The ten Most Disappointing Films Of 2024, Ranked

This isn’t a listing of the worst films of 2024. The truth is, this listing is exclusive in that it comprises films which can be good, dangerous, and someplace in between. However all of them have one factor in frequent: each movie on this listing allow us to down not directly. They damage us a little bit. They left us wounded. They took our expectations and gave them a painful kick within the rear.

We typically attempt to steer clear of “worst of” lists right here at /Movie — they’re largely nugatory, particularly since few individuals really get round to seeing the precise worst films of a given yr. Nonetheless, a listing of the ten most disappointing films of 2024 is a much more attention-grabbing proposition. These are the films that had our undivided consideration till they did not. For a few of them, their nice sin was being merely fairly good after we have been hoping for one thing extraordinary. Others are merely profound letdowns that left us deflated. Few of them are actively dangerous or unwatchable, however they’re all responsible of crushing our hopes to some capability. And in some methods, is not that worse than merely being a foul film?

The ultimate listing is a tour of tarnished, and generally damaged, goals (the total dialog/debate over the creation of this listing was recorded and can be launched as a future episode of the /Movie Day by day podcast). We cannot say it’s best to actively keep away from any of those films — nicely, possibly “Joker: Folie à Deux” — however we do counsel you retain your expectations firmly in test.

It is curious that we, as filmgoers, are persistently tantalized by the “Alien” sequence. Ridley Scott’s “Alien” premiered in 1979, and stays, to today, among the finest horror films ever made. It helped that the central alien creature was so odd and off-putting; it regarded like a penis made from tooth and gelatin. In 1986, James Cameron turned the sequence into an motion franchise with “Aliens,” a high-octane, machine-gun-toting redux of what was primarily the identical story. 

Ever since, although, audiences have been let down time and time once more. David Fincher’s “Alien³” was hated upon its launch, and there are only a few defenders of the comparatively kooky “Alien: Resurrection.” Everybody scoffs on the two “Alien vs. Predator” films, and Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” is hotly contested (I am one of many few who appears to adore it). There could also be just a few good scenes in Scott’s “Alien: Covenant,” however it’s actually nobody’s favourite. The recollections of the primary two “Alien” films have been sufficient to maintain audiences coming again for many years. 

The most recent disappointment was Fede Álvarez’s prequel movie “Alien: Romulus,” set in between “Alien” and “Aliens.” Whereas the movie’s craft is impeccable and its visuals sharp and terrifying, its crass use of a useless “Alien” actor (recreated by way of CGI) and its direct connections to Scott’s unique movie depart “Romulus” feeling spinoff and uncreative. It is not an growth of the already-simple “Alien” lore, however another rehash of safe, familiar material. (Witney Seibold)

As soon as upon a time, casting two of our best film stars as co-leads led to fashionable classics comparable to Steven Soderbergh’s “Ocean’s” trilogy and the Coen brothers’ “Burn After Studying.” Almost 20 years later, that exact same impulse to reunite George Clooney with Brad Pitt resulted in an Apple TV+ unique that no person ever heard of that performed in theaters for all of per week. Yeah, the dire state of filmmaking today certain ain’t beating these allegations.

Is {that a} assertion on the quality of movies like “Wolfs,” which I reviewed mixed positively for /Film, or the forms of tasks sneaking via studio executives these days — or all the above? By any metric, author/director Jon Watts’ buzzy-sounding detour from the Marvel machine ought to’ve been precisely what the physician ordered. The thought of a “Michael Clayton” redux following getting old “fixers” suspiciously assigned the identical job that is boosted by little greater than star energy and old-school sensibilities ought to’ve been a dream come true. However take away the temptation to grade issues on a curve and the frustration can not help however set in. Should not a plot carried by two world-class stars be sharper and extra energetic? Cannot a sendup to Scorsese films of outdated be a little bit extra unique? Is it an excessive amount of to ask for type and substance?

As slickly-made as it’s, “Wolfs” by no means escapes the sensation of settling for “ok” when it may’ve been a lot extra. (Jeremy Mathai)

As the most recent iteration of Starship Goth, “MaXXXine” works like a dream. Mia Goth shines as brightly as she does in “X” and “Pearl,” combining the chaotic power of a seasoned character actress with a contact of A-lister aura. This can be a very specific set of abilities that bodes nicely for her future, if the sooner two installments of Ti West’s “X” trilogy by some means left any lingering questions on her expertise.

The issue lies within the film itself. “MaXXXine” suffers from the hefty baggage of expectations set by its two gory and modern predecessors. The nuanced juxtaposition of Goth’s characters Maxine Minx and Pearl within the grownup film business slasher “X” (2022) permits the movie to concurrently embrace the style and rise above it. The demented, faux-cheerful cinema traditional motifs of the prequel “Pearl” (2022) stick with you lengthy after the top credit. In comparison with them, “MaXXXine” is not a foul film. Maxine’s Hollywood adventures make for a succesful psychological horror piece with copious shiny spots, tactical references, and a stellar forged — Kevin Bacon’s sleazy P.I., take a bow. The movie simply cannot sustain with the primary two, so for the primary time within the sequence the viewer can end the film and go: “Wait, was that it?”  

