Oh, poor 2015. Does anyone even talk about you, or are you simply the world's most forgotten year? I mean, I suppose that's a good thing, since nothing super bad happened. It wasn't an election year. It wasn't an Olympic year. No Transformers movies came out. But honestly. 2015 is one of the least talked-about years since, like, 1996.
That, however, does not mean 2015 didn't have some terrible movies. It did. 2015, you are not exempt from my roasting. Let it begin.
Jupiter Ascending
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 26%. "Pleasing to the eye but narratively befuddled, Jupiter Ascending delivers another visually thrilling misfire from the Wachowskis."
Rundown of the plot: Oh man. Earth was seeded by a huge galactic corporation who make immortality juice out of human flesh, and so Earth is one of the universe's most valuable commodities, and Jupiter (Mila Kunis), a simple Earth girl, is the reincarnation of the former head of said corporation, and so her crazy son (Eddie Redmayne) wants to kill her, and her other son (Douglas Booth) wants to marry her and then kill her, and her protector is Channing Tatum, a half-dog who wears boots that shoot lasers and can fly. Also, Mila Kunis has a dog fetish.
Why was this movie so bad?: First of all, full disclosure. I felt that I couldn't be intellectually honest by making this list and not having Jupiter Ascending on it. That being said, I am coming out of the closet (was I ever in the closet?) as somebody who loved the fuck out of Jupiter Ascending. I support this movie. I think Eddie Redmayne was robbed of a second Oscar.
Jupiter Ascending doesn't have a lot going for it. It's confusing, sloppy, ludicrous, unintentionally funny, and misses a lot of marks that it aims for. And most importantly, the two leads couldn't possibly have had less chemistry, even if they were replaced with early 2000s Bennifer. The movie bombed at the box office, and with critics. But I have long thought that Jupiter Ascending could be the kind of movie that turns into a cult hit. I've already seen a few articles from critics who say that this movie was unfairly treated, and a few comments from critics about how it is, at least, campy fun.
This movie is not quite wildly inventive enough to be called bonkers, but it's up there. It has some hilarious lines, eye candy, and a performance from Eddie Redmayne to make you say, "What the fuck?" Basically, it's good-bad. Whether it's good-bad enough to redeem the purely bad parts of it, I can't say - you'll have to find out for yourself. I recommend trying it out. (Frankly, this is probably the only film on this list where I'm gonna say that about it.)
Strange Magic
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 18%. "Like most modern animated movies, Strange Magic is lovely to look at; unfortunately, there isn't much going on beneath the surface."
Rundown of the plot: An animated film. Something something fairies, blah blah blah musical, yada yada yada the power of love.
Why was this movie so bad?: First thing to note: we don't know the exact number, but Strange Magic may have had a budget in excess of $100 million. (At the very least, $70 million.) It grossed $13 million, and broke the record for lowest-ever ticket sales for an animated movie, over The Wild Thornberrys Movie (goddamn, they made a movie out of that??). I'm thinking people didn't really wanna see this. Just a wild guess.
On top of that, I take issue with the concept that Strange Magic is "lovely to look at." This critics' consensus is bullshit, because Strange Magic looks terrible. The best thing I can say about these hideous character designs is that it's pretty obvious a lot of moola was poured into making this thing look half-decent. But shiny hair and decent lighting do not a pretty movie make. Strange Magic is ugly. It makes your eyeballs feel slimy.
George Lucas spent 15 years trying to make this mess of a musical, which was called "unpleasant," "unappealing," and "jaw-droppingly terrible" by critics. There are some movies where you get a special feeling while watching them: you squirm, you wince, and you retreat to a place in the back of your head - a happy place where you don't have to watch Strange Magic.
Chappie
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 31%. "Chappie boasts more of the big ideas and visual panache that director Neill Blomkamp has become known for — and, sadly, more of the narrative shortcomings."
Rundown of the plot: A programmer (Dev Patel) invents artificial intelligence and puts it in a police robot. Great idea, you absolute fucking genius. Anyway, the robot accidentally gets mixed up with a bunch of gangsters (played by Die Antwoord, the world's most annoying band, for some awful reason). A spree of robbery, violence, and murder ensues.
