Worst Films of 2012

I think I saw too many movies this year. Unless 100 movies at the cinema isn't too much. Plus a couple of others via more than dubious means. I think I deserve a medal. But anyway, not all of them were going to be good. In all honesty, most of the films I would call bad weren't bad in the traditional sense (and by traditional, I mean Battfield Earth and Showgirls). No, most of them were boring. And mainly failed adaptations of things.

There will be other end of year lists, I'm just getting this one out of the way so that I don't leave a bad taste in my mouth. But I should explain something a little about how movies are distributed in Australia. A lot of the big movies that come out at the start of the year have already been released everywhere else, even a few of the lesser known movies (mainly British ones) that come out during the middle of the year were released the year before. Then there are times when we'll get movies a couple of weeks before everywhere else. And then there are those more arthouse-y films that were released two or even three years ago. So, just to let you know. These lists are more about what films I personally saw at cinemas this year. (Except for one on this list, and it fucking deserves to be here.) But yeah, if I just did the films that came out this year, then I wouldn't be able to finish these lists. Enough expotision, let's get on with it.

10. J. Edgar

This was the first bad movie of the year! And it's main problem is that it's too long. There are good moments, but I was falling asleep by the end. I want to like Clint Eastwood as a director, but he's too long winded. Though Trouble with the Curve was probably the worse movie from Clint this year (not counting that time when he talked to a chair), but I'm putting this on the list because some people still think it's good, when it really isn't worth it. It doesn't give you anything about the man you couldn't learn from a biography of him. Not worth it, and if you want to know more about what I think, though I doubt you will, then check out my actual review of it. (I have a feeling I'm going to be saying that a lot.)

9. Wuthering Heights

I have a strong dislike for shaky cam movies due to the fact that they often spark my labrynthitis (which gives me vertigo). But even while I don't like shaky cam for personal reasons, I can still watch movies that use it, and recognise that they are good movies. The most obvious example from this year is Beasts of the Southern Wild. However, there was one movie this year that made me sick enough to miss work. That was this one. So, I may be a little biased towards this. But this isn't a good movie anyway. If nothing else, an adaptation should at least make you want to seek out the original that it was based on, and this doesn't give me any desire to read the book. It's too long, too dark and there are too many exterior shots of nature. The film is 129 minutes long, but if you took out all of the nature shots it would only be half that length. The natural lighting means that during night scenes you can't see anything. And it also makes it incredibly claustrophobic, and has a random scene of boderline necrophilia. But above all, this is boring, which is the worst adjective you can ever give a film.

8. Cosmopolis

I haven't read the book that this is based on, but after watching this film I don't think I need to. David Cronenberg made the wrong decision to keep all of the original dialogue from the book by Don DeLillo. It makes this film indecipherable. At least when you're reading a book you can stop and think about things, go back over things and take your time with it. When you're watching a film, things are constantly happening, and because you're in a cinema, you can't stop and go over things again. There are images that just look odd, not surreal but odd (if I want surreal and limousines, I'll watch Holy Motors), and each character has a massive speech that doesn't make sense unless you're really listening to it, which admittedly I wasn't. But in the end, like our previous entries, all this added up to was a boring film that was also incredibly pretentious.

7. Rock of Ages

Oh, I can't hate this film. This film is too stupid to be hated. I do think, however, that Adam Shankman took too many liberties with the plot, the voices are too auto-tuned and a lot of the characters are very poorly written. The musical numbers are too jumpy and unfocused to have any impact, and the main dude suffers from "Moulin Rouge" syndrome. Seriously, if he just talked to his girlfriend instead of jumping to conclusions then everything would be a lot simpler. But, out of all the films on this list, this would be the only one I'd recommend you go and see. It is hilariously bad! And it was the only so bad it's good movie to come out this year (at least, in my humble opinion). There are just some crazy moments that make no sense, either in reality or the context of the movie. But it is fucking silly as hell!

6. On the Road

When you watch this film, you can see the people just ticking off everything that they need to include in this adaptation. Drug montage, jazz montage, Mexico montage, all there. It's a purely paint by numbers adaptation of a book that would be ashamed to have this fairly mundane movie made from it. Again, this is BORING! I'm repeating myself too often in this list, but a boring movie is a terrible movie because you just don't feel anything towards it! Though, I am just a little bit annoyed with this film for making me waste my day on it and for plastering Kristen Stewart's breasts all over the place whenever they could. The book was just so alive and this adaptation was so dead, that's the main disappointing factor here. I think it was always just remain unfilmable.

5. Argo

Well, this is controversial. And to be absolutely honest, I was engaged whilst watching this film, it was a very entertaining film. But then I found out what really happened, the actual events, and this film just turned into a propaganda movie saying how fabulous America was. I can understand why it was recieved so poorly in Canada. There role is reduced to a cameo basically, with the CIA allowing them to bask in the glory while they supposedly did all the work. I find this film incredibly exploitative and self-congratulatory. I can't think about the film now without a bad taste in my mouth. And I'm surprised this has come from George Clooney's film studio, who are usually a lot better than this. If you do like it, fine. But now that I know what happened, I can't like this film anymore.

4. The Watch

Richard Ayoade, what are you doing in this? You're better than this! You shouldn't be here! Mind you, most of the actors in here shouldn't be in here. This could've been so much more! If they'd just re-read the script before they started shooting, instead of trying to be like a half-arsed version of Paul. But what we got was a mess of idiocy. I was actually ashamed to be in a room where people were laughing at this. If you did laugh at this, why? It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever! Why weren't you spending your money on good quality comedy? Why wasn't I spendig my money on good quality comedy! I think I need a cry.

