EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Scott Mendelson

Scott Mendelson

Posted: December 23, 2009 11:53 AM

2009 in Review: Worst Movies of the Year

What's Your Reaction:

Generally speaking, I rarely do worst-of lists, simply because I try to make a point to avoid movies that I probably won't enjoy. However, 2009 contained a number of surprise stinkers, as well as any number of bad films that I saw through work or in order to cover them for this site and my other outlets. So this year I saw enough genuinely unfortunate misses to make a plausible list. There are certainly allegedly terrible films that I haven't seen (The Ugly Truth, Alvin and the Chipmunks 2) and would-be losers that I probably won't see (All About Steve), so I can't promise that your least-favorite flick made the list. I chart the year's-worst not to gloat but to mourn. Here are ten misses in alphabetical order, plus the year's worst movie-going experience.

Bride Wars
This is the kind of thing that makes chick flicks look bad, an unfunny and borderline offensive farce about two professional adults and lifelong friends who basically destroy each others' lives in order to maintain their own respective wedding dates. If it were a satire of wedding-mania, it might work, but it eventually ends up endorsing and celebrating the industry. Furthermore, it cheats its way into a happy ending by turning one of the male counterparts into a villain for daring to question his fiancee's destructive behavior. Kate Hudson took most of the blame for this one in the press, while Anne Hathaway emerged unscathed. They both should have to answer for this shameful piece of propaganda.

The Final Destination 3D
An absolutely lifeless and artless nothing of a film. It contains no character development, no real plot, and no pretense of being a real movie. But even the 3D death scenes pale in comparison to the previous three films in this franchise, as the heavy reliance on cheap CGI mutes the impact of a series known for over-the-top death scenes that at least looked real. This is the rare movie that is almost less entertaining than staring at a blank screen for 80 minutes.

Friday the 13th
A film so boring and bland, so utterly uninvolved and inexplicably laugh-out-loud stupid, that it makes every prior Friday the 13th sequel look like a masterpiece in comparison. The reluctance of director Marcus Nipsel (helmer of the far-superior Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake) to even try to play around with the formula or reinvent the mythology is mind-boggling. Come what may, at least Rob Zombie's Halloween franchise is trying to be good and different. This remake/reboot offers no reason for its existence and nothing except bootleg-quality cinematography to distinguish itself from its predecessors.

The Girlfriend Experience
This Steven Soderbergh experiment is shocking, edgy, and fascinating... unless you've seen even half an episode of Showtime's vastly-superior and genuinely entertaining Secret Diary of a Call Girl. This relatively incident-free 'expose' into the life of a high-priced escort offers no real insights and no real titillation. The film made headlines due to the casting of a real-life porn star in the lead role, and that's frankly the most exciting thing about the picture. Soderbergh scored later this year with The Informant, and I enjoy his experiments (like Bubble), but this was one of his very worst, most pointless films.

Madea Goes to Jail
Tyler Perry follows up his best film (The Family That Preys) with his very worst. Returning to all of his worst impulses (overdone farce, shout to the balconies acting, racial and economic stereotypes, illogical plot turns), Perry weaves a narrative that plays on the worst stereotypes in black culture (success and ambition = evil) while stocking the film full of celebrity cameos who exist merely to embarrass themselves on film. Not even Viola Davis as a no-nonsense social worker/pastor can save this misfire. Fortunately, I Can Do Bad All By Myself was a step back in the right direction.

Men Who Stare At Goats
This is as bad as Up in the Air is good and one of the worst movies in George Clooney's generally sparkling filmography. This dreadfully moronic expose on true-life military experiments with ESP and mind-altering drugs may just be a government conspiracy, as it renders the story completely uninteresting to the American public. No need to hide the truth when you can bore and annoy the audience silly with it. I actually like the story structure, which basically plays out the entire six-film Star Wars series in 90 minutes and uses it as a metaphor for the false Utopian hopes of the 1970s. And I will admit that this is not a brainless exercise. But whatever thematic pay-offs occur in the third-act don't make up for the completely dull and nearly unwatchable first hour.

