I thought I was above the inevitable end-of-year-list explosion that happens on every pop culture site, blog, magazine etc. But obviously not. Also it’s fun to reflect on a year in film. I thought starting with my worst films of 2013 would create more of a buildup than starting with a climax of my best films of the year. Also I’ve found it’s easier to zero down on the films that caused the most disgust. Is that the same for you? To add a little individual flair I’ll also be compiling additional lists that may not fit definitively in the best/worst list but had some kind of effect such as “Honorable Mentions”, “Biggest Disappointments”, “Puzzling Hits” and “Top Films available on Streaming”

*Please note that there might not be appearances from universally reviled films such as Grown Ups 2 and The Internship for example for the simple reason being that I could foresee their awfulness ahead of time and unlike career critics I don’t paid to do this, so I tend to watch films I hope to like and avoid ones that don’t appeal like the plague. That’s not to say I haven’t seen my fair share of doozies all of which are contained in this following list of no order:

Movie 43

All I can say about this film is that I can blame nobody but myself for watching this. Despite repeated warnings from people who had actually purchased tickets, paid the rapidly rising public transport fares to watch this monstrosity, I was still intrigued. Not intrigued enough to watch this in cinemas for the reason stated above but I was foolish enough to sit through it on Netflix. Let it be known that I went in  expecting a grotesque horror show and I was duly rewarded, so I suppose it has that going for it. I also watched it because for some reason it had been initially programmed to appear at the fledgling London Comedy Film Festival (LOCO), the brainchild of the British Film Institute and director Edgar Wright, so I thought that maybe if it had been selected to appear there, it has to be better than the trailer suggests right?

Wrong.

This film is atrocious. Its atrociousness crosses all lines of sensibility that I momentarily thought this had to surrealist artist piece so profound it cannot be understood by the average human brain. Rationality came back to punch me in the face when I began to understand it really was just a patchwork of terrible sketches stretching the meaning of comedy to a threadbare. The film starts with Hugh Jackman with a testicle neck (who thought of this?) out on a first date with a horrified Kate Winslet and the film descends from there. This is one sketch of many that are arbitarily linked by a desperate Dennis Quaid trying to pitch these sketches as film ideas to Greg Kinnear.

I won’t bother to list other names that are involved in this whole farce because it upsets me so. The film is chock full of people I admire and while I know that it’s the nature of the film industry that one cannot always predict what will be a hit, but what world do we live in where at any stage in the production people genuinely thought this was funny and worth making? Humanity loses again.

While the film aims for offensive crude comedy, what I was most  offended by was the fact it had the balls to call itself a comedy. The lack of laughs is so bereft and so startlingly absent I could cry. But I won’t. I’ll instead use my apathy. In fact I’m no longer offended because the film was too stupid to be offensive. In fact the best way to describe this film is infantile. I may however be insulting infants who have done me no wrong. From  it’s opening scenes the film  sets out to offend the audience’s sensibility at every turn. It succeeds howeverm only to be offensive in it’s laziness, stupidity and the boredom it creates. I felt like the film went on for a millennia and like my poor predecessors who were watched before me, if I only do one piece of good in my life, I ask you don’t watch this. 

Although I am ashamed to say I did raise a smile at the beginning of Terence Howard segment which can be seen in the trailer. You don’t have to suffer the movie like I did to watch! In all honesty it’s his best work to date.

Man of Steel

Movie 43 bored me with it’s strange interpretation of comedy. Man of Steel bored me with it’s relentless action and hollow sentimentality. Both are united in assuming film audiences are idiots. That’s why they both present on this list.  While Movie 43 didn’t seem to care if it won over any fans, even apologists, Man of Steel so obviously claws for that cult hit status and simply fails miserably. I’ve had conversations with a number of people with varying relationships with the character and story of Superman. I’ve spoken to fans of the graphic novels and the character, fans of graphic novels but not the story of Superman, fans of the Christopher Reeve incarnation, fans of the Brandon Routh incarnation (who are really just fans of the Christopher Reeve impersonator incarnation), fans of Henry Cavill, fans of superhero movies and fans of nothing at all. They were all unified in their complete apathy for the film.

The reasonings might be varied but the outcome the same. Man of Steel proved to be a huge disappointment. Some placed the blame on Henry Cavill robotic portrayal of Superman and I can see why. He is truly a handsome walking mannequin if I ever saw one. Certainly gives Kim Cattrell’s portrayal a run for her money. However, the blame can not be sorely laid on his admittedly muscular shoulders. The finger should be pointed at the writing. From the start the origin story is at best mediocre. At its worst it’s non sensical, insulting and bad. Amy Adams and Michael Shannon are in my opinion some of the finest actors currently working today. So it hurts that I remember shuddering every time they were forced to speak some of the most dreadful dialogue. But the terrible script pales in comparison to the terrible story arc.

As origin stories go, this one is a complete non-starter. At no point does Superman really grapple with his powers and his responsibility. Nor is there adequate time given to showing the audience how he learns to harness his incredible strength and invincibility. He seems to just need to do something at some point, finds he can do it and then does it. That is not character development. All this is a prelude to what annoyed me most about the film – the last act.

I felt like I was part of the projectionist’s elaborate joke where he switches the film so that the audience was treated to the last hour of Transformers 2. I can not stress to Hollywood action directors, to the Michael Bays and Zack Snyders how insufferable and mind-numbingly tedious it is to be bombarded with such noise and non sensical action as what was provided in the last hour of Man of Steel. The extended destruction of a city demonstrated not only the lack of story Zack Snyder had to work with if he thought he had to resort to padding out the last hour with asinine and repetitive scenes of destruction but it also highlighted a major fault with the story and the interpretation of Superman.

How can anyone realistically feel anything other than hospitality towards Superman after not only attracting crazy aliens hell bent of destruction to Earth, but to then partake in a fight that destroys, no flattens a city, killing countless numbers of people and creating millions of refugees by the look of it and committing actual murder with his bare hands at the film’s end. The only platitude we get is to watch Superman save one life at the last minute of a pretty girl and getting a kiss from Lois Lane and we’re supposed to cheer him? He still gets to stand on the pedestal of rightousness while we all suffer a bout of short term memory loss and what he had done within the last hour. No thanks to that and no thanks to this film.

I Give it a Year

As much as I rag on the insistence on the British film industry to dish out their token British Romantic Comedy of The Year, I was slightly intrigued by this one but after actually watching this on Netflix I cannot fathom why I wanted to watch this film. I really do worry that there’s something wrong with me…

Where to start with what was so heinous about this whole venture?

Let’s start with the notion that romance only happens in the lives of the wealthy. Particularly a sub group of middle class Londoners who have very undefined but very well paid jobs and lovely million pound homes in all the ideal London locations. All by the age of 30. It’s all so very Richard Curtis. But Richard Curtis does it better. I Give It A Year’s depiction of such characters create resentment rather than people you can relate to. Let’s be honest these people aren’t people and if they do exist, they’re people no one else wants to know least follow for 97 minutes.

My more prominent issue with the film is Rose Byrne. I have an ambivalent relationship in the past with Ms Byrne. For a very long time her face annoyed me and because I couldn’t explain why, I felt bad about it. Over time, I realised that she’s actually a very versatile actress and a more than competent comedienne. But like a lapse in rehab, this film brought back all the hostility I thought had long been buried. To be honest I think it may have more to do with how her character was written than her portrayal but I have to pass some blame onto her. I’m assuming the part of Nat was won  from her amusing turn as Russell Brand’s Ex  in Get Him To The Greek, where she did a more comedic rather than accurate English Accent. She’s back in A Year with a clipped English Accent, us British only ever associate with American interpretations of accents. Her speaking is all the more out of place because neither her parents (played by British actors), her spouse (Rafe Spall – less repellent but only mildly) or anyone around her in fact speak like her. Is Rose Byrne such a bankable name that no British actress or someone who could do a better accent be cast?

Regardless, beyond the annoying accent, Nat is a pompous, abrasive, self righteous…donut (the alternative word is too uncouth) who is ultimately rewarded for her bad behaviour. And that is where the crux of this nonsense truly falls apart. The two central characters Nat and Josh and not all that nice. There is no revelatory epiphany moment where they see where they realise their faults beyond they usual cliched romantic comedy tropes and countless precious moments. They still get the people they desire (spoiler alert: it’s not each other) while still being their original odious selves.

What is more troublesome about this film is terrible people are not confined to the leads. They are all awful. A particular hand has to be given to Stephen  Merchant’s Danny, who has all the tactlessness of Merchant’s Darren Lamb from Extras, but none of the charm. Danny is rude, insulting and the true definition of a creep. A very unfunny one. The kind of person that makes everyone so uncomfortable people move away from him like a bad smell. In no reality would he have Josh as a friend, as terrible as Josh is. In fact he wouldn’t have any friends. He’d be in hospital if he’d spewed out even a little of the trash he says int the film.

The only slightly redeemable character is Anna Faris as Chloe (Faris makes a second appearance on the worst of list after Movie 43 but is by far not the weakest thing in either). In a slight variation from her more manic comedic turns, Faris’ Anna is the most relatable character in the film as Josh’s old American friend. Not only is she more down to earth as her character is designed to be as the foil of Nat, she also has some of the only genuinely amusing scenes in the film. Her aborted participation in a threesome is a particular highlight. She however is also present in a scene that completely destroyed any minuscule good will I had towards this film.

While in a state of melancholy Chloe describes how miserable her life is being employed in an area she has interest in and having the means to rent a flat of her own (that I think had a nice balcony if memory serves) at the age of 32 or something was reason for her to basically give up and kill herself (in so many words). This scene completely encapsulates, how much the filmmakers don’t understand, nor care for their target audience. The flippant way in which they get a successful young female character (and the only relatable character to boot) to denigrate herself all because she’s not married demonstrated not only severely archaic views but also complete disdain for their target audience. It was then that I realised how nasty this film was. I disengaged and encourage you to do the same.

I’ve already expressed my distaste in the following films that round up the list. They are:

The Counsellor

The Great Gatsby

Beware of Mr Baker

Afternoon Delight

Only God Forgives

Next Up: The listing continues with my favorite films of 2013.

 

Edit: Rose Byrne is Australian not American