TOP TEN
WORST FILMS OF 2024
10. FORCE OF NATURE: THE DRY 2
I was quite a fan of Robert Connolly's 2020 feature,
“The Dry”, as I thought it was a great little Aussie police
procedural thriller. When this sequel was announced, along with the
fact that both director Connolly and star Eric Bana (who plays
Detective Aaron Falk) were both returning, I was quietly optimistic
and looking forward to the film. However, my initial hopes started
to fade, when I saw that the original title, “Force of Nature”,
later in the marketing process, had been given a new subtitle: “The
Dry 2”. This immediately made me think that they had no faith in
the film as its own entity and needed to piggy-back onto the success
of the first film. The other reason this title is no good, is
because there is nothing “dry” about this film, as it takes place
in a rain forest, where water is constantly present. Whilst the film
is not horrible, “Force of Nature: The Dry 2” is not a patch on
the original film. This new story is so convoluted, and the majority
of the characters are unlikable, making it a chore to sit through.
The biggest issue I had with the film though was in “The Dry”,
Detective Falk has a personal attachment within the mystery that felt
grounded and organic to the story being told and here, once again,
Falk has another connection in “Force of Nature”, but it felt the
complete opposite; it felt forced and fake, and only included to
create a similarity with the first film. (I understand the film is
based on a book, and I am sure this subplot is probably included in
it, but I'm sorry, it isn't needed. Falk is a cop, he shouldn't need
a personal connection to a place or people for him to care about his
job.) Anyway, I walked out of this film very unhappy, although it
has been well shot, the locations are beautiful and it has a very
good performance from an under-used Jacqueline McKenzie.
Kiyoshi Kurosawa had a big 2024, in terms of output, and
when I wrote my most anticipated list for that year, he had two films
on it: “Serpent's Path” and “Chime”. However, it soon was
revealed that he also had a third film in the can that was to be
released in the year as well, the suspense thriller, “Cloud”.
While “Chime” and “Cloud” were unknown entities to me, in
regards to what they were about, I was most looking forward to
“Serpent's Path”, which was a French remake of a Japanese film
Kurosawa himself made in 1998. The original film was a low budget
revenge thriller that sees a man, along with the help of another
mysterious man, capture and torture members of a group who he thought
had to do with the rape and murder of his eight year old daughter.
The film is lean, mean and at times its low budget shows, but
Kurosawa actually uses it to his advantage, especially during it's
bloody and suspenseful finale. I am always intrigued by directors
who want to remake their own films, so was excited to see what
Kiyoshi Kurosawa did with his second go at this story. Firstly, let
me say that technically Kurosawa shows off all of his skill and
improved talent, thanks in large to the increased budget of this
version. The 2024 version of “Serpent's Path” is very well put
together, and looks fantastic, but Kurosawa has totally botched the
story with all of the small changes he has made to it, which loses
the film it's emotional core. While the two films are essentially
the same story, Kurosawa does make changes to it, with the main one
being the change of sex and occupation of the person helping our
protagonist with his revenge. The original sees a male, math teacher
helping out, whilst in this new version it is a female, psychologist.
It may not seem like it, but the change is huge, and whilst I
initially thought the fact that the woman was a psychologist that the
film would head down a different path altogether, but nothing is done
with it at all, except take away how the original character saw
revenge, and manipulating people, as nothing more than a mathematical
problem. The other big change is that the young daughter murdered
now has had her organs removed, and sold on the black market, which
sets up the ending to be much different, and no where near as
effective. It adds further plot to explain the group who is
harvesting these organs for the black market that, while it leads to
some interesting images at times, only really succeeds in bloating
the run time of the film, while diminishing its power. I have lots
more to say about the film, but I was also not a fan of the casting
of the main character of Albert, who is played by Damien Bonnard, and
does so in a way that it comes across as if his character is
medically retarded, thus as a man unable to commit to the revenge he
wants so badly. It felt totally wrong, but again, I am someone
familiar with the original film and thus sees the remake in
comparison to that, so I am not sure if viewers fresh to the story
will see this film in the same negative light as I have, but
personally I found it to be Kiyoshi Kurosawa's worst film in ages.
