Over the past month, I’ve been pouring through 2022’s top ten lists and kicking myself for not paying very much attention to this past year’s releases. With a few exceptions, I’ve managed to miss a majority of the most talked about films of the year. Creating a top ten list for the year would a depressing exercise in futility, because it would likely cross over with my bottom ten. Instead, this is simply a list of films I saw in 2022 that were worth mentioning – from worst to best.
When the David Gordon Green Halloween reboot was unleashed upon the world, I was fairly indifferent. Halloween has already been through several incarnations, and my only expectation was to be entertained. I’d argue that, for the most part, the film succeeded – or it would have until it became a trilogy. Halloween Kills was a boring mess that challenged my ability to stay awake, and proved to be as confusingly stupid as its title. Halloween Ends is a better title, and that’s the only real compliment I have left in me.
This trilogy is a blight on the franchise, and its finale is disappointment incarnate. Even Rob Zombie did better than this.
The Black Phone had a great trailer, and the hype was fairly significant. Ethan Hawke’s character looked fascinating, the plot was intriguing, and the source material came from Joe Hill, son of Stephen King. Absolutely everything about the final product is bland and disappointing, and this is definitely a film made predictable by an overly comprehensive trailer. Ethan Hawke was underutilized, the plot was thin, and the characters were obnoxious. When I realized we were doing the “psychic girl saves the day” thing, I wanted to vomit. This is Hollywood nepotism at its lamest, and the next time I see Joe Hill’s name attached to anything, I’m looking the other way.
I was initially confused by Deadstream. On the surface, the plot appealed to me – a cowardly, obnoxious YouTuber spends the night in a haunted house while he pisses himself at the slightest hint of a supernatural occurrence. I’m a sucker for found footage, so I expected a little too much.
I found the main character to be insufferable, but I stuck with the film because I assumed that I was SUPPOSED to hate this guy. Instead of building on the audience’s hatred of the lead, this became a funhouse-style comedy-horror, and it’s a crying shame. Some of the camera work is interesting, the premise is somewhat unique, but watching an annoying grown-ass human freak out and yell into the camera for almost 90 minutes was too much.
I really don’t understand the love for this one. Its social commentary came across as so thin and transparent that I felt like I was being lectured to for the majority of the runtime. There were some notable sequences, but some aspects of the ending were predictable enough to make this a fairly dull journey. If you liked it, great. Just don’t pretend there’s any profundity to be found here.
The latest Jordan Peele offering left me feeling unfulfilled. I enjoyed Get Out, but I had serious issues with Us, so I was mostly okay with giving Nope a chance. Unfortunately, the film felt like a disconnected series of skits until the final 30 minutes. Its concept is compelling, and it’s by no means a terrible film, but it definitely isn’t worth a repeat watch.
Those monkey scenes were cool though.
Fans have been begging Kevin Smith for a Clerks III for almost two decades, but with every delay, my faith in its quality has waned. I certainly can’t be alone in this, and by the time of the film’s release, my expectations were rock bottom. The final product is watchable, but I’d hardly call it a movie. Kevin Smith really pulls out all the stops when it comes to cameos, and the majority of Clerks III feels like a nostalgic retread of Smith’s earlier works. What plot there is focuses on the characters filming the original Clerks, which is a bit much, and prevents this from feeling like its own movie. If you can tolerate the overwhelming nostalgia-bait, it is perhaps worth a watch.
Skinamarink received significant buzz almost a year before its official release. During its festival run, the film was leaked to all corners of the internet. The director was unhappy with this of course, but the early hype probably worked to his advantage, especially considering how niche Skinamarink is.
As for the film itself, it belongs to a subgenre called “analog horror,” characterized by a lo-fi aesthetic, cryptic presentation, and significant use of analog electronics. The story is less important than the presentation here, but it mostly concerns two children trapped in an ominous house, unable to find their parents, as a sinister entity toys with them. The cinematography is claustrophobic and obscure, with most shots focused on walls, corners, furniture, and old, malfunctioning televisions. Rarely do we see human characters on screen, and when we do, it’s either from behind or in very dark lighting. This style of storytelling is likely to turn most audiences off – you’ll either find this to be a fascinating, unsettling low-budget experimental masterpiece, or a pretentious simulation of watching paint dry. I lie somewhere in between.
