Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

RSS Feeds:All posts by this author|All comments for this post
10 Worst Sundance Sensations

10 Worst Sundance Sensations

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 9 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Getting ready for the Sundance Film Festival can be very exciting. As we await the event’s Thursday opening, we can’t stop wondering what will be the next big thing. Will this year’s hit be the highly-anticipated Michael Cera project Paper Hearts, or will it be something that we as of yet know nothing about?

It’s easy to forget, however, that oftentimes the next big thing is also the next lamest thing. Sundance sensations, those films that are much-buzzed-about, that sell for a lot of money, that go on to be marketed like crazy and ultimately receive Oscar recognition, tend to lend themselves most easily to backlashes. Usually such derision is deserved, as in the case of the following ten films, each of which made a big splash at Sundance despite being bad.



10. Brick (Rian Johnson; 2005 Sundance premiere)

When Blade Runner was first released, critics attacked its novelty of combining film noir with science fiction. Yet when Brick arrived in Park City, its similar genre-bending mix of film noir and teen films was welcomed as the most original film in years. In both circumstances, critics were wrong, and while Blade Runner ultimately became a classic, Brick is retrospectively even sillier now than it was when it won a Special Jury Prize “for originality of vision” four years ago. Yes, the film is a fresh idea in theory, but it doesn’t really work on screen, no matter how much you want it to or think it does. It’s simply a novelty gag for film geeks who love noir — while not quite as enjoyable for fans of the teen genre. Is there really anyone who wouldn’t just rather watch a double feature of The Big Sleep and Heathers?




9. Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris; 2006 Sundance premiere)

Never mind its impact on the culture of Sundance. The annoying “what will be the next Little Miss Sunshine?” idea was just a substitute for similar questions going back as far as 1990 (“what will be the next sex, lies, and videotape?”). The real problem with LMS is that it’s a decent dysfunctional family comedy that falls apart in the third act. On the positive side, it finally got Alan Arkin an Oscar. But on the more glaring negative side, it also got Abigail Breslin an Oscar nomination. Hardly worthy, also, of its Best Picture nod or its Best Original Screenplay win, the film’s success is the product of a terrific marketing team and moviegoers’ acceptance of cheesy endings — and has nothing to do with the quality of the film.




8. The Brothers McMullen (Edward Burns; 1995 Sundance premiere)

While the name Fox Searchlight is now synonymous with marketing the hell out of “indie” sensations like Little Miss Sunshine, Juno and Slumdog Millionaire, the specialty division has been overdoing it with unworthy films since the very first Sundance hit they distributed. The Brothers McMullen is not necessarily a bad film, but it isn’t anything special either. Some say the 1995 fest was the downward turning point for Sundance, whether because it showed us a major “sellout” who wasn’t actually as good as he’d been celebrated as being (Kevin Smith, who disappointed with his sophomore effort, Mallrats) or because a lackluster picture like McMullen won the Grand Jury Prize. And like Smith, Edward Burns ultimately revealed himself to be something of an embarrassment, talent-wise, to the reputation of Sundance alums.




7. Garden State (Zach Braff; 2004 Sundance premiere)

2004 was the year that indie quirkiness got out of hand at Sundance (see #3). Sure, Garden State got us all into The Shins, but it also got filmmakers too into a genre I call “homecoming of age” movies, those banal stories about twenty- and thirty- somethings who revisit their homes due to a dying or dead parent and involve themselves with wacky townies in the process. Any idiot can write a script of this type and fill it with quirky scenery and an obnoxious yet adorable love interest. Sundance must still be getting countless submissions of this kind of film, but unfortunately for the rest of the world’s idiot filmmakers, they aren’t TV stars like Zach Braff.




6. SherryBaby (Laurie Collyer; 2006 Sundance premiere)

Sundance has long been a haven for depressing films involving junkies and/or incest, but few have been as overrated as SherryBaby. Once again, it’s all about the star power, as the film might not have been so hyped had Maggie Gyllenhaal not been in the lead. Then again, it might have actually been a better film without her. Grandly over-praised for her performance as the easily played rehabilitating mom, the actress got undeserved kudos simply for being raw and despicable. Her Oscar snub was a relief, at least.




