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.
9. SERPENT'S PATH
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).
8. THE SHROUDS
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.
7. TIMESTALKER
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.
5. RUMOURS
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.
4. ARMAND
“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.
3. UNDER PARIS
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.
2. NIGHT SWIM
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.
1. ALIEN: ROMULUS
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment