The 20 Worst Movies of 2013 Part 3

We come down the the Top 10 folks, so I think it should be fair to remind everyone that the movies I choose, I choose them because of how I felt about them overall, not just one thing that I could nitpick on. After all, why would you even bother to see the movie if you were going to nitpick on details rather than the movie on a whole?

This year was a year of movies that favored spectacle over plot and characters, sure, it still HAD plot and characters, but the market was largely dominated by spectacle escapism movies.

Escapism isn't always a bad thing, hell, look at the list of highest-grossing movies from the past 10 years; "The Avengers," "Avatar," "The Dark Knight," "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," they're all largely movies that, instead of allowing the audience to confront reality, they offer an escape from cold reality. 

An escape through spectacle and a simplified story with easy-to-latch-onto characters. All with the exception of "Saving Private Ryan," a movie that openly confronted the graphic reality of World War II and it was the highest-grossing film of that year.

The point I'm trying to make with here is, lately, it seems people in the industry have been trying to combine the two, while it's not a terrible idea in my book, just look at last year's "Gravity" for inspiration, you really need competent writers and directors working together to combine escapism with realism.

For some, this worked pretty well.

For others, it only made people feel uncomfortable.

Let's keep going with the next choice that will, no doubt, get a lot of angry comments flooding through my inbox.

- -

10. Man of Steel

I just want to reiterate my reason for choosing this movie (because I know quite a few people will get very defensive) has nothing to do with personal vendettas against people who like it, my distain for it's plagiarist director (though it doesn't help), the poorly written characters or how over-bloated the special effects take over the last half of the movie to compensate for the lack of character development given to the cast or that this is a more "realistic" Superman over the classic comic book Superman.

My reason for placing this movie on this list is the movie's removal of the Man in the Man of Steel.

Let me ask a legitimate question; what defines a superhero?

Is it their ability to push someone through a wall?

Their ability to fly over great distances in seconds?

Their ability to lift an oil tanker to keep it from falling?

My answer: No.

Being a hero is putting the needs of others before yourself.

Like helping people out at a soup kitchen when nobody else arrives.

Or standing up to someone being abused when their situation isn't your problem.

Or willingly grabbing someone out of the way of danger at the risk of yourself.

In fact, what does the dictionary say about the term hero?

"a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal."

By adding "super" to the term "hero" it only adds more to the term, meaning that you have to uphold those qualities that make you celebrated as a hero. Being "super" only gives you a gift to use those noble qualities you already have to make a difference.

What does Superman do in this movie that make him a model of a "super hero?"

He lets people die while fighting his own species.

Not very heroic is he?

He saves a bus full of children and is he celebrated for his heroism? No, he's ostracized for it because "people are afraid." Which is more important to you? The fact that a kid lifted a bus out of the water or the fact someone actually took the initiative to keep children from dying.

He let's Johnathan Kent die when he had it in his power to do so, he willingly fights Kryptonian soldiers in a populated town, flinging them around town and then willingly fights Zod in a destroyed Metropolis with innocent bystanders scurrying for cover.

We don't even really see his thought process that would make him want to defend these people on Earth when the majority of the Earthlings he meets are jerks to him.

To try and properly cement my point, allow me to use another movie as an example: "Captain America: The First Avenger."

Even before Steve Rogers becomes Captain America, he shows qualities of himself that make himself heroic, his desire to join the military despite his weak physical strength and his health issues, he tells a guy bad-mouthing an news reel about World War II to "shut up" and gets beaten for it, refusing to stay down.

But the moment in the movie that really makes Steve Rogers a hero is when Dr. Erskine meets him for the first time and asks him "do you want to kill Nazis?"

What is Steve Rogers' answer?

"I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies, I don't care where they're from."

At this point, he hasn't even been told what Dr. Erskine plans to do with him, but this line, more than any punch Steve throws in this movie, is the most hard-hitting definition of a heroic quality.

And throughout the movie, he retains that quality.

Even in boot camp when a dummy grenade is thrown, the frail Steve Rogers is more than willing to cover his body on the grenade while everyone else hides.

This, even before Steve Rogers gains his powers, is the real moment Steve Rogers becomes Captain America.

Not the moment the serum is inject into his body.