5. Born Into Brothels (Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman; 2004 Sundance premiere)

It may have won the documentary Audience Award at Sundance and the documentary Oscar a year later, but that doesn’t excuse Born Into Brothels from being a disgrace to nonfiction filmmaking. One of the most self-satisfying docs ever made, the film will forever be marked by its footage of co-director Zana Briski figuratively patting herself on the back during a fundraiser, with which she sinfully seeks sainthood for involving herself in the lives of her film’s subjects. If documentary was synonymous with charity, Born Into Brothels would indeed be a great film, but documentaries like this should merely be an inspiration to charity, not charity itself.




4. Masked and Anonymous (Larry Charles; 2003 Sundance premiere)

One of the most anticipated films of the 2003 festival due to a script co-written by Bob Dylan and an unbelievable cast including Dylan, Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Penelope Cruz, Ed Harris, Luke Wilson, Mickey Rourke, Angela Bassett, Jessica Lange and many other big names, the very messy Masked and Anonymous therefore ended up the biggest disappointment of that year. Its worth was later defended and praised by such critics as Jonathan Rosenbaum, who included it in his 2003 Top Ten list, and Salon.com’s Stephanie Zacharek. But most of us are in agreement that it’s one of the biggest wastes of talent in years.




3. Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess; 2004 Sundance premiere)

Napoleon Dynamite’s inclusion on this list is likely to upset more people than Brick’s, but at least the Brick devotees can defend their fandom with more than just shouts of “It’s funny!” Because the thing is, Napoleon Dynamite is not comedy. It is merely quirky, which is not the same thing as funny. Jared Hess’ pop culture phenomenon does feature some highly original characters and situations, but his execution of these elements is obvious and uninteresting. “Gosh!” is neither a good punchline nor a good catchphrase.




2. The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez; 1999 Sundance premiere)

It must be appreciated as much as attacked for its groundbreaking marketing campaign, and in many ways the film itself can be acknowledged for having a terrific premise with an almost perfect realization of that idea. But for the most part, The Blair Witch Project is a basic, amateur and poorly concluded effort that turned the appeal of indie simplicity on its head. Almost a decade earlier, when filmmakers saw Slacker and said “I can do that,” they were mostly mistaken. But The Blair Witch allowed every schmo with a digital camera to declare, “I can do that,” and be relatively correct in his or her statement. It’s okay for indie filmmaking to seem easy, but when it really is that easy, it degrades the truly talented.




1. Boxing Helena (Jennifer Lynch; 1993 Sundance premiere)

Cult appeal notwithstanding, Boxing Helena was one of the first really awful movies to be up for Sundance’s Grand Jury Prize. And although in the 17 years since, the festival has been easily criticized for allowing bad films with lots of buzz and/or big name talent to be included in competition, no film has been as unworthy as this. Had it starred original choice Madonna in the part of the titular amputee, Boxing Helena might have really deserved to at least become a midnight movie. However, with its lesser-name casting, it’s barely even good enough for Skinamax programming.

Add your comments

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

  • Ashley said

    What makes someone laugh is what’s funny. If quirk gets laughs, the quirk is funny. Napoleon made a lot of people laugh. My guess is that all of those people were philistines since this blogger says the execution was “obvious and uninteresting”.

    As for Brick, I went in knowing nothing of the buzz, or much at all about the movie. I loved it. But I must have been wrong because this blogger says it “doesn’t really work on screen, no matter how much you want it to or think it does.” There’s no arguing with airtight logic.

    Good call on which picks would be most controversial, Christopher Campbell.

  • mary said

    I’m afraid that I haven’t seen most of the movies on this list but I just wanted to second that I really loved Brick. I knew nothing about it when I first saw it but it immediately entered the list of my favorite films.

  • Spoon said

    re: Brick
    What “doesn’t really work on screen”? The deliriously, delightfully elaborate dialogue or the constant stream of striking compositions and sharp editing? Just trying to understand.

    I’m not even gonna get into “The Blair Witch Project” and “Napoleon Dynamite”.

  • American Teenie said

    You left out American Teen… Disgrace, worse than Born into Brothels

  • Erik said

    You forgot Clerks. That one was like moving back home and hanging out with the biggest dork in town. Oh GOD the agony . The banality.

  • Derek said

    I think you’re right (to a point) about most of these movies: they generally received more recognition than they deserved. But overly-positive reception in and of itself doesn’t make movies bad. If some of these movies had not gotten the amount of buzz they did end up getting, you’d probably be putting them on lists for “underrated movies that had Sundance premieres.” I think a lot of people’s problem, and maybe yours, is that they spend more time reading what the whole entire world has to say about a movie than actually trying to formulate their own opinion about it. And in your case, this is made very easy, because all these movies are at least three years old: you’ve had plenty of time to see what everyone has said about all of these movies, now you just have to say the exact opposite, and you’re awesome.

