Are these, then, the ten worst movies of 2014? Maybe not. But they sure are the ten worst I spent money on.
10) Maleficent. This movie wasn't all bad. Watching Angelina Jolie's Maleficent interact with hesitation and distaste with baby Aurora was amusing, and there were a couple of beautiful effects shots. Nevertheless, the story makes very little sense, characters' motivations and abilities aren't clear or consistent, and I just really don't care about Sleeping Beauty. There was potential here, but it's only about one third of a good movie. **1/2 out of ****
9) Godzilla. The trailer promised me Walter White vs. Godzilla, and as a lover of creature features I was excited to see that. Alas, Bryan Cranston (excellent, as always) disappears just a few minutes in, and the movie instead chooses to make his bland, instantly forgettable son the protagonist. The titular monster is also in surprisingly short supply: when Godzilla and the MUTOs do finally duke it out, the movie lives up to the expectations I had for it, but this flick spends waaaay too much time on the Basic White Guy Who Has To Save His Boring-Ass Family and nowhere near enough on Massive Monster Destruction. **1/2 out of ****
8) The Giver. Despite its place of honor in middle school curricula, I've never read the book but was familiar with the premise going in. It's generally rather pedestrian, but The Giver does make some interesting choices. Filming the first portion of the movie in black-and-white and gradually including color was a very nice touch, and I'll never argue with casting Jeff Bridges as the keeper of all human wisdom and feeling. The performances are generally good, and occasionally the script delivers some poignant moments. Where this movie really falls down is the direction. The pacing is incredibly uneven, lingering too long on scenes I didn't care about (why is Katie Holmes still in movies?!) and not spending enough time exploring the intellectual and moral dilemmas posed by its story. **1/2 out of ****
7) Divergent. I'm a sucker for YA dystopia, but Hunger Games just does it so much better. The reasoning behind the division of society into factions -- and why people so willingly conform to them -- is never thoroughly explained. Neither are the characters; even reveals that seem like they are meant to be big deals lack punch because we have no idea who any of these folks are. Shailene Woodley isn't bad as protagonist Tris -- although her developing a romantic relationship with her much older, much more powerful drill sergeant trips my feminist alarms -- but she doesn't bring the onscreen charisma that Jennifer Lawrence does to her Katniss. Charisma and energy are desperately needed everywhere in this movie, which manages to feel both much too long to retain interest and too short to feel fully explored. I'm all in favor of having more action movies with strong female protagonists, but they deserve better than this forgettable flick. ** out of ****
6) Non-Stop. The trailer sold this one basically as "Taken on an airplane." I like watching Liam Neeson destroy things, so I coughed up the $1.50 for a Redbox rental. Turns out I overpaid. Neeson does his best with the weak material, but even his trademark cool gravitas can't make up for the fact that his air marshal character makes monumentally stupid decisions at every possible occasion. For a while it's a tense little thriller, but revealing the real motivation of the bad guys manages to retroactively destroy the little energy this flick had going for it. But Lupita Nyong'o is (barely) in it, bumping it up a half-star. *1/2 out of ****
5) Pompeii. I knew exactly what I wanted out of this movie, and it was all promised in the title: some epic onscreen destruction. Stuff does indeed blow up real nice in this flick, but this would probably have fared better as a silent movie. The stabs at character veer wildly between Super Wooden (Kit Harington's Celt) and Snidely Whiplash (Keifer Sutherland, gnawing and gnashing all the scenery he can get his teeth on). Although director Paul W.S. Anderson does a credible, even enjoyable job with the destruction of Pompeii, I can't imagine anyone being interested in the limp romance between the two young characters, and watching Kit Harington outside of Game of Thrones is about as interesting as watching water boil. Actually, I take that back, because water does eventually do something if you boil it. You know nothing, Jon Snow. *1/2 out of ****
4) John Wick. My husband assures me I'm just the wrong audience for this movie, which he loved. I was bored almost instantly. Other than Wick himself, whose name is in the title and by whose full moniker everyone in this movie seems intent on addressing him, I have no idea what anyone was named in this movie, let alone why they were doing anything they did. Keanu wanted revenge for some guys stealing his car, I guess? It seems unreasonable to kill essentially everyone you encounter because Theon Greyjoy nicked your wheels, but whatever. This is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. * out of ****
3) 300: Rise of an Empire. I figured that I knew what I was getting into when I rented this sequel: unexamined Orientalism, paper-thin characterization, and a ton of oiled-up musculemen in leather undies. I actually enjoy the first 300 for what it is: a visually striking popcorn feast that, like movie theater popcorn, is best consumed quickly and without much thought. Unfortunately, even though Eva Green gives her scenery-chewing all as Persian warrior Artemisia, 300: Rise of an Empire commits what is, for me, the worst of cinema sins: it's deadly dull. The characters lack energy, the dialogue is as wooden as the ships, and the slow-motion combat that was new and interesting seven years ago now just feels like a retread. * out of ****
2) I, Frankenstein. I watched this one because, as a student of Romantic literature, I was curious to see what the filmmakers had done to Mary Shelley's masterpiece. Oof. Other than the name there's essentially no connection to the slim 1818 novel and its musings on the nature of discovery and the power of empathy. Of course, I wasn't expecting any of that from the trailer, which promised demons and gargoyles and heavy action scenes. I was expecting a "good bad movie," something to have a good time hate-watching. Alas, although it is chock-full of action sequences, there's precious little else going for it: the dialogue is laughably overwrought and the plot doesn't even make standard action-movie sense. To paraphrase the words of Shelley's Creature: "Hateful day when this movie received life!" * out of ****
1) The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I wasn't incredibly keen on the first Amazing Spider-Man, which promised much more than it delivered. This one is so, so much worse. Andrew Garfield brings some fun, snarky energy to the role of Peter Parker, but the plot feels like Sony threw a bunch of ideas in a blender and filmed whatever came out. Characters do things that make absolutely no sense. Plot points occur only because the story demands them, not because they are at all plausible or even consistent with reality. Just when we think this overstuffed heap of nonsense might finally be over, it throws more baddies at us -- once more completely without setup or context. Worst of all, this movie buys into the lazy, sexist plot device of "fridging" Gwen Stacy -- a term coined by Gail Simone to describe the meaningless killing off of a female character, usually the hero's love interest, just to bump up the hero's angst. With the budget and canon Sony had at their disposal, there's simply no excuse for this movie to be this bad. More isn't always better, Sony. Most of the time, it's just more crap I don't want to watch. ZERO out of ****
And that's all she wrote, folks! What movies did you hate most in 2014?
No comments:
Post a Comment