(Thankfully both “Chime” and “Cloud” turned out to be very
good, although neither will feature in my top twenty five this year).
Another
one of my favourite directors shows up on this year's “worst”
list?!? What is going on???? I am a big fan of David Cronenberg, and
after his triumphant return to his body horror films with “Crimes
of the Future” in 2022, I was eager to see what this great director
would come up with next. I was surprised when he announced a new
film so quickly, but when I heard that the plot had to do with a
communication device being placed in burial shrouds in an attempt to
talk to the dead, I understood that this would be a very personal
film from Cronenberg, whose wife had just recently passed away, and
this was his chance to express his grief through his art. I thought
that this sounded very promising but assumed it would be a much more
sombre experience than we are used to from this talented director.
Whilst I was correct about the tone, unfortunately the rest of the
film
ultimately suffers from having too many ingredients, where none of
these ingredients get their individual flavours to shine and thus the
entire thing feels severely under-cooked, and outside of having some
great surface ideas, “The Shrouds” has none of the complexities
usually seen in a Cronenberg film, where everything feels explored
only on the most basic, surface level. The main idea of having dead
bodies wrapped in special shrouds which give the family access to
watch the decomposition of their loved one's body on a screen
situated on their gravestone (via an app on their phone) is an
incredibly weird one, but fascinating none-the-less, however this is
never explored in any real meaningful way, and seems to only exist as
a plot function for the conspiracy angle of the film going forward
which is both confusing and unrewarding. The whole conspiracy /
paranoia part of the plot comes across as too far fetched right from
the outset. It fails to be interesting or believable because it is so
complex, while being so basic at the same time (how's that for a
contradiction of terms). To me it sounded more like the mutterings of
an insane conspiracy theorist rather than a detailed plot that could
actually exist due to a real conspiracy taking place. There is also
no increased tension associated with the conspiracy, even when the
stakes are supposedly getting higher and more dangerous for Karsh, it
never truly feels like he is in any real danger. Revelations of
possible medical trials, Chinese spying, the weaponisation of the
shrouds themselves in terms of surveillance, and the involvement of
the Russian mafia are randomly thrown into the mix, and then go
nowhere. Sadly, I found “The Shrouds” to be a massive
disappointment, and arguably the worst film of David Cronenberg's
entire career. Click here to read my original review.
I
do not really have a lot to say about Alice Lowe's sophomore
directorial effort, “Timestalker”, except that it did not work
for me on any level. I saw it at this year's MIFF during a sold out
session, and found the experience excruciating to sit through,
because I just did not find the story clever or funny at all. I
think I only laughed once during the whole film, which is a shame and
a surprise because I loved “Prevenge”, Lowe's directorial debut.
The plot of “Timestalker” sees a woman named Agnes throughout
different times in history being reincarnated again and again, after
making the same mistake of going after the wrong man which ultimately
leads to her untimely death. While the film only has a running time
of 89 minutes, it is amazing how long something can feel if you are
not on it's wavelength, which I obviously wasn't. I just found
“Timestalker” to be a repetitive bore.
6.
MEGALOPOLIS
Here
we go again! Another brilliant director on this “worst-of” list.
