Is this the worst summer of blockbusters in a recent age or is it the best? Are “Man of Steel” arguments worth losing friendships over? Is “Southland Tales” a masterpiece as posited by generation revisionism or is it the mess critics took it for initially? Will you dare to give your money to villain mensch Adam Sandler over hero Guillermo del Toro? Debate rages on in 2013 over a variety of topics as is par for the course in the opinionated world of movie criticism and discussion. And yes, as we glance down at our watches, we realize it’s basically the midway point of the year. We already looked at what a handful of us thought were the Best Film Of The Year… So Far, and so in the Peter Travers school of thinking, we thought it might be worthwhile to look at the worst films of the year so far on a Wednesday hump day.
While “Best” was examined by a few core Playlist members (despite what you think of the hive mind, consensus is difficult to achieve around the water cooler), we thought we’d approach our Worst So Far list a bit differently and let each writer speak for themselves so you know where they stand (frankly, some of us don’t want to be standing next to Erik when you throw tomatoes at him). And so, that’s the drill: a quick, down and dirty look at what each of us (or those that participated anyhow) feel is the worst movie of the year so far.
“White House Down”
Okay, before I dive into this, I should qualify that “White House Down” is the worst movie I saw so far this year… the whole way through. “Identity Thief” probably would have beat it to the punch if I was able to make it through the first half, but life is too short for a movie that screechingly awful, and I bailed out before it was over. But back to Roland Emmerich’s latest explosion fest. In my review, I laid out pretty clearly every reason why this movie is dismal entertainment, but even more than the few supporters of “The Lone Ranger,” this movie had a pretty decent bunch of folks behind it giving it a thumbs up, with their justifications mostly amounting to: “But the movie knows it’s dumb, it’s just having fun within the cliches of the action movie! It’s a popcorn movie!” If only. I’ll grant that Emmerich does on occasion acknowledge how asinine the plot of the movie is, and relishes his leads (the thoroughly wasted Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx doing their best in non-roles) spitting out the cornball dialogue (if James Vanderbilt is getting $3 million for scripts like this, I’ve gotta get an agent). But these brief respites of self-acknowledgement at the silliness of the enterprise are thoroughly drowned out by the rest of the movie which takes every ridiculous development completely seriously. If Emmerich really wanted to take the piss out of his own movie, he wouldn’t have spent as much time as he does on the turgid government-coup-World-War-III plot that is not only mind-numbingly dull but mind-numbingly stupid. As for popcorn entertainment, if having your flavorless, derivative mash of a movie spoon-fed, burped up, and spoon-fed again over two plus hours of tedious runtime, is a cinematic escape for you… Well, you need to see more, and better, movies. “White House Down” is never self-aware enough to be clever, and it’s so cobbled together from parts of nearly three decades worth of action films, that it never feels remotely fresh or interesting. Emmerich may have impressively blown the fuck out of stuff in the past, but he’s never been more anonymous as a filmmaker, here seemingly content to let as many bullets fly as possible hoping volume will equal spectacle (it doesn’t)… As much as “The Lone Ranger” didn’t work, at least there was an attempt at authorship, and some interesting ideas explored and presented even if again, they didn’t quite cohere. In this film, I’m supposed to give it a pass because it passes a ludicrously low quality bar with A-list stars and a big budget? Sorry, not happening. – Kevin Jagernauth
“The Purge”
It was almost a Rorschach test to see how demented and damaged contemporary audiences were when “The Purge” was announced, presenting the hook of a single night where all crime was legal. What’s insidious was that director James DeMonaco knew exactly how to play their audience, dangling the carrot of lowered unemployment and crime rates in a “New” America where the Purge has wiped the slate clean. However, the film begins with upsetting (possibly real?) surveillance footage of people being gunned down, shot in alleys, killed indiscriminately by killers who wielded weapons like toys. The line had never been so perfectly drawn: that could be you, America, and wouldn’t it be awesome? Not a moment in “The Purge” honestly addresses the morality of such a decision (nor does it ever genuinely explain how such an idea is presented by politicians and passed into law), but it does raise the specter of the haves using the night to pursue the have-nots, suggesting unemployment and poverty rates have dropped due to a smaller presence of the unfortunate, chased like dogs by richer people who can afford such ordinance. Such is the plight introduced by the nondescript white preppies who torture the family in “The Purge,” who use the words like “birthright” and “entitlement” to describe their desire to kill a homeless black ex-soldier. “The Purge” is another horror film that pretends to be horrified at the very idea it’s pushing, just as the “Saw” films discussed justice and retribution but simply believed in guiltless bloodletting, but it also does so by pursuing a dubious, ugly racial agenda, one where the homeless black man turns out to be heroic enough to silently do the right thing, but not heroic enough to actually merit a name in the credits, as he walks away having protected the way of life of an upper-crust white family. It’s lip service to nothing but hate and violence, pushing a non-violent agenda in its climax, but not without a few stereo-assaulting head-smashings, and the promise of even more racially-motivated violence to come next year. A radio report at the end of the film reports that it was “the most successful Purge yet,” and the film is just stupid enough that there are zero clues in the text to actually describe what the hell that means, or who it incriminates. – Gabe Toro
