The Most Disappointing Movies of 2012

This list deserves a disclaimer: disappointing is not the same word as worst. Every year, people call me out for my choices on this list by saying the film wasn't that bad. Well, yes, I realize that. There's only one legitimately bad movie on this list. The rest, to my great disappointment, are artistic misfires that had unbelievable potential. This potential led me to think I was in for masterpieces that. In most cases, these were movies I thought would be my favorites of the year. Instead, they ended up here.

5. Cloud Atlas

I never wrote a review of Cloud Atlas because reviews, while they are literal tellings of one's subjective reaction to a piece of art, are not supposed to be written exclusively as a reaction to the biases one had walking into a film. With Cloud Atlas, I wasn't just watching an inventive new film; I was eagerly anticipating the adaptation of one of my favorite novels of all time. I absolutely adore David Mitchell's groundbreakingly original novel. It just reeked of genius and after watching the five minute long trailer for the movie, I just started believing that they'd somehow pulled it off. Before seeing the movie, I purchased the soundtrack and once again let myself think My God, they've done it. Never before have I listened to a soundtrack for a movie based on a beloved book and felt that the composers perfectly captured the tone of the novel, but Cloud Atlas did it for me. At this point, I was convinced that the Cloud Atlas movie would be my favorite movie of the year, maybe of all time.

Then, when I saw it, reality finally settled in. It was always going to be extremely difficult to fit all the things that make Cloud Atlas work into a 165 minute long movie. In fact, I'd argue that it's impossible, as proven by the movie. This needed to be a 6 hour long miniseries on HBO to really work, and hopefully someday someone will give me many millions of dollars to make that happen. Today however, I'm left with this strange hybrid of the novel that made a lot of artistic changes that worked well for some of the stories, but butchered my favorite one. The structure of the original novel was a large reason for why its multi-layered story worked, but the film becomes more disjointed and ultimately works so fast that you fail to get attached to these characters or feel the gravity of the situations they are in. The film has some beautiful acting and cinematography but it turns out that it's just too much to ask for someone to create a broad, short version of the breathtaking novel. All that being said, I still listen to the soundtrack on a regular basis.

4. Seven Psychopaths

There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that Seven Psychopaths, Martin McDonagh's followup to In Bruges, was going to be great. After all, Bruges is such a perfectly woven film with perfect nuance and attention to all the details that this guy had exhibited none of the qualities of a one-hit wonder. The movie, however, suggests he may be just that. Rather than make a movie, we have a collection of characters and skits and vignettes that have potential but never really pull together because, as the writer's block inflicted protagonist will admit, there was never any direction when writing the script. It came from writer's block and is about writer's block, but fails to make any real points about the subject we haven't seen handled with much more subtlety in works like Barton Fink or Adaptation. The acting here was all superb, so it was really a shame that nothing ever came together in the end here. Oh well, at least we got Tom Waits holding a bunny.

Seven Psychopaths: A Messy Tale About Writer's Block and Dognappers

I think I can speak for the majority of those interested in seeing Seven Psychopaths when I say writer/director Martin McDonagh set the bar extremely high with his debut In Bruges. In Bruges is just about as close to cinematic perfection as dark comedies get. It had a heart, it had a brain, and it was put together so well that you walked away very impressed. So, in the four years since, anticipation has been slowly growing higher and higher for McDonagh's sophomore effort. After all, he had proven his worth tenfold with a first film that's better than most directors can make in a lifetime.

Here it is, Seven Psychopaths, a well marketed comedy with a very impressive ensemble lined up. Colin Farrell returns to play Marty, a screenwriter struggling to finish writing his next film, having only a few ideas and the title Seven Psychopaths. His best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) and Hans (Christopher Walken) run a scam by kidnapping dogs for rewards, but when they steal a gangster (Woody Harrelson)'s little dog, the ante is upped and the three must run for their lives. Marty begins to think that this opportunity has afforded him the perfect material for his gestating project, but he must first live through the ordeal to reap the rewards.

So, what we're really dealing with here is a very meta film created by a man who no doubt found himself in the exact same situation his aptly named protagonist is in. It was a great title, but McDonagh didn't want to write about violence, he wanted to write about peace. So, instead, he wrote about him not wanting to write about violence while writing about violent characters, some of whom just want peace. It may sound clever, but it's really just laziness if you ask me. Now, if this exact sort of approach to writer's block hadn't been already perfected ten years ago in the brilliant film Adaptation, you might be reading a completely different sort of review. Instead, this film finds itself in the shadow of its ultimately superior predecessor.

What makes this approach lazy now but brilliant ten years ago? you might ask. Well, McDonagh decided to drop all the subtlety or cohesiveness of his previous script and just go all out with being clever and silly here. The themes aren't really themes because a character just states that he wants them to be the themes. There's nothing clever about expressing your themes so bluntly, and then failing to even expand upon the already stated themes by actually saying anything. That's more or less the problem. This is a messy collection of ideas that ultimately adds up to nothing and has no point. It's not really making a statement about the process of screenwriting, nor does it go to uncharted territory. The plot really fails to hold up once you give it any thought, and no doubt it only falls apart even more upon repeat viewings.

This flaw goes even further when the self commentary splattered throughout the script turns into shrugging off obvious flaws in the writing by acknowledging, "Hey, yeah, I know that's a problem, but at least I'm being clever by mentioning it." For example, the female characters in this all get killed if not in their first scene, after the first couple. They have no bearing on the plot and the two lead female actresses exist purely as sex objects. This is a common feature in action films, and McDonagh has the Christopher Walken character make a wisecrack about how badly Marty writes women. Yeah, really funny considering it's true. That's no excuse for it, sorry. The greatest offense of this sort to be found here, however, is another Walken line where he is criticizing Marty for thinking psychopaths are all that interesting. We've got a bunch of one note characters who, by the end of the film, are really not that interesting once you get to know them, and yes, this is indeed a problem in the film that cannot simply be shrugged off by admitting that the writing fails to create anything more than one dimensional, disturbed characters.

Even more disappointing than the source of this material is the fact that a hell of a lot of it is actually really funny. In a way, this film is more like a series of vignettes and short films combined under the facade that it creates one cohesive whole. That being said, I'll be damned if the parts themselves don't have moments of brilliance. The impeccable casting lets the actors create a myriad of great moments between the characters. All of the comedic timing comes off great, only these characters ultimately don't have a whole lot to do, and none of them have any real depth. That's the self admitted problem with psychopaths; they're not terribly complicated. Giving these great moments to Christopher Walken, Sam Rockwell, Tom Waits, and Woody Harrelson is a wonderful thing, and I loved seeing these great actors up on the screen. It's only too bad that the sum of these funny parts adds up to a whole lot of nothing.

In the end, we are left with a very underwhelming, if entertaining movie about writing a movie. The cleverness of the concept stops exactly at the concept and, though Martin McDonagh is a very creative man, his unpolished experiment here is ultimately a failure. I wish I could say this is one of those great projects born out of writer's block like Adaptation or Barton Fink, but I just couldn't help but feel this needed a few more drafts or even an entirely different approach to actually become the memorable film it admits it wants to be.

6/10