Public Enemies
I'm not among those who think that Michael Mann walks on water, and he basically drowns this time around. By taking the infamous outlaw John Dillinger and completely neutering his lifestory to fit the template of Universal's slate of bullshit biopics ('he's not bad, just a product of society, and he sure loved his girlfriend'), Mann forces Johnny Depp to give life to a poorly-written block of wood. Christian Bale's pursuing federal agent is far more interesting, yet the film barely touches on his manhunt and the politics behind it. Not helping matters is digital cinematography that was probably intended to be viewed on an IPhone, and shoot-outs so poorly staged that I couldn't tell which gray-suited character was being shot at any given point (at least three people besides myself swear that Depp gets shotgunned during a forest shoot-out). All in all, you have a film that makes you yearn for the comparatively rich character work and 'you are there' intimacy of Miami Vice.

Surveillance
What do you get when you base a 95-minute film around a climactic plot twist, but then painfully telegraph that twist so that everyone catches on by the first 20 minutes? You get lots of tedium, over-acting, a lack of momentum, and no real reason not to fast-forward to the climax to confirm your educated guess. This is a tragic waste of a number of fine actors (Bill Pullman, Julia Ormond, Michael Ironside) and a moody opening act, but there is no story beyond setting up the climax.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
This film fails for refusing to give the audience what they want. Sure you occasionally get what you paid for; giant robots smacking the hell out of each other. You even get a first-act climax that's one of the best action scenes of the decade. But rather than offering up a lean and mean robot-smashing action picture, Michael Bay piles on crude and unfunny sexual humor, astonishing racial stereotypes, neoconservative political sentiments, and an unending plot that takes until the very end of the movie to do nothing more than reverse a narrative mistake from the first hour (absolutely nothing of interest occurs for the entire middle hour). Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the ultimate Michael Bay film in the worst sense of the term. The problem with Bay isn't that he gives the audience what they want; it's that he feels the need to pile on excess crap to such an extent that he forgets what they desired in the first place.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
The only thing worse than an ambitious comic book movie that falls on its butt (Superman Returns, The Spirit) is an absolutely lazy adaptation that doesn't seem to be trying. With pointless and arbitrary action scenes, plus a narrative that is as paint-by-numbers as humanly possible, this X-Men spin-off/prequel makes X-Men: the Last Stand look like, well, X2: X-Men United. This is a shocking botch from a number of very talented people (director Gavin Hood, Hugh Jackman, Danny Huston, Liev Schreiber, etc). What's stunning is the apparent lack of effort to even try to make this film into something unique or special.

And the worst movie I saw all last year is one I won't name. It was an exceptionally early screening of a movie that will (theoretically) be released this coming year. I went in excited, as it was from a director I absolutely adore, but I walked out devastated and confused. It was easily the most shocking and heartbreaking failure of 2009. Massive reshoots have been conducted, but I can't imagine anything less than a totally reshot film can save a project that was fatally flawed on every level. I'll name the movie if/when it is released, and I'll happily eat crow if the new cut is watchable. But for now, (insert director here)'s (insert title here) is easily my pick for the worst movie I saw in all of 2009.

Scott Mendelson

 

Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson

 
  • Comments
  • 70
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
Pilatunes
Best described as miscellaneous
12:59 PM on 12/29/2009
I am proud to say that I blundered into only one of these films, The Girlfriend Experience­, and that was at the urging of my better half.

Difficult to imagine that casting a real life pornstar as a fictional high-price­d call girl could produce an excruciati­ngly dull movie. The only character who seems to be somewhat interestin­g is her boyfriend who gets shortthrif­t in terms of air time. One thing that movie does show is that no matter how much porn you make, it doesn't make you an actress. Sasha Grey could be outacted by just about any high school drama participan­t.