“Violet & Daisy”
While I must admit Chan-Wook Park’s cartoonish and tonally misguided “Stoker” still lays close to my heart as one of the worst films of the year, I believe I’ve given it enough of a paddling. And so I fully admit the impetus for this list was my mildly appalled reaction to “Violet & Daisy,” a fairy-tale like hitman film from Geoffrey Fletcher, the Oscar-winning writer behind “Precious.” Screenwriters making their feature-length directorial debuts has been an ugly road in recent years (we recently look at this phenomenon in this feature). Dustin Lance Black and “Virginia,” Mitch Glazer and the stunningly ill-conceived “Passion Play,” and William Monaghan’s “London Boulevard” all suggest that none of these guys should quit their day jobs and the same can be said for Fletcher’s debut, “Violet & Daisy.” Like a painful and dated version of “Pulp Fiction” meets “Betty & Veronica” Archie Comics, Alexis Bledel and Saoirse Ronan star as teenage assassins who crack wise, snap bubblegum and casually eliminate their targets with cocksure irreverence. Now “Violet & Daisy” wants to be Quentin Tarantino with high school girls, 20 years after that fact, which already is as wretched as it sounds, but then the plot gets even stranger. The girls are essentially going to quit the hitman life, but then their favorite pop idol Barbie Sunday’s (played by Cody Horn in photographs on the cover of Teen Beat-like magazines) show is canceled, they decide to do one more hit to raise money to keep her on the air. Their last target (James Gandolfini, in a role that’s sadly beneath him) and his existential willingness to die complicates their job and the girls soon find themselves on path of self-examination that crosses with killers, guns and each others. A would-be crime fable, “Violet & Daisy” is an utterly uninvolving mess. So much so that it’s shocking to think Fletcher is an Academy Award winner. “What is he thinking?!” crosses your mind every few minutes of this ridiculous fiasco and it’ll be a wonder if he ever has an opportunity to direct again. This is the worst completely misguided indie film since “Hick.” – Rodrigo Perez
“After Earth”
There is nothing worse than a 13-year-old boy (except maybe a 13-year-old girl, coming from someone who once was one). Placing an unsympathetic adolescent at the center of your big-budget sci-fi film is a cinematic crime roughly on level only with casting the largely untalented Jaden Smith as that 13-year-old. But it isn’t the younger Smith who deserves much of the blame for M. Night Shyamalan’s “After Earth.” As the icy (and enigmatic!) General Cyper Raige, his father Will somehow manages to be less charming than his son, which is a feat in itself for the usually magnetic actor. The elder Smith is also responsible for the film’s story, which follows the young Kitai Raige as he tries to save himself and his injured father after their spaceship crashes on a futuristic, deadly version of Earth. Smith gets extra demerits if he also came up with the characters’ names, which sound like something out of particularly bad fanfic. There should at least be some nerd joy derived from the technology when you set a film this far into the future, but I was too busy puzzling over the universe’s biggest plot holes and required leaps of logic to get excited over the Raige family’s fancy knives. I may have gone to a high school that taught Creationism as a science class, but even I could recognize that the earth’s evolution was a bit fast– and impossible. “After Earth” tells its unlucky audience that the planet evolved to kill humans with plane-sized eagles and giant baboons, but we’ve been gone for a millennium. How would that specialization happen in our absence? There are more issues, but I wouldn’t want to put more thought into dissecting the film than Shyamalan and Gary Witta put into writing it. – Kimber Myers
“To the Wonder”
I know what you may be thinking: Are you kidding me, WORST film of the year so far? Surely there are countless examples of trashier, worse movies released this year. You may be right, as I also deeply hated “Gangster Squad,” “The Great Gatsby” and “ABCs of Death.” But this is a personal decision. Calling it the worst film of 2013 so far does not mean it lacks value. Unfortunately, any value to be taken from “To The Wonder”— pretty visuals and… that’s about it— is negated by the experience of having to sit through what feels like a Terrence Malick parody. It’s also unfortunate that I’m using such a tired descriptor for the enigmatic, elusive and beloved filmmaker’s latest film, but it’s a perfect distillation of so much of what’s wrong with it. Malick is obviously a gifted and special director, but I prefer his first three films much more to the latter three, as his tendency to crawl up his own ass has gotten worse in this later period, and reaches its apex with ‘Wonder.’ There was never a point where the film took off, grabbed me as a viewer, and as open-minded as I tried to be to the film Malick was going for, the onset of unintentional humor reared its ugly head around the halfway point. After all, how anyone kept a straight face when Rachel McAdams, rope tied around her wrists, gazing at Ben Affleck, declares in a typically Malickean hushed tone, “I trust you” is beyond me. So much of what’s presented in the film left me with the thought: well, no duh Terrence, that all you got? There’s queasy exploitation of poor people front and center, to no purpose (almost as purposeless as Javier Bardem’s wondering, confused priest). Worst of all, the film renders its female leads as childlike, manic pixie crazy people who are so consumed by love, it’s apparently all they think and talk about. Affleck is such a frustrating cipher of a character that his indecision left me feeling that Malick wants us to be annoyed not with him, as we should be, but with McAdams and Olga Kurylenko (there is such a thing as unhealthy obsession, which would actually make for a better title). It’s hard to deny that the film is shallow, immature and bloated. It’s pretentious arthouse indulgence at its worst. –Erik McClanahan
“I’m So Excited!”