Not the moment he chases down a Hydra spy.

Not the moment he is given his iconic shield.

But this one moment where Rogers willingly puts himself in harm's way to ensure the safety of people who push him down because of his stature. Even after he earns his powers, he still stands up for the people who don't respect him.

At times, being a hero requires having to put up with that and Captain America still stands up for people, because he makes it clear even before he receives his powers that he cannot stand bullies, regardless of where they come from. Whether it be from other countries or from himself, which is why Rogers doesn't punch the people who mistreated him.

Not out of fear that people wouldn't understand, but out of the decency of his moral standing to not stoop so low as to get payback.

Superman stoops as low as Zod and just flat-out kills him because "he didn't have any choice."

Superman stoops as low as all the people who bullied him and the only effort he makes to actually show concern for the safety of others is when Zod attempts to laser-blast innocent people.

Even when Spider-Man could use his abilities to steal the money he needs to pay his rent and help his aunt, he sticks to his late Uncle's motto "with great power, comes great responsibility."

Even when Daredevil finally has The Kingpin on his knees with revenge within his grasp, he chooses to spare him, stating "I'm not the bad guy."

Even when Batman has The Joker flung over the ledge, he stops him from falling to his death.

And even when our heroes do screw-up, costing innocent lives, they are morally punished for it.

Peter Parker is haunted by the death of his uncle as he had it in his power to stop the killer.

Bruce Wayne is haunted by the death of Rachel.

Matthew Murdock feels haunted by beating a man near death in front of a terrified child.

Superman only grieves when his father dies even though he had it in his power to save him.

I picked "Man of Steel" as one of the year's worst films because Superman is put on a moral trial but Snyder and Goyer acquits Superman on the ground of "he's everyone's favorite superhero and he didn't have a choice."

Basically, according to Snyder, Superman cannot feel guilty for his actions and he shouldn't even concern himself with us mortals but we are only so lucky that he likes our planet and is willing to defend it.

The Man in Superman would make more of an effort to lead Zod away from a crowded populace.

The Man in Superman would fly all the military away from the Kryptonians and then fly back and royally kick their asses.

The Man in Superman would not let an old man die in a tornado.

This is just a SuperDude who is there to show-off his godly powers in a "Dragonball Z" fashion, where SuperDude gets a pat on the back for saving around, hmm, 20 or so people while letting thousands die in Metropolis in an a fight that goes on longer than it needs to be.

All done not for the art of "drama," but for the art of spectacle.

9. Paranoia

There is a certain cardinal sin that you can do with any genre of cinema.

For example, you make a comedy that's not funny, a romance movie that's not romantic or a thriller that's not thrilling.

"Paranoia" is the latter, it's a movie that is a thriller, but it's not very thrilling.

I take it back, it's not at all thrilling.

The premise sounds promising; a this guy who is trying to support his dad gets a job working for Gary Oldman's company to do espionage on Harrison Ford's company all while the FBI has him under surveillance as this guy tries to play both sides of this conflict between the two rivals- oh for f*ck's sake, why did we even need Thor's brother anyway?

I'm still confused just trying to remember what happened, there was Liam trying to steal from this guy while this guy was threatening to kill the father of the guy while this guy forms a relationship with this girl to use her to get into the company's big secrets to give to the one guy, all while the one guy is being monitored by the FBI and, wait, is he being helped by the FBI or are they just there to warn him off- no, no, wait, I think someone was supposed to get a prototype of some kind but then some person was not really on the side of the one guy who owned the company, or was it the other guy?- 

You know what, f*ck it, I'm just gonna quote other people's reviews cause trying to write this is giving me a headache. Enjoy my laziness by employing the words of other people.

"The story is implausible in ways both big (why would Wyatt entrust this top-secret plan to a self-centered hothead like Adam?) and small (unless the film is set in a world in which "A View to a Kill" really happened, why are all the big tech firms suddenly located in mid-town Manhattan?) and asks viewers to care about one selfish jerk trying to worm his way out of being the pawn of two other selfish jerks. For his part, Luketic tries to mask the narrative shortcomings with a lazily flashy visual style and a staggeringly irritating score that uses cell phone sounds as a recurring motif. Sadly, the rest of the film is so draggy that I kept wanting to pick up and see if there was something more interesting on the other end."

