In his iconic song, Huey Lewis famously posed the question: “Is this the ’50s or 1999?” This nostalgic reflection captures the essence of a vibrant time characterized by boy bands, AOL Instant Messenger, and a cultural shift that shaped a generation. As we reminisce about the turn of the century, SNL alum Kyle Mooney crafts a film that taps into this nostalgia but brings forth a unique twist—what if the notorious Y2K crisis had led to an actual apocalypse? Prepare yourself for a wild ride through the chaos of Y2K, where the past collides with a fictional disaster.

The film Y2K had the potential to be a hilarious disaster comedy, yet it disappointingly emerges as one of the worst movies of 2024. It strives for humor but falls flat, leaving audiences in a state of disbelief. Sitting in a packed theater, I found myself surrounded by an audience that offered only a few sporadic chuckles, reflecting a collective uncertainty about the film’s comedic direction. My unease began early on as the initial jokes failed to land, which is often a harbinger of a film that struggles to find its comedic voice as it unfolds.

One can’t help but wonder if the creators of this film missed the key element of disaster comedies: the humor should stem from intentionality, with the chaotic events reflecting the narrative rather than serving as a metaphor for the film’s poor quality. Central to the plot is a group of teenagers celebrating New Year’s Eve. Eli (Jaeden Martell) is determined to confess his feelings for his crush, Laura (Rachel Zegler), with his best friend Danny (Julian Dennison) urging him on. This dynamic echoes the most predictable high school movie tropes, making one question the purpose of revisiting such a well-worn storyline in a contemporary setting.

Some may argue that what sets Y2K apart is its apocalyptic backdrop. However, it seems to borrow from the teen dynamics of films like Superbad and the absurd premise of This is the End. The crucial difference lies in the execution and humor of those films, which were genuinely funny and featured charismatic performances, notably from Seth Rogen. The opening scenes of Y2K foreshadow a film reliant on a series of jokes that simply do not resonate. The attempts at humor feel forced and insincere, lacking the organic spontaneity that is essential for a successful teen comedy.

As the film progresses, the tone shifts dramatically once Y2K strikes, initiating a chaotic series of events where machines turn against humans, resulting in graphic and absurd deaths. Imagine a blend of Final Destination with an exaggerated twist. Although the film initially teases a thrilling chaos, it ultimately fails to deliver enough outrageous moments to maintain viewer engagement. The director, Mooney, struggles to effectively steer the performances, resulting in a lack of energy and spontaneity that should characterize a film of this nature.

Where other directors, like Sean Baker in Anora, have successfully captured chaos, Mooney’s direction feels stilted, with characters awkwardly waiting for their turn to speak. This leads to a low-energy portrayal that deviates from the natural chaos expected in a crisis. The screenplay makes baffling choices, including an unexpected serious moment that seems more fitting for an action blockbuster than a teen comedy. The tonal inconsistency is glaring, with serious and comedic moments clashing in a way that leaves the audience bewildered, particularly during the film’s treatment of teenage mortality.

The disheartening part about Y2K is its potential to deliver a comedy that resonates with audiences, yet it resulted in a theater filled with silence rather than laughter. The dialogue is monotonous, failing to evoke any genuine emotion from the viewers. The film oscillates between attempting to be taken seriously while also wanting to embrace its own absurdity. Striking a balance between humor and serious themes is a formidable challenge, and Mooney’s execution falters significantly, leaving the emotional moments feeling forced and unoriginal. Additionally, a celebrity cameo intended to elicit laughs only lands flat, particularly for audiences under 30.

Ultimately, the film’s failure to deliver laughs leads it to resemble a poorly executed sci-fi thriller rather than a comedy. There were moments during the final act where the urge to walk out became almost overwhelming. Yet, I remained seated, compelled to finish the film for the sake of a review. Many scenes lacked any semblance of humor, raising doubts about whether they could even be classified as jokes. If the year 2000 had mirrored the experience of watching this film, I would count myself fortunate that it is now simply a memory.

FINAL RATING: 1/10

According to ComingSoon’s review policy, a score of 1 signifies “Awful.”

ComingSoon takes no pleasure in assigning such a low rating, as it is typically reserved for video games that are fundamentally flawed or entertainment that lacks any redeeming qualities.