Pedro Almodovar is one of the world’s greatest directors; he’s won an Oscar, is a Cannes regular, and his filmography covers a diverse range of genres. His often taboo breaking films are the kind that cross audience boundaries— you could almost take anyone on a movie date to an Almodovar film. His work is usually smart, funny and inspiring; they often look incredible (his fantastic use of color cannot be overstated) and the performances are almost always top-notch. So when I went to see his recently released latest film, and found myself checking my watch 45 minutes in and praying that it went no longer than 90 minutes, I knew something was wrong. “I’m So Excited!” is Almodovar’s return to the sex comedy romp, but LOLS, it’s set on a plane that might crash. While this premise echoes the comedy classic “Airplane,” the comparison is misleading because “Airplane” is, well, funny. If you’ve seen the trailer for “I’m So Excited!,” you’ll have the seen a snippet of the high-larious campy cover of the Pointer Sisters classic of the same name, be warned this is the best part of the film. There’s no denying the power of a good song and dance number, but sadly the rest of the film falls flat, the plot twists are obvious (and it’s hard to care when the characters are so poorly drawn) and the jokes are snooze-worthy. Whatever Almodovar’s trying to say about sex (the movie is mainly about sex) is poorly communicated, and just not that incisive. Having 90% of the film set on a plane also makes it visually unappealing, repetitive and tiresome, and adds another layer to the boredom that drags the film down to the bottom of the barrel. While the characters pop pills and cocktail chasers throughout the film, it’s almost painful to suffer through the film unaided. If there was ever a film that would drive you to drink, this might be it. With “I’m So Excited!” it seems Almodovar’s become a parody of himself, but joke’s on him (and his fans) because this is one parody that doesn’t have a payoff. – Sam Chater
“The Place Beyond The Pines”
Word was getting out: allegedly, the third film by Derek Cianfrance began with an incredible unbroken shot that would set the tone for the “epic” film to come. That’s when the craving began. But after experiencing this underwhelming opener (Jancsó he is not) and quickly realizing that it didn’t at all gel with the style or atmosphere employed for the rest of the picture, my high hopes were positively squelched. Fair enough, at least what followed was an adequate crime-drama starring a troubled Ryan Gosling— that is until the film settles for the Sensitive Cop Story anchored by a generally uncharismatic Bradley Cooper. From this point on, the viewer is strapped in a hot automobile and sat right next to “Quality,” destination unknown but heading deeper, deeper downtown. Cianfrance eventually time travels forward to a period when the kin of Gosling & Cooper meet in high school, developing and destroying a friendship in record time. This “Rugrats: All Grown Up” scenario frequently shoves hefty portions of the film’s theme down our throats, praying the garbage washes down smooth with jugs full of the domineering score. If that’s not bad enough, this last third seems to have never evolved from its first draft (expository dialogue abound with some truly silly plot turns) and sports a rather horrifically directed, cheese-grating performance by Emory Cohen. To be clear, there’s a few effective, subtle moments to be found throughout— particularly an early shot of Gosling and a later of Dane DeHaan that is constructed similarly, displaying their connection deeper than anything else in the film— but ‘Pines’ spends most of its time pushing melodrama. All in all, this is one exhausting effort. – Christopher Bell
“Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters”
I know I’ve already had plenty of fun beating up on the truly insipid “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters,” so much so that it seems overkill to do it again… but it’s definitely one of the worst films I’ve ever seen, not to mention in 2013, and, it’s just too much damn fun not to do it again. I will say upfront that the two things H&G: WH has going for it (aside from an abundance of punctuation) is that it’s never boring and its ridiculousness never feels overly earnest, the death knell of other incoherent messes like “John Carter.” That, and Gemma Arterton’s leather pants. Arterton and Jeremy Renner play the blood-thirsty titular sibs, burdened with a script that makes them sound like particularly foul-mouthed mentally handicapped children. With very few exceptions, anytime you see “written and directed by” on a B action movie, there’s a very good chance it’s going to suck, and this is no exception, as clearly there was no one else around to check Tommy Wirkola’s absolutely inane sense of storytelling. There’s no sense of time or place or geography, since Hansel and Gretel appear to have been hired by this village to help with the witch problem, but oh, oopsie, it’s the town they grew up in, which they don’t figure out for two-thirds of the movie, the dumb dummies. Renner, seemingly bewildered as to what he is doing there, has all the charisma of a moss covered log, even while getting busy with a witchy lass in a forest pond. Arterton tries really hard, but she spends much of the latter half of the movie acting against a giant CGI troll named Edward and announcing out loud everything she has done, will do, and is thinking. Oh, and let us not forget the lady punching, which seems like the sole driving force of this movie. Sure, the villains are witches, and witches are ladies and villains are punched, but it’s pretty disconcerting how many times Arterton gets her pretty bell rung in this flick. By the time it climaxes in the witch showdown (led by an over-the-top campy Famke Janssen), the amount of stunt women getting punched in the face gets a little icky. Presented in what should be called Shitty-3D-o-vision, if you’d like to spend under 90 minutes having wood shards and F-bombs hurled in your face, “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters” is the film for you. Who ARE you? – Katie Walsh
”Gangster Squad”
Once upon a time, “Gangster Squad” was a promising prospect. It had a hotly-tipped Black List-ed script, the fast-rising director of “Zombieland,” and what by any reasonable method of measurement is a hell of a cast— Ryan Gosling, Josh Brolin, Emma Stone, Sean Penn, Anthony Mackie et al. But if the experience has taught us anything, it’s that when a big studio movie gets pushed into the January wasteland, there’s a reason for it: in the case of “Gangster Squad,” because it was incredibly terrible. Coming across as something akin to “L.A. Confidential” for people suffering from serious head injuries, it immaculately recreated post-War Los Angeles, and proceeded to reenact an overly-violent, unintentionally funny episode of some cop show you’d never watch on its expensive sets. Other than eye-piercingly ugly digital photography that makes Michael Mann‘s “Public Enemies” look like the goddamn “Godfather” (to DP jail with you, Dion Beebe!), there’s literally not a single thing you haven’t seen many times before. From Josh Brolin playing a cop so generic that he could literally just be called Lawman McPolice, to Sean Penn cos-playing as a Dick Tracy villain, to Ryan Gosling homaging Penn’s performance in “I Am Sam” for some reason, to Anthony Mackie having absolutely nothing to do, there’s no sense that the cast have been directed, or even really want to be on set, and you’d sympathize if you weren’t resenting that they were taking up so much time. When the film finally reaches its conclusion with a ridiculous boxing match between Brolin and Penn, director Ruben Fleischer‘s thrown all kinds of stylistic tics at the camera, but none suggest that he should ever be allowed to watch a movie again, let alone make one. Were there worse movies so far this year? Probably (I disqualified “A Good Day To Die Hard” because it barely counts as an actual movie). But given the talent assembled, and the expenditure involved, no one should be more ashamed of themselves than the makers of “Gangster Squad.” – Oliver Lyttelton
“Evil Dead”
When the “Evil Dead” remake was first announced, everyone assumed the worst. Horror fans had already suffered through atrocious reboots of “A Nightmare On Elm Street,” “Friday The 13th” and “Halloween” and now they were coming for Sam Raimi’s indie-splatter classic? No fucking way. But then we found out this new version would be produced by the original trio (Raimi, Tapert and Campbell) who had handpicked the director (Fede Alvarez, responsible for an inventive little short “Panic Attack”), who promised all practical fx and cut a trailer which looked really goddamned good. So believe me that I was really hoping for the best. Despite my lifelong affinity for the original trilogy of films, I thought maybe this new version could join “Dawn Of The Dead” (2004) and “The Hills Have Eyes” (2006) as a slick but effective update that could still stand on its own. Regrettably that was not the case. Despite the sign-off from the originators of the franchise, “Evil Dead” (2013) belongs in the pile of crap with most of Platinum Dunes’ output. Not only does the new version fail to capture the spirit of the original, it fails as a horror film, period (the fact that it wears the name “Evil Dead” only makes this failure more offensive). The film wants to punish the audience though it fails to understand even the basics of how a horror film works— tension and release, anticipation and delivery— instead Alvarez throws countless gallons of blood at the screen mistaking carnage for creativity. Limbs are hacked off and arteries gush like sprinklers, but never with any consequence and never to anyone we care (or know anything) about. If you’re going to make your characters this bland, you had better be in on the joke: make sure your film is scary or funny or original or something other than just violent. The 1981 original utilized many of the tricks and trademarks that can still be found in Raimi’s much larger-budgeted films today. In the new version, Alvarez pays lip service to these iconic elements, but fails to add anything memorable of his own. Rarely has a film this gory been this boring. – Cory Everett
“The Incredible Burt Wonderstone“
2013 has largely been defined by its number of high concept studio comedies that are absolutely awful— things like “The Internship” and “Identity Thief” (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the bafflingly accepted “The Heat“). But the absolute worst in the bunch was “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” a I’d-rather-be-having-elective-oral-surgery bore that somehow also had the distinction of opening the South by Southwest Film Festival this year. How the fuck did that happen? Ostensibly the tale of embittered, hacky Las Vegas magicians (played by Steve Carell, Steve Buscemi and Jim Carrey), the movie is so floundering and unfunny that you wonder how the premise could be stretched to fill a “Saturday Night Live” sketch, let alone a movie that stretches to a mind-bending running time of 100 minutes. Everything about the movie feels antiquated to the point of being covered in thick layers of chalky dust. Why would anyone build a comedy around making fun of magicians in the year 2013? Are they really a relevant target these days? And this says nothing of the performances, so knowingly arch that they practically come with their own set of quotation marks. What’s even more depressing is that “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” like fellow nominee “Violet & Daisy,” features one of the last performances by the late, great James Gandolfini. There’s some comfort that I can take, at least, knowing that so few people will ever see this rhinestone-encrusted piece of garbage, a comedy so utterly humorless and grimly imagined that you have a hard time understanding how it got through the slings and arrows of the studio development process, let alone made it to theaters (and somehow opened one of the more prestigious U.S. film festivals). There might be nothing up the sleeve of “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” but there’s nothing in its brain either. – Drew Taylor
Well? That’s all we got. Buyer beware of all these films and try to be civil to Erik if you can. Thoughts? “A Good Day To Die Hard” obviously being so bad, no one had the heart to bother to beat up on a special-needs child of a movie. Which one of us do you believe is insane? Who’s on point? What are your least favorite films of the year? Discuss below.
White House Down is not a bad film. I recommend Iron Man 3 be in that place instead.
To the Wonder is the worst movie ever. Whispering in French does not make a cult movie. I completely agree with Indiewire! 🙂
To the Wonder is the worst movie ever. Whispering in French does not make a cult movie. I completely agree with Indiewire! 🙂
Talk about bad movies how about The last exorcism part 2.Yuck.
The Host is one of the worst movies ever made.
This article was pretty on-point until it started BS-ing about To The Wonder or The Place Beyond The Pines. From a Malick non-fan point of view I'd understand not enjoying To The Wonder, but Pines was one of the better dramas of the year so far. Suck it, Indiewire.
the incredible burt wonderstone cost 30 million dollars to create? what a waist of money….
and what do they spend the money on exactly wigs and costumes, get serious people movies are so expensive now of course there gonna fucking flop when you spend a fucking fortune making complete garbage… and nobody will want to see your movie i hate to break it to you FUCKHEADS!
frankly the movie industry is just embarrassing, people you are better off watching tv which is now the forerunner of emotional drama…
shows like game of thrones and sherlock are making movies look amateurish at best, i seriously don't understand why they just throw millions of dollars down the toilet
movie script writers should hang there heads in shame because dialogue in movies is a huge part of the issue.
movie industry is a complete joke, to many people are easily pleased by the moronic crap they churn out.
why should people pay to see utter bollocks, films will continue to flop until they step up there game script writers and CGI overkill are killing the industry
Seriously how the hell do they greenlight a movie named "the incredible Burt Wonderstone" i mean really ?? are you fucking serious????
who in there right mind would pay money to see that ? i haven't even seen the movie but i think the title is MORE then enough to put me off it for good.
and evil dead was fucking awful, yeah violent and abit grimey but the story was fucking awful the characters where awful the whole " drugs intervention plot" was weak.
SPOILER, and then the sister gets possessed and shes evil for the majority of the movie. But then all of a sudden her brother dies just like that and she is good and the movie ends, im sorry but why do movies nowdays have to include such weak actresses and female character's
that was one of the main things that ruined the 2012 THING reboot, weak pointless female character's totally unbelievable… fucking pisses me off, whats wrong with casting strong male actors.
We all know that sensitivity-among-snark is one of the defining traits around here if only for the amount of reviews and retrospectives that are ground to a halt to catalog offending elements (70s cop movies are homophobic! The horror genre can be misogynistic! 97,331 comedies and animated fetures have troubling racial stereotypes!) So it's a bit puzzling to see this particular piece filled with rimshot jabs at the year's worst by way of comparisons to the mentally infirm.
Last ones…Pain and Gain and Hangover 3… UGH! They were both terrible, tone deaf, overlong, unfunny, cynical wastes of time and energy. I wanted to walk out of both but I was with friends.