Funny, when I heard how much Spitzer paid for the pleasures of being with Ashlee Dupree I wondered who would pay that much for the company of a spring break bimbo. After this movie, I might almost think they deserve it, as all her customers have poor personal grooming, all save one are in lousy shape, and they are all self-absor­bed bores.
10:37 AM on 12/24/2009
All this talk about what makes movies good or bad is very subjective­. I for one have no interest in
going to view "ITS COMPLICATE­D", the ad for which appears on this blog. That doesn't mean someone else may find it interestin­g. Different tastes..ju­st that simple. I really wonder sometimes WHY certain actors decide to do the movies that they eventually wind up in..pay checks
perhaps??
10:20 AM on 12/24/2009
Surprise stinkers? What was the surprise?
Did you imagine these "films" would be good?

I suppose I thought Public Enemies would be a little better...
But not by much...
10:06 AM on 12/24/2009
I haven't seen most of these movies, but I have to agree on Xmen. It felt forced the whole way and the CGI was gratuitous­.
07:47 AM on 12/24/2009
Great post! I am a fan of campy films that my family refuses to watch, mostly b x w's from the '50's. You know the kind. Wonderful post, Scott
Garrison
www.Summit­YourLife.c­om
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tantan75
Registered Nurse
05:25 AM on 12/24/2009
I think the Night At The Museum sequel was a lot worse than some of the movies on your list. Even though I LOVE Hank Azaria. You give the impression that this movie might not even be released. Am I wrong?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CroatianCritter
is keeping people honest
04:19 AM on 12/24/2009
You say, "However, 2009 contained a number of surprise stinkers." I know this is your personal opinion and reviews are subjective but this decade's films have paled in comparison to the 90s. Every year seems to get worse than the previous one. The last few best picture winners would not have been nominated in a NORMAL, GOOD year. Over the past six years, I have been very depressed about the declining quality of movies. It feels like I am watching the newspaper and radio collapse except with more financial funding. I think Hollywood needs a major "rethink" on its film quality. I won't waste my time with most of the summer blockbuste­rs anymore because there are only so many insults to my intelligen­ce that I can take.

P.S. Why was "The Hangover" so popular? I thought the humor was juvenile and stupid. A character simulates that a baby is "pleasurin­g himself." A Chinese guy beats the characters up while completely naked. Really? This is what passes for comedy nowadays.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tantan75
Registered Nurse
05:32 AM on 12/24/2009
I thought it was funny.
10:29 AM on 12/24/2009
This movie was funny; IF you are part of the "demograph­ic" that this movie was aimed at.
Remember movies aren't prodiced to entertain anymore..j­ust to make more money for the
studio and the big multi national companies that own them.
04:02 AM on 12/24/2009
That last film he mentions must be "The Wolfman" directed by Joe Johnston and starring Benicio del Toro. It had some horrible test screenings and has required tens of millions in reshoots.

I've heard the movie is much improved now that Walter Mirch was hired as the new editor.

By the way, I disagree that Friday the 13th and Men Who Stare at Goats are amongst the worst movies of the year. I'd put G.I. Joe, Miss Marsh and Street Fighter right up there.
photo
Counterglow
Werner Heisenberg may have been right.
02:08 AM on 12/24/2009
So...to wipe the bad taste of all that crud out of your mouth, how about ten incredibly good films nobody ever heard of. They're documentar­ies, which mean they make you think (a horrible, subversive concept). Roger Ebert's list of the ten best documentar­ies of the year. And be warned, he seems to believe some of these are the best films of 2009...per­iod.

http://blo­gs.suntime­s.com/eber­t/2009/12/­the_ten_be­st_documen­taries_of.­html#more

I've seen three of them. I'm not even the least little bit a documentar­y fan, yet all three blew me away.
01:19 AM on 12/24/2009
I really enjoyed Transforme­rs and X-Men.

Perhaps you don't like the genre.

My only complaint with Transforme­rs, is the action is too fast.

