Let's make this clear, writing a "Top Ten" list for the worst films you have seen in a year is never fun and as such you find little inspiration while writing about them. Because of this my reasons for disliking a film are probably not very deep, but here you have my
TOP TEN WORST FILMS OF 2021
10. DUNE
I know that this is a film that is loved by a huge number of people and could top other people's best of the year lists, and I am sure that there are people out there that would see its inclusion on my worst list and assume it has been done in an attempt to be edgy. “Look at me, how cool am I that I do not love “Dune” like the rest of the world!!”. However, that is not the case. Whilst I admit that I am not the biggest sci-fi fan in the world, I am a big fan of director Denis Villeneuve and his previous films (and in regards to his science fiction work, I think “Arrival” is a masterpiece). It is just that there is no fun at all to be had in his version of “Dune”. I'm not blind to the fact that it has been put together impeccably from a technical point of view, but Villeneuve has imbued the film with such an “oh-so-serious” tone that sucks any fun you could have watching it. It comes across as far too important, and the lack of any levity, ultimately makes “Dune” a bore to watch. Timothee Chalamet constantly looks like he is about to fall asleep in this (and not in a way to reveal another one of his dreams); he gives no life to his “Paul”. In fact apart from Oscar Isaac and Josh Brolin, the rest of the cast appear to be suffocating from the seriousness of the picture to the point that they give off very bland renditions of their characters. The biggest culprit though in taking his work too seriously is Hans Zimmer and his very loud and “big” score. The announcement of those bagpipes within his music scream their intention of letting the audience know just how important whatever is happening on screen......except for a film that goes two and a half hours, not much really seems to happen, other than a set up for the next film. As you can tell, I was not a fan of “Dune: Part One”, especially the way Denis Villeneuve removed any fun that could've been had from it (for goodness sake's, this is a director that once had a talking fish narrate one of his films.....where has that man gone??), however, because it is Villeneuve, I will be there for “Dune: Part Two”, with the hopes he can redeem himself.
9. HOPPER / WELLES
I managed to see this “documentary” as part of MIFF (which sadly had to take place online this year), and was initially very excited by the prospect of watching a genius director interviewing a young director, who had just found success with his debut film “Easy Rider”. Spending two hours with these legends of cinema together seemed like a dream come true, especially as both Orson Welles and Dennis Hopper have both well and truly left us. However, I ended up hating this movie and my appreciation of Welles dropped significantly too, because he came across as such a dick throughout the whole thing. I should mention that the footage was shot to be used for Welles's “The Other Side of the Wind” (which I loved), and that whenever Dennis Hopper responded to Welles by name, he would refer to him as Jake (Hannaford), which is the name of John Huston's character of the film and who Welles is obviously standing in for during shooting. I say this because I am sure when defending himself, Welles would say he is playing a character (Welles is never on camera) and this is not really him speaking, but I have no doubt that this is Orson Welles trying to belittle and bring down Dennis Hopper any chance he gets. Hopper answers every question thrown at him by Welles with thought and honesty, with Welles following up in any way to try and tear down Hopper's opinions or beliefs. It really comes across as sour grapes, that Welles is jealous that Hopper has found success with his little film “Easy Rider”, whilst he himself was struggling to put a picture together. The whole thing rubbed me the wrong way, and I just wanted it to end, and I wondered what Dennis Hopper really felt after filming ended, because he seemed enamoured by Welles and his films, but after being treated (in my opinion) very poorly, I wondered if he still felt this way by the end. To his credit, Hopper never bites back at Welles, and actually considers Welles' insults as if they were serious criticism. Man, I disliked this so much and it really took the shine off my love of Orson Welles too.
8. CANDYMAN
The next four or five films on this list, I have very spotty memories about except for the fact that I disliked them, so I doubt there will be much explanation of why I didn't like them except for the fact that I just didn't. I was initially excited about this remake / sequel to “Candyman”, as I felt that it could've been nicely updated to today's issues. However where this film went wrong was that it seemed to focus entirely on the race relations of America's political landscape of today, whilst forgetting to integrate it successfully into a “horror” film. I love my horror to be layered with social commentary (George Romero was a master at it), and actually think the genre is suited perfectly to make big social points within the horror, but with “Candyman”, director Nia DaCosta did not commit to the horror aspects of her film as much as she did to the social issues. As a result, her film became less powerful and interesting, as it came across as preachy, rather than layering her message into the horror tale organically. I was disgusted by the way the horror scenes were portrayed, as they took place in little tiny portions on the screen (like in the reflection of the sunglasses), or off-screen entirely. Personally, if DaCosta had no interest in the horror elements of “Candyman” she should've just made a drama highlighting the racial divide of America instead of exploiting the name of popular horror franchise in an attempt to garner an audience. Here, fans of horror got a watered down product, and the important message DaCosta was trying to highlight is lost due to the way it has been falsely presented. No one wins.
7. SEANCE
I have to admit that I remember next to nothing about this film, other than I hated it. I was looking forward to it because it was the directorial debut of Simon Barrett, who was the screenwriter on director Adam Wingard's early films like “You're Next” and “The Guest”. Knowing how cool those films were, I was hoping that Barrett would be able to produce gold behind the director's chair too, but alas, no. He produced a total dud of a horror film, that was not at all scary nor mysterious. It also looked very cheaply made. In fairness, I should mention that I do find it hard to take seriously films that use Ouija boards and seances in earnest, and expect the audiences to be scared of the consequences of using them, so maybe this film was never going to be for me, but I just found “Seance” to be incredibly bland in every way possible.
6. BLISS
Another film that I can barely remember, but was drawn to initially by the director's past work. Mike Cahill wrote and directed “Bliss” (I was a fan of his earlier films “Another World” and “I Origins”), a film about two mentally disturbed people who have to determine if the world they are living in is real or a computer simulation, and if it is not real, do they really want to go back and live in “reality”. It is about addiction, mental health, family and its heart is in the right place, except it has been so poorly cast with Owen Wilson and Salma Hayek as the romantic leads. The two have no chemistry together and as such the whole film falls apart due to this decision. We need to believe that these two people would go anywhere together, including madness, their love is meant to be that strong, but it is never once believable and forever feels false. I honestly believe that the filmmakers had good intentions with “Bliss”, and done correctly (or at least differently) it could have worked, but sadly, I found it to be a massive fail.
5. @ZOLA
Ah, the old film based on a viral tweet stream; where all good stories come from. This is another film that has garnered quite a large positive response to it, where I have found myself on the negative side. I am not a fan of social media at all, to the point that I am not on any platforms myself, and I assumed that this would be my sticking point with “Zola”, but for a film that saw its genesis achieved through social media, there is very limited use of it within the film itself. No, the reason why I hated the film, was that I just disliked the characters and the situations they found themselves in. Plain and simple as that. And as much as I like Riley Keough as an actress, and admittedly she is probably very good in her role here of Stefani (playing the most try hard black version of a white girl ever), I absolutely hated her character. Because of that I found myself reacting negatively towards the film as a whole. I don't need every character in a film to be likeable or nice, but every now and then, I can dislike a film due to my dislike of the characters portrayed within it, which is what happened with “@zola”.
4. THE SCARY OF SIXTY-FIRST
When MIFF was originally meant to be an in-person event this year, “The Scary of Sixty-First” was scheduled to play in the “Night Shift” side bar of the festival. Even though I knew nothing about the film, I was excited to see it, and was very disappointed when the film did not make it to the slimmed down digital version of the festival that it ended up being (once Covid reared its ugly head once again). Turns out that was a blessing in disguise as when I finally caught up with this film via a streaming platform, I discovered that it was a terrible, terrible film. The gist of “The Scary of Sixty-First” is that two twenty something girls rent out a new apartment, not knowing it used to be owned by Jeffrey Epstein, and which “may” have been the location where nefarious acts were performed by the disgraced businessman. One of the girls then seems to get possessed by some evil force that sees her acting like a under-aged girl where she performs sex acts on herself and her not-impressed-and-seriously-disturbed boyfriend. Um, I do not know who thought this was a good idea or subject matter for a movie, but whoever it was, they have seriously misread the room. I could not believe that what I was watching was a real film; that it had been read by people, and green-lit, and put into production, without someone saying or challenging the director with “is this movie really in good taste????”. The film also makes little sense, is poorly acted, and does the one thing that I really cannot stand in movies: make an obviously adult actor play down to the age of a child or early teenager. It never works and always looks embarrassing. I hated this film with a passion! The only good thing about it was that it was shot on 16mm film, so I liked its grainy aesthetic, but that is it!
3. RIFKIN'S FESTIVAL
One of the great joys I had this past year in cinema, was going through a number of Woody Allen's early filmography. Whilst I was quite familiar with his work from “Mighty Aphrodite” onward, I actually hadn't seen any of his early work from the seventies and eighties which, as I have now discovered, was a real golden period for this super talented writer/director. However, in saying all that, I also had a chance to see Allen's most recent film “Rifkin's Festival”, and for mine, it is the worst film he has made in his entire career. Maybe I am being too harsh on the film, and maybe me watching it during the glow of his best and much superior work, did “Rifkin's Festival” no favours, but I thought it was a tired, rehash of much, much better films that Allen has made. I also thought giving Wallace Shawn the lead role was a mistake, because he imbued his lead character, Mort Rifkin, with a grating personality that was like fingernails on a chalkboard. Fans of Woody Allen would know that Wallace Shawn has appeared in a number of his films in the past, and quite successfully too, but all of those were smaller roles. Having the whole film rest on his shoulders though just didn't work as he surprisingly struggled with the timing and rhythm of Allen's script. For once, too, I also felt that Allen's movie parodies in this were tired and cliched, and frankly not very amusing. Finally, although I can admit that Vittorio Storaro's cinematography is very “pretty”, the constant golden glow in every shot got on my nerves after awhile. I wanted more contrast in the images onscreen; they are almost too beautiful for the story being told. Anyway, I was quite shocked by my utter dislike of “Rifkin's Festival”, particularly after Allen's wonderful film “A Rainy Day in New York” previously.