Nonetheless, regardless of “MaXXXine” failing to clear the bar of expectations, there isn’t any denying that the “X” sequence it wraps up has been an general success. It will be attention-grabbing to see the place the inventive paths of Goth and West take them. (Pauli Poisuo)

When promising horror filmmaker Gary Dauberman (“Annabelle Comes Residence”) signed on to direct the primary big-screen adaptation of Stephen King’s traditional novel “Salem’s Lot,” expectations received instantly out of whack. How may they not? The ebook is extensively thought of to be one among King’s perfect, whereas Tobe Hooper’s 1979 TV film rendition etched a window-tapping nightmare deep into the unconscious of each child who’s ever watched it. Hooper’s model is sort of good for what it’s, however the limitations of primetime tv finally stored it from being the bloodsucking traditional it ought to’ve been. Sure, there was a made-for-TNT miniseries in 2004, however it was dreadfully uninspired.

With James Wan on board as a producer, this third try and nail an eminently nailable novel felt like near a certain factor, particularly approaching the heels of Andy Muschietti’s very R-rated tackle King’s “It.” However when the discharge of Dauberman’s movie stored getting pushed again, that feeling progressively vanished. When “‘Salem’s Lot” quietly debuted on Max in October, we have been primed for disappointment. Sadly, Dauberman delivered exactly that. One of the best that may be stated of his “‘Salem’s Lot” is that it comprises scenes from what may’ve been an excellent adaptation of the novel. The issue is that Dauberman rushes via the setup to the purpose the place the characters’ motivations are muddled if not downright inexplicable. Above all, “Salem’s Lot” must be enjoyable, however this slam job appears solely focused on hitting the end line in below two hours. Concision can actually be a advantage, however a yarn as wealthy as this must breathe. (Jeremy Smith)

What an exceptional waste of expertise. After incomes an immense quantity of goodwill following the large field workplace success of “Joker,” it felt like director Todd Phillips was going to take an enormous swing with “Joker: Folie à Deux,” which was touted as a full-on musical that will add Girl Gaga as Harley Quinn alongside Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck, aka the rising legal madman often called Joker. Sadly, the outcomes have been lower than passable throughout the board, for each followers and critics. 

As somebody who wasn’t notably impressed with the muddled messaging of “Joker,” regardless of a praiseworthy efficiency by Joaquin Phoenix, the event of “Joker 2” right into a musical with Girl Gaga really piqued my curiosity. What a daring option to comply with up a grounded method to a comic book ebook villain’s origin story! However Todd Phillips clearly doesn’t know how to direct a musical, and the movie’s story is so hole that it by some means has even much less to say than the unique.

Maybe essentially the most egregious sin is the entire waste of Girl Gaga’s skills, each as a singer and an actor. On prime of that, her function within the story serves to utterly destroy something vital established for Arthur Fleck within the first film. The final word finish of “Joker 2” appears like an infinite cop-out, one that might have held promise in a extra gifted director’s palms, particularly in terms of deconstructing the mythologizing of villains in popular culture. However when all is alleged and finished, “Joker 2” is nothing however a toothless punchline. (Ethan Anderton)

I ought to say this proper off the bat: in no universe is “Sorts of Kindness” a dangerous film. Yorgos Lanthimos’ anthology film — which makes use of the identical forged to inform three totally weird tales — is certainly a film for the sickos (which is a praise), and the core forged, which incorporates Jesse Plemons, Emma Stone, Margaret Qualley, Willem Dafoe, Hong Chau, Mamoudou Athie, and Joe Alywin, commit themselves totally to some wild and generally unsettling materials. My level is that this: “Sorts of Kindness” is a disappointment as a result of it is a Lanthimos film starring Stone that barely made a splash in any respect.

“Sorts of Kindness” flew so drastically below the cultural radar that I would be keen to wager most individuals have not even heard of it, which is a downside contemplating that, earlier this yr, Stone received her second Academy Award in a decade for a special and greater Lanthimos movie, “Poor Issues.” Individuals have been speaking about “Poor Issues” because it launched in 2023 — I would be keen to wager there’s nonetheless loads of discourse taking place about it in some nook of the Web — and the truth that “Sorts of Kindness” went largely unnoticed is an issue. I actually loved watching “Sorts of Kindness” after I noticed it in theaters this summer time after which I went dwelling and forgot about it instantly. That bums me out. That ought to not occur with a film from somebody as delightfully unusual and imaginative as Lanthimos. Here is hoping that “Bugonia,” his subsequent venture with Plemons and Stone, fares higher. (Nina Starner)

Steve McQueen is without doubt one of the most enjoyable administrators working right now, having made gut-wrenching dramas, compelling character research, an underrated thriller, and a documentary about Amsterdam below Nazi occupation (and that is not even mentioning the towering accomplishment of the anthology saga “Small Axe”). However “Blitz,” his World Struggle II drama starring Saoirse Ronan (one of many perfect actresses of her technology) as a mom who’s separated from her younger son throughout the blitz of London, doesn’t really feel like a Steve McQueen film. 

