The Worst of 2025 So Far

2025 has been an interesting year for film. If I understand correctly, this year we have had not one, not two, but three of this generation's Citizen Kane. There were, if my fellow critics are to be believed, three unimpeachable masterpieces that will alter the course of cinematic if not human history.

Curiously though, only one of those films made my Ten Best List. One did, however, make my Ten Worst List. Go figure.

As I look back on 2025, I think of how film reviewing has gone a bit off the deep end. You had YouTube film reviewer Chris Stuckmann create his own film, Shelby Oaks. I saw it as part of a secret early screening. I opted not to review Shelby Oaks, keeping to his idea that one cannot give negative reviews no matter how bad a film is because filmmaking is hard or something. Apparently, reviewers have to consider a filmmaker's "good intentions" when judging a particular film's quality. 

I understand that many current film reviewers "grew up" watching Stuckmann. I grew up watching Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert. I also had never heard of Chris Stuckmann until the controversy over when he opted out of giving Madame Web a negative review because he understood how hard it was to make a film. This "giving negative reviews is bad" mindset has seeped into other reviewers' minds. I see many a X/Twitter post saying that we should not have Worst Movies of the Year Lists. It is unfair, so the argument goes, to all those who worked hard on the film no matter how atrocious said film turned out to be. 

I find such ideas patronizing and infantile. It is the cinematic version of awarding participation trophies. Reviewers share their views. They will not always be positive views. Siskel & Ebert were the deans of film reviewing. Every year, they had a Worst of The Year list with the express purpose of slamming films that "took two hours out of our lives". No one then ever bemoaned how awful that tradition was, or how disrespectful it was to those who work on the films. 

Siskel and Ebert knew how much work went into making a film. They also knew that it did not matter how hard someone tried. If the end result was more than bad but disastrous, they should be called out on it. Reviews should not grade on a curve. Noble intentions do not make up for a lousy product. They understood something that some current film reviewers do not understand or have forgotten. They understood that the filmmakers are adults and should be treated as such.

Moreover, these were their views. Why can't a film reviewer not say, "I hated this movie"? Are people seriously suggesting that we cannot call out a film that we ended up despising because we might hurt the filmmakers' feelings? 

Suggesting that people should compile only "Best Of" Lists suggests to me that film reviewers are expected to only praise movies. Some reviewers, I think, do just that. Almost everything that they see is "great" or "a masterpiece". I cannot take seriously a film reviewer who calls Across the Spider-Verse "one of the greatest films ever made in the history of cinema". Frankly, I think you've got to be either loony or an idiot to make such a wild assertion. Yes, it is that person's view. However, it is my view that it is nowhere near "one of the greatest films ever made in the history of cinema" and find such an assertion laughable. I trust that he was honest in his assertion. 

I also know that reviewers need to calls them as they sees them. Yet, I digress. 

At last, I have my list of my choices for the Ten Worst Films of 2025 So Far. I may update the list as I watch more 2025 films. 

Number 10: The Wedding Banquet

As of this writing, I have yet to see the 1993 original The Wedding Banquet. That film was selected for inclusion in the National Film Registry in 2023. This remake I doubt will be remembered in six months. The Wedding Banquet was, per my understanding, supposed to be a comedy. However, so much of it played like a serious drama that it ended up being at times bizarre. The film essentially had two plots rammed together. One involved a lesbian couple struggling with IVF. The other involved a Korean attempting to both stay in America and stay in the closet. The Wedding Banquet treated both with a curiously somber tone. That, in turn, made the few attempts at broad comedy look embarrassing. The performances save for Joan Chen, Youn Yuh-jung and Lily Gladstone were pretty much horrendous. Perhaps I can be a little lenient with Han Gi-chan. He is Korean who is still working his way through English. The same cannot be said of Bowen Yang, who is American and still gave an awful performance. Expect to see Yang pop up again later on down.

Number 9: Song Sung Blue

Let me start by saying that I love Neil Diamond, well, except for The Jazz Singer. The soundtrack for that fiasco at least was its sole redeeming quality. I also found Kate Hudson charming and in good form in Song Sung Blue. My issue with Song Sung Blue was its tonal shift. For the first hour or so, Song Sung Blue plays almost like a wacky comedy in its story of two dreamers who join forces professionally and romantically to be a Neil Diamond tribute act. Out of the blue (no pun intended), we get a totally wild twist that shifts Song Sung Blue into a depressing drama. Even in the early stages of this shift, we get a scene with Hugh Jackman in a hospital that still plays like cartoonish farce. The film never recovered for me. 

Number 8: Eddington

Similarly to Song Sung Blue, Eddington started out well. Its skewering of the global meltdown of 2020 was strong and wryly amusing. The combined lunacies of COVID-19 and the George Floyd "reckoning" were shown as excessive overreactions despite the sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes misguided intentions of all concerned. However, once we got past the midpoint of this almost two-and-a-half-hour film, Eddington started sinking. The film ultimately collapsed when a character was literally assassinated. It did not help that I saw Eddington after Charlie Kirk was similarly assassinated. Granted, there was no way for writer/director Ari Aster to know that a political commentator would be murdered in front of hundreds. There was no way that he would know that many people would literally be dancing in celebration. However, it was so uncomfortable for me to watch that I felt almost dirty in keeping the DVD playing. 

Number 7: Love Hurts

Love Hurts came out in February of this year; even then, I had predicted that Love Hurts would be on many Ten Worst Films of 2025 lists. Surprisingly, I do not think that prediction came completely true. Then again, I think many people simply did not bother watching Love Hurts. The movie stars two Academy Award winners: Ke Huy Quan and Ariana DeBose. The latter in particular has had a simply terrible run of films post-Oscar. The plot is incoherent. The action at times maddingly confused. The comedy nonexistent. The romance ridiculous. Love Hurts runs under 90 minutes. However, it feels like an eternity to sit through. 

Number 6: After the Hunt

As with Eddington, After the Hunt started out interesting and then slowly, painfully devolved into incoherence and self-indulgence. The topics of cancel culture and weaponizing "Me Too" are ripe for exploration. Unfortunately, what could have been a strong, contemplative drama soon started going sideways into strange areas. You had Michael Stuhlbarg, whose character I was convinced was gay despite being married to Julia Roberts' character. His prissy, passive-aggressive manner when stomping in and out of their kitchen looked like some crazed spoof. Director Luca Guadagnino moved the camera in such bizarre ways that I literally thought that the cameraman was drunk. Almost all the acting save Roberts seemed to play all this as if it were a parody. The film literally ends with Guadagnino calling out, "AND CUT!". I literally thought that I was hallucinating. After the Hunt was a totally lost opportunity.

Number 5: Jurassic World Rebirth

There is a curious movement to proclaim Jonathan Bailey the first openly gay movie star and box office draw. This movement bases its belief on how Bailey was in two of this year's biggest films: Jurassic World Rebirth and Wicked: For Good. Let me drop a truth bomb on the Bailey Believers: Jonathan Bailey is not a movie star, gay or otherwise. People went to Jurassic World Rebirth and Wicked: For Good to see giant dinosaurs and singing witches. They did not go to these films because Jonathan Bailey was the male lead in both/either of them. Jurassic World Rebirth is the seventh film in the Jurassic Park/World franchise. This movie, this franchise should not exist. Dinosaurs are boring, as is Jurassic World Rebirth. The film is really two films spliced together like the freakish mad scientist-created dinosaurs are. You have two sets of characters that could be their own film. However, they are jammed together to where you end up not caring about either set. Loud and noisy, the film is pretty much an insult to viewers' intelligence. Finally, I would like to point out that Jonathan Bailey was literally five years old when Jurassic Park was released. Jonathan Bailey was 36 years and two months old when Jurassic World Rebirth was released. Make of that what you will.