Pain and Gain had a great cast who did their jobs but Michael Bay just can't help making good actors and a good premise into an appallingly bad movie.
Oh yeah and A Good Day to Die Hard was pretty damn awful too! THAT was better than Stoker, A Place Beyond the Pines and Evil Dead?
This is the worst list I've read in 2013…so far
Half of these I haven't seen but A Place Beyond the Pines, Stoker and Evil Dead were pretty damn good. They weren't perfect but they all tried to show you some standard stories in new and creative ways. They were all very well acted and although Stoker and A Place… had pacing problems, they were incredibly engrossing.
And Evil Dead was a blast I have NO idea what they're talking about here! Its gross and funny and just about what I expected and wanted from an Evil Dead remake.
I don't usually call other people's opinions stupid but I have to say this list is awful. I agree with someone posting below that Temptation (that Tyler Perry abomination) was literally the worst movie I've seen in LONG while and how that didn't make this list and other good movies took its place completely invalidates how well thought out this list was.
Alert! We've got a Malick hater on the loose in the editorial staff! There's one in every bunch.
How to To the Wonder and Evil Dead made it onto this list when Tyler Perry's Temptation, one of the most offensive and downright terrible movies I've ever seen, did not is beyond me. I loved To the Wonder and Evil Dead, and I'll respect that you all didn't, but solely on the basis of Temptation's treatment of women, that movie deserves to be there instead of either of those two.
It seems some of the contributors mistook the premise of this article. It is titled "worst films of 2013" but perhaps it should have been titled "most disappointing films of 2013" because that's the only list Place Beyond the Pines even deserves consideration. It is so far from the worst film it's not funny.
you forgot to mention "Man of Steel" or that movie "the host". idk I enjoyed watching The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and Hansel & Gretel
i understand that you didn't like at all but how can you claim that the place beyonf the pines is the WORST movie of 2013 so far ?
you are stupid..very ugly ..and you are definetely a big piece of shit with a small dick
that's that chris bell you are the human sheet
I think that INCREDIBLE WONDRSTONE is one bests, and Superman. Mn f Steel is an ugly shit. Just that.
bell you are an ugly piece of shit
Apparently, everyone thinks they can reply to an article… 15 times! Ha!
where is The Host???
How about responding to the question at hand. What is the worst movie of the year? If your the Friday night cattle that marketing departments tell what to see and do. Than you should have named a big budget film like: A good Day to Die Hard $67,349,198 on a budget of 92 Million, Anything Tylor Perry Like Tyler Perry presents Peeples $9,123,834 Gross on a budget of $15 Million, Parker $17,616,641 Gross on a budget of $35 Million a shame because I usually like his films, Pain & Gain what a piece of crap! Grossed less than 50 million coming off the heels of Ted which grossed $218,815,487 on a budget of less than Pain & Gains entire take. Pitch that satistic in your next pitch meeting Marky Mark. Even worse films were: This is the End, The unincredible Burt Wonderstone and how about The Intern. Why do they keep casting these guys when their films loose money again and again? Last but not least, Arnolds The Last Stand $12,050,299 on a $45 Million Budget. Kinda like our California buget, in the red! All very bad films and money loosers, not to mention career enders for a lot of people. So if you named Superman or Star Trek 2 than you just don't watch enough movies. But, if you watch the smaller budgeted films which are desperate for screen counts, how about Lay the Favorite $20,998 Gross, That's thousands not millions, opened on only 61 screens nation wide even though it had Bruce Willis in it and wtf was he doing in that? But the worst film of the year so far is "Storage 24" Grossed $72 actual Dollars. Everybody thinks they can make a movie… Ha!
How about responding to the question at hand. What is the worst movie of the year? If your the Friday night cattle that marketing departments tell what to see and do. Than you should have named a big budget film like: A good Day to Die Hard $67,349,198 on a budget of 92 Million, Anything Tylor Perry Like Tyler Perry presents Peeples $9,123,834 Gross on a budget of $15 Million, Parker $17,616,641 Gross on a budget of $35 Million a shame because I usually like his films, Pain & Gain what a piece of crap! Grossed less than 50 million coming off the heels of Ted which grossed $218,815,487 on a budget of less than Pain & Gains entire take. Pitch that satistic in your next pitch meeting Marky Mark. Even worse films were: This is the End, The unincredible Burt Wonderstone and how about The Intern. Why do they keep casting these guys when their films loose money again and again? Last but not least, Arnolds The Last Stand $12,050,299 on a $45 Million Budget. Kinda like our California buget, in the red! All very bad films and money loosers, not to mention career enders for a lot of people. So if you named Superman or Star Trek 2 than you just don't watch enough movies. But, if you watch the smaller budgeted films which are desperate for screen counts, how about Lay the Favorite $20,998 Gross, That's thousands not millions, opened on only 61 screens nation wide even though it had Bruce Willis in it and wtf was he doing in that? But the worst film of the year so far is "Storage 24" Grossed $72 actual Dollars. Everybody thinks they can make a movie… Ha!
How about responding to the question at hand. What is the worst movie of the year? If your the Friday night cattle that marketing departments tell what to see and do. Than you should have named a big budget film like: A good Day to Die Hard $67,349,198 on a budget of 92 Million, Anything Tylor Perry Like Tyler Perry presents Peeples $9,123,834 Gross on a budget of $15 Million, Parker $17,616,641 Gross on a budget of $35 Million a shame because I usually like his films, Pain & Gain what a piece of crap! Grossed less than 50 million coming off the heels of Ted which grossed $218,815,487 on a budget of less than Pain & Gains entire take. Pitch that satistic in your next pitch meeting Marky Mark. Even worse films were: This is the End, The unincredible Burt Wonderstone and how about The Intern. Why do they keep casting these guys when their films loose money again and again? Last but not least, Arnolds The Last Stand $12,050,299 on a $45 Million Budget. Kinda like our California buget, in the red! All very bad films and money loosers, not to mention career enders for a lot of people. So if you named Superman or Star Trek 2 than you just don't watch enough movies. But, if you watch the smaller budgeted films which are desperate for screen counts, how about Lay the Favorite $20,998 Gross, That's thousands not millions, opened on only 61 screens nation wide even though it had Bruce Willis in it and wtf was he doing in that? But the worst film of the year so far is "Storage 24" Grossed $72 actual Dollars. Everybody thinks they can make a movie… Ha!
