We were originally going to do two separate lists of Most Disappointing and Most Overrated films of 2009 but as we were getting it together, we realized that many of the films could have easily landed in both categories. We don’t necessarily hate the films below, but these are pictures that we went into with a lot of anticipation or had pre-built buzz that ultimately left us a bit cold (some obviously more than others, read on). These are the films we wish were better, or in a few cases, or just not what their respective fanboy cults make them out to be. Hell, with a few tweaks, some of these may have ended up vying for our favorite films of the year but as it stands these one just didn’t quite come together.
“Avatar”
How can James Cameron’s space epic not be the most overrated film of 2009, if not the entire decade? It’s already passed the $1.5 fucking billion dollar mark worldwide and will probably sail past the “Titanic” mark for highest grossing film of all time. But c’mon people! It’s simplistic, formulaic, unsophisticated and features some pretty stock characters we’ve seen a thousand times (with some pretty mediocre actors, hello Sam Worthington). Yes, there’s no denying that “Avatar” was entertaining and sure, at times a hell of a lot of fun, but it’s “Dances With Wolves” in space (and a little “Thundercats” thrown in) no matter how you slice it and ultimately, pretty conventional. The film might have done gangbusters numbers, but to quote Roger Ebert, “the year’s best picture? Give me a f–king break.”
“Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans”
We’re not sure why this film became a cause of celebre for hipsters (other than their predictable predilection for ironic performances), but if it had gone straight-to-video and wasn’t directed by Werner Herzog would anyone have even given a shit? Yes, there are some distinctly Herzog-ian camera tricks, some out-and-out WTF moments that are amusing and Nicolas Cage hasn’t been this interesting in years (though when you’ve spent a decade making an endless string of crap anything with a gram of integrity is going to stand out). But the film itself is a uninteresting police procedural, that feels like a hastily cobbled together paycheck gig and it’s so drastically uneven, the two hours it takes to watch it feels like an entire afternoon.
“Precious”
Clumsy, ham-fisted, sloppy, and stylistically incongruous, “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” is the cinematic equivalent of fingerpainting. Even the largely terrific performances (rising above racial caricature whenever possible) and the film’s big-hearted sentiment can’t overcome the fact that the movie is a huge fucking mess, in which merely wallowing in human misery (but never transcending it) is enough. Mercifully, the overwhelming critical support seems to have tapered off and its Oscar chances seem to be dwindling as well, but people still seem to be confusing this malicious, manipulative movie with one that’s genuinely powerful.
“Brüno”
God, we nearly pissed our pants laughing with paralytical convulsions at SXSW when we were shown 20 minutes of footage from Sacha Baron Cohen’s follow-up to “Borat.” We assumed we’d be vomit laughing when this came out, but sadly, no, “Bruno,” was a deeply flawed effort, seemingly compromised from several angles (that tacked-on, feel-good ending being one) and basically like a sketch collection of a few scenes that were sadly not as funny as we all hoped. Worse than that, what moments were hilarious from the film have all but evaporated from our memory — nothing truly comedic enough to stick in our minds and quote annoyingly for months like “Borat” (and maybe that’s for the best).
“Capitalism: A Love Story”
While we may not always approve of his methods (his fudging of facts to suit his arguments can be troubling at times), Michael Moore’s documentaries have always been fascinating, and most importantly, found the human side of whatever issue he was tackling. When it was announced that his latest film would take dead aim at the failed banking system and housing collapse, it seemed like a perfect fit for Moore. Unfortunately, while Moore’s indignation was palpable and occasionally very rousing, the film was disappointingly lacking in substance. Bereft of interviews or material from key players within the economic collapse, the documentary is pretty much a lot of furrowed brows, shrugging shoulders and tears for ninety minutes. There is a great, provocative documentary to be made from the events over the past year, but this one isn’t it.
