Worst 5 Films of 2011

Until two weeks ago, my Worst Five films of 2011 were set in stone. I'd figured out what would make it onto the list and in which order I would rank them, based on their vulgarity, putrescence, offensiveness and sheer awfulness. My mind was made up. Then a film was released which seemed to be trying to make it onto my list: a film – to quote the brilliant critic Mark Kermode – 'even stupid people will hate'. And so, my Worst Five films of 2011 nearly looked very different. But the list which I present to you now is, in my mind, the definitive selection of films to avoid like the plague (to be honest, getting the plague would be a more enjoyable experience than enduring these appalling cinematic offerings). And you know the worst bit? I paid £36.50 to see them.

5) The Hangover Part II

The most depressing thing about The Hangover Part II is the fact that it took a shed load of money ($581,464,305 worldwide, in fact). Not only was this film racist, homophobic, crass and a total repeat of The Hangover, but people paid to see it in their millions, thus incentivising the producers to make another. Following a very similar plot to the previous film, The Hangover Part II sees 'The Wolfpack' go on a wild night out (but in Bangkok – crazy!) the night before one of them is due to be married. What ensues is a film which, to all intents and purposes, recycles old gags which were barely funny the first time round and ramps up the racism (Bangkok is represented as a place of debauchery, full of racial stereotypes and with a more than healthy helping of ladyboys). The film has multiple uses of the 'n' word – somewhat surprising with a cast and a plot which feature no Afro-Caribbean characters – and is crafted (actually, no, that word gives the film too much merit), botched together with as much subtlety and wit as a chain-smoking monkey – oh wait, there's one of those too. Now, I realise that many will disagree with this and argue that the film did what was to be expected of it (i.e. vulgar and unnecessary humour) but this in no way, shape or form means that it is a good film, or even a good comedy. I only came to realise this a few weeks after seeing it. The reason? It was so bad, it needed that long to sink in.

4) Immortals

The only saving grace of this film was its use of CGI which, as I said in my review, was skillfully executed but was still very flat and lacked that spark seen in good visual effects. Immortals, loosely based on Greek mythological characters, featured several notable actors, most dispiritingly John Hurt who seemed to be drowning against a tide of bad acting and dialogue which would have been more at home in a piece of C– GCSE Media Studies coursework. The costumes verged on the ridiculous and the plot made little sense but, to be honest, I didn't really care. Mickey Rourke's evil King Hyperion was, frankly, comedic and had as much of a threatening presence as the Easter Bunny. But the biggest problem with Immortals was how boring it was. The battle sequences engaged me for all of ten seconds before they became the predictable and run-of-the-mill fare so often seen in films of this nature. However, maybe I'm being overly-harsh. Immortals really did fulfil its aim to make the audience feel as though, along with the characters, their very lives were at stake. I was bored to death.

3) Transformers: Dark of the Moon

A film about children's toys hitting each other over the head. With Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Megan Fox. And a plot which would have made more sense if the audience were given ecstasy instead of popcorn. The trouble with Transformers: Dark of the Moon is its director, Michael Bay, who doesn't, as I've said before, know how to tell a story to save his life. The film is disjointed in the extreme and Bay seems to think that enough shots of robots attacking each other (for over 25 head-numbing minutes in the final fight sequence) will gloss over the fact that the plot could only be rescued if it was thrown in the bin and totally re-written. Huntington-Whiteley's presence is simply eye-candy and the day the acting wins an Oscar will be the day I cut off my fingers and use them as flakes in 99s as, obviously, I won't need them to type my rants any longer because I'm so out-of-touch with film. The action sequences in the film keep coming, with no sense of cause and effect, and which leads to viewing Transformers: Dark of the Moon being much like watching paint dry, but much less enjoyable. A supremely shocking film.

2) Final Destination 5

Final Destination 5 is, perhaps, a film not made for me. Obviously, I'm the only person who doesn't like gratuitous, defunct and repulsive violence which serves no purpose to the plot (because the violence is the plot). This film is all about people's eyes being lasered out and little else. As the previous films did, Final Destination 5 sees a group of people being hunted down by some supernatural power after they cheat death, this time after a bridge collapse. In a film which sees its main characters being killed not once, but twice (because, hey, it gives the film makers double the fun), the totally over-the-top, vomitous and sickening violence has no redeeming features and leads to a thoroughly unpleasant feeling when the credits roll. To say I didn't enjoy this film is an understatement. Oh and the title's stupid too.

1) New Year's Eve

Here we have it. The Number One Worst film of 2011. Having already slated it in my review, I feel slightly reluctant to use any more valuable words on this supremely atrocious piece of film-making. But I will. Sickly, nasty, offensive, vomitous, abominable, atrocious, vile, putrid, and repugnant are all apt descriptions of New Year's Eve. Following the same formula of Valentine's Day (the two films share the same director), the film is both cheesy and cringe-worthy in the extreme and suffers from a chronic misjudgement which is demonstrated in a plot strand which sees two couples fight over a $25,000 prize if their child is the first to be born in the New Year. Never mind the healthy delivery of the baby, just gimme the cash. I maintain that not a single person will like this film, but if you do, you'll need your head examined. Not many films give me a physically sick feeling (apart from, maybe, the film at Number Two in this list) but as I sat watching a cast which seemed to be comprised of a galaxy of stars, I began to feel the need to retch. Fortunately for the woman sat in front of me, I controlled this urge but only just. There is not a single aspect of this film which I liked or even felt mildly warm to. And so, the best of the worst films of 2011 really was left until last. New Year's Eve is a despicable excuse for a film and one I urge you not to see. Unless, of course you've already been subjected to its putrefied 118 minute running time, in which case, you'll 100% agree with me.

And there you have it, my Worst Five films of 2011. Thanks for reading and for your support over the past six months. The blog has gone from strength-to-strength and I really appreciate every single reader. So, thank you. Here's to a great, film-filled 2012.

Top 5 Films of 2011

I'm well aware that in compiling this list, people aren't going to agree with me but trust me, I've put a lot of thought into it. 2011 has been a really great year for films but it has, equally, produced a huge amount of trash. This list showcases, in my opinion, films which have stood out through their brilliance and which deserve a special mention as I look back on the year that was 2011. To demonstrate just how good a year 2011 has been for films, let me mention some films which didn't make the Top Five. Bridesmaids, for example, reinvigorated the rom-com and demonstrated that you didn't have to alienate all the men in the audience to explore the empowerment of women in modern society. The film had a depth which was not reduced by the humour which was genuinely funny and original and the film was an unexpected treat. Warrior, likewise, surprised with its emotional punch (quite literally) and used the medium of sport to create a feel-good film which was delicately executed. These films, however, failed to make my Top Five – an indication of the quality of the films which did. Whether you agree with me or cry in horror 'how is that film not on the list?!', I urge you to watch my Top Five films of 2011. You'll be a better person for it. Honest.

5) The King's Speech (and yes, the official release date was 07/01/2011)

A surprise hit and the winner of four Oscars, The King's Speech, directed by Tom Hooper and starring the ever-versatile Colin Firth, is an example of a film which appealed to an audience wider than Julia Robert's smile. Rarely could you walk into a cinema screen and see a such a mix of people; from armies of geriatric cinema-goers complaining that the seats were uncomfortable, to teenagers flashing their phones at the back, the wide demographic who went to see The King's Speech left the cinema almost unanimously won over by a charming script and performances which were both humorous and sensitive. Hooper's direction was dynamic and retained the edge of the costume-drama which the British do so well. Firth's tongue-tied monarch was the classical example of the everyday man (okay, maybe not) overcoming a personal problem with the aid of an unlikely friend. Standard stuff but superbly executed. It's little wonder that the Americans loved it.

4) Hugo

You'll know by now that I hate 3D. It's the work of the devil. So it may be surprising that a film which relies so much on 3D has made it in at Number Four. Martin Scorsese's Hugo is crammed full of good, old-fashioned fun with a magic which replicates that felt by the pioneers of cinema. The beautiful art design and stunning cinematography, combined with engaging performances (especially from Asa Butterfield in the title role) created a film which will appeal to both adults and children alike. Scorsese's love for cinema is plain to see in this film and the film's 3D element works because of this love for the mechanics of cinema. 3D distances the audience from the film and makes them aware that what they are watching is simply a mechanical process. This ties in nicely with Hugo's themes and leads to an enjoyable and enchanting family film. I'll say it once, and once only. I liked the 3D. You'll never hear me say that again. Ever.

3) Super 8

In at Number Three we have Super 8 – a joint venture between Star Trek's J. J. Abrams and one of the most successful directors of the twentieth century, Steven Spielberg. Set in 1970s small town America, the film follows a group of children who witness strange and unsettling events as they try to make their own film. Released back in the summer, Super 8 is a warm, nostalgic and solid piece of film-making which is a throwback to Spielberg's earlier children's works. The characters are engaging and the acting solid, whilst the ending is genuinely uplifting without spilling into over-sentimental rubbish which is so often seen. Beautifully shot and scored, the film deserves to be seen by as many people as possible and rarely does a family film such as this come along: I applaud Spielberg and Abrams for their work. If you haven't seen it, you're missing a treat.

2) The Help

Some have called The Help, based on the best-selling book by Kathryn Stockett, mawkish and sloppy with a tendency to skirt over the issue of civil rights. Um, no. Whilst I did feel that the subject matter was not explored to its full extent, the charm and good nature of the film is more than enough to take you on an emotional rollercoaster. A touching script and a moving soundtrack, together with a fantastic mise-en-scène, created a racially-prejudiced world which should have never existed but this is, perhaps, the film's greatest achievement. Its focus on black segregation ensures that the issue is never forgotten and is highlighted for a new generation who may not be fully aware of the darker side of American history. With terrific performances, especially from Viola Davis, and a potent mix of humour and tragedy, The Help is a worthy adaptation which deserves all the praise it has garnered. If you're not crying by the end of the film, you've either had your tear ducts surgically removed or you're simply dead inside.

1) We Need To Talk About Kevin

And so, my Number One film of 2011. We Need To Talk About Kevin. Many of you won't have seen it. Many of you should see it. It is a supreme example of film-making at its very best and everything about this film screams quality. Eva's struggle after her son commits a terrible crime is both moving and disturbing, and the dialogue and performances (Swinton in particular) are first class. Adapted from a novel by Lynne Ramsay, the film's most unsettling aspect is Ezra Miller's performance which is manipulative, chilling and all-to-real. The haunting cinematography, with its distinctive colour palette and the use of flashbacks works wonders and shows just how powerful the medium of film can be. As I said in my original review, it is difficult to say whether you will 'enjoy' the film in the usual sense. But I reckon you will. We Need To Talk About Kevin is certainly the film event of the year. And you need to promise yourself to see it. Or, even better, make it one of your New Year's resolutions. Come on, it'll be much easier to keep than your other one to not eat as much chocolate. 

Agree/disagree with this list? I'd love to hear your ideas. You'll be wrong, but still.

New Year's Eve

Michelle Pfeiffer. Robert De Niro. Jessica Biel. Sarah Jessica Parker. Hilary Swank. Ludacris. Halle Berry. Zac Efron. Lea Michele. More stars than on your average Christmas tree. And certainly more than this film deserves.

New Year's Eve is the latest offering from Garry Marshall, whose previous cinematic delights (cough, cough) include The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement and, crucially to this film, Valentine's Day. Now, anyone who has seen Valentine's Day will know what to expect with New Year's Eve as it follows the same style: a significant day is used as the backdrop for the personal and professional problems of various characters to be overcome. Last year, it was finding love. This year, it's a ball dropping. The main plot of the film is centred around Hilary Swank's character who is in charge of the New Year's Eve celebrations in New York's Times Square. She must, at all costs, make sure that the giant ball (which marks the start of the New Year and is apparently a big thing in the States) drops as the countdown to 2012 begins. Throw in some interweaving storylines and enough shots of Lea Michele singing to rival your average Glee episode, and you've got yourself the perfect film to end the year. Right? Wrong.

No words can describe how dire this film is. Fact. But I'm going to try anyway. First off, the characters are the most annoying bunch of people you're likely to meet. Their two dimensional, materialistic, shallow and totally defunct lives leave the audience totally apathetic to their situations which, quite frankly, are ridiculous. Take two of the 'branch-out' story lines. The first concerns two couples who are about to become parents. They hear that if their child is the first to be born in the New Year, they win $25,000. Now, any normal person would be happy enough with a healthy baby and mother, but no, these characters are more concerned with getting their hands on the cash. It doesn't matter if the mother feels pressured and anxious about being the fastest to give birth because, hey, it's all about the money. The supposedly 'emotive' and 'feel-good' ending to this pathetically sickening plot strand is enough to put you off the whole film. But no, there's more! The second vomit-inducing plot features Robert De Niro, who, it could be argued, did this film to pay the bills. He plays a dying Vietnam veteran, who wants to make it to the New Year, with supposedly no family to be with him during his final hours. It turns out (and this is not a spoiler because if you didn't see this coming, you really weren't trying) that Swank's character is his daughter. So, what do you do if your father has a few hours to live? Devote your entire time to making sure the New Year's Eve ball drops in Times Square of course! Never mind good old dad...

No-one, and I mean no-one, will enjoy this film. With more product placement than in an ad break for The X Factor, it is clear that the film is simply a commercial vessel, aimed at printing money at the expense of any artistic merit. Hilary Swank's 'inspiring' speech to the waiting crowds in Times Square was nothing short of farcical and raised more than a few chuckles in the audience I endured the film with. The last five minutes of the film, i.e. the bloopers, were the most bearable of the entire 118 minutes, during which time I had worked out exactly how to kill myself by using my ticket to paper-cut my wrists. New Year's Eve is so misjudged as a piece of film-making, so sickening and so superficially focused on sentimental drivel that it seems to be drowning in its own ghastliness. However, there is one redeeming feature. Should the NHS ever need an alternative to stomach pumping, showing patients this film will more than suffice. 

Clapperboard Rating: * 

Hugo

I'll make no bones about it. 3D is not, and will never ever be, my thing. I find it (as loyal readers will know) annoying and totally unnecessary and it is only there to make money and to make films more difficult to pirate. And yet, as I sat watching Hugo (in 3D), I found myself enjoying the stereoscopy element of the film. I felt slightly guilty in this enjoyment, as you do when you laugh at someone who trips over comically but, nevertheless, the 3D (and I never thought I'd say this) added to the film. Oh dear. Next I'll be saying that any Jennifer Aniston film is a metaphysical critique on social conventions...or maybe not.

Hugo is the latest offering from Martin Scorsese and is slightly unusual for a director whose past work includes Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Shutter Island. Starring the epic Ben Kingsley and the promising Asa Butterfield, Hugo examines the magic of the beginnings of cinema by following Hugo, a young orphan child who winds and repairs the clocks in a 1930s Paris railway station. Scorsese and the production designer, Dante Ferretti, have created a distinct visual world, where even the snowflakes seem to have been touched by cinematic enchatment. Of course, these snowflakes were flying out of the screen 'at' me but, as I shall explain later, it kind of worked. Much of the story was set in the station which, with its bustling atmosphere and beautiful sets, was an enchanting focal point for the narrative. The narrative itself was engaging and was surprising in that it favoured dialogue rather than action sequences which seem to be the default in many children's films. Studios need to remember that little Charlie can sit still without an action set piece being rammed down his popcorn-filled throat every five minutes.

One of the stand-out aspects of the film was the performances which were, for the most part, impressive. Sir Ben Kingsley plays Georges Méliès, the pioneer of early cinema, and commands the screen with a sensitivity and forcefulness which allows fourteen year old Asa Butterfield to excel in his delightfully engrossing role as Hugo. Butterfield's ability to capture both the optimism and uncertainty of youth in a single glance leads me to think that he has a bright future as the face of British acting talent. A strong supporting cast gelled with the central performances, although I felt that Sacha Baron Cohen's role as the station inspector was slightly misjudged. Although his performance wasn't bad, his presence in a film such as this was like inviting your grandma on your honeymoon: unsuitable. On another level, there were some pacing issues in the first hour and the scene where Hugo's friend (and the god-daughter of Méliès), Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), is knocked over by the passengers in the station seemed to jar with the rest of the film.

And now, to the 3D. As I thought about the film on the way home from the cinema, I realised why I had found the 3D bearable, even enjoyable. Every poster for a 3D film proclaims that it will 'immerse' you in the world of the film. However, the 3D effect does quite the opposite. Putting on those silly glasses reminds the audience constantly that what they are watching is, indeed, only a film; a mechanical process. 3D is more self-conscious than the feeling you get when you walk past a policeman. But this is why Hugo works. The film focuses on the mechanics of cinema – the noises of the film projector, the whirl of wheels, the clunk of ratchets and the click of cogs, all of which play an important part in the sound design. Scorsese's love of cinema is clear in the film. And it is because of this that the 3D works. Hugo is about the magic, the mechanics and the technicalities of cinema and as you sit in the audience, looking like a member of a Where's Wally? convention, you become aware that the 3D is complementing these themes. And when you go with it, it's quite good fun.

So Hugo. Go and see it in 3D. Pay that little bit extra, even if it means that studio bosses will be laughing all the way to the bank this Christmas. Oh, and Scorsese says he wants to make all his future films in 3D. Whatever next...?!

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

The Deep Blue Sea

I've always thought that one of the qualities of film which sets it apart from other art forms is the power it has to transform the mundane and banal into a visual masterpiece. Every now and again, a film comes along which is so dazzlingly brilliant in terms of its visuals that it puts the iPhone as a piece of design to shame. The Deep Blue Sea is one of those films. Masterfully directed by Terence Davies and adapted from an original play by Terence Rattigan, The Deep Blue Sea not only showcases a wealth of British talent (in the form of Rachel Weisz and Tom Hiddleston) but it does so in a way which lifts the film from being your average period drama. The atmosphere of the film is brilliant and every shot seems to have been meticulously planned and constructed to within an inch of its life. But, you know what? The end result is nothing short of beautiful.

Rachel Weisz plays Hester, the wife of a powerful judge who embarks on a self-destructive affair with an RAF fighter pilot, played by Hiddleston. This type of story has, of course, been tackled before but The Deep Blue Sea brings a totally new quality and dimension to such a plot. The performances, especially by Weisz, were superb and really allowed the audience to engage with the characters and empathise with their situations even though, at times, their actions could be quite vexing. It was unsettling to see a female protagonist who, whilst having a strong will, seemed incapable of controlling the situations around her – something which made the plot all the more believable. Hiddleston's performance, also, was confident and the supporting cast added depth to the film. The narrative was not perfect and at times got a bit confusing due to the use of flashbacks but, on an overall level, it worked. The central relationship of Hester and Freddie (Hiddleston) worked well and offered a dynamic counterpoint to the life she had led with her husband. One of the most powerful scenes, for me, was when her husband gave her a belated birthday present even though she was with her lover Freddie. Such a simple act spoke volumes and demonstrated the skill which Davies has as a director and screenwriter.

One of the most striking elements of The Deep Blue Sea is its cinematography. The most commonplace items were shot in a way which made them a pleasure to watch – even the cigarette smoke seemed to have had to audition to prove its visual brilliance. This was largely helped by the lighting which created an oppressive yet optimistic atmosphere to mirror the characters' emotions. Not since you walked round the lighting department at Ikea have you seen such a glorious display of light. Furthermore, the sound design was interesting as there was very little music throughout the film. Instead, the dialogue of the characters was very harsh it terms of how it sounded and this not only reflected their attitudes towards one another but almost negated the need for a musical accompaniment. Yeah, I know I'm comparing dialogue to music (what an idiot, you must be thinking) but, genuinely, the effect was marked. All of these elements, combined with solid acting and beautiful cinematography creates a film which, although not perfect, is simply a joy to watch. However, The Deep Blue Sea will divide opinion (RottenTomatoes.com gives it an 86% critic rating compared to 46% of the audience). You will either love it or hate it. Me? Take a guess...

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *