithful Deadpool movie).
What eventuates is a real dull experience, you know what is going to happen, you don’t care what’s going to happen. Then it happens and you are left thoroughly unsatisfied. A real shame indeed, if only Bryan Singer directed X-Men 3 and we would not be in this mess. Maybe the eventual sequel will be better. Nay, i hope it is.
1) Terminator Salvation
Now we arrive at what I call the biggest disappointment of the year, i must say, I saw this coming a mile off, despite my last minute hope that it would actually be a good movie. Oh I was wrong.
McG, the director of such classics as Charlie’s Angels AND Charlie Angels: Full Throttle has taken the reins for the fourth feature of the famed franchise created so many years ago in 1984 from an independent film called “The Terminator”. What we get is something classily called Terminator Salvation.
The film continues the story of John Connor, the oft sought after figure by time travelling killer robots in the previous films. Judgment day has come and gone and now is left to fight the machines who are trying to terminate the remnants of humanity. Here a cynical John Conner (every so gravely by movie whore Christian Bale) thinks the war is all but lost, that is until a mysterious wanderer arrives, a “man” named Marcus Wright (Aussie Sam Worthington), the key to their “salvation”.
James Cameron created two of the most memorable science fiction films in history, the first a grungy film of a machine coming back in time to kill a helpless woman. It was raw, it was well written, it had a killer theme, well acted and endlessly watchable. The sequel did the same, expanding the scope and raising the stakes with the greater budget. This fourth installment is none of these things, rather an insult to these classic films.
Heck, you can tolerate Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines. As much as it was made to capitalize on the box office, it maintained the elements of the originals in a respectful and beneficial way (well save for the talk to the hand crap, what the FUCK was that). We got to see Arnold again, we got to hear the theme again, and we got to see Cameron’s version of the future.
All we get here is McG shamelessly discarding all that is good about these movies and turning it into a joke. It shows how much of a hack he is compared to Cameron. The future as envisioned by Cameron is one of ruins, claustrophobic, death and skulls everywhere and it was dark. McG’s future is more of a Mad Max situation, with wide barren lands, with a single skull scattered every kilometre or so. The day scenes really hinder this film, as it takes away the entire grunginess that made the first two so great. The script is also filled with horrible dialogue and plot events that soon lead to a predictable and unsatisfying end, leaving it open to more horrible additions.
Sam Worthington provides the most compelling character of the bunch, despite his purpose spoiled in the trailer, who acts with a great intensity, albeit way out of play in the scheme of things, and struggling with his grasp on the American accent (something he had a slight better handle on in Avatar). Maybe they should have made him British or some small detail like that; it would have been less of a distraction. Anton Yelchin plays Kyle Reese, made famous by the brilliant Michael Biehn in the original Terminator. Yelchin handles the role quite well, although in the end, he’s no Michael Biehn, but a just shade.
Helena Bonham Carter was put in for star power and nothing more, she’s useless here. As is Bryce Dallas Howard as Kate Connor, formally Kate Brewster from T3 played to much better effect by Claire Danes (who rightfully turned this down). It’s nice to see Michael Ironside back in film, what with his connections to the Schwarzenegger era, but he is very minor. Then we have Christian Bale, the fourth actor to portray John Connor (made iconic in T2 by Edward Furlong, replaced due to Furlong’s addiction with a winey yet acceptable Nick Stahl in T3). Bale’s Connor is simply awful, implementing his terrible Batman cancer throat American voice. He gives Connor so many unlikeable characteristics; you want the machines to kill him. There is a nice cameo though, well sort of, as a de-aged Schwarzenegger wrecks havoc for a few minutes, which made me smile, yet it didn’t last sadly.
What’s most shocking is the major absence of Brad Fiedel’s iconic score throughout, pushed back into obscurity by a boring score by the usually reliable Danny Elfman. The score is tied to Terminator, and without it, you have a just another robot movie, that is just sad.
There are some design elements developed by the late Stan Winston, such as the rubber skinned terminators, and also the terminator production line is also cool. But most elements have been shamelessly ruined.
In the end, we are given a film that should not have been made, as the true Terminator vision was established perfectly by James Cameron. His films hinted of a future where humans battled machines, and within his small dark glimpses of the future we are given something a billion times more satisfying than this piece of shit. McG, congratulations for making the number one most disappointing film of 2009, you should pack your bags, get a less stupid name and go back to Charlie’s Angels, you won’t disappoint so many loyal fans that way. As for this reviewer, a positive aspect brought from this film was my even greater admiration for Cameron’s timeless masterpieces.