Why was this movie so bad?: I don't remember having such a visceral reaction to any other movie in the theatres. I hated Chappie. Now, mind you, I haven't seen this movie since 2015 - and I'm never going to see it again, mark my words - so I can't give you a completely accurate summary of what I hated. But I can tell you this: multiple times, I was on the verge of walking out.
Frankly, Chappie is an ugly, meaningless, heartless piece of crap. I did not have a good time. Every single character is an asshole, every single moment is painful to watch, the plot is ludicrous, the ending is mindless, the violence is pointless, the color palate is hideous, and basically every moment of this steaming dumpster pile is an assault on your senses, your conscience, and you as a human being.
I am serious. I goddamn hate Chappie. If you liked Chappie, we cannot be friends. Full stop.
Pixels
Rundown of the plot: Adam Sandler plays a video-game-loving douche who manages to put his skills to good use when aliens, taking the form of beloved game characters, attack Earth.
Why was this movie so bad?:Well, I mean, I'm tempted to just say "it was Adam Sandler." Sandler has made exactly two not-horrible movies in the past decade, and those are Hotel Transylvania and Hotel Transylvania 2. I am fully serious. He has made literally nothing else that is not a dumpster fire. If you were forced to watch Sandler's filmography from 2008 onwards, by the time you got to Hotel Transylvania, you would probably start sobbing with relief as its gentle non-offensiveness washed over your eyes. Jack and Jill makes Hotel Transylvania look like Finding Nemo.
So, because of Sandler's reverse-Midas touch (everything he touches turns to shit), Pixels was doomed from the start. Despite actually having a decent premise and great visuals, this real-world version of Wreck-It Ralph lacked charm, good humor, and basically any reason whatsoever to care about its douchy characters. If you removed the Sandler influence from this movie, and with it removed his shitty brand of humor and his penchant for having every character in his movies be a jerk, Pixels might have been awesome. As it stands, it's all but unwatchable.
Pan
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 27%. "Pan finds a few bursts of magic in its prequel treatment of classic characters, though not enough to offset the rushed plot and shrill, CGI-fueled action."
Rundown of the plot: A Peter Pan reboot/prequel, where the young Peter is played by Levi Miller, whose sole other big credit to date is co-starring in A Wrinkle in Time. (Is this guy the kid version of Taylor Kitsch?) Some pirate called Blackbeard is the villain (Hugh Jackman, who has been taking hammier and hammier roles in recent years, in what I can only assume is a desperate desire to break free from the growly seriousness of Wolverine).
Why was this movie so bad?: Sadly, this may well be the best film included on this list.
Pan was mired in controversy for casting Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, as Mara is as white as the driven snow, while Tiger Lily is Native American. And I guess Mara didn't learn her lesson, because this year, she is starring as Mary freakin' Magdalene. Take. A. Hint.
Due to its bloated $150 million budget and marketing, Pan needed to take in at least $400 million to not be a failure. Its final gross - $128 million. It's one of the biggest box-office bombs not just of 2015, but of all time. Audiences may have avoided it because of the Tiger Lily controversy, or because it was a weird-ass little movie.
The CGI is soulless, the plot seems to want to set up a Peter Pan cinematic universe (ugh), and it somehow manages to be flashy and loud without being any fun at all. Most weirdly, the villain is not the recognizable Captain Hook - who has been turned into a good guy? - but some random pirate named Blackbeard, played a manically hammy Hugh Jackman, who performs "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Blitzkrieg Bop" for some reason. Altogether, Pan was a mistake.
Mortdecai
Rundown of the plot: Based on a series of novels, this comedic thriller follows the exploits of an art dealer played by Johnny Depp.
Why was this movie so bad?: Don't ask me, ask the critics. "Brainless." "Strenuously unfunny." "Grueling." "Awful." "Embarrassing." "Monstrosity." "Abysmal." "I have seen worse films, but I'm not sure I've seen a worse performance."