A prequel to last year’s X, Pearl fleshes out the origins of the first film’s antagonist. It was filmed immediately after X, and while Mia Goth’s performance is above-average, I didn’t find it very fulfilling both as a film and a prequel to X. If you need more Goth in your life, then you should probably just watch it.
A strange surprise this year, an obscure low-budget horror film called Terrifier somehow received a crowd-funded sequel, and somehow, it’s almost two and a half hours long. The first film really isn’t anything special, but it had some interesting gore effects and a creative villain. Over the years it formed a cult following, but I never expected it to rise out of obscurity, because it really isn’t a very good movie.
The film is overlong and most of the characters feel expendable. It doubles down on its villain, Art the Clown, who appears more often than most horror antagonists. He is the only reason to watch this movie, thus the sequel suffers from the same shortcomings as the original.
I enjoyed Knives Out for the most part, but Glass Onion missed the mark for me. Like the previous film, the dialog is witty, but the plot isn’t nearly as smart as Knives Out. Aside from Daniel Craig, the other characters range from boring to obnoxious. It all just feels like a subpar Knives Out rip-off, and it certainly belongs on Netflix.
The first film on this list that I actually enjoyed, Barbarian is a twisty, darkly humorous horror film that suffers only a little from overwhelming hype. Your enjoyment of this film may or may not rely on how much you can tolerate Justin Long, but it’s a worthwhile watch for horror fans. The less you know, the better.
I was a fan of the first Orphan film. It was cheesy as hell, but it had a fun twist that felt unique in a sea of “killer child” films. First Kill is a prequel, but it’s not without its own surprises. For the most part, it can be seen without watching the original. I prefer this to the first installment, primarily for embracing the silliness of its own premise.
The concept of this film began as a joke. In 2010, Funny or Die released a trailer for a fake film that chronicled the life of Weird Al. After years of positive fan reception, Weird Al decided to flesh this out into a feature-length film. I fully expected to cringe hard at this one, but it was a pleasant surprise. As a parody of biopics, it works quite well, and manages to lampoon biopics from many angles. Its presentation is very over-the-top, but Daniel Radcliffe’s really commits to the performance. It does suffer from a major cameo boner, but even that is forgivable because it’s clearly a send-up of biopics that do the same.
With a solid cast led by Mia Goth and Kid Cudi, X surprised horror audiences with its hyper-nostalgic presentation and unique approach to slasher films. Ti West has directed throwback horror films for years, none of which particularly impressed me, but with X he seems to have found his voice. His earlier films tend to drag significantly because of underwritten characters, but this screenplay is leaps and bounds above anything else in West’s career.
Todd Field’s latest critical darling was marketed like a spiritual successor to 2014’s Whiplash, but the final product is an intense character study with plenty to say about cancel culture and the relationship between art and the artist. Cate Blanchett conjures an electrifying performance as a famous EGOT composer whose sins come back to haunt her as we witness her slow descent into irrelevance. It can be challenging to watch, but it’s an emotionally complex ride with a satisfying conclusion.
If someone hasn’t forced you to watch this movie yet – wait for it. It’s fantastic, and that mammoth hype train is hurdling toward you. The less said about the film, the better, so just know that I enjoyed the fuck out of this movie like everyone else.
The latest Martin McDonagh film feels like a perpetual Kafkaesque nightmare. One day, a man decides that he doesn’t much care for his best friend. This setup leads a series of absurd events as characters react in unexpected ways. Most may write this off as weird, but knowledge of its intentional metaphor for the Irish Civil War enhances the experience. I don’t think I fully appreciated this until taking the time to examine that metaphor, but I enjoyed this quirky little film regardless.
I almost shat a brick when I noticed that Triangle of Sadness had been nominated for best picture. I’m a fan of the director’s previous films, Force Majeure and The Square, but this may be his best work to date. It’s a scathing satire aimed at the rich and famous, and it’s balls-to-the-wall insane. Triangle of Sadness’ greatest accomplishment is its ability to be eccentric and moderately cryptic, while still feeling accessible and entertaining as hell. This was easily my best viewing experience of the year.