How about responding to the question at hand. What is the worst movie of the year? If your the Friday night cattle that marketing departments tell what to see and do. Than you should have named a big budget film like: A good Day to Die Hard $67,349,198 on a budget of 92 Million, Anything Tylor Perry Like Tyler Perry presents Peeples $9,123,834 Gross on a budget of $15 Million, Parker $17,616,641 Gross on a budget of $35 Million a shame because I usually like his films, Pain & Gain what a piece of crap! Grossed less than 50 million coming off the heels of Ted which grossed $218,815,487 on a budget of less than Pain & Gains entire take. Pitch that satistic in your next pitch meeting Marky Mark. Even worse films were: This is the End, The unincredible Burt Wonderstone and how about The Intern. Why do they keep casting these guys when their films loose money again and again? Last but not least, Arnolds The Last Stand $12,050,299 on a $45 Million Budget. Kinda like our California buget, in the red! All very bad films and money loosers, not to mention career enders for a lot of people. So if you named Superman or Star Trek 2 than you just don't watch enough movies. But, if you watch the smaller budgeted films which are desperate for screen counts, how about Lay the Favorite $20,998 Gross, That's thousands not millions, opened on only 61 screens nation wide even though it had Bruce Willis in it and wtf was he doing in that? But the worst film of the year so far is "Storage 24" Grossed $72 actual Dollars. Everybody thinks they can make a movie… Ha!
How about responding to the question at hand. What is the worst movie of the year? If your the Friday night cattle that marketing departments tell what to see and do. Than you should have named a big budget film like: A good Day to Die Hard $67,349,198 on a budget of 92 Million, Anything Tylor Perry Like Tyler Perry presents Peeples $9,123,834 Gross on a budget of $15 Million, Parker $17,616,641 Gross on a budget of $35 Million a shame because I usually like his films, Pain & Gain what a piece of crap! Grossed less than 50 million coming off the heels of Ted which grossed $218,815,487 on a budget of less than Pain & Gains entire take. Pitch that satistic in your next pitch meeting Marky Mark. Even worse films were: This is the End, The unincredible Burt Wonderstone and how about The Intern. Why do they keep casting these guys when their films loose money again and again? Last but not least, Arnolds The Last Stand $12,050,299 on a $45 Million Budget. Kinda like our California buget, in the red! All very bad films and money loosers, not to mention career enders for a lot of people. So if you named Superman or Star Trek 2 than you just don't watch enough movies. But, if you watch the smaller budgeted films which are desperate for screen counts, how about Lay the Favorite $20,998 Gross, That's thousands not millions, opened on only 61 screens nation wide even though it had Bruce Willis in it and wtf was he doing in that? But the worst film of the year so far is "Storage 24" Grossed $72 actual Dollars. Everybody thinks they can make a movie… Ha!
How about responding to the question at hand. What is the worst movie of the year? If your the Friday night cattle that marketing departments tell what to see and do. Than you should have named a big budget film like: A good Day to Die Hard $67,349,198 on a budget of 92 Million, Anything Tylor Perry Like Tyler Perry presents Peeples $9,123,834 Gross on a budget of $15 Million, Parker $17,616,641 Gross on a budget of $35 Million a shame because I usually like his films, Pain & Gain what a piece of crap! Grossed less than 50 million coming off the heels of Ted which grossed $218,815,487 on a budget of less than Pain & Gains entire take. Pitch that satistic in your next pitch meeting Marky Mark. Even worse films were: This is the End, The unincredible Burt Wonderstone and how about The Intern. Why do they keep casting these guys when their films loose money again and again? Last but not least, Arnolds The Last Stand $12,050,299 on a $45 Million Budget. Kinda like our California buget, in the red! All very bad films and money loosers, not to mention career enders for a lot of people. So if you named Superman or Star Trek 2 than you just don't watch enough movies. But, if you watch the smaller budgeted films which are desperate for screen counts, how about Lay the Favorite $20,998 Gross, That's thousands not millions, opened on only 61 screens nation wide even though it had Bruce Willis in it and wtf was he doing in that? But the worst film of the year so far is "Storage 24" Grossed $72 actual Dollars. Everybody thinks they can make a movie… Ha!
Starting this list with the awesome White House Down instantly discredits it.
Place Beyond the Pines among the worst of the year? Ummmmm no. Clearly you haven't seen enough bad films this year and your diss of Stoker is so so so incorrect!!
for me the 10 worst movies of 2013 so far are
1-After Earth
2-the Last Exorcism part 2
3-The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia
4-Emperor
5-The Host(heck i liked the twilight movies better)
6-The Lone Ranger
7-The Lords Of Salem
8-Phantom
9-The East
10-Admission
I though White House Down had some of the most irritating dialogue / scenes I've had to sit through all year so it could be a finalist for "Worst" on my list. To The Wonder makes it unlikely that I will ever eagerly anticipate another late-period Malick film. Place Beyond the Pines was a disappointment but not sure it would be a "worst". I would put Jack the Giant Slayer as far worse than Hansel & Gretel w/c I thought was tongue-in-cheek fun.
The Big Wedding may rank as the single worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen some doozies.
Thanks for farting on some pretty average movies that are probably being considered important films of 2013
Completely agree on To the Wonder and Malick's filmography in general.
In a few years' time, people will look back (if they even remember to) at The Place Beyond the Pines and realize what a generic, cliched, overwrought, try-hard, pretentious mess it was. You are right on with this list.
The WORST thing about this article of the worst movies so far is the idea that a movie that is considered the worst still has value. How is that even possible? Calling something the worst means that it has no value whatsoever and that the two hours (or three to four hours if your talking about Malick) spent watching such horribleness was a total waste of time.
Evil Dead was fucking perfect. In every way.
Every other movie though is spot on.
spring breakers? cmon
YOU DISLIKED A MOVIE I LIKE AND I CAME DOWN HERE TO TELL YOU YOU'RE WRONG!!
But seriously, good writing, and you nailed exactly why "Place Beyond the Pines" was my least favorite movie experience of the year, starting with that gratuitous opening shot. Tracking shots do not automatically equal epic cinema.
Movie 43?
Gangster Squad was laughably horrid. Why would anyone hire Emma Stone as a femme fatale ? Ha – Ha – Ha !
'Stoker' was "cartoonish and tonally misguided"?! That sentence robbed this article of any and all credibility.
You are just trying to get buzz to your list so you put some amazing movies in your list….LAME.
Seriously? The Place Beyond The Pines? Okay, maybe Bradley Cooper was not the best person to play the cop turned politician but the rest of the cast was spot on. Gangster squad was pretty terrible. Man of Steel should have made the list as well.
Apart from the failed blockbusters on the list, The Playlist staff have assembled a list of films with pretty solid artistic merit with respectable actors and filmmakers associated. It's totally understandable to be disappointed with a movie. Passionately disappointed. But can you really, REALLY call The Place Beyond The Pines, I'm So Excited and To the Wonder (I totally get your line about pretty visuals and that's about it) some of the worst movies of the year or are you just being haters? I understand being let down by flicks that had the potential to be good — and I think a bunch of these did — but were you really that offended by Malick and Almodovar's misguided visions of grandeur (I won't clump Cianfrance in there, cause I loved that movie) to the point that they should take the place of a shlockier flick in your article and be pooped on in a snarky tone? Or is it 'cause Fast and the Furious 15 is too obvious and keeping the article interesting and diverse means throwing in a few arthouse flick mentions along the way? With all the soul-less cash-grabs and DOAs out there, I'm sure something could've taken To the Wonder's place. Whether you liked that movie or not, it doesn't deserve the same kind of mean spirited critique reserved for movies called Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. I'm not defending the indie flicks to be the defendor (see what I did there?) of all things pretentious but just to say that even a failed attempt at original and artful story telling makes these flicks too strong to be on the list.
Happy Holidays.
I only agree with a few movies on this list. You have a really bad taste in movies
I have to agree on "Gangster Squad" but I enjoyed "Evil Dead" though. "Man of Steel" was terrible, it's possibly the worst movie I've seen this year. "The Wolverine" looks promising as well…
No mentioning of InAPPropriate Comedy? Or Movie 43, the movie that many critics said could be a contender for one of the worst movies of all time? Come on, guys…
Thumbs down to this list. i agree with only 3-4 picks in this list. 'the place beyond the pines' and 'evil dead' don't belong here. and there are far worse movies than 'the incredible burt wonderstone'.
take a walk. playlist.
I know it's all opinion but man, some of the films listed here are baffling. That includes 'Place Beyond the Pine'. I love this site. I really do. But man, it can get extreme here.
Christopher Bell admits further down that he hasn't seen other films that most would call the 'worst' of the year. So that means we should all chill a bit. Therefore, if one hasn't seen After Earth, Hangover III, Scary Movie 5, Safe Haven, A Good Day to Die Hard or Hansel and Gretel [to name but a few] then one cannot put them on a list of worst films. So instead what gets chosen is the 'worst' of the 'best'. Might be nice if they stated that up front. But it makes for an active comments section.
Curious to know what C. Bell thought of Blue Valentine. I don't agree that TPBTP is anywhere near the worst film of the year but it's no where near as great as Blue Valentine. After Gosling leaves the show, the picture goes down the drain. I know TP was really big on Blue Valentine (I think you guys gave it an A+) but curious to know if Bell likes any of Cianfrance's (rather small) output.
For such a long, and condescending article, one would think you'd pay more attention to editing. Yet, this text is so riddled with typos, it made me want to put it in the list of the Worst Articles Ever Published on IndieWire.
I love IndieWire, even if I don't always agree with them on such things. Not that I would consider any of this movies really good, but The Place Beyond the Pines, The Great Gatsby, Stoker & To The Wonder can't be on that list. I mean with so many shitty movies out there, surely there's something else you can think of. Mostly, that's four highly anticipated movies by arguably good directors that get criticized too much because of the hype created before they came out.
Star Trek Into Darkness. Complete and utter garbage, soulless, vapid, corporate-whoring commercialism at its worst. Idiotically written by Kurtzman and 9/11 truther Orci, with not an ounce of wit, style or any semblance of memorable dialogue. The wholesale lifting of the villain and ending of Wrath of Khan was kind of beyond belief, especially as Abrams and co spent two years vehemently denying they would do that. And the final insult to injury was Kirk's magical return from death.
Abhorrent garbage. Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci should stick to TV junk like Xena and Alias. Unfotunately Abrams will now fuck up Star Wars beyond belief too.
Jesus. I wonder what Nicholas Meyer, an intelligent, literate man if ever there was one, made of it all?
Upstream Color is the worst movie of this decade (so far) so I'm not really sure how it wasn't included on this list.
I see Ryan Gosling fans. I agree with some on this list and others I don't but we all have different opinions so I dont understand why people get all pissy about it. It's almost laughable how uptight people get when someone disses a film they like. Oh how I love this site! Honestly I do not joking visit it all the time, love the reviews!
I agree with all of these.
You lost ALL credibility when you put Evil Dead on here.
The Place Beyond the Pines, seriously? Who the fuck made this list? That film was beyond amazing.
Malick is a singular genius. Sorry you're too dumb to get his aesthetic
If you think that "The Place Beyond the Pines" and "To the Wonder" belong in this list than i think you should stick to "G.I Joe: Retaliation", and especially "A Good Day to Die Hard" cuz it perfectly rhymes with "A Good article to suck hard" (ouch !!!) …
For the outraged, the intention was this: 1 ed: "Let's discuss some of our worst films of the year so far and let everyone choose whatever they wanna choose" 2 ed: "Sure, we did best of so far, why not." 1 ed. "we're obviously not going to all agree with one another, but that's interesting in and of itself, let the chips fall where they may." ed 2. "word."
Everyone went off and wrote their lists individually. We know everyone well enough to know that no one is trying to troll. You may HATE some of these individual picks — we hate to see some of them on here too — but that's the design of it. Chill.
I did not like to the wonder myself but there are some very inventive aspects in this film and in no way should be considered even a bad movie. And evil dead yes it may have not been quite what the first was but it was good. To hear the author say that he was hoping it would be as good as dawn or hills have eyes proved to me that this guys doesnt know horror for the life of him because both of those movies were far worse remakes…cinematically speaking
Jesus Christ people really get pissed off when someone insults something they like. Who cares if Christopher Bell didn't like The Place Beyond the Pines. It's his opinion, let it be.
Even if he's just doing it for shock value (which I honestly don't believe he is) it's pointless and childish to insult or attack him for it.
For the last 10 years I've been compiling my top 100 movies of each year and my least favorite of each year, and a lot of my picks for least could be deemed controversial, but it's my personal opinion.
My least favorite film so far this year is Takashi Miike's 'Shield of Straw' and last year was 'The Dark Knight Rises' as no film infuriated me more than Nolan's horrible butchering of my beloved Batman.
People disagree on what is beautiful and what is trash… a lot of these commentators need to grow the fuck up and deal with it.
"Generally uncharismatic" is a pretty good description of Bradley Cooper in general. I enjoyed this a lot, but I think it's a shame you fall back on making fun of disabled people to insult shitty movies on, what, three separate occasions?
This is the worst worst of movies of 2013 list of 2013.
None of these critics actually have any credible reasons as to why these movies are bad. I do agree a couple of these movies were not my cup of tea, but just because i didnt like it does not make it the worst of the year and that is something critics need to realize. Give me facts talk about the cinematograpy, editing, sound fx and dialogube editing. Give me examples dont just blast movies that you did not enjoy or understand for no reason. I dnot likenot like to the
I have to pee… on all of the people who don't get that these are opinions. The fact that the Playlist staff doesn't agree on everything is a good thing in today's lack-of-journalistic-integrity journalism.
Also, how is it possible that there are more people on this board defending "Pines" than actual people who bought tickets to see it? Perhaps it's cast & crew who got into a free screening or something….
I have to pee… on all of the people who don't get that these are opinions. The fact that the Playlist staff doesn't agree on everything is a good thing in today's lack-of-journalistic-integrity journalism.
Also, how is it possible that there are more people on this board defending "Pines" than actual people who bought tickets to see it? Perhaps it's cast & crew who got into a free screening or something….
I have to pee… on all of the people who don't get that these are opinions. The fact that the Playlist staff doesn't agree on everything is a good thing in today's lack-of-journalistic-integrity journalism.
Also, how is it possible that there are more people on this board defending "Pines" than actual people who bought tickets to see it? Perhaps it's cast & crew who got into a free screening or something….
Seriously though who puts Pines on a worst of the year list, and especially in the same year where A Good Day to Die Hard came out and singlehandedly killed the Die Hard franchise so thoroughly I almost think I never even want to watch Die Hard 1, one of the greatest films ever made, again, just because it might remind me that A Good Day exists.
Armond White, Christopher Bell is not. Worst critic of the year.
This list is ridiculous
WOW. I'm so pleasantly surprised that you guys did not include The Great Gatsby. For all the stink bombs you threw at the film, glad to know it's not really the worst! Also, did you guys just hire 129038 new writers, b/c I do not recognize many of the names and I've been reading ya'll pre-Indiewire!
Typical pompous armchair criticism. *Yawn*
It's hilarious that this is what "film criticism" has come to– here's the logline: a small group of lazy people who love movies but are internally tortured by their lack of intelligence or work ethic, find…THE INTERNET. Knowing that they are incapable of creating anything of true quality with their lives (or writing with the observational intelligence or reporting skill of even a high schooler), they grasp for a shred of meaning by putting a megaphone to their lips and mistaking its volume for value. And…The Playlist is born! KJ I hope you find an agent so you can try your hand at screenwriting or some craft where your work would be judged for its true worth. Scary, eh?
'Pines' has to be one of my favorite films of the year. But I can contend that I was exhausted coming out of the theater. It took a lot out of me, but if I leave a picture and feel nothing, to me, that is worse… All of the other films merit being on this list.
Yeah, a lot of this feels like trolling. In the "To The Wonder" section the dude practically admits that it isn't the worst movie of the year. I understand not wanting to go for the easy targets, but there has to be a reasonable middle ground between saying "Movie 43" and "Place Beyond The Pines."
Hate-baiting shit. Indiewire at it's finest. It's funny how pretentious yet utterly insipid every piece of writing is on this site.
Calling The Place Beyond The Pines the worst movie of the year [so far] is pure provocation. The movie has some issues, yes. Especially that third act. But no way does that make it the worst of the year. For most people the worst of the year has to be an actual bad movie. What you are doing here is a backlash or contrarian review of a pretty good movie. That's the worst kind because it is more a criticism of the hype that surrounds the movie and the people who like the movie than it is an actual criticsm OF the movie.
'To the Wonder', 'Pines', and 'Evil Dead'? LAWD HAVE MERCY!
Evil Dead was one of the best and respectful remakes Hollywood has done. You're an idiot. And Place Beyond the Pines was beautiful with a first act twist that was very brave.
TPBTP? Really??? It's maybe the best film of 2013 so far.
What trolling article. You guys are seriously one of the lamest sites online, I rarely read well-constructed criticism here. When you aren't posting The Wolverine clips, you roll out this silly bait.
christopher bell i sincerely think that you are the most stupid human been ever
Parker? Bullet to the Head? The Company You Keep?