Nominated for Worst Actor, Worst Actress and Worst Screen Combo (Johnny Depp and his glued-on mustache) at the Razzies, this was widely considered to be not only one of the worst films of the year, but also one of the worst of Depp's career. It was considered weird, awkward and unfunny by everyone. It also bombed at the box office, failing to recoup its meager $60 million budget.
I tried to watch a few clips from Mortdecai to get a sense of it, and it was a painful experience. This video is titled "The Best Scene from Mortdecai," and if that is the best scene from the movie... god help everyone who had a hand in crafting this miserable failure. (Directed by the same guy who did Ghost Town and Premium Rush?? WTF happened to him???)
What I'm getting out of this whole debacle is this: Johnny Depp has been taught that he can just act like a crazy person and rake in those millions. But the viewers have sternly told him, "Not anymore, buddy."
Jem and the Holograms
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 19%. "Jem and the Holograms ignores its source material's goofy charm in favor of bland by-the-numbers drama."
Rundown of the plot: This reboot stars Aubrey Peeples as Jerrica, who Hannah Montanas herself into a mysterious singer called Jem with the help of a hologram that disguises her. (I guess the title is pretty self-explanatory.)
Why was this movie so bad?: In theory, it was a great idea to reboot the campy 1980s animated series Jem and the Holograms, since everyone is into the 80s (and neon stuff) nowadays. However, only in theory. In practice? No. This movie was truly outrageous, and not in a good way.
Jem and the Holograms' trailer garnered negative reception from Jem fans, and it probably didn't help its prospects that it starred a bunch of unknowns. (Plus Molly Ringwald for some reason. Prime 80s nostalgia, I guess?) With lack of interest from fans of the original cartoon and the average moviegoer alike, Jem and the Holograms tanked. It had a $5 million budget and couldn't even make that much, grossing only $2.3 million and becoming one of the biggest failures of 2015.
I think it's notable that Jem and the Holograms was released alongside The Last Witch Hunter, Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension, and Rock the Kasbah. Four of the worst movies of 2015, out at the same time. The fates have a sense of humor. However, even the huge bomb Rock the Kasbah grossed more than Jem did. Audiences completely rejected this movie, and so did critics, a lot of whom complained that the movie felt inauthentic and carefully calculated to appeal to millennials. (Which it failed to do, by the way.)
Man, I hope they don't get their grubby hands on She-Ra anytime soon. (In all seriousness, I typed this before learning that they have already got their grubby hands on She-Ra.)
90 Minutes in Heaven
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 24%. No consensus yet.
Rundown of the plot: Based on a "true story," this movie is about a pastor (who it pains me to tell you is played by Hayden Christensen) who dies for 90 minutes and experiences heaven.
Why was this movie so bad?: Let's speak honestly. Has Hayden Christensen starred in anything good? Ever? In his whole-ass, billion-dollar career? (He has a net worth of $12 million. My god. Those action figure royalties are still pouring in.)
Kate Bosworth also stars in this movie, whose makers - Giving Films - promised they'd give all proceeds to charity. Only, the movie didn't recoup its budget, which means exactly $0 ended up being given to charity. Critics thought the film was boring and sluggish. Let me put it this way: 90 Minutes in Heaven is no Miracles from Heaven. (Which was actually... and I'm not kidding... a pretty okay movie.)
Final note: They're adapting all these books about heaven, but I can't wait until they make a movie out of 23 Minutes in Hell. (That is seriously a real thing.)
Fant4stic
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 9%. "Dull and downbeat, this Fantastic Four proves a woefully misguided attempt to translate a classic comic series without the humor, joy, or colorful thrills that made it great."
Rundown of the plot: An origin story about the Fantastic Four, led by Miles Teller as Mr. Fantastic. Who spends half the movie hiding out in Central America. Actually, scratch that. Led by Kate Mara as the Invisible Woman. Whose horrible wig was an embarrassment to humanity at large. Actually, scratch that. Led by Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch, the only member of this cast to survive this shit-fest unscathed and go on to have a great career. God bless him.
Why was this movie so bad?: This is the worst-reviewed Marvel adaptation ever. The closest competitor is Elektra with 10%. And, damn, at least Elektra was a good time.
