BEST & WORST MOVIES OF 2015 - PART 2, BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS

If you can imagine the previous post was even longer. I was originally going to make one large best and worst list, but it was just too long. So I decided to split them up into 4 parts. The first part was the best films of 2015. The movies on this list are typically films that have some redeeming qualities, but just didn't make the cut. These films are in the fair to middling range. Before I changed it to the biggest disappointments, these probably would have been titled, "Most Ok Movies." They weren't good and they weren't necessarily bad. So next week you will see my choices for the absolute worst/trashiest/should-have-never-been-made-films of 2015.

'Jurassic World' was a decent movie, but it could have been so much more. It's really sad that fans waited 14 years for this movie. Fourteen years...and this is what we got. What did the makers of the film get--the biggest movie in the world...until 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens.' I did enjoy the film. However, after reflecting on my original rating, I would change it to a 3-star review, instead of a 3-1/2. I was feeling rather generous that day. It's a popcorn flick--meant to be watched with buttered popcorn and full calorie soda. But there were so many inconsistencies and plot holes. 

The most ridiculous scene for me is when the pterodactyls attack and the people in charge forget that they have kill chips. Huh? Hit the kill chips! The Indominus Rex ripped her kill chip out. The others should still be working right? Oh and the virtual fist bump between the velociraptor and Chris Pratt was hilarious. Admittedly the baby dinosaur petting zoo was fantastic. I could have watched that all day. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of 'Jurassic World' is that director Colin Trevorrow will be directing a 'Star Wars' film. Seriously. How does a director no one has ever heard of get to direct 'Jurassic World' in the first place? Then follow-up with a 'Star Wars' film? J.J. Abrams has been in the business forever. It makes sense that Abrams would get a job like that, but Trevorrow? 

Perhaps I'm upset because if Trevorrow is charge of (and writes) the next 'Star Wars' film we can expect more of the "pissy-male-hating-childless-career-woman stereotype" played by Bryce Dallas Howard. Great, just great. Just when we got Rey (Daisy Ridley) off to a good start, Trevorrow will probably find a way to get her into a princess-slave bikini costume. See my full review of 'Jurassic World' here. 

Tumblr

'San Andreas' was a typical disaster flick chock full of cliches. There was absolutely nothing new or original in this film. The only thing surprising about this film is how many good actors are in it for the paycheck. You can see my full review here. 

Tumblr

It started out so good. It's not one of the worst films of the year, but it's certainly not one of the best (or even close). The film started out as an  homage to the awesomely 80's original film. Somewhere the film descended into madness. It's just one big mess. See my review here.

THIS: 

VERSUS THAT:

NO COMPARISON.

THIS:

VERSUS THAT:

NO COMPARISON.

THIS:

VERSUS THAT:

NO COMPARISON.

If only to see Hugh Jackman with a mullet, you should watch 'Chappie,' but do not be fooled into thinking this is a good film. Jackman doesn't usually get to play the bad guy, which is sad because he's really good at it. Neither 'Chappie' nor 'Pan' should take away from the fact that Jackman is a fantastic actor.

Like most fans, I was completely enamored with Neill Blomkamp's 'District 9.' Unfortunately his subsequent films have been extremely disappointing. I guess the old adage is true, more money does not make a better film. 'District 9' was made on a shoestring. Whereas 'Elysium' and 'Chappie' were big budget projects. Perhaps it's not Blomkamp's fault. I read an insightful article about the mechanisms behind the Hollywood machine. Terrible producers can destroy a relatively decent film. I'm not sure if that's what's been plaguing Blomkamp, but he can't seem to get it together. Despite the critical and financial failures of his last two films, somehow Blomkamp has landed the next 'Alien' sequel. I really hope he doesn't screw it up.

I don't even know what to say about this film. It was so incredibly disappointing. I won't even start on how the climax of the film was to levitate a piece of the earth into the clouds thereby turning it into "an asteroid." It's not like anyone has superpowers right? Not like any of these people can fly or have super strength? Ugh. See my review here.

Tumblr

Besides the awkward storyline, I think the biggest problem in 'Pan' was the casting or lack thereof. The film's cast was heavily male, with Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara) as the only female character that I can recall. This doesn't attract the 'Frozen' crowd. And ain't no way this film passes the Bechdel Test. While I think that is appropriate in some films, like 'Saving Private Ryan,' 'Sicario,' Fury, etc., But given that this was an origins story for Peter Pan, I don't understand why Tinker Bell and Tiger Lily weren't featured more? Also, I really didn't know why Tiger Lily wasn't Native American?

Director Joe Wright's explanation that Tiger Lily's tribe isn't necessarily Native American, but more of an indigenous "people of the [entire] planet?" Isn't everyone on earth indigenous of the planet? Why not just go with a Native American actress? Or at minimum--an actress with a good tan? I don't get it. Tiger Lily is an iconic Native American character. Now I've been called to the carpet on this topic, because I don't "typically" have an issue with characters changing ethnicity or cultures. Here is my standard: non-iconic characters may be culturally changed, but iconic characters should not typically be culturally changed.

If a character is iconic and is typically associated with certain features, then that should be reflected in the casting. This of course begs the question as to what is iconic. When I think iconic I think of characters like Wonder Woman, Black Panther, Hannibal Lecter, or Lt. Uhura. There really aren't that many characters that would fall into this category. I believe that Tiger Lily would qualify. Yes, I understand that depictions of the native peoples in the original Peter Pan story were probably somewhat offensive, but Wright had the ability to mitigate that, but he ended up making it worse.

I'm also not sure why Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman) was given such a prominent role in Pan's origins story, but just go with it. I believe in the original Peter Pan story Hook was the boatswain to Blackbeard. By the time you get to the boys singing Nirvan's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" you just don't care anymore. Although surprisingly I rather enjoyed that part, but overall the story doesn't work as an origins story because it made so little sense.

I'm of the opinion that the Wachowskis can only have so many flops and failures after the brilliantly executed 'Matrix' before you start believing the urban legend that they stole the idea for the 'Matrix' from another writer. It's never been confirmed and the only evidence is two frivolous lawsuits, but I do wonder about the Wachowskis. They haven't been able to write themselves out of a paper bag for years now. 'Jupiter Ascending' is no exception.

Plot: Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) discovers that she's an intergalactic heiress who must defend the earth from transhuman alien invaders led by Balem (Eddie Redmayne). Balem wants to marry and then kill Jupiter so he can lay claim to the earth. Caine (Channing Tatum) saves her more times than I can count, because she's a woman in constant need of saving. If the synopsis of this film sounds ridiculous it's because it is.

I still can't believe how bad this Bond film was. I'm in the minority here, but this is one of the worst Bond films I've seen in decades. See my full review here.

Tumblr

NEXT UP: WORST MOVIES OF THE YEAR.