-Peter Sobczynski, eFilmcritic.com

"Romantic-comedy veteran Luketic, working from a script adapted from Joseph Finder’s novel, clearly has no illusions that he’s making “The Conversation” (or even “Duplicity”), and there’s nothing wrong with tuning one’s brain down to a lower frequency for a fun, old-fashioned thriller. Yet even the most by-the-numbers suspense tropes somehow slip through this film’s fingers. A particularly boilerplate scene in which Adam attempts to download intel from Emma’s computer while she’s in the shower frantically cuts between the slowly creeping download bar, Adam’s darting eyes, and Emma gradually emerging from the bathroom … only to abruptly cut to the two peacefully back in bed with no explanation."

-Andrew Barker, Variety Magazine

I'm not going to get into the acting, because there's not much of it, frankly. No one is embarrassingly bad; no one is exceptionally good. Better to remember the actors for better thrillers, Ford in "Witness," Oldham in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," Hemsworth in "The Hunger Games." There are few surprises despite lots of twists and turns as Adam tries to figure a way to escape with his life. If you were hoping for interesting insight into all the ways technology is redefining our world, again I'd point to you other, better stuff, like "The Social Network."

-Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times

I'd also like to remind you, fair readers, that all this subterfuge is taking place because of a cell phone...yes, the plot device of the movie is stealing the plans for a cell phone so another cell phone company can make it before they can and sell it off before they can...

I think my reason for choosing this one is justified, wouldn't you?

8. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The conversations I've had with differing people and their mindset on the movie seems to be the following:

-If you never read the original book and you're under 16 years old, you probably loved the movie and saw it at least 3-5 more times.

-If you did read the original book and yet you're under 30, you either probably really liked it or really disliked it, depending on whether or not you were willing to accept this movie didn't follow the book all that closely.

-If you read the book and yet you were over 30 years old, you probably didn't like it/hated it. 

No really, literally every person I talked to who was over 30 who saw the movie told me they didn't like it. From people at my workplace, from people at my church to even some old colleagues and teachers from the Seattle Film Institute.

It seems that a lot of older people, really did not like the movie.

Another funny thing I found out about talking to some people at my workplace about the movie, none of them realized the original book was 300 pages long and when I made that fact known, they then raised the question that even I'm still asking myself:

"Why then did this book need three movies to tell it's story when it could have been done with one or two?"

Because as "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" have shown, splitting up movies into two parts is massively profitable. Don't believe me? Let's run some numbers shall we?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1: $960,283,305

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: $1,341,511,219

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1: $712,171,856

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2: $829,685,377

And mind you, these are Worldwide releases. So it really shouldn't be such a big surprise that "The Hunger Games" has  announced "Mockingjay" will be released in two parts as well.

In fact, how much did the last Hobbit movie make again?

$1,017,003,568 worldwide

And, as of January 9th, 2014, this sequel has made $758,928,906 worldwide.

Why?

Well, as my Film as Literature professor put it when this movie was brought up: "violence doesn't need translating overseas."

But the violence or spectacle isn't why the movie makes my list.

No, no, "The Desolation of Smaug" makes my list because this movie, instead of having the confidence that the source material was good enough to tell it's story, decided to fill the running time with subplots that do not tell the main narrative, if anything, they only hinder it and make it come to a contrived slowing drag or, such as the Laketown scene, to a screeching halt.

Yet I keep seeing this on everyone's favorite movies of 2013 lists.

Mostly because of Benedict Cumberbatch's voice and slight motion capture performance as Smaug the dragon.

I'm not saying it's a terrible design or that seeing Smaug on the big screen wasn't epic.

I'm just saying that for making us wait for two hours, the best this movie had him do was fly around trying to gab these dwarves when he could have just solved this problem with torching their asses every time he saw them instead of engaging in this over-the-top and unnecessary Benny Hill Chase scene through the Misty Mountain Hop?

Some people praised the movie for doing this out of love.

If they really loved the source material, why would they need to cram in a female elf character who has no purpose than to make goo-goo eyes at this dwarf who had no prior character development in the novel and yet forced it in because, hey, gotta appeal to those ElfXDwarf fanfiction writers right?