The production of Fantastic Four (or... sigh, Fan4stic) was plagued with problems, mostly related to the film's director, Josh Trank, also known for directing Chronicle. It was rumored that 20th Century Fox had a bad relationship with Trank due to his erratic behavior on set. Fox weren't happy with his version of the film, and reportedly made their own changes without Trank's involvement. They also ordered reshoots to... get this... make it less like Chronicle. (Chronicle has an 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe they should've thought a little harder.)
Trank was dissatisfied with the result, and made an infamous tweet about his feelings, claiming that his original version was "fantastic" and "would've received great reviews." Regardless of whether or not this was true, the end result was ghastly. Critics and fans hated the movie, and it was singled out as one of the worst of 2015, due to its gloomy mood, lack of fun and humor, and numerous continuity errors (vanishing facial hair, changing hairstyles) caused by the reshoots. Also, Kate Mara's awful wig. Oh, that wig.
In the past, I've defended the original Fantastic Four movies (from 2005 and 2007. Not the one from 1994. That one is undefendable). Before Fan4stic was released, my opinion was that the first two movies were not great, but not as terrible as everyone said they were. My opinion has changed. Now that we've seen how fucking bad it can get, we should all be on our knees begging for a sequel to Rise of the Silver Surfer. We didn't know how good we had it. Audiences were given two action-packed, fast-paced, humorous, campy, comics-faithful Fantastic Four movies. And we rejected them like they were dirt. And then, we were punished for it. Oh, were we punished.
Tim Story, come back. You are not the hero we deserve, but the hero we need. We beg you to rescue us.
Rundown of the plot: An origin story about the Fantastic Four, led by Miles Teller as Mr. Fantastic. Who spends half the movie hiding out in Central America. Actually, scratch that. Led by Kate Mara as the Invisible Woman. Whose horrible wig was an embarrassment to humanity at large. Actually, scratch that. Led by Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch, the only member of this cast to survive this shit-fest unscathed and go on to have a great career. God bless him.
Why was this movie so bad?: This is the worst-reviewed Marvel adaptation ever. The closest competitor is Elektra with 10%. And, damn, at least Elektra was a good time.
The production of Fantastic Four (or... sigh, Fan4stic) was plagued with problems, mostly related to the film's director, Josh Trank, also known for directing Chronicle. It was rumored that 20th Century Fox had a bad relationship with Trank due to his erratic behavior on set. Fox weren't happy with his version of the film, and reportedly made their own changes without Trank's involvement. They also ordered reshoots to... get this... make it less like Chronicle. (Chronicle has an 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe they should've thought a little harder.)
Trank was dissatisfied with the result, and made an infamous tweet about his feelings, claiming that his original version was "fantastic" and "would've received great reviews." Regardless of whether or not this was true, the end result was ghastly. Critics and fans hated the movie, and it was singled out as one of the worst of 2015, due to its gloomy mood, lack of fun and humor, and numerous continuity errors (vanishing facial hair, changing hairstyles) caused by the reshoots. Also, Kate Mara's awful wig. Oh, that wig.
In the past, I've defended the original Fantastic Four movies (from 2005 and 2007. Not the one from 1994. That one is undefendable). Before Fan4stic was released, my opinion was that the first two movies were not great, but not as terrible as everyone said they were. My opinion has changed. Now that we've seen how fucking bad it can get, we should all be on our knees begging for a sequel to Rise of the Silver Surfer. We didn't know how good we had it. Audiences were given two action-packed, fast-paced, humorous, campy, comics-faithful Fantastic Four movies. And we rejected them like they were dirt. And then, we were punished for it. Oh, were we punished.
Tim Story, come back. You are not the hero we deserve, but the hero we need. We beg you to rescue us.
Vacation
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 26%. "Borrowing a basic storyline from the film that inspired it but forgetting the charm, wit, and heart, Vacation is yet another nostalgia-driven retread that misses the mark."
Rundown of the plot: Since Chevy Chase is currently like 95 and out of his goddamn mind, a direct sequel to the 80s and 90s Vacation films was out of the question. Instead, they did a remake starring Ed Helms and Christina Applegate as the new Griswolds. (Chase has a supporting role, but come on, they can't make him the star. He's geriatric.)
Why was this movie so bad?: Speaking honestly: every year around Christmastime, I end up watching five minutes of Christmas Vacation. Usually, the part where the cat dies or the part where they turn the Christmas lights on. Then, I turn the channel. That's the extent of my exposure to the Vacation franchise, so I don't have any nostalgia for it whatsoever.
My exposure to the reboot is limited to the scene where the family swims in raw sewage. And frankly, that's enough for me.
Let's chalk this one up to another unnecessary reboot. Critics called this movie forgettable and unfunny, and let's just hope to god they don't make another one.
Rundown of the plot: Since Chevy Chase is currently like 95 and out of his goddamn mind, a direct sequel to the 80s and 90s Vacation films was out of the question. Instead, they did a remake starring Ed Helms and Christina Applegate as the new Griswolds. (Chase has a supporting role, but come on, they can't make him the star. He's geriatric.)
Why was this movie so bad?: Speaking honestly: every year around Christmastime, I end up watching five minutes of Christmas Vacation. Usually, the part where the cat dies or the part where they turn the Christmas lights on. Then, I turn the channel. That's the extent of my exposure to the Vacation franchise, so I don't have any nostalgia for it whatsoever.
My exposure to the reboot is limited to the scene where the family swims in raw sewage. And frankly, that's enough for me.
Let's chalk this one up to another unnecessary reboot. Critics called this movie forgettable and unfunny, and let's just hope to god they don't make another one.
Hot Pursuit
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 7%. "Shrill and unfunny, Hot Pursuit bungles what should have been an easy opportunity to showcase Reese Witherspoon and Sofia Vergara's likable odd-couple chemistry."
Rundown of the plot: A cop (Reese Witherspoon) and a mobster's widow (Sofia Vergara) go on some sort of wacky journey or something.
Why was this movie so bad?: Reese Witherspoon and Sofia Vergara both have comedic chops. This is obvious to everyone. So we must ask ourselves: how did this movie end up so terrible?
Rundown of the plot: A cop (Reese Witherspoon) and a mobster's widow (Sofia Vergara) go on some sort of wacky journey or something.
Why was this movie so bad?: Reese Witherspoon and Sofia Vergara both have comedic chops. This is obvious to everyone. So we must ask ourselves: how did this movie end up so terrible?
Unfortunately, no amount of camera focus on Vergara's enormous boobs could save this mess. Although they damn well tried. Hot Pursuit was relentlessly unfunny, even annoyingly so, and critics called it a lamer, more sexist version of The Heat. And I need to know: after directing four terrible comedies and Step Up, who lets Anne Fletcher keep making movies??? Someone has to be enabling her. And I need it to stop. Humanity needs it to stop.
Outcast
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 5%. No consensus yet.
Rundown of the plot: This American/Chinese/Canadian co-production is - in the tradition of The Great Wall - about two white dudes in China in the Middle Ages. And it delights me to tell you that the two white dudes are played by Hayden Christensen and Nicolas Cage. Two absolute fucking legends. When worlds collide, the result is bound to be extraordinary.
Why was this movie so bad?: Shockingly to no one, a Chinese war movie starring Hayden Christensen and Nicolas Cage... sorry, I need to catch my breath for a second... did not turn out to be a masterpiece.
I think it's easier to simply list the many elements of Outcast that faced mountains of criticism, so here I go:
The performances of Cage...
"Befuddling and sad"
"Silly"
...and Christensen
"Scowly and growly"
"Lifeless"
The weird accents
"Peculiar"
"Vaguely British"
"Less-than-consistent"
"Unpersuasive"
"Bizarre"
The production quality
"The shaky-cam fight scenes feel like they were edited by a random number generator"
"Action sequences that are shot from way too close, and are cut together so confusingly"
The plot
"Barnacle-encrusted," a description which made me giggle
"Little regard for characters or story"
"Formulaic"
The actors' performances in general
"Staggeringly bad"
The movie itself
"Abysmal"
"Boring"
"Horrendous"
"Stale"
I think you get the idea.
Rundown of the plot: This American/Chinese/Canadian co-production is - in the tradition of The Great Wall - about two white dudes in China in the Middle Ages. And it delights me to tell you that the two white dudes are played by Hayden Christensen and Nicolas Cage. Two absolute fucking legends. When worlds collide, the result is bound to be extraordinary.
Why was this movie so bad?: Shockingly to no one, a Chinese war movie starring Hayden Christensen and Nicolas Cage... sorry, I need to catch my breath for a second... did not turn out to be a masterpiece.
I think it's easier to simply list the many elements of Outcast that faced mountains of criticism, so here I go:
The performances of Cage...
"Befuddling and sad"
"Silly"
...and Christensen
"Scowly and growly"
"Lifeless"
The weird accents
"Peculiar"
"Vaguely British"
"Less-than-consistent"
"Unpersuasive"
"Bizarre"
The production quality
"The shaky-cam fight scenes feel like they were edited by a random number generator"
"Action sequences that are shot from way too close, and are cut together so confusingly"
The plot
"Barnacle-encrusted," a description which made me giggle
"Little regard for characters or story"
"Formulaic"
The actors' performances in general
"Staggeringly bad"
The movie itself
"Abysmal"
"Boring"
"Horrendous"
"Stale"
I think you get the idea.
United Passions
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 0%. No consensus yet.
Rundown of the plot: This is really something else, and you'll see why. This English-language, French-made misfire stars Tim Roth as Sepp Blatter, an awesome and all-around cool guy who becomes president of FIFA and bravely defeats the corrupt baddies. (This thing was almost fully funded by FIFA, by the way.)
Why was this movie so bad?: Guess what happened the year this was released? The 2015 FIFA scandal. During which it was revealed that Sepp Blatter was so goddamn corrupt, he basically had laundered money leaking from his ears in liquid form. He was ejected and banned from FIFA in December. Yup.
Besides being the equivalent of making an inspiring movie about Lance Armstrong, United Passions was just generally abysmal. Multiple critics have called it the worst movie ever made. Words used include "excrement," "cringeworthy," "amateurish," "bizarre," "deplorable," and you get the picture.
Say, when is the Kremlin going to fund my inspiring Vladimir Putin movie? I'm waiting on their phone call.
Rundown of the plot: This is really something else, and you'll see why. This English-language, French-made misfire stars Tim Roth as Sepp Blatter, an awesome and all-around cool guy who becomes president of FIFA and bravely defeats the corrupt baddies. (This thing was almost fully funded by FIFA, by the way.)
Why was this movie so bad?: Guess what happened the year this was released? The 2015 FIFA scandal. During which it was revealed that Sepp Blatter was so goddamn corrupt, he basically had laundered money leaking from his ears in liquid form. He was ejected and banned from FIFA in December. Yup.
Besides being the equivalent of making an inspiring movie about Lance Armstrong, United Passions was just generally abysmal. Multiple critics have called it the worst movie ever made. Words used include "excrement," "cringeworthy," "amateurish," "bizarre," "deplorable," and you get the picture.
Say, when is the Kremlin going to fund my inspiring Vladimir Putin movie? I'm waiting on their phone call.
The Ridiculous 6
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 0%. "Every bit as lazily offensive as its cast and concept would suggest, The Ridiculous Six is standard couch fare for Adam Sandler fanatics and must-avoid viewing for film enthusiasts of every other persuasion."
Rundown of the plot: You know all those westerns with numbers in the title? Hateful Eight? Magnificent Seven? Well, this is Adam Sandler's comedy version of that. I'm sorry to trigger your gag reflex. And since it's Adam Sandler, of course Rob Schneider and David Spade are in it, as well as a few more surprising names like Terry Crews, Taylor Lautner (he's still alive?), Luke Wilson... Blake Shelton?? Vanilla Ice???? Okay.
Why was this movie so bad?: I mean. It's a western comedy. Starring Adam Sandler and two of his Four Emperors (the other ones being Chris Rock and Kevin James, obviously). Of course it's shitty. Why is this even a question? Oh, and also it was kind of racist, because sure it was.
Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 5%. "Bathed in flop sweat and bereft of purpose, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 strings together fat-shaming humor and Segway sight gags with uniformly unfunny results."Rundown of the plot: Paul Blart (Kevin James) is overweight and falls down a lot. All you need to know.
Why was this movie so bad?: Look, I will be the first to admit that the first Paul Blart isn't all that bad. It's not Adam Sandler-bad. There, I said it.
Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, however? Well, Adam Sandler wishes he could make something so good, but it's still beyond shitty. The viewing public and professional reviewers decried the movie for being boring, predictable, awful, and for basically being 94 unfunny minutes of Kevin James throwing his weight around (pun totally intended) and making fun of his own girth, with absolutely no laugh-worthy results.
Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more comedies on this list. Comedies are the cesspool of cinema, and finding one that doesn't suck is like finding a unicorn in a garbage dump. You know I'm right.
Stonewall
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 10%. "As an ordinary coming-of-age drama, Stonewall is merely dull and scattered—but as an attempt to depict a pivotal moment in American history, it's offensively bad."
Rundown of the plot: All about the Stonewall riots in 1969, and a gay teenager (Jeremy Irvine)'s attempts to make sense of it all.
Why was this movie so bad?: Man. Roland Emmerich decided to take a break from destroying the world to make this terrible revisionist nightmare, and we all said, "Actually, Roland, you'd better stick to disaster from now on."
Critics thought it was bland, bungled, a mistake, lame and boring. But that's beside the point. Stonewall was plagued from the start with accusations that it was whitewashed and completely inaccurate: omitting historical figures, forgetting to recognize the contributions of trans people and people of color, and failing to give the story of Stonewall the gravity it deserved. Basically, Stonewall is the evil, evil twin of United Passions.
The controversy overshadowed the movie itself, and the protests against it definitely didn't help its miserable box office takings; it barely made a quarter of a million. Critics tore it apart and the public dismissed it, resulting in its total failure. I'm not going to say "we really didn't need this movie," because we probably did. But although we may have needed this movie, we didn't need this movie. If you know what I'm saying.
The Last Witch Hunter
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 16%. "Grim, plodding, and an overall ill fit for Vin Diesel's particular charms, The Last Witch Hunter will bore and/or confuse all but the least demanding action-fantasy fans."
Rundown of the plot: This should have been a run-of-the-mill action movie whose plot is explained completely by its title - Vin Diesel goes around hunting witches, à la Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - but instead, they threw in a bunch of fantasy bullshit and made the plot 10x more complicated than it needed to be. There's a ton of organizations, a witch/human treaty or something, a mystery to be solved, a bunch of nonsense about witch-human relations, a bunch of MacGuffins... sigh.
Why was this movie so bad?: Well, first off, see above. There was no need for all this complicated plot nonsense, as if they were trying to set up some kind of Last Witch Hunter cinematic universe or something. (Ha. Good luck with that, guys.)
Rundown of the plot: This should have been a run-of-the-mill action movie whose plot is explained completely by its title - Vin Diesel goes around hunting witches, à la Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - but instead, they threw in a bunch of fantasy bullshit and made the plot 10x more complicated than it needed to be. There's a ton of organizations, a witch/human treaty or something, a mystery to be solved, a bunch of nonsense about witch-human relations, a bunch of MacGuffins... sigh.
Why was this movie so bad?: Well, first off, see above. There was no need for all this complicated plot nonsense, as if they were trying to set up some kind of Last Witch Hunter cinematic universe or something. (Ha. Good luck with that, guys.)
Rock the Kasbah
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 9%. "The Shareef don't like Rock the Kasbah, and neither will viewers hoping for a film that manages to make effective use of Bill Murray's knack for playing lovably anarchic losers."
Rundown of the plot: For some reason, they decided to make a whole movie based on that song by the Clash. No, I don't know why either. Bill Murray briefly takes a break from crashing people's parties to play a washed-up rock manager who helps an Afghan singer win their version of American Idol. Which, I assume, is filmed in a kasbah.
