Worst 2 Movies of the Past Year

Why only the worst 2, you ask? Because I've only seen 4 new movies in the last 12 months and really, really hated 2 of them. It's also no surprise that my picks for the two worst were chosen unanimously by critics as the 2 best of 2007. This has been happening year after year since American Beauty: the films I can't stand usually end up winning all of the awards. Go figure. Maybe Ryan can help me out more with my analysis here because he is far more knowledgeable about these things.

2nd Worst Movie of the Year: No Country for Old Men

I'm pretty sure this won best picture at the Grammies or Oscars or Golden Globes or whatever. Of course this would happen because this movie is terrible. Ryan and I have had this discussion before - what starts out as a relatively exciting cat and mouse Western between the protaganist and a deranged hit man ends without any resolution or plot twists. The bad guy kills people. Keeps killing people. And keeps killing people. And Tommy Lee Jones tells us about his dreams. That's about it. Why the writers thought it should take 2 and a half hours to demonstrate all of this is beyond me. This would have made for a great simple action/horror flick had it not been all artsy and serious, particularly in the final 30 minutes.

And I can hear you now. "But come on Patrick, it's 'different.' Don't you see? The good guy doesn't always win. The police can't always catch the bad guys!!" Yes they can. It's just that old, grizzled Sheriffs in rural Texas who are sick of their jobs can't. Send in the FBI or something and you'd have this guy by the end of the week. Problem solved.

Worst Movie of the Year: There Will Be Blood

I watched this one at home last Saturday night and actually had to cut it off in the middle so I could watch SNL. That's how uninterested I was in this movie. I know what you're thinking: "How can you rip this American masterpiece (oh yeah, that's what the critics are calling it)?!? Daniel Day Lewis puts in his most riveting performance to date!! " I will agree that Lewis is great at what he does, but just because you have A-list stars doesn't necessarily make it a good movie.

The plot is basically the same as No Country: there's this bad guy. Yep, he's bad alright...150 minutes later: Yep, he's still bad. Trust us, he's a bad guy...Okay, that's it. Thanks for your $7. No resolution. No plot twists. No surprises. No irony. Just a random ending that puts us in no better of a position than 2 hours earlier. I could have put "spoiler alert" at the beginning of this paragraph, but then I realized it's impossible to "spoil" this movie, because nothing really happens.

And that seems to be the new trend these days: Be "creative" by filming long movies about death and destruction and then just start rolling the credits about 3 hours later, at some random point, regardless of what scene we're in, because then it will look "ambitious" and "different." But just because you set out to make a masterpiece doesn't automatically make it one. Just because the Beatles tried to do something different and weird on Sargeant Pepper doesn't necessarily make it their best album.

Now many of you will say I'm an ignoramus because I don't "understand" and can't truly "appreciate" what these 2 films are about. But who's the real ignoramus here? Someone who simply didn't care for these movies because they seemed like a waste of time or someone who gives blind, unwarranted praise just because a couple of directors merely know how to throw together artsy, grainy, low-fi production techniques, overly-dramatic musical scores that don't fit with what's going on, and A-list performers? You tell me.