Top 5 Disappointing Films of 2012

As we near the end of the year, it's time to start looking back on the year in movies. My lists of the worst and best films of the year won't be coming for a few weeks, but today I decided to do a different list. Why? Well, 2012 was actually such a great year for movies that, when looking back on the films I have seen this year (not counting any re-releases), I feel that I have only seen one truly godawful film all year, meaning that I can't really do a 'Top 5 Worst Films of the Year'. Unless I do see some of the 'bad' films that came out this year, most of the films I would have put on that list would have been films that I actually did like. So, here are five films that had a lot of potential but in the end failed to meet expectations. For the record, I didn't necessarily dislike any of the films that are on this list, but in the end, they just didn't work in some way. So, with that in mind, let's get started as I count down the Top 5 most disappointing films of 2012.

 

Starting off this list is a movie that sadly came from one of the most respected film studios working today. Last year, they released what many call their first 'bad' movie and while this film received better reception, it still wasn't up to par with the company's greatest works. I am of course referring to...

5. BRAVE

It truly is sad for me to put this film on this list, because I love Pixar. Their movies are not only great for kids, but some of the routes that they take with their movies also make them highly entertaining even for adults. Just look at the opening sequence from 'Up' or the dark turn taken near the end of 'Toy Story 3' and you'll see what I'm talking about. But their last two movies haven't been on the same level of quality as all of their other works. I'll admit that I did like 'Cars 2', primarily because I was a fan of the first film. So what went wrong with their latest film Brave? Well, the film starts out really well with what is probably the most mature story Pixar has ever done yet and it establishes the lead character of Merida as a strong female character. But then, once the second half of the movie starts, it quickly shifts to a more kid-friendly story. The trailers implied that Merida was going to change her own fate, but really it was her trying to get along with her mother and then accidentally turning her into a bear and trying to change her back before it's too late. To be fair, the animation is still excellent and the film does have a good message of mother-daughter bonding, but this one wasn't as groundbreaking as some of Pixar's best. That is why it takes the number five spot on this list.

Next up is a more recent film that drew you in with its ambition and scope, but in the end I just felt that it didn't really do much for me.

4. CLOUD ATLAS

For the record, I never read the book this film was originally based on, but even with some of the research that I did beforehand (the trailer really didn't even explain what the movie was actually about), I was still lost after watching this near three-hour epic. No, I do not think this is a bad movie, because I do admire the filmmakers' ambition and in terms of adapting a novel that was deemed unfilmable, they actually did make it work on the big screen. Really, the thing that loses me is how the six separated story-lines in the film, set across time, are supposed to be 'connected'. The only way I felt that these stories were even connected at all was because the members of the cast portrayed different characters in each storyline. Again, this may be because I didn't read the book, but to me this film just fell flat. On the other hand, I actually recommend this movie because it is one of those movies that you should see and give your own opinion on.

At number three, we have another animated flick. This one in question is based on a famous kid's story by one of the most iconic authors of all time. On the other hand, this is an author whose stories have had a rather rocky run when it comes to attempts to bring them to the big screen.

3. THE LORAX

 



Adapting a Dr. Seuss book to the big screen is a very hard thing to do seeing how the books are very short, meaning that filmmakers have to add more to the plot to satisfy a film's run-time. Now, I loved 'The Grinch', as it was one of those films that I saw at a very young age. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's always great around Christmas. As for the other live-action Dr. Seuss movie, 'The Cat in the Hat'... the less said about that film, the better. Thankfully, Blue Sky Studios finally made a Dr. Seuss story work with 2008's 'Horton Hears a Who', which was strictly an animated film. The way I see it, that's how all Dr. Seuss stories should be... animated. So, what went wrong with Illumination Entertainment's take on Dr. Seuss' economic tale of a creature who 'speaks for the trees'? Well, the problem is the material that the filmmakers added just to make it work on the big screen in the first place. The best part of this whole movie are the scenes that were actually based on the book, and Danny DeVito and Ed Helms do great jobs as the Lorax and the Onceler. But as for the main storyline of a kid named Ted trying to impress an older girl named Audrey by trying to find a real tree, that part of the movie falls flat. Really, this whole movie is just generic. Generic protagonists, generic villain, generic sidekicks, etc. It's a film that is just not worthy of being based on a Dr. Seuss story.

At number two, we have a war film which was produced by a company responsible for two of the most famous movie franchises of all time. What could go wrong? Well...