It's been a month since I saw the movie, while I'm not as mad at it as I was when I left the theater, I'm still pissed off that for the money I spent; I watched a movie that pumped itself full of hot air just to stretch out the movie as an excuse to make three movies and reap in billions of your hard earned money.

And I'm not sure who to blame for this: Peter Jackson for pandering to the 3D and putting more emphasis on CGI effects instead of practical effects or Warner Bros. for forcing Jackson to use more CGI and stretch out the story just to give them a sh*t ton of money and keep them off his back. But whoever is to blame, all I have to say is this:

You got one more movie to go Pete, don't f*ck this up for me, you can still salvage the movie, just drop off the subplots and focus on the main story with the main title character, the character you left in the background in this movie. Cause seriously dude, I saw some of the production vlogs you released, you're not looking too good dude. Your hair is seriously greying, you've put on a bit of weight since Tintin and you had a perforated stomach ulcer that needed hospital treatment. I know directing is a stressful matter, I've been there, it sucks but when things go your way, it rocks to see your hard work on a theater screen for people to laugh and enjoy. 

Just do me a favor dude, after the last Hobbit movie, just take it easy. Spend time with the kids and spouse, soak up some sunshine, just take some time off man. 

Please? 

Do it for your fans at least? You owe it to them to at least get your physical and mental health back after all the stress of working on this movie with MGM's financial troubles and the acting unions protests. 

Even I would have left production if this was what I had to put up with.

Oh, and about that Film as Literature professor I mentioned?

He didn't like this movie either.

And before you say "oh what does he know?" I'll have you know this guy has a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Master's and a Ph.D in English literature.

Plus, he has tenure, so you can't really say anything against him.

P.S. because I never got to make this joke with the last movie:

"Twas in the darkest depths of Mordor

I met a girl so fair.

But Gollum and the evil one,

crept up and slipped away with her."

…I really hope Jackson doesn't get Jimmy Page or Robert Plant to try and put them in dwarf make-up…or Leonard Nimoy for that matter...

7. White House Down

I don't know which is worse: the fact that this is rated 2 points higher than "Olympus Has Fallen" or that this movie was written by James Banderbilt, the same screenwriter who wrote the screenplays for "Zodiac," "The Amazing Spider-Man" and that upcoming Robocop remake.

…okay, the Robocop remake does sound worse…

As I stated before, how odd is it that the same year we get an unnecessary sequel to a Die Hard movie, we get two movies about one guy taking on terrorists at the White House?

The first one was "Olympus Has Fallen," a movie so ludicrous and over-the-top that, instead of trying to convince you that any of this was plausible or even try to make any "American, F*ck yeah!" speeches, it had only one thing in mind:

Be entertaining. Have a three-act structure so easy to follow that a 10 year old could write the screenplay (which, by the way, the people who wrote this movie, Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt, have been announced to be the writers for "The Expendables 3" and the upcoming sequel "London has Fallen." I now await their next sequel "Canada Has Fallen." "Australia Has Fallen" and the finale to this series; "Saturn Has Fallen."

The point is, "Olympus Has Fallen" wasn't really what I would call a bad movie. Sure, I don't plan to see it again anytime soon, but for what I saw, I at least was entertained.

"White House Down" was not entertaining in the least.

It's biggest problems comes from the script and the direction. 

James Vanderbilt's screenplay has characters who are populated with nothing but cliches and idiocy. Sure little girl, why not just sneak out and record everything with your cell phone where the bad guys can see you so you can put it on your blog?

Sure, you're dying of cancer, so why not take over the White House when your plan could easily have been remedied by just going up to the President when he's about to take a swim, just reach into his pocket, take the codes, text yourself the codes, put the original codes back in the President's clothes, then in the President's office, just wait until the guy has to go take a crap, take the device and launch the nukes at Iraq. 

Or better still, this is the kind of situation that would have been solved if you just ASKED the President to fire some fictional bombs all over Iraq and rain fictional death all over these fictional people.

The characters are SO f*cking stupid. Sure, let's get into a van and drive around on the white house lawn while you carry the president around. Sure, let's climb downy he elevator shaft with the president, sure, leave the president alone to get shot at by James Woods.

For all the stupidity of "Olympus Has Fallen," "White House Down" has more facepalm moments than even Michael Bay's Transformer movies put together.