“Funny People”
Ah, hell we should have known. While Judd Apatow’s epic script for his cancer, self-discovery dramedy was hilarious and his most mature effort to date — inside it was the incredibly exciting potentially for creating a soulful, funny/sad James L.Brooks-like masterpiece — but there was always something off with that third act. The film had a stellar cast of Apatow regulars, plus new editions to the crew like Eric Bana, RZA, Aziz Ansari and Jason Schwartzman, but in execution, Apatow didn’t quite know how to land his massive airship once it took such majestic flight. The exorbitantly lengthy film — it’s almost impossible to sustain a 2 1/2 hour comedy — is akin to Apatow pitching seven amazing innings, but ultimately, he just didn’t know how to close, and the game went far too deep into unnecessary extra innings, spoiling what led up to it. A bit of shame, cause there’s some great stuff in this picture.
“Public Enemies”
On paper, Michael Mann’s period-piece gangster picture should have been one of the greatest movies of the year, an Academy Award contender; all of it. Heavyweights Johnny Depp and Christian Bale going toe to toe, plus an amazing cast that included Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup, Stephen Dorff, Lili Taylor, Channing Tatum, Giovanni Ribisi, Emilie de Ravin and Stephen Lang (just to name a few)? C’mon! But sadly, something went awry and that ineffable missing element might have been a soul, as the picture — a sprawling 2 1/2 hours — never really coalesced or came to life until the very end, but by then it was a little too late. While Mann’s attention to detail is second to none, perhaps that meticulousness sidetracked him from the heart of the matter. Plus the decision to shoot a Depression-era period drama in butty-ugly digital video — hey, digital can look good, just not here — will haunt him for years.
“Broken Embraces”
Damn, we wanted to love this film because, even though it didn’t quite work, it had so much going for it. Blessed with a beautiful score, a luminous performance by Penelope Cruz and Pedro Almodovar’s always reliable eye behind the camera, the perhaps too-complicated “Broken Embraces” still didn’t fully gel. The meta-narrative, that was based around time-jumping flashbacks and various films-within-the-film never could keep up with itself and seemed to get in the way more often than allowing the story engine to move forward. Somewhere along the way, the film’s story about a call girl’s journey from prostitute to artistic muse, coupled with Almodovar’s love letter to cinema, didn’t quite resonate as deeply as we had hoped.
“Thirst”
After coming off the apparently unsuccessful, romantic comedy, “I’m a Cyborg, But That’s OK,” we were hoping Park Chan-Wook (the director of the critically acclaimed vengeance trilogy featuring “Oldboy”) would come back with a well…a vengeance. And while his absurdist vampire romance-thriller was bloodthirsty, stylish and ambitious as all get out, it was also a bit of a wandering, muddled and confused mess. Yes, it had moments of brilliance and comedy and his trademark audacious camera doing some dazzling work, but it also felt like the South-Korean auteur was a) trying to one-up fellow countryman Bong Joon-ho and b) trying to make five films at once. While there’s individual moments to admire, the spectacle of “Thirst” was otherwise largely disappointing.
“The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus”
Yeah, we know you don’t believe us, but we actually wanted to this to be better than it was. Terry Gilliam’s wildly ambitious tale about a deal with the Devil gone awry never quite recovered after its lead, Heath Ledger, passed away. While Colin Farrell, Johnny Depp and Jude Law do an admirable job of pinch hitting, Gilliam’s last minute script save just doesn’t work. Overly long, oddly paced, and most unforgivably, saddled with unmemorable visuals, “The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus” was a wheezy, creaky duct tape job to a film that was probably more irreparably damaged with Ledger’s passing than the filmmakers wanted to admit. Again, we know you don’t believe us, but we’re still rooting for Gilliam and we know he’s capable of much better. — Kevin Jagernauth, Drew Taylor & RP
An Education really, really belongs on this list. One of the most overrated films I've seen in a long time, just because all movie critics fell in love with the adorable new actress (what else is new?).
A Single Man, aside from the performances, is pretty overrated, too.
I know, both are on Rod's list of best of 2009. Oh well.