2. RED TAILS

Red Tails was the first film in years to be made by Lucasfilm that was not associated with the Star Wars or Indiana Jones franchises. With both franchises' recent efforts in mind, I went into this film hoping that this would improve on what George Lucas has made recently. However, in the end, Red Tails fell to the same problems that plagued the Star Wars prequels; a weak script and one-dimensional characters, including a 'villain' fighter pilot who spoke nothing but cliched dialogue. Now, it is clear that Lucas and company do have good intentions with making this movie and have nothing but respect for the Tuskegee Airmen, the World War II fighter pilots for whom this film is based off of. But, if we are talking about the biographical aspect of the film, it didn't even really go into much of the challenges that these men faced on their way to becoming legends. Like the prequels, this movie was entertaining but in the end, Lucas could have done a whole lot better. Not a good way to start off 2012 (this was actually the first movie I saw all year), but thankfully things got better.

And finally, it's time for number one. Here is my pick for the most disappointing film of 2012. The culprit...

1. THE BOURNE LEGACY

I am both depressed and sort of angry over how this movie turned out. I went into it having just watched the entire Bourne trilogy, which is easily one of the best trilogies ever made as all three films are well-written and very thrilling spy movies. With this new film, star Matt Damon and 'Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum' director Paul Greengrass are both absent. Instead, in the leading role this time is Jeremy Renner, fresh off of this year's 'Avengers', and in the director chair this time around is Tony Gilroy, who previously written all three Bourne films. The trailers promoted this film as revolving around Renner's character Aaron Cross as he goes against his superiors looking to finish what Jason Bourne started. Sounds awesome, right? Well, I must have seen a different movie because the one I saw was a bare-bones thriller. What this movie was really about was that Aaron Cross was looking for his medication which gave him enhanced physical and mental capabilities. As for the whole Bourne thing, Matt Damon's picture is seen throughout the film. That's it. As for action, pretty much every action sequence was in the trailer. It is very clear why Damon and Greengrass left the franchise if this is the route they're taking now. Now, this film isn't all that bad. Jeremy Renner does prove that he can lead a movie on his own, even if the character of Cross is a little flat, and Rachel Weisz also does a great job as Cross' ally Marta. But seriously filmmakers, if you have Edward Norton in your film, actually use him. Don't promote him as the villain and just have him stand over computer monitors and bark orders at people. No, this movie isn't really that bad, but it's a severe letdown after a terrific trilogy of films. That is why it is my pick for the most disappointing film of 2012.

Cloud Atlas (2012) review

To put it bluntly, Cloud Atlas will go down as one of the most ambitious movies ever made. A near three-hour epic spanning across centuries with the members of its cast portraying multiple characters through six separate storylines across time. Yes, the latest film from the Wachowskis and Tom Twyker is one to be admired for this trio's efforts of adapting a novel that many deemed unfilmable and making it work on the big screen. This is a film that I cannot explain completely just through words. But one thing that is certain is that this is not a perfect film. On one hand, it's compelling, well-acted, and it stays consistent in the right areas when it needs to be. However, the way it juggles these multiple storylines is rather problematic and it's not entirely clear how all of these storylines connect to each other in the first place.

Cloud Atlas is not a single story, but a group of stories that takes us from the 19^th century to a post-apocalyptic future. We follow a notary (Jim Sturgess) as he travels across the sea whilst battling an illness, a musician (Ben Whishaw) as he writes music for an old composer, a journalist (Halle Berry) as she investigates into a unsafe power plant, a publisher (Jim Broadbent) as he tries to escape from a mental hospital in which he is confined in, a fabricant (Doona Bae) as she escapes to inspire a rebellion in a dystopian future, and a tribesman (Tom Hanks) in the post-apocalyptic future. Throughout the film, we learn how the actions of one character impacts another in the past and future and how a killer can be a hero in another life, and vice versa.

First off, you have to admire this film's scope and ambition. There really hasn't been a film like this before that has tried to juggle all of these storylines into one single film and for the most part, it works very well here. The narrative never falls apart at any point, even when the film starts to move rapidly through all of these storylines. However, there's one problem that emerges from this. It seems like some of these six stories felt more important than others. The two segments set in the future seem to get the most screen-time out of all of the six storylines, but the segments about the musician and the notary seem unimportant as the film spends more time in other eras than these two. The segment with the journalist almost falls to that level, but it does get really thrilling near the end. Finally, the segment about the publisher has the best humor in the entire film. So basically, the two future segments and the one with the publisher are the standout parts of the film.

Really when you get down to it, I actually didn't see how all of these stories were supposed to be connected. This might be because I never read the book this was based on, but to me the only real ways these stories were connected were for two reasons. First of all, excluding the first story, the main character of each proceeding storyline learns of the previous' main character's adventure through various means, whether it is a diary or a 'dramatic reenactment'. Aside from that, we of course have the fact that these actors portrayed multiple characters across time periods. Part of me feels like that wasn't necessary, but it is pretty cool to see each actor in different roles and see how they adapt to each character they play. Some of these characters even have them doing something that is against what they are used to, as some of these characters have them change race and even gender on some occasions.