2. OLD
Earlier in the year, my eleven year old daughter and myself set outside to a real-life cinema to catch a screening of “A Quiet Place – Part II”, and before the film we were both excited by a trailer for M. Night Shyamalan's “Old”. The trailer made it out to be a thrilling and horrific account of a family trapped on a mysterious beach that causes them all to rapidly age. It looked terrific, and quite creepy, and we both decided that we would go see that together on the big screen next. Covid stood up and said “No, I don't think so”, and cinemas were shut down for months, meaning we could only watch it on the small screen at home. Sadly, it was nothing like its trailer had suggested. While it wasn't scary, nor mysterious, nor exciting, it was what it was that was its biggest crime: boring and utterly stupid. There is a line in the trailer when Gael Garcia Bernal's character says “Oh no. We are here for a reason”........that reason is beyond ludicrous. Utterly ridiculous! I sat through two hours for THAT???!!!??? I have a hunch that none of the actors involved also believed in the movie they were making, as they all gave career low performances in “Old”. Vicky Krieps and Gael Garcia Bernal (both more than competent actors) are terrible as the parents of the family stuck on the beach, with no chemistry at all, while Thomasin McKenzie (who I regard as one of the best young actors going around these days) is very poor as the daughter of the married couple. There is also a very awkwardly handled scene where one of the young girls falls pregnant, giving birth mere minutes later. Finally, for a film that is so much about time, it was very poorly paced too; it felt like it went forever. I am sorry, but I hated this movie so much. Pharmaceutical companies?????? Really?????
1. THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW
I just want to quote the last line of my prophetic statement about this film when it was only of my most anticipated films of 2019 (!): “I have the feeling that “The Woman in the Window” could turn out to be something very special.” HaHaHaHaHa!!! I love it! I have never been so wrong about a film, as sadly “The Woman in the Window” was an absolute disaster. The funny thing though, looking at the talent involved in this film, I still have no idea how it turned out so bad. When it was initially announced as a “Rear Window” type thriller directed by Joe Wright and starring Amy Adams and Gary Oldman, you can understand or forgive my excitement. This is why it made my most anticipated list of 2019, but when that year came and went and the film did not, it was the first sign of trouble. Then came word that the final third or at least the ending had been re-shot and changed, and my anticipation started to wane. However when 20th Century Fox then chose to sell the film to Netflix rather than release the film themselves, it essentially screamed to the world that they had just dumped a turkey......and they were right. The film just does not work at all. I would agree that the film is better made than most of the other films on this list, but as a narrative piece of storytelling, it falls flat on its face. No one seemed to be on the same page as to the kind of film they were making, and this might also have to do with the re-shoots, but it felt very disjointed and odd. I really like Joe Wright as a director, and think he has a keen visual eye, but his depiction of the Anna's traumatic flashbacks (which involve a vehicle), and setting these scenes in the house just seemed all wrong. It looked cool and probably would have worked with his adaptation of “Anna Karenina”, but just did not work in the real world thriller that is “The Woman in the Window”. I must admit that I am a sucker for beautiful visuals, and Bruno Delbonnel's lensing is the film's best asset and yet, strangely his images fail to cause the right amount of suspense needed for the film to work. Performances by most are weak, with Gary Oldman totally wasted, and Julianne Moore far too over the top for my liking (although this is not the general consensus; as trashed as the film has got, Moore's performance is often highlighted as the best thing in it), but the one performance I absolutely despised was that of Fred Hechinger, who plays the son of Anna's neighbour. He was absolutely terrible in this and totally unconvincing. Danny Elfman's score was also nothing more than a Bernard Herrmann rip-off. I also have to briefly mention the finale which is derivative of film's much better than this, but also feels like it comes from a completely different film. It is so different from what has come before it, that it just feels wrong.....even though it contains the best suspense of the film. Whilst “The Woman in the Window” was a mind numbing disaster, I get that technically it has been well made. It is just the fact that because of that, and of all of the great people involved in the making of this, it had to be at least watchable, and the fact that it wasn't is the reason why “The Woman in the Window” was the worst film I watched in 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment