"LAUGHABLE WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SERIOUS AND DEPRESSING WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE COMEDIC": The AV Club ranks the fifteen worst films of 2010. They do not care for formulaic romcoms, and I am grateful to have not seen any of its honorees so far.
The only one I saw was #14, which wasn't anything special, but was certainly not worst-of-the-year bad. And I don't think they really sold the designation in their blurb. I definitely saw worse movies this year - The A-Team and Salt leap to mind.
I often feel when reading movie reviews at the AV Club, that they are not only not fond but totally unforgiving of any genre that could be labelled "Women's Entertainment."
Now they make some bad movies that fall under that label, so I do give them that, but they sure do seem to much more often forgive/revel in the badness/have a blind spot for films aimed squarely at the teen age boy demographic.
I went in to #15 with certain expectations and those expectations were not only met, but exceeded. Perhaps my expectations weren't too high, but it's like Snakes on a Plane. The title not only describes the film, but also tells you about the tone and ambition of the film. It certainly doesn't rank as one of the worst films of the year and I might consider it to have one one of the best titles in the entire history of film.
Agreed. I've seen #15 and while it's not high art of any kind, it was pretty funny for what it is. And it makes no bones about what it is. Didn't see any of the others, though, and hadn't even heard of more than a few.
I'd agree with that...except...when was the last good romantic comedy you saw? Maybe Knocked Up, and that's kind of on the edge of the genre. The genre as a whole is so down in the dumps right now that I think every critic almost habitually recoils from seeing another Katherine Heigl movie and maybe that unconsciously colors their reviewing.
I haven't yet seen "Tangled," but reviews indicate that it works as a romantic comedy, at least on some levels. "Date Night" had its moments, and was also sort of a romcom.
I've got to agree with Hot Tub Time Machine's inclusion here. I didn't have high expectations, and I didn't even see it in the movie theater, I watched it on-demand at home. I thought it would be fun and stupid, but I agree with the review here - it lost opportunuties to be really funny, it meandered, and it went nowhere satisfying at the (really rushed) end. I love John Cusack, I love the 80s, and I sometimes love a dumb comedy, but this one was annoying and boring.
@Joseph J. Finn: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was the last really good romcom I saw. Shaun of the Dead was the last truly great one. 2004: good year for that sort of thing.
It's not--two really good performances in a movie that can't decide what it wants to be--Manic Pixie Dream Girl RomCom? Soft core porn? Biting satire of health care industry/sales generally? Disease of the week movie? It's all of those for at least a chunk of its running time, and winds up being none of them effectively.
I've seen Hot Tub Time Machine, Letters to Juliet, Killers (I'd seen the horrible reviews, but I'm a huge Heigl fan) and When In Rome. I agree with the earlier commenters that Hot Tub Time Machine had its moments. I don't know if I'd call it "good," but it certainly wasn't one of the 15 worst movies of the year. Letters to Juliet wasn't notable in any way. It was inoffensive - nothing memorable but surely not one of the worst movies of the season.
Killers and When In Rome were very deserving of their spots on the list. I have Grown Ups waiting for me at home via Netflix, so I can report its worthiness (or worthlessness) soon enough.
Interesting question, StvMg; I'm not sure I'd call it a romcom, but more of a straight romance that is also funny. Certainly one of my favorites of 2009 as well.
HTTM was really pretty dreadful. I saw it at home and knew going into it what it was and I love John Cusack and blahblah, but it was about 15 minutes of good in a 101 minute movie. And it criminally underused Lizzy Caplan.
Now, see, in comparison to Hot Tub Time Machine, I thought Letters to Julet was a good example of "doing exactly what it says on the tin" but doing so charmingly. Amanda Seyfried had a lot to do with that. However, I also thought it was a nice romcom in that there were moments where either of the male leads were a possibilty and a suitable option and so it wasn't a foregone conclusion who she'd end up. I appreciated the lack of the obvious Ralph Bellamy character.
Well I agree that good rom coms seem to be something that only get accidentally made very rarely now.
But I think I come at that genre with a level of love and forgiveness that the AV Club seems to come at silly action movies that remind them of their childhood, and the last 'good' one I saw that stays in the more traditional vein was "The Awful Truth" which I really liked even if the overall arc is a bit silly but it is the escapist entertainment arc I want in my romcoms and in my romance novels I know it is ridiculous and preposterous and that is why I ask it of my entertainment and not my real life. I also totally loved 27 Dresses and I enjoyed Morning Glory which I wouldn't really call a rom com but I feel was aiming for the designation of ladies entertainment. But I take great pleasure in the silliness of the ideas and constructs of the plot and I know not everyone is happy with that silly.
But this is also why I approach the AV club reviews assuming they see thing from a different perspective than I do and have different tastes than I do and look at them through that lense because that is how it works for me.
I think HTTM may be one of those movies that plays much better in a theater than at home (low-brow comedies often do). I saw it in a fairly crowded theater, and there was a happy, let's enjoy ourself vibe that definitely contributed to my enjoyment of it. Not close to the best or funniest thing I've seen this year, but a good time.
I know exactly what you mean - I'm not sure I'd have liked Talladega Nights as much as I did if I hadn't seen it in a fairly full theater that was totally into it.
I have to agree; without having seen any of these movies, I bet "Letters to Juliet" and "When in Rome" are better than "Furry Vengeance" or "Vampires Suck" or "Clash of the Titans" (which were not listed by AVC). But that may be residual Veronica Mars bias.
I think any movie movie featuring a "everybody dances through town" scene set to "You Make My Dreams Come True" has to be considered comedic, at least in some fashion.
I think the issue tends to be less with the bias you perceive in the The A.V. Club than the mindset of the people who actually produce the movies. For a long time the romantic comedy was the dominant genre of the form (think back to the Rat Pack and the Golden Age of Hollywood), and after a low point in the cycle the genre rebounded in the '80s with a lot of smart, affecting films. Then the '90s came along and rom-coms became a cheap cash grab for most studios. Audiences have finally caught up to this, which explains why a lot of romantic comedies have fizzled at the box office the last few years.
The studios just seem perfectly happy with the idea that they can throw a certain type of actress in the lead role, give her a job as a publisher/lawyer/doctor/journalist, meet cute with some generically handsome actor, have him them fall in love with all sorts of CUH-RAZY mishaps, have them fall apart with 25 minutes left in the movie, and then get back together in the last 10 minutes during an elaborate wish-fulfillment sequence.
Don't be critical of The A.V. Club for not forgiving these movies; be unforgiving of the studios who think putting out subpar content is fine as long as they slap a "Women's Entertainment" sticker on it. It's condescending and insulting to an entire gender.
Just another counterpoint: oftentimes why not-so-good action movies get better reviews than not-so-good rom-coms is the visual element. When a rom-com doesn't work, you're left with people you're not interested in doing uninteresting things. At least when an action movie (a la The A Team) doesn't work you've got explosions and fistfights and car chases to distract from the poor characterization and silly plot. Bad rom-coms are pretty much ALL poor characterization and silly plot. When you take that out all you really have left to enjoy are A.) the actors in the requisite "friend of the romantic lead" role, B.) making fun of the bad acting, and C.) Stanley Tucci
I've only seen "The Bounty Hunter," and it was a "we're too tired for anything remotely challenging" kind of Friday night. It lived up to that standard.
HTTM had its humorous moments and Letters to Juliet was bland but cute. But having recently watched SATC2 (selected, after a very stressful week, for the sole purpose of watching something that could be snarked at), it absolutely deserves a high place on this list. Without violating the No Politics rule, I would simply say that my reaction after watching that piece of dreck was "This is why they hate us."
I agree that the industry does seem to have the same attitude towards insulting my gender that some people have for YA (no one needs to write well for kids I mean they are kids for goodness sake), but I disagree that there is nothing left visually in a RomCom, there are always opportunities for gorgeous clothes and shoe and accessory eye candy even if not all rom coms take advantage of such. Also really pretty shirtless men.
More good fairly recent rom coms (in my opinion judged on rewatchability): 13 Going on 30, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, there were more.
But the bias is at the AV Club too because they sure did focus on that genre way more than any others and like smm says below, no way letters to juliet and even when in rome were worse than many other films last year. There wasn't enough in them to make them that bad.
I too am a Heigl fan. (see above where I praise both The Awful Truth and 27 Dresses) Although I would recommend a cool it period on playing up tight bitches.
Is there anything about Grown Ups that makes it so much worse than any of Sandler's other work of that ilk (not to mention the seemingly constant barage of horrible comedies not starring Adam Sandler), other than people resenting that he has the privilege of choosing to work with his BFFs in cool locations? Because I feel like that comes up a lot in reviews of it.
I mean, the man has a few types of movies that he does. One of them is dumb comedies he makes with all his pals. I liked them when I was a kid, I don't really like them much now. But this one seemed no worse than the others.
I'd watch it again before I rewatched any of his other movies since Spanglish (which I LOVE), with the possible exception of the first two thirds of Funny People.
I didn't see every movie in 2010, but Valentine's Day was probably the worst movie I saw (including on planes and on TV) in the better part of a decade.
I agree. As far as Sandler's catalogue goes, Grown Ups actually has higher re-watchability than pretty much anything else he's done. (I have not seen Funny People yet, though)
It didnt have to go anywhere and I rather enjoyed that it did feel exactly like what was being portrayed in the movie... a bunch of people hanging out on vacation. Go figure.
<span></span><span> When a rom-com doesn't work, you're left with people you're not interested in doing uninteresting things. </span><span>At least when an action movie (a la The A Team) doesn't work you've got explosions and fistfights and car chases to distract from the poor characterization and silly plot.</span>
One of those explosion/fistfights in A-Team was aboard a parachuting tank, and it was uninteresting and silly. If you don't enjoy romcoms it doesn't mean the genre doesn't encompass the same amount of interesting elements of another genre. Studios put out stupid genre movies of all stripes. It's not just women who are too dumb to pick up on it.
I Netflixed two of them - HTTM and The Bounty Hunter (don't cost nuthin'). I don't recall which one I made it further into, but I'm sure it wasn't halfway on either. So I can't argue with the list
Yeah, it is. :) It was a financial documentary, of all things. I didn't have a problem with the material, I just couldn't stand all of the gasping and clucking at every fact that got put on the screen. It was like everyone wanted everyone else to know that they "got it," that they understood the point the documentary was trying to make. I finally got up when the people behind me decided to start a running commentary.
The only one I've seen is #15, which, while not a great movie, is exactly what you'd expect it to be given the title, and is actually pretty funny.
ReplyDeleteThe only one I saw was #14, which wasn't anything special, but was certainly not worst-of-the-year bad. And I don't think they really sold the designation in their blurb. I definitely saw worse movies this year - The A-Team and Salt leap to mind.
ReplyDeleteI often feel when reading movie reviews at the AV Club, that they are not only not fond but totally unforgiving of any genre that could be labelled "Women's Entertainment."
ReplyDeleteNow they make some bad movies that fall under that label, so I do give them that, but they sure do seem to much more often forgive/revel in the badness/have a blind spot for films aimed squarely at the teen age boy demographic.
When in Rome was REALLY bad though.
I went in to #15 with certain expectations and those expectations were not only met, but exceeded. Perhaps my expectations weren't too high, but it's like Snakes on a Plane. The title not only describes the film, but also tells you about the tone and ambition of the film. It certainly doesn't rank as one of the worst films of the year and I might consider it to have one one of the best titles in the entire history of film.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I've seen #15 and while it's not high art of any kind, it was pretty funny for what it is. And it makes no bones about what it is. Didn't see any of the others, though, and hadn't even heard of more than a few.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with that...except...when was the last good romantic comedy you saw? Maybe Knocked Up, and that's kind of on the edge of the genre. The genre as a whole is so down in the dumps right now that I think every critic almost habitually recoils from seeing another Katherine Heigl movie and maybe that unconsciously colors their reviewing.
ReplyDeleteI haven't yet seen "Tangled," but reviews indicate that it works as a romantic comedy, at least on some levels. "Date Night" had its moments, and was also sort of a romcom.
ReplyDeleteI've got to agree with Hot Tub Time Machine's inclusion here. I didn't have high expectations, and I didn't even see it in the movie theater, I watched it on-demand at home. I thought it would be fun and stupid, but I agree with the review here - it lost opportunuties to be really funny, it meandered, and it went nowhere satisfying at the (really rushed) end. I love John Cusack, I love the 80s, and I sometimes love a dumb comedy, but this one was annoying and boring.
ReplyDelete@Joseph J. Finn: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was the last really good romcom I saw. Shaun of the Dead was the last truly great one. 2004: good year for that sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the Anne Hathaway/Jake Gyllenhall one supposed to be good?
ReplyDeleteIt's not--two really good performances in a movie that can't decide what it wants to be--Manic Pixie Dream Girl RomCom? Soft core porn? Biting satire of health care industry/sales generally? Disease of the week movie? It's all of those for at least a chunk of its running time, and winds up being none of them effectively.
ReplyDeleteDoes 500 Days of Summer count as a romcom? It was my favorite movie of 2009.
ReplyDeleteI've seen Hot Tub Time Machine, Letters to Juliet, Killers (I'd seen the horrible reviews, but I'm a huge Heigl fan) and When In Rome. I agree with the earlier commenters that Hot Tub Time Machine had its moments. I don't know if I'd call it "good," but it certainly wasn't one of the 15 worst movies of the year. Letters to Juliet wasn't notable in any way. It was inoffensive - nothing memorable but surely not one of the worst movies of the season.
ReplyDeleteKillers and When In Rome were very deserving of their spots on the list. I have Grown Ups waiting for me at home via Netflix, so I can report its worthiness (or worthlessness) soon enough.
Interesting question, StvMg; I'm not sure I'd call it a romcom, but more of a straight romance that is also funny. Certainly one of my favorites of 2009 as well.
ReplyDeleteThe only one that I've seen was Hot Tub Time Machine, and I laughed a reasonable amount at it.
ReplyDeleteHTTM was really pretty dreadful. I saw it at home and knew going into it what it was and I love John Cusack and blahblah, but it was about 15 minutes of good in a 101 minute movie. And it criminally underused Lizzy Caplan.
ReplyDeleteNow, see, in comparison to Hot Tub Time Machine, I thought Letters to Julet was a good example of "doing exactly what it says on the tin" but doing so charmingly. Amanda Seyfried had a lot to do with that. However, I also thought it was a nice romcom in that there were moments where either of the male leads were a possibilty and a suitable option and so it wasn't a foregone conclusion who she'd end up. I appreciated the lack of the obvious Ralph Bellamy character.
ReplyDeleteWell I agree that good rom coms seem to be something that only get accidentally made very rarely now.
ReplyDeleteBut I think I come at that genre with a level of love and forgiveness that the AV Club seems to come at silly action movies that remind them of their childhood, and the last 'good' one I saw that stays in the more traditional vein was "The Awful Truth" which I really liked even if the overall arc is a bit silly but it is the escapist entertainment arc I want in my romcoms and in my romance novels I know it is ridiculous and preposterous and that is why I ask it of my entertainment and not my real life. I also totally loved 27 Dresses and I enjoyed Morning Glory which I wouldn't really call a rom com but I feel was aiming for the designation of ladies entertainment. But I take great pleasure in the silliness of the ideas and constructs of the plot and I know not everyone is happy with that silly.
But this is also why I approach the AV club reviews assuming they see thing from a different perspective than I do and have different tastes than I do and look at them through that lense because that is how it works for me.
I am "Guest" both here and above.
ReplyDeleteI think HTTM may be one of those movies that plays much better in a theater than at home (low-brow comedies often do). I saw it in a fairly crowded theater, and there was a happy, let's enjoy ourself vibe that definitely contributed to my enjoyment of it. Not close to the best or funniest thing I've seen this year, but a good time.
ReplyDeleteI saw When in Rome while drugged up on sinus medication and it kind of made me laugh.
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what you mean - I'm not sure I'd have liked Talladega Nights as much as I did if I hadn't seen it in a fairly full theater that was totally into it.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree; without having seen any of these movies, I bet "Letters to Juliet" and "When in Rome" are better than "Furry Vengeance" or "Vampires Suck" or "Clash of the Titans" (which were not listed by AVC). But that may be residual Veronica Mars bias.
ReplyDeleteI think any movie movie featuring a "everybody dances through town" scene set to "You Make My Dreams Come True" has to be considered comedic, at least in some fashion.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, best movie scene ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgVNgYXFi_Q
I think the issue tends to be less with the bias you perceive in the The A.V. Club than the mindset of the people who actually produce the movies. For a long time the romantic comedy was the dominant genre of the form (think back to the Rat Pack and the Golden Age of Hollywood), and after a low point in the cycle the genre rebounded in the '80s with a lot of smart, affecting films. Then the '90s came along and rom-coms became a cheap cash grab for most studios. Audiences have finally caught up to this, which explains why a lot of romantic comedies have fizzled at the box office the last few years.
ReplyDeleteThe studios just seem perfectly happy with the idea that they can throw a certain type of actress in the lead role, give her a job as a publisher/lawyer/doctor/journalist, meet cute with some generically handsome actor, have him them fall in love with all sorts of CUH-RAZY mishaps, have them fall apart with 25 minutes left in the movie, and then get back together in the last 10 minutes during an elaborate wish-fulfillment sequence.
Don't be critical of The A.V. Club for not forgiving these movies; be unforgiving of the studios who think putting out subpar content is fine as long as they slap a "Women's Entertainment" sticker on it. It's condescending and insulting to an entire gender.