I have to state upfront that Francis Ford Coppola is one of the
greats and no one, I mean NO-ONE, had a better decade in film than he
did in the 1970's. He made four films in the 70's, and all of them
are classics: “The Godfather (1972)”, “The Conversation
(1974)”, “The Godfather: Part II (1974)”, and “Apocalypse Now
(1979)”. If he had made only one of these films, he would be
remembered as a great for all time, but he made them all (as well as
his following film “One From the Heart”, which personally I also
consider a masterpiece, but is the film that changed his life forever
when it flopped). I also must say how much I respect the man to put
up $120M of his own money to fund the making of “Megalopolis”, a
passion project he has wanted to make for over forty years. It takes
serious balls to put your money where your mouth is, just so you can
make a dream come true. It also takes serious balls to do such a
thing after you did a similar thing in the 1980's with “One From
the Heart”, that ended up bankrupting both you personally and your
company. Let me say that I respect Francis Ford Coppola so much for
putting so much on the line to make “Megalopolis”. Now that I
have said all that, I have to now say that I thought “Megalopolis”
was dreadful! The story is naff, at times it looks super cheap and
tacky, and the film is littered with some of the worst performances I
have seen in a long time, by veterans who should know better (I am
looking at you Jon Voight, Aubrey Plaza and Shia LaBeouf!). The
script is also shocking, particularly the dialogue, including one
howler Plaza has to deliver early on, that saw a guy sitting behind
me explode in laughter which barely subsided for the rest of the
film. I happened to see the film in IMAX too, which sees a certain
moment happen live at the theatre when an actor(?) comes out on stage
for all of a minute to portray a reporter asking Adam Driver's
character, Cesar, a question at a press conference. This was another
embarrassment for the film because it is totally pointless and
happened during a scene that was unimportant. Whilst I went into
“Megalopolis” hoping for the best, I had heard that the film was
not good which turned out to be the truth, and sadly Coppola's last
two films, “Twixt” and “Megalopolis”, show none of his past
greatness within them.
From
here onward, my explanations for disliking a film will probably be
much shorter, as my memory has faded of these films, but I absolutely
hated “Rumours”, the latest from Guy Maddin, with Evan and Galen
Johnson on co-directing duties. The film is meant to be a political
satire about how government officials do nothing during a crisis
outside of putting together a joint statement that says little and
promises less. The “comedy” was so obvious and simple that it
couldn't be less funny, and seeing people like Cate Blanchett and
Alicia
Vikander slumming it in dreck like this, made the experience more
depressing than hilarious. Whilst I am a fan of Guy Maddin, he is
not a director whose films I always love, but I think this is the
first time I out-and-out hated one of his films. Not least because
with this film he abandoned his faux silent movie visual style, for a
bland, flat and lifeless look which I suppose is apt considering how
lifeless “Rumours” turned out to be. Click here to read my original review.
“Armand” has the dubious
honour of being my least favourite film I saw at MIFF this year, and
a film that I feel has only seen praise because of the film making
pedigree it comes from. The director of “Armand”,
Halfdan
Ullmann Tøndel is actually the grandson of Ingmar
Bergman and Liv Ullman, but sadly has none of their talent, or at
least hasn't shown it yet. My
issue with “Armand” is that while the original kernel of an idea
is great, the film itself is full of missteps and woefully executed
scenes. The
idea of the meeting at a school between the parents of each boy
involved in a serious on-campus incident was a brilliant idea and
set-up for a great psychological drama, and the first few scenes were
actually very good when the young teacher was in control of the
group, where it highlighted the balancing act she had in taking the
incident seriously enough to appease the parents involved, while
being careful not to implicate the school itself as having anything
to do with the incident in question. It all goes downhill from there
though with Tøndel making bad decision after bad decision, both in
terms of story progression and the unnatural way his characters deal
with certain situations.
However,
the worst misstep of all is
Tøndel's inexplicable idea to suddenly include two dance sequences
into his film. Out of nowhere, during another break from the meeting,
Elisabeth (our main character) passes the school janitor and the two
of them suddenly start dancing together, with his broom integrated
into the dance. I am sorry, but this was the worst decision I have
seen in a movie in ages! There was no way this was ever going to work
unless dance was always a part of the film from the beginning, not
starting past the halfway mark. The tone of this film is just not
conducive to include a whimsical dance number. The second dance
number is an interpretive dance number, and whilst it works slightly
better than the first, I maintain that their inclusion was a severely
misjudged directorial indulgence. In fact my issues with “Armand”
all have to do with Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel, both his direction and
his writing. The way the film is written is frustrating because it
never follows through with any of his subplots; we get no answers to
the questions he raises, and some of these things aren't
philosophical questions, but things that should have concrete
answers. The fact that by the end, there is no real conclusion to the
meeting, or a sense of what happened or will happen going forward,
that frustrated me no end. Everyone walks away unsatisfied, none the
wiser, and the audience wasted two hours of their lives. Click here to read my original review.
Everyone loves a good shark movie, right? The truth is
most of them are not very good, and yet we always seem drawn to them.
Hmmmm, Netflix shark flick? The warning signs are there, but will I
listen. Directed by Xavier Gens? He hit the scene with the
brilliant French extremity horror film “Frontiere(s)” back in
2007.....hmmm, outside of 2011's “The Divide”, he hasn't made
anything good since, but maybe this is his return to greatness?? A
giant shark appears in the River Seine (which sounds impossible since
it is fresh water)?? Sign me up! This is going to be great!!! Nope.
It is just like all the other cheaply made shark movies. Poor CGI
sharks that look terrible, human characters that you couldn't care
less about as nothing is done to make them feel like real people, and
lets be honest, most shark movies have ultimately the same story, and
the fact that this one was set in Paris doesn't make it any better or
different; it just means the locations are beautiful to look at.
Honestly, I hated every second of this stupid film, and then hated
myself for thinking it could be any good too. Oh, and that thing
about the sharks swimming in the “fresh” water of the Seine?
Don't stress, that is explained away with a throwaway line, that has
no basis in reality. Also, why the hell did Berenice Bejo sign on to
do this film? She is far too good an actress to be in this crap.
Good news is that Netflix has green-lit a sequel, so I will have a
title for a future “worst-of” list.
Oh good, another water based horror film on this list!
I am going to be honest and say that I remember next to nothing about
“Night Swim” other than that it was terrible, and that I watched
it with my fourteen year old horror-loving daughter who also thought
it stank! I mean “Night Swim” faced an uphill battle to begin
with, trying to make the idea of a haunted pool scary and believable.
They try their hardest, but fail miserably, relying heavily on jump
scares and cliché, and when they do try to give the pool a
backstory, it just comes across as so dumb, and when a monster
actually does show up in the pool, let's just say that it should've
stayed hidden in the shadows, because what little suspense the film
does create, totally dissipates when it is revealed because it is
just not scary. Apparently, “Night Swim” is based on a short
film, which is where this kind-of idea does work best, in short,
sharp bursts. It always surprises me when Hollywood sees a good
short film and then thinks its a great idea to stretch what thin idea
it had into a feature length film that is thus doomed to fail.
“Night Swim” is so bad because it is so boring and flat.
While “Night Swim” may actually be the worst film of
2024, no film made me feel more angry than “Alien: Romulus”. I
can remember walking out of the cinema and I was seething by being
duped into watching something I had seen over and over again, once
more. All the talk about “Alien: Romulus” was that it was a
return to the claustrophobic horror of the Ridley Scott original, and
I was so amped to see that. However when the first trailers started
showing, my Spidey-sense detected that it seemed like the film was
doing to be a whole lot of scenes from the Alien franchise put
together but just done worse. It felt like what was coming was an
“Alien” greatest hits film, but the filmmakers tried to assuage
audiences by saying that the trailers were giving nothing away, and
there was a whole lot more to see in this new film. I call bullshit,
because all we got in “Alien: Romulus” was recycled scene after
recycled scene, and always done worse than in the film it originated
in. I was so angry at both the film, and myself, for thinking I was
going to see something new and maybe (gasp) scary in an “Alien”
film once more, but that was not the case. Even the ridiculous
ending was lifted (okay, it is slightly changed, but it is basically
the same) from an idea that everyone hated from “Alien
Resurrection”. Oh and I absolutely despised them using the very
dead Ian Holm's likeness to portray a cyborg (or
what-ever-the-hell-the-are-called) named Rook, which was a disgusting
lack of respect to the great actor. It might be a technically well
made film, but artistically it is as hollow as they come. There is
just nothing to “Alien: Romulus”; director Fede Alvarez has
stolen a few great scenes from other films, and then just thrown
everything else at the rest of the film in an attempt to disguise the
lack of originality in his film. I also thought Cailee Spaeny (who
was excellent in last year's “Priscilla”, and this year's “Civil
War”), was dreadful in this but that is because she was given
nothing to do because her character, Rain, is nothing more than this
film's cipher of Ripley. I know this film has it's fans but I
absolutely hated “Alien: Romulus”, the most creatively bankrupt
film I saw in 2024.