I loved Precious and Broken Embraces but totally agree with you on Avatar. Vastly overhyped and overrated. James Cameron knows how to produce a movie.
(500) Days Of Summer belongs here. I get more and more angry about this film every time I think about it.
avatar is awesome…get off it.
Great list, I agree with Avatar, Precious, Thirst, Brüno, and Public Enemies… Precious would the #1 most overrated for me.
I also agree with (Laura) that 500 Days of Summer should be on this list as well.
Yup, I'm sure if a BAD DIRECTOR had done BAD LIEUTENANT it would have sucked, no doubt. But a GOOD DIRECTOR did it and it was GOOD.
Avatar is proof like no other, that people only want to see shit.
It´s so sad really…
Think you guys are way off on Avatar. I mean for the love of God, we know it's Dances with Wolves in space, so what? Forbidden Planet was The Tempest in Space, Star Wars was Lord of the Rings and upteen sword and scorcery stories in space, A Fist full of Dollars was Yojimbo in the Wild West, and so on. Narrative art, and genre stuff in particular, borrows shamelessly, and uses archetypal formulas all the time. The fact is, Cameron is a great storyteller, and audiences (and longer in the tooth critics) responded to that, as much as to the fact that its a genuine quantum leap in technological terms. Plus, its a vastly more sophisticated film than Star Trek, and about ninety per cent of the big action blockbusters that are made nowadays.
"Bad Lieutenant" was incredibly overrated by Roger Ebert. It's nowhere near one of the best films of the decade. Nicolas Cage does well, but everything else is just lackluster.
I agree, "Broken Embraces" is overrated, too. And although I really liked "Avatar," it's not the best film of the year, and those who say so are tripping.
But the absolutely correct listing here is "Public Enemies," which ended up mostly bad(save one great scene).
Cameron's film is certainly written broadly, but that hardly makes something bad. It's a way to make sure you connect with the maximum number of people. I would go so far as to say that making a film that everyone can find some enjoyment (even if it is a range of intensity) in is actually quite rare. Jaws, Star Wars, etc. Agreed the characters and story are stock, but there is a thoroughness to the storytelling that I thought was fairly rich, and produced some really remarkable imagery — the pieta-like shot of the giant alien holding him like a newborn for example, completes the 'everyone is born twice,' 'you are like a baby!' line. Sure it's not Last Year at Marienbad, but it's not like you find similar attention to thematic detail in 99% of similar blockbusters. Cameron even manages to link the technology of the film itself into his backbone concept: the main character 'jacks into' an avatar, the aliens jack into the planet, the marines jack into their exosuits, and the audience jacks into the film — even so far as to comment on the change in cinema: the first shot of the main character is a close up on a single eye opening (monoscopic), the last shot of him is both eyes (steroscopic, like the film you are seeing). Very clever, and shows that Cameron, for all his surface clunkiness, is a focussed, thoughtful craftsman. Avatar is through and through a deft, lovingly constructed piece of work, and is made to connect with all manner of audiences, which I consider, if nothing else, tremendously respectful. I know it's attractive to give into the 'the masses just want crap' mentality, because it makes us film nerds feel extra special about ourselves. But take into consideration that even the snootiest of critics have given it grudging respect (as trivial as they see it to be) – because it at very least successfully entertained them, even if it was simultaneously 'beneath' them. Such courtesy wasn't afforded Transformers 2, for example. This is because Transf.2 is a sloppy, dull film, even by it's own standards. The mass audience agrees, to a point, as well. They like big pretty effects enough to put up with everything else, but not so much as to give it the legs Avatar has. Avatar's effects and look ARE great, but 3 hours of gorgeous with boring storytelling, and people won't come back. Matrix 2 and 3 were beautiful looking. And bombs. Mass audiences will put up with crap in exchange for boobs, kung fu, or dinosaurs — once. But getting your average joe to see something multiple times means you did it right.
I agree with nearly all your choices, Playlist, and disagree with the ones suggested in the comments so far (An Education and A Single Man are great, 500 Days Of Summer pretty good).
The only one I'm sort of mixed on is Thirst. It's definitely overlong and tonally muddled, and it's certainly not a great film, but when it worked, it really worked.
Assorted scenes and moments from it have stuck with me even as films I liked better at the time have faded from memory. And the two lead performances are very, very good.
It's no Oldboy or JSA, but I liked it better than both Mr. and Lady Vengeance.
broken embraces? bad lieutenant? fuck off
500 Days of Twee
However, if these eleven or twelve movies were combined into one, it would be the best film of the year.
Nicholas Cage snorting cocaine. IN 3D. IN SPACE.
Okay, pretty good list, but I have to disagree about a few things.
First off, Avatar. Shoot me down for saying it was amazing and totally deserves all the praise it's getting, but it is. So maybe the BASE of the story is something we've seen before, and maybe the ORIGINAL characters are ones we've seen before, but the magic of Cameron's movie is that everything changes. The dilemma that arises when the protagonist chooses to leave his "real" life behind and join the Na'vi for good puts a great twist on the classic storyline. The characters evolve over the length of the movie, and by the time the final twist takes place, the stereotypes are almost all gone (except for that thinly disguised Bush symbolizing colonel). I'm sorry, but it's too easy to dismiss this movie as overrated. Just look a bit harder.
The second thing is Public Enemies. I can't believe you didn't enjoy that. Then again, it might have been a bit too slow for you North American types. It really was a European-constructed movie. Slow and steady (which you may call boring and tedious), the action taking a long time to slowly impose itself, letting the details and the context provide the suspense. For me, the impressive cast played a very solid performance, especially Depp, Bale, and Cotillard (although Christian, you could have worked a bit more on your accent). I found myself relishing in the details you didn't appreciate, and by the time the action tensed up and finally exploded, I was ready and it was really quite amazing.
Sorry, other than those two, that list is quite correct.
say what you will about public enemies, but michael mann will not regret shooting it in digital, this wasnt the first time he'd shot a movie like this, and he knew full-well what he was doing, going against the grain of what a period picture would normally look like, and he succeed imo in creating a period picture that does not feel like it is enclosed in a time capsule. you say it didnt work for you? fine, but michael mann is not gonna wake up one day and wish he shot it on 35mm. im gonna take it a step further (and i know im gonna catch some backlash) but i think the cinematography in public enemies was great, a lot better than most give it credit for
Looks like you were right, no one really agrees you about Parnassus.
Good thing you listed it last;)
Public Enemies was thoughtful, powerful take on the gangster flick. The digital camerawork gave the depression-era scenery a documentary-like versimilitude, and as the conflicted FBI man Melvin Purvis, Bale finally showed some shades to the one-note gruffness he's coasted on since taking on Batman. A quiet gem in the middle of a Transformers crap summer.
Thank you so much for including "Doctor Parnass." I actually liked some of the visuals (the woman whose fantasy world involved designer shoes everywhere), but the script, specifically the opaque dialogue, did nothing to illuminate the already bizarre story.
That said, I'm not sure "Broken Embraces" deserves to be on here, simply because while it did receive mostly positive response, the general consensus was that it was lesser Almodovar, which I agree with. Parts were wonderful (visuals, Cruz, the score) but some of it dragged. The ending and the main flash-back sequences were what made the movie work; everything else felt a little unsure.
Maybe a relatively well known director can't make a joke about directing a bad movie; Bad Lieutenant has some (I think intentional) plot holes but otherwise constructs rather efficiently its story. Herzog is a craftsman, he knows about narrative, Nicholas Cage overreacts in a non-stereotypical way, and the overall lack of respect for the audience (Herzog's aim is to displease viewers) make it one of the most interesting things to come out of hollywood 2009. But that's my opinion. It's not overrated, not everything has to be undergroundhipstercool, sometimes a good bad joke or a great movie crafted to be a really bad movie works. That's what it's all about.