3. Margin Call

I've ranted about this movie before. But it had such a good cast! Why did it turn out so crap? Well, the script probably had something to do with it. They could've made it a little clearer. No, they could've made it a lot clearer! Nothing made sense in this movie, unless you already know every minute detail about the stock market crash! And it was fucking nominated for a fucking Oscar!! Gah! This film frustrates me for what it could've been, but not as much as the next one.

2. Dark Shadows

I know you can't hear me through a computer screen but I groan everytime I think or someone mentions this movie. It's fucking stupid, and not in a good way. The worst part? Johnny Depp. He needs to re-think his movie choices. And he needs a break from Tim Burton. This film would've been better if Burton could just decide on a tone, either horror or comedy. this is one of the movies that can't be both. I haven't seen the original TV show, but from what I've heard, shoving every plot twist from the show into the film was not a good idea. I've said all I can about this film. Let's move onto the worst that this year has offered.

1. The Lorax

This film baffles me and angers me. Why the fuck does the Onceler have a face? Why has the main plot of the film been condensed into a 3 minute musical number? Why does the Lorax try to kill someone? Why is there even a fucking plot when there is no reason for there to be one? And most importantly, why the fuck did Audrey Seuss okay this shit of a film? I did not pay to see this film. If you did pay to see it, then your money was wasted. There should not be a plot. The people of Thneedville are shown to be quite happy paying for air, they don't seem to care about trees. Which means that the plot is fueled by Zac Efron's desire to impress Taylor Swift. Break that down, and the plot happens because Efron wants to get laid. This is the only film to make me angry every time I think about it. And now, there's a fucking Onceler subculture. THAT SHOULDN'T BE! HE SHOULD NOT HAVE A FACE!! If I could, I would burn everything to do with this film. Even Danny Devito. I'm sorry if you like this film, but you have really terrible taste.

So, yeah there it is. The worst films of this year from my opinion. This was hard to do. Mainly because most of these films were so goddamn boring. But thankfully, there were a lot more awesome movies that came out this year. So much more, that I have to do two separate lists. One for mainstream movies, and one for non-mainstream movies. Hopefully, I'll get them up before the end of the week. Until next time, readers.

On the Road

I'm amazed how often some actors get type-cast. Sometimes without them even knowing it. I am of course talking about the female Ben Affleck, Kristen Stewart (though that isn't really fair to Ben Affleck. Maybe he's just the male version of Kristen Stewart). For some reason, she always plays 'relatable' young women over whom two men are wanting to be with/ lusting over. And you'd think that this would be the movie to stop that, but no. This is an adaptation of the generation defining book by Jack Kerouac, which came out in 1957, and is based on a series of journeys that Kerouac undertook with his friend, Neal Cassidy, during the 1940s. It is also the most famous novel from the beatnik era, and has long since been thought to be unfilmable. I did read the book before seeing the film, and I can tell you right away the film does not compare.

The main plot follows a series of 5 trips that Sal Paradise takes across America, all involving his hero Dean Moriarty. Along the way, they interact with various recurring characters, including Carlo Marx, a young beat poet, Old Bull Lee and his wife, Jane, Mary Lou and Camille, two of Dean's wives.We get veiws into Dean's unorthodox home life, that paint him as a charming drifter with no concept of responsibility. All of the characters are based on people that Kerouac knew in real life; Sal is the fictional embodiment of Kerouac himself, Dean is Neal Cassidy, Carlo Marx is Allen Ginsberg and Old Bull Lee is William S. Burroughs. The film manages to stick as close to the books narrative, but sometimes that isn't necessarily a good thing, as we will see.

So, firstly, was there anything good in the movie? Well, yeah, is the short answer. The women were characterised well. In the books, the women are basically just attachments to the men and aren't given anything to do except have sex and get the marajuana ready. In the film, they are given characters! Actual real characters. And both Amy Adams and Kirsten Dunst are very good. Kristen Stewart is okay. And that really sums up the whole movie. This film exists. That is the nicest compliment that I can give it. It's just okay. Not terrible, but definitely not good. So, while it gains points for having good female characters, it loses them immediately for being dull.

Of course, the thing with the women will only come to light if you have read the book. Speaking of the book, I'm not the biggest fan of Kerouac. There were good parts, and the way it is written is beautiful. But there are parts that I didn't get, and if I read it again, I still probably wouldn't get it. The characters are quite selfish, especially Dean. And even though he has this charm that shines through the pages, there were some times when I just couldn't understand what Sal saw in him. And that was sort of the point. It was like Frankenstein to me. The author builds up this character so you expect him to be pretty amazing, but after you finish the book you just find him to be a dick. Amazingly, this didn't come out in the film.

I don't know what the filmmakers were trying to do, but they seemed to be trying to make Dean a 'nice guy'. Or at least sympathetic. In the book, we are shown Dean warts and all, and the strength comes from the fact that even though he is a completely selfish person, Sal still thinks of him as a great mind, and a great man despite what he did. Here, there is no charm, no charisma, just an actor trying to do what he thinks is Dean. And it doesn't work. By trying to make Dean a nice guy, you are trying to find excuses for the things that he does. It just can't be done. He's almost an anti-hero in the book (or at least he was to me. Don't take everything I say about the book as law, I'm not an expert) and in the film they try to make him a romantic lead.

So, the book remains unfilmable. Really, the best way and the only way to do the book justice is to not do a direct adaptation. Make it insane, make it crazy! Make it imaginative. You need to capture the essence of the book, not the story. In the end, the story isn't what matters, it's the way it's written and what it has to say. Give this one a miss. But do read the book, I may not understand it all that well, but it does need to be read. Sorry this took so long, and that it's so short. But guess who's been sick again! Anyway, next time should be the Japanese film I Wish. So, until next time readers.