Just another counterpoint: oftentimes why not-so-good action movies get better reviews than not-so-good rom-coms is the visual element. When a rom-com doesn't work, you're left with people you're not interested in doing uninteresting things. At least when an action movie (a la The A Team) doesn't work you've got explosions and fistfights and car chases to distract from the poor characterization and silly plot. Bad rom-coms are pretty much ALL poor characterization and silly plot. When you take that out all you really have left to enjoy are A.) the actors in the requisite "friend of the romantic lead" role, B.) making fun of the bad acting, and C.) Stanley Tucci
I've only seen "The Bounty Hunter," and it was a "we're too tired for anything remotely challenging" kind of Friday night. It lived up to that standard.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine the self-assuredness it requires for somebody to come out affirmatively as a Katherine Heigl fan.
ReplyDeleteHTTM had its humorous moments and Letters to Juliet was bland but cute. But having recently watched SATC2 (selected, after a very stressful week, for the sole purpose of watching something that could be snarked at), it absolutely deserves a high place on this list. Without violating the No Politics rule, I would simply say that my reaction after watching that piece of dreck was "This is why they hate us."
ReplyDeleteFor those in Chicago, HTTM seems like the very definition of a good Brew & View movie.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the industry does seem to have the same attitude towards insulting my gender that some people have for YA (no one needs to write well for kids I mean they are kids for goodness sake), but I disagree that there is nothing left visually in a RomCom, there are always opportunities for gorgeous clothes and shoe and accessory eye candy even if not all rom coms take advantage of such. Also really pretty shirtless men.
ReplyDeleteMore good fairly recent rom coms (in my opinion judged on rewatchability): 13 Going on 30, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, there were more.
But the bias is at the AV Club too because they sure did focus on that genre way more than any others and like smm says below, no way letters to juliet and even when in rome were worse than many other films last year. There wasn't enough in them to make them that bad.
I too am a Heigl fan. (see above where I praise both The Awful Truth and 27 Dresses) Although I would recommend a cool it period on playing up tight bitches.
ReplyDeleteIs there anything about Grown Ups that makes it so much worse than any of Sandler's other work of that ilk (not to mention the seemingly constant barage of horrible comedies not starring Adam Sandler), other than people resenting that he has the privilege of choosing to work with his BFFs in cool locations? Because I feel like that comes up a lot in reviews of it.
ReplyDeleteI mean, the man has a few types of movies that he does. One of them is dumb comedies he makes with all his pals. I liked them when I was a kid, I don't really like them much now. But this one seemed no worse than the others.
I'd watch it again before I rewatched any of his other movies since Spanglish (which I LOVE), with the possible exception of the first two thirds of Funny People.
I didn't see every movie in 2010, but Valentine's Day was probably the worst movie I saw (including on planes and on TV) in the better part of a decade.
ReplyDeleteI agree. As far as Sandler's catalogue goes, Grown Ups actually has higher re-watchability than pretty much anything else he's done. (I have not seen Funny People yet, though)
ReplyDeleteIt didnt have to go anywhere and I rather enjoyed that it did feel exactly like what was being portrayed in the movie... a bunch of people hanging out on vacation. Go figure.
<span> </span><span> When a rom-com doesn't work, you're left with people you're not interested in doing uninteresting things. </span><span>At least when an action movie (a la The A Team) doesn't work you've got explosions and fistfights and car chases to distract from the poor characterization and silly plot.</span>
ReplyDeleteOne of those explosion/fistfights in A-Team was aboard a parachuting tank, and it was uninteresting and silly. If you don't enjoy romcoms it doesn't mean the genre doesn't encompass the same amount of interesting elements of another genre. Studios put out stupid genre movies of all stripes. It's not just women who are too dumb to pick up on it.
I walked out of a movie this year for the first time in ten years, although that was because of the audience. It wasn't any of these, though.
ReplyDeleteI Netflixed two of them - HTTM and The Bounty Hunter (don't cost nuthin'). I don't recall which one I made it further into, but I'm sure it wasn't halfway on either. So I can't argue with the list
ReplyDeleteThat's just taunting us...
ReplyDeleteYeah, it is. :)
ReplyDeleteIt was a financial documentary, of all things. I didn't have a problem with the material, I just couldn't stand all of the gasping and clucking at every fact that got put on the screen. It was like everyone wanted everyone else to know that they "got it," that they understood the point the documentary was trying to make. I finally got up when the people behind me decided to start a running commentary.
Oh, and ten years ago, it was Novocaine.
ReplyDelete