That does not mean that this is a bad movie, because it is far from it. Even though it's almost three-hours long (apparently it's much longer overseas), it's never really dull and it's just plain intriguing to watch. Even if some storylines are focused on more than others, the tone is very consistent and it never really makes any jarring shifts, except for one instance where we transition from a light-hearted chase scene to a thriller. The acting is also very solid, and there is not a single bad performance from this cast. The standout would probably have to be Tom Hanks (one of the few who is literally in every era), but we also have strong performances from Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving (even though pretty much all of his characters are bad guys (although he was awesome as this demon spirit-like character in the post-apocalyptic future)), Jim Sturgess, Jim Broadbent, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Grant, and Susan Sarandon.

Really, I just don't know what to say about this film. On one hand, I admire this film's ambition, its scope, and the terrific cast. But this is not exactly a perfect film either. I couldn't really see how all of these stories were supposed to be connected aside from the fact that each actor was playing different characters through time. On top of that, I feel that more was needed for some of the other segments not set in the future, but then again that would probably detract from the original source material. To its credit, the film never got dull and even though I never read the book this was based on, it wasn't really that confusing. However, I would recommend you at least read up on this book before seeing the film because otherwise you'll probably be confused at what's going on. 

Rating: 3/5



2012 End of Year Preview: Part 2: October

Welcome back to this 4-part look into the upcoming movies in the final quarter of 2012. This is Part 2 and today we'll be looking into the films coming out during the month of Halloween, October.

*Director Tim Burton's first film of the year, May's 'Dark Shadows', was neither a critical or commercial hit. But Burton isn't done yet this year, as his second film 'Frankenweenie' hits theaters on October 5^th. Like with many of his previous projects, this film is a remake but this remake just so happens to be based off one of Burton's old projects of the same name, a live-action 1984 short film which he made while working for Disney about a young boy who re-animates his dog Sparky back to life after he died. This new version is stop-motion and stars many actors who were in previous Burton films, including Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, and Martin Landau.

*2008's 'Taken' was one of the first to establish Liam Neeson as a premier action star. He returns to his role of ex-CIA agent Bryan Mills in 'Taken 2'. This new film follows Mills as he travels to Istanbul on vacation with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). Mills soon runs into trouble again when he runs into a group of gangsters looking to enact revenge on Mills for their comrades who he killed in the first film. 'Taken 2' hits theaters on October 5^th.

*Ben Affleck proved that he is a all-star director with the acclaimed Boston thrillers 'Gone Baby Gone' and 'The Town'. For his third directorial effort, Affleck leaves Boston for Iran with 'Argo', which is based off of the true events of a rescue attempt by the U.S. government to save six U.S. diplomats during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. Affleck stars as Tony Mendez, a CIA agent who comes up with a plan to convince Iran that the diplomats are a part of a film crew who are scouting on location for a science fiction movie. The film also stars Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, and Alan Arkin and will hit theaters on the 12^th.

*For those looking for a comedy, 'Here Comes the Boom', the latest from Happy Madison, comes out the same weekend as Argo. Kevin James stars as a biology teacher who becomes an MMA fighter when budget cuts threaten his school.

*October 19^th sees the release of the latest entry in the highly successful Paranormal Activity franchise, 'Paranormal Activity 4'. While the last two entries in this series were prequels, this is the first true sequel to the original film from 2007. This film follows a young teen and her mother who start to experience strange events in their home when the series' main character Katie, now possessed by a demon, moves in next door with her sister's son Hunter, now called 'Robbie'. Paranormal Activity 3 directors Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost return to helm this new film.

*That same weekend sees the release of spy thriller 'Alex Cross'. It is the third adaptation of the hit book series of the same name by author James Patterson. The previous two films, 'Kiss the Girls' and 'Along Came a Spider' starred Morgan Freeman in the role of Cross. This film stars Tyler Perry as Cross, who fights a serial killer known as 'The Butcher', played by Matthew Fox.

*The final big-name release in October is the much talked about 'Cloud Atlas', an epic adventure film from the creators of 'The Matrix'. Set during multiple time periods, the ensemble cast includes Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, and Jim Broadbent. It is based on the 2004 novel of the same name by author David Mitchell and will be released on the 26^th.

Nothing really major in terms of limited releases this month, so that's it for October. Check back soon for Part 3 where we take a look into the month of November.