Number 4: Wicked: For Good

Jonathan Bailey and Bowen Yang make a second appearance on my Worst Films of 2025 List with the follow-up to Wicked. I am not well-versed enough in Wicked lore to know what was added for the second part of the Broadway adaptation. However, I found all the songs pretty much sounding the same. The production and costume design are still good. Everything else though was not. I am at a loss to understand why so many single out Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande as Best Lead and Supporting Actress-worthy performances. I found them lacking, with the latter coming across as a bimbo. To be fair, they were better than Michelle Yeoh, one of the most wildly miscast performers in recent memory. Wicked: For Good attempts to tie itself into the 1939 The Wizard of Oz, but if so, then Wicked: For Good does not make any sense. At over two hours, Wicked: For Good is a chore to sit through. The music was not good. The performances are not good. There is nothing good in Wicked: For Good.  

Number 3: Mickey 17

At the Mickey 17 screening that I went to, a man got up, turned to his companions and shouted, "THIS MOVIE SUCKED!". I think that pretty much sums up the experience of sitting through this "We Hate Donald Trump!" snoozefest. I continue to reject the idea that Robert Pattinson is his generation's Peter O'Toole. I think that he tried way too hard to act, with his affected thin voice meant to show the title character as a nitwit. Mickey 17 is a punishing two hours and seventeen minutes long. In that time, Mickey 17 sometimes rambles incoherently with various subplots that do not add up. The worst element in Mickey 17 however is the blatant attempt at allegory. The film wants to be a takedown of Trump, with Mark Ruffalo's character so obvious as a de facto Trump. The end result is not clever or funny. It is not even particularly mean-spirited. Instead, it is idiotic on every level. I get that Ruffalo and Mickey 17 writer/director Bong Joon Ho hate Trump. I don't like Trump. It does not change the fact that Mickey 17 cannot do allegory or comedy. Even with that, Mickey 17 just isn't good. It is not funny. It is not intelligent. It is insulting to its audience.

Number 2: Sinners

Every year, without fail, one particular film receives such lofty praise that one expects film reviewers to call it "this generation's Citizen Kane". This year, there were three claimants to that title. I thought One Battle After Another was fine. It was not among my Best or Worst Lists. I'll hold back on the second one, which is on my Ten Best Films List. However, the first film to be held as this unimpeachable masterpiece finds itself here as one of the Worst Films of 2025. Another film that was over two hours and fifteen minutes, Sinners is a silly, pretentious film. Perhaps that is why so many have convinced themselves that Sinners is this brilliant piece of filmmaking. Vampires meet bootleggers in a film that thinks it is far smarter than it actually is. One reviewer said that Jack O'Connell was "terrifying" as Remmick, the Irish vampire. I found that comment as laughable as O'Connell's performance. How exactly am I supposed to react to seeing O'Connell lead a vampire hoedown? People, too besotted by Sinners, do not seem to notice or care that our protagonists are called "Smokestack". One brother is nicknamed "Smoke", the other nicknamed "Stack". Am I the only one to find that idiotic? The I Lied to You segment, where ghosts of the past and future were summoned by Preacherboy's music, is equally laughable and self-indulgent. This, I figure, will bring major pushback from those who will insist that Sinners is this great piece of art. Well, I'll be nice and give Sinners a compliment: the music was nice.

Number 1: Him

Him is more than just misguided. It is bad, just bad on every conceivable level. Its attempts at horror are both too on-the-nose and too broad. Him is dominated by reds and blacks, attempting to create a sinister, demonic world that ends up looking self-indulgent and embarrassing to watch. Him veers between the wild overacting of Marlon Wayans and the comatose acting of Tyriq Withers. Him's only interest in the latter is in showing us Withers' beautiful body. Him also has a very strange suggestion. We are supposed to believe that Wayans' football quarterback is still able to play while he puts Withers' hotshot through a week of hellish training. Marlon Wayans is 53 years old. Tyriq Withers is 27. There is a twenty-six-year age gap between them. There is no conceivable way that Wayans, who is old enough to be Withers' father, could still be playing top-notch football. Him tries to be atmospheric and spooky. It ends up being hilarious and stupid. 

Him is the worst film of 2025. While this may be my initial list, I do not see any other film overtaking Him for this distinction.