Regardless of having its coronary heart in the correct place, we’re left with the sinking feeling that just a few dozen different administrators may have made this as a substitute, which isn’t one thing we are able to say about McQueen’s earlier work. There is a distinctive high quality that is lacking right here, and an anonymity to the vignette-style storytelling that retains the movie at arm’s size when the premise is ripe for audiences to soften right into a puddle of tears. I used to be primed for some emotional catharsis, however due to a considerably shoddy script, not a single tear was shed upon watching. Essentially the most disappointing facet of “Blitz” was that after it was over, I simply sort of shrugged my shoulders and moved on with my day, and that is not one thing you possibly can usually say a few Steve McQueen image. (Ben Pearson)

Marielle Heller’s “Nightbitch,” an adaptation of Rachel Yoder’s bestselling novel of the identical identify, has one of many strongest openings of any movie launched in 2024. Amy Adams’ character, recognized solely as Mom, runs into Sally, the girl who changed her at her gallery job after she left to change into a stay-at-home mother. “Do you simply love attending to be dwelling with him on a regular basis? Have to be great,” Sally muses. Mom then unleashes a monologue about being in a hell of her personal creation, loving her little one however feeling like she’ll by no means really be completely satisfied once more … solely to divulge to the viewers that that is simply how she feels, hidden behind the nice, socially acceptable line she really provides, “I really like being a mother.”

With the premise that Mom is so overwhelmed that she’s turning right into a canine at night time and one among Amy Adams’ career-best performances, “Nightbitch” had every thing on paper to be an all-time nice. Sadly, the result is a toothless satire that by no means goes as arduous because it ought to. It is all bark and no chew, with emphasis on bark, as a result of the inside monologue of Mom shortly turns into voiceover narration that does. not. cease. Heller’s sense of comedy is nicely on show and the movie is plagued by little moments of brilliance, however it leads to a maddeningly irritating expertise each time we get a glimpse of what may have, and may have been, in comparison with what we received. (BJ Colangelo)

It took them practically 1 / 4 of a century to provide you with this script?

The issue with “Gladiator II” is not one among scope or visible ambition, as director Ridley Scott has by no means met a sequence he could not carry to vivid, brutal life. The issue is that nothing concerning the precise story being instructed on this long-awaited sequel feels particularly important. Paul Mescal, a very good actor, drowns in the midst of a screenplay that by no means provides him something to do, and by no means lets him really drive the motion ahead. This can be a film the place issues occur across the hero, and he finally will get to make a foul speech about it. “Gladiator II” is much less of a story and extra of a sequence of occasions, with characters merely ambling about and stumbling over one another once they aren’t hacking each other to bits within the gladiatorial area.

No surprise this film is obsessive about the late Maximus and the impression he had on the characters on this movie — nobody right here (apart from a scene-stealing Denzel Washington) carries the burden and charisma of Russell Crowe, whose contributions to the primary movie are extra clear than ever. “Gladiator II” is actually watchable, and it is steadily fantastic, however it might probably’t assist however remind you with each body that the primary movie is magnificent, and so a lot better than the sequel you are watching now. (Jacob Corridor)

After I was rising up goth, Tim Burton was like a god to me. Then sooner or later, Burton misplaced his mojo (in my humble opinion, 1994’s “Ed Wooden” is Burton’s final nice film, whereas 2003’s “Huge Fish” is his final good film). So when it was revealed that Burton could be reuniting with Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, and Catherine O’Hara for the “Beetlejuice” sequel “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” I wasn’t precisely thrilled. I really like the unique “Beetlejuice,” however the prospect of modern Tim Burton returning to that nicely did not encourage a lot confidence. And but, nostalgia received the higher of me. I began to get excited, and that pleasure was elevated when some of us who noticed the movie referred to as it a return to kind for Burton. Then I lastly watched “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” for myself … and my coronary heart sank.

Whereas Keaton appears to slide simply again into the function of the Ghost with the Most, Ryder and O’Hara each really feel like utterly totally different characters than the individuals they performed within the unique movie. On prime of that, the script, by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, is borderline incoherent, missing a strong story and as a substitute comprised of a sequence of hacky, unfunny bits (a “Soul Practice” joke, actually?). Willem Dafoe has some enjoyable as an undead cop, however every thing else on show here’s a pale imitation of the unique movie. I am going to all the time cherish Burton’s early work, however the director merely doesn’t have the juice anymore. (Chris Evangelista)