At a time when film critics are busy compiling lists of the films they fanatically adored or severely detested over the last year, I’m here to point out 5 films where I think the critical masses got it all wrong. These are the five films of 2008 that I believe most critics simply didn’t “get”; possibly because they approached the films with the wrong mindset or because they failed to see the rose a top of the thorns.
So before you omit the following five films from your memory of 2008, or let them float off into the abyss of films you may never see, read on to hear why I think you should consider giving them the chance they deserve.
Rotten Tomatoes Average: 68%
Rotten Tomatoes Consensus:
None is provided. Instead, here is Glen Kenny’s rather conclusive summary:
“Gondry might have been better off keeping his movie on theoretical/slapstick grounds, because, quite frankly, his attempts at sincerity just don’t make it.”
– Glenn Kenny, Premiere.
Synopsis:
A man whose brain becomes magnetized unintentionally destroys every tape in his friend’s video store. In order to satisfy the store’s most loyal renter, an aging woman with signs of dementia, the two men set out to remake the lost films. (IMDB)
Why is it on the list?
It’s hard to truly blame film critics for feeling a bit disappointed by Michael Gondry’s Be Kind Rewind. Expectations can be a disastrous thing. For starters, high hopes automatically arise after the Gondry’s magnificent 2004 film 
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind lamented the director as one of Hollywood’s most promising. Secondly, it doesn’t help that Be Kind Rewind is labelled incorrectly as a comedy. It’s the first thing critics will point out; the film is simply not that funny. Which is true, it really isn’t. But that’s missing the point.
Firstly, there is a fantastic level of creativity injected into this film, mostly seen in each lo-fi remakes Mos Def and Jack Black undertake. The film also manages to tastefully pay homage to the defunct VHS format whilst also rejoicing in the home-made charm of the YouTube generation. Yet the true magic of Be Kind Rewind is firmly within its heartfelt story about a community’s enduring spirit. Prior to Gondry’s film, I had almost forgotten what it was like to walk out of a film completely elated. If only for a moment, it made me want to get to know my neighbour better. It made me want to help the elderly cross the street. It just made me feel – what’s the word – good.
Call me a pessimist, but few film have that effect on me.
If you can approach this film without expecting the greatness of Eternal Sunshine or the comedy event of the year, then there is a lot of heart to Be Kind Rewind that even this cynic can enjoy.
Who else saw the light?
Keith Phipps of The Onion was also drawn in by the giant heart of the film, stating:
“The visual wit, game performances, and overflowing humanity have more than made up for the shortcomings by the time the film finds a final moment that’s simultaneously abrupt and magical.”
RT Average: 53%
RT Consensus:
“Built on lavish vistas and impeccable production, Australia is unfortunately burdened with thinly drawn characters and a lack of originality.”
Synopsis:
Set in northern Australia before World War II, an English aristocrat who inherits a sprawling ranch reluctantly pacts with a stock-man in order to protect her new property from a takeover plot. As the pair drive 2,000 head of cattle over unforgiving landscape, they experience the bombing of Darwin, Australia, by Japanese forces firsthand. (IMDB)
Read our review here.
Why is it on the list?
It was to be the film that would revitalise the economy, bring forth a flood of wealthy tourists, take home an army of golden statues at the Oscars and initiate the second coming of Jesus. Ok, maybe not the last part. But there is no denying that Australia and its director Baz Luhrmann had the weight of the nation on its shoulders. Consequently, when it bombed at the box office and was met with hugely mixed reviews, it was quickly labelled as one of the biggest disappointments of the year, if not the decade. Come on now, is it really that bad? More to the point, is it bad at all? I’m starting to wonder if critics were actually expecting Jesus to have a cameo appearance.
It is true Australia wasn’t the masterpiece we all naively came to expect. Yet Australia is still a vastly enjoyable film that didn’t deserve the poor box office sales it received. The cinematography is breathtaking, the cast is fantastic and the story is splendidly clichéd. Yes, you heard me, splendidly clichéd. The remarkable thing about Australia is that, like the runt puppy of a litter, it’s strangely likeable for its flaws. It’s overlong, overdone, overindulgent and completely passé. Yet from the get-go, it never tries to be anything but. It actually makes a an effort to be all of the above. Somehow, like an expensive soap-opera, it succeeds in doing so stylishly. It’s a sumptuous cinematic experience that shouldn’t be missed.
Who else saw the light?
Actually, quite a lot of people did. The reviews for the film were a more diverse bunch than the actual population of Australia. That being said, it’s always the negative reviews that take the spotlight. After all, the masses take more satisfaction in reading about something labelled ‘a giant waste of money’ than they do a ‘success’.
Megan Lehmann, in a review for The Hollywood Reporter, summed up Australia perfectly:
“Australia defies all but the most cynical not to get carried away by the force of its grandiose imagery and storytelling.”
RT Average: 46%
RT Consensus:
“Despite a solid cast and truly frightening source material, The Ruins flounders, thanks to a weak script and an excess of gore.”
Synopsis:
A group of friends whose leisurely Mexican holiday takes a turn for the worse when they, along with a fellow tourist embark on a remote archaeological dig in the jungle, where something evil lives among the ruins. (IMDB)
Why is it on the list?
Thanks to the anesthetised state of Generation Y, films of the Horror genre have a near impossible task to achieve;
Be actually horrifying.
Sure, it sounds simple, but can you remember the last horror film that truly scared you for reasons other than limbs being tossed around the screen? No? Well maybe you should see The Ruins. Adapted from the book of the same name, The Ruins depicts the frightening encounter a group of backpackers have with an ancient Aztec ruin (surprise!) that is home to some particularly nasty vines that will quite literally get under your skin. Put simply, it’s The Descent above ground. It’s just not as well received for some reason.