I watched it half speed (power DVD),

And it was much better.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
01:39 AM on 12/24/2009
I rather liked X-Men, loved X-Men 2, and even liked X-Men 3.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rogan
05:31 AM on 12/24/2009
The first two X-Men pictures were kinda great, because of the writing - I blame it on Zak Penn...

...Come on, Scott. What's the no-good-ve­ry-bad movie you're talking about at the end...? That ain't right, writing a whole article about movies that refuse to match audience expectatio­ns... and then... you see what I mean, don't you? (I had to try to come up with SOME way to talk you into spilling that bean... I thought "shame" might work, but now I remember that you (like me) are a movie critic... oh, well.)
10:18 AM on 12/24/2009
Wolverine was pretty lame, it could have been so much better. I was surprised that "Ninja Assassins" didn't appear on your list.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe Moore
English Teacher in Japan
01:17 AM on 12/24/2009
Boo on the ending. Why even mention it at all? Loved the points you made in the top part, but what a serious let down at the end.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rf dude
Just an average Man of Bronze
01:01 AM on 12/24/2009
'
Almost makes MY movie look reasonable­...
02:41 AM on 12/24/2009
LOL Hiya, Doc! At least, I hope you meant your avatar's movie. Sad note for George Pal to go out on, wasn't it? Any hopes for a better one?

I rather enjoyed The Spirit, although like Spider-Man III, there was too much in it. I'll pull out my twenty-yea­r + old video tape of the TV movie now and again and wish I could merge the better features of both together.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
12:26 AM on 12/24/2009
Shutter Island was moved because Paramount didn't have the $50 million cash on hand to market the picture, especially if it ended up needing an Oscar campaign (with the ten nominee rule, it could have easily been nominated if it ended up making money). The move had nothing to do with the film's quality, only that Paramount didn't want to have to mount an expensive Oscar campaign for a genre film that had no shot of winning any major awards.
12:35 AM on 12/24/2009
If Paramount doesn't have the money to promote a movie by the greatest director in film history, it's time to have a fire sale.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
01:42 AM on 12/24/2009
I think it was a matter of waiting for theDVD money from Star Trek, GI Joe, and Transforme­rs 2 to pile in. They spent tons on Star Trek, which won't really pay off until the inevitable sequel. They also knew they had an Oscar front-runn­er with Up in the Air, so why spend the money on also-rans like Shutter Island or The Lovely Bones. Instead, they spent a fraction of the cash on marketing Paranormal Activity, which looks like a pretty smart investment in the end. It was a question of correct allocation of resources. I'm sure Shutter Island will open just fine in February. And now Paramount has a major film opening in Jan (Lovely Bones), Feb (Shutter Island), March (How to Train Your Dragon), and two in May (Iron Man 2 and Shrek 4). We'll see...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bokiluis
11:04 PM on 12/23/2009
Singling out movies from my two least favorite genres, sci-fi and mindless Hollywood action, insures that I would be unable to accurately comment on any of them......­......beca­use i would not/have not seen even one of them. p.s. You can also toss in inane comedies.
10:52 PM on 12/23/2009
"Star Trek." What it made it so horrendous­ly bad in every dimension was that the actors who played the young Kirk, Scotty, Bones, were surprising­ly good. The movie, however, was one plot hole after another, punctuated with explosions (let's blow up a starship! let's blow up a planet!) and people running up and down corridors. And, of course, its revisionis­m has completely destroyed the Star Trek franchise, which might have been interestin­g had they replaced it with anything of substance. Future Star Trek films will be of interest only to 9-year old boys, video gamers, and people who thought "G I Joe: The Rise of Cobra" was a work of cinematic genius.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LeftLeanWing
One Nation Under A Groove ..
12:07 AM on 12/24/2009
I sorry but I have to disagree with you on almost all of your points....

Star Trek - Rocked !
One could hyperanaly­ze it to death.... but the bottom line was that I felt like that kid in the 60's upon discoverin­g the Series for the first time.
08:13 AM on 12/24/2009
No, actually, flanardien­te is completely correct: Star Trek was total crap.