The 10 Most Disappointing Movies of the Past 10 Years

There's nothing quite like the feelings that befall you when a movie you're anticipating is being released. As the release date grows closer and closer, the excitement builds and builds. Soon you're in the theater, waiting for it to start. The lights go down, the projector starts up, everything inside you reaches its boiling point...

...and then it sucks.

The film world is littered with titles that have failed to impress. To list them all would take longer than most are willing to spend. So for time's sake, here are a list of 10 disappointing titles from the last decade of film. Be warned: you probably won't agree with all of them.

--

"Shutter Island" (2010)

This is a lucky one, as its one of the only movies on the list that I actually like. It's got good performances, is well-shot, and could have had an enthralling story. Notice the "could have". Where "Shutter Island" fails is in its predictability. Within a half-hour, pretty much every twist this movie will throw at you is figured out. You know who is who, where the story will go, and how it will end. Scorsese does what he can with it, and helps along with the cast to elevate above what it probably should be. But its just not enough to call it great. And I think that's a label that everybody wanted to place on it.

"Cloverfield" (2008)

Another film with the distinction of being one that I liked. It did its job as a popcorn movie. But with the talent behind it, the amount of hype and build-up to it, and the intrigue that everyone seemed to have about it and what it was going to be...couldn't it have been a little better? The viral marketing that accompanied it built up so much backstory that it was a shame to not see too much (or really any of it) incorporated into the film itself. It was a standard found footage movie, and was good for a night at the theater with your friends. But not much more. It was basically destined to never live up to anybody's expectations. Had it not been marketed the way it was, it would likely be a completely different story.

"Watchmen" (2009)

Anybody who is familiar with the comic book world is quite familiar with "Watchmen", as its widely considered one of the greatest comics ever written. So when the long-gestating film adaptation finally got under way, there was some excitement. There was also a little apprehension, because the book has so much in it, and so many ideas to explore, that there was no feasible way you could fit it all in. But director Zack Snyder did his best to assure us that everything would be a-okay come opening day. And you know something? For cramming such a big story in to two and a half hours, they didn't do so bad. The problem, however, comes from Snyder himself. He clearly had passion for the source material, and he wanted to show that as best he could. But it's such an overly visual movie that the story tends to get lost in the shuffle. Partner that with some bad performances from Matthew Goode and Malin Ackerman, and you get a movie that, while not terrible, should have been so much more.

"Funny People" (2009)

"It's called 'Funny People' but it isn't funny!" Yes, that was the point. Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about Judd Apatow's admirable but ultimately failed attempt at dramedy. Up to this point, most projects Apatow had been apart of had succeeded in being hilarious, while maintaining a bit of heart too. So it made sense that he'd want to try a movie that would focus on the heart a bit more than the hilarious. And it was an interesting premise too, it just wasn't executed as well as it could have been. It's far too long for the kind of movie it is, it moves along too slowly, and it seems to turn in to a completely different film about halfway through. It had its good elements, but it isn't quite enough to propel it beyond the mediocre status its unfortunately stuck at. A noble effort on the Apatow crew's part, but maybe they should stick with straight comedy for a little while longer.

"Superman Returns" (2006)

A movie with homages to Richard Donner's "Superman" directed by Bryan Singer sounds fantastic on paper. Unfortunately, you can't release a film on paper. If you did, that would make it a book. And if this is how Singer wanted to portray Superman, maybe he was best left in the pages of a comic. After "Batman Begins" came out and showed just how great a reboot could be, people were hungry to see this new take on an iconic hero. Instead, it was a carbon copy of everything that had been done before. The only thing new about it was the actors. It didn't look any different, it didn't feel any different, it was no different, from what Donner had started back in the 70s. And it was a fairly boring affair too, filled with plenty of flying and heroics but without a single punch thrown. After this left a bad taste in the audience's mouth, it'll be refreshing to see what Zack Snyder does with his actual reboot of the character. Then again, his last foray into the superhero genre made this list...

"Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" (2003)

So maybe James Cameron didn't come back to take the helm on this one, that didn't mean that there wasn't promise. He was replaced by Jonathan Mostow, who showed some promise with "U-571", and cast Nick Stahl and Claire Danes, two young actors who had proven that they weren't without talent. Not only that, but Stahl was replacing the horrid Edward Furlong as John Connor, a character who probably shouldn't have been as annoying as he was. But most important of all: it had Arnie, in the role that made him a star. It was going to be awesome. Or possibly not. While it isn't without its cool moments, the entire experience mostly feels bland and tacked on. And John Connor? He was still annoying. It all came off like a big-budget SyFy Original, and is probably best left forgotten. There are only two Terminator movies.

"The Matrix Revolutions" (2003)

For as middle-road as "The Matrix Reloaded" admittedly is, it felt like it did a good enough job of setting up something that would be the bigger and better movie of the series. The Wachowskis had said that by the end, our minds would be blown. But alas, for as much build up as we got about final showdowns and ultimate sacrifices, the end product all seemed so...lackluster. And confusing. Really confusing actually. It made it hard to care about anything that was happening. If this is supposed to be the battle to end all battles, which is what you've built it up to be, we should care more about it. The trilogy ended with most fans feeling unfulfilled, and some claiming it to be good as long as you only focus on the action. But even when you do that, you really can't help but feel like the previous two did it better.

"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" (2006)/ "At World's End" (2007)

The first one was an absolute blast that took pretty much the entire country by surprise, and when back-to-back sequels were announced, expectations were high. People just couldn't wait to have more adventures with Capt. Jack Sparrow. Then "Dead Man's Chest" came out and while not terrible, it was clear that the larger scope hadn't done wonders for the jumbled story, and that Capt. Jack was probably best as a one-off character. With "At World's End", these points were present yet again, add a surplus of unnecessary characters and you've got an even bigger mess of your hands. The biggest problem with both sequels is that everything got away from the filmmakers. At times they were like planes plummeting to Earth without any pilots, nobody seemed to have control over where the story was going or what the characters were going to do. And Jack. Jack, Jack, Jack. "On Stranger Tides" might show that not everyone agrees, but there are certainly those of us who feel like you've overstayed your welcome.

"Public Enemies" (2009)

Johnny Depp and Christian Bale starring in a Michael Mann-directed film about notorious criminal John Dillinger, how could it fail? Pretty easily as it turns out. Nothing about this movie is what it could have been. The movie looks and even feels like a more expensive History Channel re-enactment, none of the performances are up to par with the performer giving it, Christian Bale isn't in it nearly as much as he probably should be, and above all else: it's slow. And boring. The tale of John Dillinger is an interesting one, and he's a legendary figure in midwest history. By all accounts, this theoretically should have been "Heat" with tommy guns. But it doesn't even come close. In a way, you can respect Mann for that. But in another way, it would have made everything so much more watchable.

"Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" (2002)/ "Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" (2005)

"The Phantom Menace" is included in spirit, as that was a 1999 release. But the heartbreak that millions of fanboys feel over these films is unmeasurable. George Lucas was a king, he might have made a blunder or two, but he had respect. And he was going to win it back completely with this prequel trilogy. We were going to see how Vader became Vader, and it was going to be glorious. Then Jar Jar came on screen. Then we saw Anakin, and he was an annoying little kid. But still, that all could have been a fluke! After all, the next one was going to show Anakin as an adult, and it was going to be darker! Then we saw Anakin as an adult, and he was still annoying. But wait, the final one will have Vader in it! Surely this one won't disappoint! By now you should see where this is going. Glaring errors in story continuity aside, there's just not much of merit in these. For films packed with actual good actors (one has an Oscar now, I'll remind you), the performances were awful. Not that that's anything new to the "Star Wars" franchise, but with so much talent its amazing how wrong it went. The heavier emphasis on CGI, the lack of actual locations. The heart was gone. It had been surgically removed and stomped on over and over. There are moments here and there where it seems like the glory will return, but it never does. The days of the prequels were dark days indeed, and most fans would rather forget about them. As for Lucas? Well, it'll take more than he's willing to do for him to get his respect back.

--

So there you have it, the 10 most disappointing movies of the past 10 years. I'm sure some of you will be scratching your heads about what you find to be glaring omissions, and I can already think of what a few of those will be. That's why I'll be back soon with a companion article about why said omissions were omitted (and why maybe you shouldn't be so disappointed with them in the first place).

Agree? Disagree? Sound off!