Critically, The Ruins was bashed for being overly gory and for its sloppy screenplay adaptation. Without question, it certainly is uncompromising in the blood and guts department. Whilst gore is something I usually detest and write off as a cheap scare tactic, here it actually feels surprisingly necessary in bringing a realistic sense of consequence to the harrowing scenario. It works supplementary to a story that is persistently foreboding in its depiction of the chaos and terror that takes place. The solid cast and the actual pragmatic decisions their characters make, another rarity in the genre, propel the fear as we are left helplessly to watch everything go so terribly downhill.
If you can handle the gore and have a long unfulfilled appreciation for the horror genre, you might just find that The Ruins is the film for you’ve been waiting for. Considering this is Carter Smith’s first feature film, it’s also a good sign of things to come.
Who else saw the light?
Popular critic James Berardinelli of Reel Views gave The Ruins 3 out of 4 stars, stating:
“Although The Ruins is unquestionably horror, as the central conceit confirms, it belongs to a shrinking sub-category of the genre: adult films more concerned with generating tension and promoting viewer unease than reveling in an orgy of unrelenting violence.”
RT Average: 36%
RT Consensus:
“The Wachowski Brothers have overloaded Speed Racer with headache-inducing special effects, and neglected to develop a coherent storyline.”
Synopsis:
Speed Racer is a natural behind the wheel. Born to race cars, Speed is aggressive, instinctive and, most of all, fearless. His only real competition is the memory of the brother he idolised-the legendary Rex Racer – whose death in a race has left behind a legacy that Speed is driven to fulfil. (IMDB)
Why is it on the list?
There’s an admirable sense of irony about the way in which the message of Speed Racer is delivered. Here we have Larry and Andy Wachowski, whom revealed the truth about our pathetic existence in The Matrix with drab green hues and Gothic trench coats. In 2005 they produce a bleak thriller about a totalitarian Britain in V for Vendetta, using grim set pieces and a frightfully bald Natalie Portman. Yet the anti-capitalist statement of Speed Racer, arguably the most relevant and potent message of their career, is expressed with a set of vibrant crayons. I bet no one saw that coming….
As a result, critics felt as though the Wachowski’s coloured well outside the lines. But they are missing the point; it’s only when going outside the lines that a movie can be set apart from the masses. Speed Racer is geared towards a younger audience and fans of the original Anime, possibly explaining the poor critical reception, but that doesn’t make its panache any less admirable to everyone else. We’ve never seen a movie look like this before… and that’s got to count for something, right?
Critics were so eager to point out the hypocrisy in the films anti-capitalist message, they forgot to mention that Speed Racer is still a trendy, enjoyable ride. Whilst those with epilepsy might want to steer clear, It’s hard not to admire the technical glitter of the film; each scene is littered with colour that is far from “headache inducing”. Yes, the film is over-long and the narrative structure a bit messy; but the characters are likeable, the action is exciting, the story is educational… and did I mention it just looks cool?
Really, you can’t ask for much more than that.
Who else saw the light?
Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune gave the film 3 out of 4 stars saying;
“Not everybody can create a freshly conceived visual universe. The Wachowskis can.”
RT Average: 60%
RT Consensus:
“More visually elaborate than the fragmented story can sometimes support, The Fall walks the line between labor of love and filmmaker self-indulgence.”
Synopsis:
In a hospital on the outskirts of 1920s Los Angeles, an injured stuntman begins to tell a fellow patient, a little girl with a broken arm, a fantastical story about 5 mythical heroes. Thanks to his fractured state of mind and her vivid imagination, the line between fiction and reality starts to blur as the tale advances. (IMDB)
Why is it on the list?
If this list has taught you anything, it’s that I admire ambition. The Fall is, in my mind, the most ambitious film of the decade. Yet, thanks to its severely limited release, few have yet to notice.
Filmed in no less than 28 countries, Tarsem Singh’s second feature film is a jaw-dropping showcase of colour, theatrics and supremely beautiful locations. Even the most scathing critics will at least admit to that. Yet these critics are also inclined to label this fantasy an over-indulgent bore. To label a film this visually arresting as “boring” is to almost admit to partial blindness. It’s also failing to acknowledge the many aspects that go into making a film this grand. The decadent costumes, sublime sets, beautiful cinematography and enchanting score must account for something, right? According to some critics, apparently not.
Admittedly, the film can’t decide on its target audience; the childlike theatricality clashes with a decidedly dark narrative. And yes, the story is clearly outclassed by the film’s visual splendour. However, there is still a heartfelt and symbolic narrative at its core that is propelled by a delightful cast, including a breakthrough performance by young Romanian actress Catinca Untaru and a charming Lee Pace of mild TV fame (Pushing Daisies and Wonderfalls).
But even with all its successes, The Fall still succumbs to much criticism. Although, one should remember that Impressionism was rejected long before it became the most influential art movement of modern history. Maybe in time, The Fall will also be appreciated as a daring push towards something new. But why wait till then to marvel at its beauty?
Who else saw the light?
Roger Ebert actually placed this on his Top 20 Films of 2008 list, suitably stating in his 4 star review that “there will never be another like it”.
So with the world’s most prolific reviewer on board, how do I still classify The Fall as the most underrated film of 2008?
Because I not only think this film deserved a far wider release than it actually got, but that it even deserves a spot on all critics top 10 lists of 2008. Yes, I think it’s that good.
So what do you think? Agree with this list or disagree?
Is there any films you think should have made it on the list but didn’t?
Leave a comment below and let us know!
Follow the author Anders Wotzke on Twitter.