Dumbest Deus Ex Machina of the Year goes out to this movie for literally stopping an airstrike by, get this, have a teenage girl run outside with an American flag and she waves it back and forth. This makes the pilots grow a conscience as they decide to risk getting court martial and abort the airstrike on the White House.

All because some girl waves an American flag.

Yeah, I call bullsh*t on that. Even if the pilots were struck by conscience over killing children, they still have their orders and they follow them to kill people.

Why?

Because they volunteered to do that. They volunteered to take the lives of others, just as other countries have military systems where you can volunteer for military service to pay off debts, go to school and all you have to do in return is go kill people or just stay in one place to ensure nobody tries to kill you.

Showing a movie where a pilot disobeys orders contradicts the patriotic message Roland Emmerich sets for itself, even though he's German…

This movie is terrible. The story is convoluted, more than it needed to be if you ask me, the ending is bullsh*t, the editing is terrible, the acting is horrible too, especially coming from Jamie Foxx, the guy who won an Oscar, right?

You know what would have probably made this vie slightly more fun to watch? If Jamie Foxx reprised his Django Unchained character and went on a killing spree instead of having Channing Tatum do all the work. 

Hell, a giant fire-breathing dragon or two human-like aliens fighting each other Dragonball Z style crashing into the White House would make a better movie than this.

Take it from me, watch "Olympus Has Fallen" if you're looking for a good Die Hard rip-off. If you want an obnoxious groaner of a Die Hard rip-off, this is it.

6. The Internship

A future note for any who are now getting into my reviews: 

ahem*

"F@*%

Vince

Vaughn."

Vince Vaughn is a loathsome actor who continues to be treated like he's a comic genus with his nervous persona and stammering habit, a technique Woody Allen had down WAY before you were even a sperm jackass. But even Woody Allen managed to utilize his neurotic persona that worked best for him in drama and comedies. Hell, co-star Owen Wilson did a better job channeling Woody Allen when he starred in "Midnight in Paris."

And yet, once again, the duo that brought us the offensive obnoxiousness that was "Wedding Crashers" using their "never shutting the hell up" word-play conversations with one another in a two-hour commercial for Google.

The story is so painfully predictable you might as well just get together with your friends and come up with what happens, I guarantee, you and your friends could come up with better jokes than this movie could sh*t out.

The acting is even more pathetic, Vince Vaughn continues his role as a fast-talking sleazy jerk with Owen Wilson playing that annoying slow-talking guy that he always plays and yet the ladies go for him because, oh, he's so sensitive and whatever.

The humor feels dated, with some jokes that you can see coming a mile away. I honestly couldn't believe it when I saw people including this on their respected lists of "Best of 2013" when this is a comedy that does nothing different with the genre.

But then again, why watch a comedy a second time when you already know the jokes?

So you can watch them and still laugh at the jokes.

I've seen "The Heat" at least 5 times last year alone and I'm still laughing at that even though I know the jokes. (ex. "The victim had his tongue cut out of his mouth and placed in his anus. Probably a mafia warning sign." "They didn't draw any eyes on his cheeks or something?" "Not that I see." "Huh, missed opportunity.")

Hell, I still laugh every time I watch "Airplane!" or anything from Monty Python. Because the jokes they make take risks and legitimately leave an impression on the viewer as being memorable.

This movie has nothing memorable going for it. It's he same kind of jokes you've heard before but done in an unrealistic setting that even real Google employees confirmed as being "unrealistic to how Google's internship process operates."

Do me a favor dear readers, next time you see this movie on a shelf somewhere, turn it's face away, or take a different movie and put it in front of it. Don't let other hapless fools be tricked by the cover thinking it's going to be funny. At least get them to watch something better.

Oh, and one more thing.

Vince Vaughn; NEVER use Macklemore's "Thrift Shop" in ANY of your movie trailers ever again.

You didn't care about the message of the song, you just popped it in cause it sounded catchy and ignored the song's message promoting individuality through cheap bargains at a thrift shop when your movie is about trying to find work at a huge multi-media billion dollar company. It ruins the message of the song and it only exposes you as the shallow actor you are Vince Vaughn.

Now do me a favor and just GO AWAY.