Why was this movie so bad?: Reviewers tore this movie a new asshole for its unfunniness, blatant misogyny, and offensive portrayal of Afghan people. On top of that, it grossed $3 million, otherwise known as one-fifth of its budget. Rock the Kasbah had the fifth-worst opening of all time for a film opening in over 2,000 theatres, but was outpaced by one of its contemporaries, Jem and the Holograms, which was playing at the same time. Goddamn, was October 2015 ever a miserable time for movies.
Audiences thought this movie wasn't kosher. Fundamentally, they couldn't take it. You know they really hated it.
Taken 3
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 11%. "Hampered by toothless PG-13 action sequences, incoherent direction, and a hackneyed plot, Taken 3 serves as a clear signal that it's well past time to retire this franchise."
Rundown of the plot: For some reason, the bad guys can't leave Liam Neeson's badass former secret agent Bryan Mills and his family alone, and so this time, he has to get revenge for the murder of his wife (Famke Janssen).
Why was this movie so bad?: In 2008, Taken came out and we were all shocked that it actually managed to be good. It produced the most badass, quotable speech of all time, and turned Liam Neeson - who, by now, should really be thinking about moving into a retirement home - into one of the world's biggest action stars, a role which he holds to this day.
And so, naturally, they decided to follow it up with Taken 2. Which was terrible in comparison, and which no one liked. And despite this, they once again decided to serve us with yet another sequel that nobody wanted. Thus, Tak3n was born. (Ugh, this stupid trend of replacing letters with numbers. STOP THIS.)
Critics criticized the movie's sanitized action sequences, terrible plot, bad performances, weird editing, and the "bizarre" final sequence in which Liam Neeson fights the villain, his wife's new husband, who for some reason is in his underwear. The movie somehow managed to make over $300 million, but was still touted as the finale of the "Taken trilogy," and thank god, too.
Hitman: Agent 47
Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus: 9%. "Hitman: Agent 47 fails to clear the low bar set by its predecessor, forsaking thrilling action in favor of a sleekly hollow mélange of dull violence and product placement."
Rundown of the plot: In this second (!) attempt to make a film franchise out of the popular Hitman video games, Rupert Friend plays the titular emotionless assassin who was grown in a vat or something, while Hannah Ware plays the daughter of the scientist who engineered him.
Why was this movie so bad?: I saw this at the movies. It wasn't that bad. I mean... I didn't want to throw myself off a bridge after 96 minutes in this world, is what I'm saying. But damn, that doesn't mean it was good.
Agent 47 included not one but two scenes which suggested they desperately wanted to make sequels, including the ending scene - it finishes with a cliffhanger gun battle between agents 47 and 48, which I imagine would be immensely frustrating if you actually enjoyed this movie - and a post-credits scene where the villain (Zachary Quinto) is seen to have survived after all. But despite all this Marvel-aping nonsense, this boring, by-the-numbers action movie never saw a follow-up. It managed to recoup its surprisingly meager $32 million budget, but still, I imagine an $82 million gross was probably not what 20th Century Fox was hoping for. It was also hated by critics, who called it uneven and dull, and accused it of ripping off other, better movies.
In 2015, producer Adrian Askarieh said that there might be a film universe with Hitman, Tomb Raider, and some other video games. However, when the movie Tomb Raider was released in 2018, Askarieh - and 20th Century Fox - weren't involved, suggesting that this planned film universe had quietly ended before it began. This was the last we heard about any potential Hitman sequels. Here's hoping they don't try to reboot it a third time. We didn't need a second movie in the first place. Hell, we didn't need the first!
Looking back in 2015, damn, it was kind of a bad year for movies. Especially October. Oh, woeful October. And believe you me, there are even more that I chose not to discuss: some because they just bored me too much (what can I possibly say about Point Break other than "I can't believe they rebooted Point Break"?), some because their awfulness was bland and pretty much a given (Paranormal Activity 25, I'm looking at you), and some because I knew literally nothing about them and was too lazy to do the research (hello, The Cobbler).
But don't blame some mystical quality about 2015 for this proliferation of bad movies. Every year has its stinkers. And in 2019, rest assured, I'm going to take 2018 to task for its own mistakes. (Winchester, Death Wish, and Sherlock Gnomes: best watch yourselves.)
No comments:
Post a Comment