  • Mike Shea said

    This list really comes across as, “These were fine movies when they were Sundance movies, but when everyone else started to like them, too, now they suck.” But, that’s pretty much the point of view I’m coming to expect from Spout.

  • Jared said

    I really like Spout, enjoy listening to the podcast, and usually want to defend the bloggers here from the charges of hipsterism and pretension that occasionally get leveled in their direction. Karina, for instance, is a fine film critic who often reminds me of Pauline Kael and so, even when she comes across as a BIT too cool, I’m interested in her opinion and the reasons that led her to it.

    But this list goes above and beyond my ability to defend. I understand the concept and even agree, to an extent, that some of these movies got a bit more love than they deserved on their own merits. But Christopher Campbell comes across like the guy discussing Fellini in Annie Hall, except without even a hint of justification for why some of these films are “really awful” or “really (don’t) work on screen.”

    I get the idea that a list doesn’t allow much room for analysis, but there’s enough space to write in a style that doesn’t sound snobbish. You can hide a good deal of undefended opinion with snark and humor, but Campbell doesn’t even do that, instead choosing to come across like that guy at the coffee shop who talks too loudly and makes everyone else want to knock over his mug. If Campbell’s aim was to provoke, bravo. But he’d do well to remember that provoking just for the sake of provocation leads only to a hollow infinite regress, not to sound judgment or critical evaluation.

  • Christopher Campbell said

    Jared, I understand how I may come across as snobbish in this post, but these lists are meant to be more subjective opinion than critical analysis. That said, I feel the only film I really need to defend my inclusion of is Brick, and I stand by my thinking that it does not work as a film because it seems, at least to me, to be a novelty gag that overstays its welcome. I believe the concept might have worked better as a novel or even a short film, but at nearly two hours, it really stretches the single joke (or, let’s say primary objective) very thin.

    And Mike, I didn’t like any of these films even as simply Sundance films, as you presume. In fact, I think they’re all disappointing representatives of Sundance.

  • Rudy Mett said

    I second “Clerks”. That movie is terrible.

  • Ryan said

    Huh, after reading this post I wanted to respond with an awesome rebuttal to CC’s lame critic of the aforementioned films… but, no need. Bravo everyone!

  • aaron g said

    ” . . . but at least the Brick devotees can defend their fandom with more than just shouts of “It’s funny!” Because the thing is, Napoleon Dynamite is not comedy.”

    and that’s supposed to be an argument? “it’s not comedy”? seriously? not going to go into *why* it isn’t a comedy, why it’s merely quirky, why it’s “obvious and uninteresting”? just saying it makes it so? that’s it, then? i already know what you’d say in response: “it’s all, like, subjective, man” but at least have an *argument*. say *why* you think what you do about a film; otherwise, you’re no different from any old dullard at imdb.

    but hey, is spout in a race w/ reverseshot to see who’s the biggest punk rock renegade? tragically, i think they have you guys beat: they hate slumdog AND the dark knight. OOOOOH, REBELS. YOU GUYS THINK FOR YOURSELVES, MAN!!!!

    now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a line i have to go stand in. like a good sheep, i like napoleon dynamite.

  • Branden said

    I have seen some of these films. LMS, Blair Witch Project, Garden State. I think that they are overrated. Some are good, but not great.

  • Paul DeBenedetto said

    What a delightful exercise in futility; reading a list you think is stupid by a writer you dislike on a website you get annoyed by, and then drafting a comment!

    “Spoon”, nothing about Brick was “delightful”, least of all the dialogue. The closest thing to a delight I had in that whole movie was when the lights came up and I realized it was over.

    And “aaron g” if you’re going to comment I have a few pieces of advice: 1. read the post. no seriously, like beginning to end. 2. Do not end any sentence, paragraph, fucking fragment, ANYTHING with the words “I like Napoleon Dynamite”. You’re only embarrassing yourself and the people who love you.

  • Kevin Kelly said

    Ack! Et tu, Chris? I loved Brick. I saw that at my second ever Sundance and just enjoyed the hell out of it. How could you… how could you. *sniffle*

  • The Playlist said

    Great list, though i still think Brick is great. However, you almost nullify the entire thing with the exclusion of Clerks which is pretty much worse than anything on this list.

  • Magan said

    The only thing more pretentious then these films is your list. Boo-urns, sir. Though number three truly is horrible.