Stevennix2001's Top Ten WORST Films of 2011

Although many have criticized film critics by saying their jobs are easy, as all they do is tell their opinions on a movie. Granted, it's a fair point, but I wouldn't call it easy. After all, every critic has to develop their own style, and they have analyze things about a movie that most general audiences would not pay attention to normally; while somehow making their arguments seem rational and engaging to their readers. Plus, it really doesn't help when some of the movies that film critics have to review are giant pieces of crap. Look, if anyone wants to bash film critics by saying their jobs are easy, then that's their business. However, whenever I have to admit to people that I had to review a film like "The Smurfs 3-D", I die a little bit inside, and a part of me wishes that somebody would kill me for ever watching it. Of course, I'm joking, but you get my point.

To be honest, I wasn't sure if I wanted to do a top ten list of the films that I've seen last year, but I figured since almost every other hubber is doing it, then I might as well. Eh, what can I say? I guess I am falling for the old cliche logic, "If all the kids are jumping off a cliff, are you going to do it too?" If by "all the kids are jumping off a cliff", you really mean that all the critics on hubpages are compiling their top ten lists of movies seen last year, then I cannot tell a lie....Yes I am... What can I say? All the other cool critics on hubpages are doing it.....

All kidding aside though, I know many of my older readers know that, with the exception of a 2008 top ten list, I normally never do one of these. Let alone a top ten worst films of anything. Why? Because I generally don't think it's fair for each film, as it's hard enough as it is to try to see every movie that comes out per year; thus I wouldn't want to end up leaving a film out merely because I didn't get a chance to see it. However, as I've come to read many other top ten lists, I figured why not? After all, it is a list based solely on my opinion anyway, so what's the harm?

As I stated before, I have not seen all the films of 2011, so this top ten worst films is solely based on the worst films that I've seen come out in 2011; thus if I neglect to mention a film that you might think it worse than what I listed, then you pretty much know why because...I either haven't seen the movie you think should be on here, or maybe I just don't think it's that bad to make this list.

Another note worth pointing out is that I won't be publishing my top ten best films of 2011, until after the Oscars. Therefore, I do apologize for the wait, but I feel it's only fair that way. But for now, lets dive right into the worst films of 2011.

When I first saw the trailer to this movie, I thought to myself that this will probably be one of those under rated fantasy films that'll more than likely bomb at the box office; while being harshly bashed by most film critics who don't understand the fantasy genre of movies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all critics are like this, but most of them often fail to see the symbolism and metaphors in a fantasy film; which leads me to believe most are too harsh when it comes to a fantasy and science fiction movie. Having said all that, this was one of the movies last year that I was deeply looking forward to, as I felt the premise of it alone made worth seeing. Unfortunately, I was wrong...

Not only did this film fail to meet any of my expectations, but the pro-religious message it conveys comes off as overly preachy around the end, to where you just wish they'd shut up about it. No, I'm not an agnostic or atheist, nor do I care what religious preference a person has, as that's entirely up to each individual. And having a pro-religious film isn't necessarily a bad thing either, as "Prince of Egypt" still ranks as one of my all time favorite animated films.

My philosophy is that as long as you don't tell me how to live my life, then I won't tell you how to live yours. Fair enough, right? Anyway, the promise what this movie could have been is what really gets to me, as this could have been a deeply engaging controversial film about religion itself. It could have not only forced it's audience to question the very fabric of religion, and the church, but it could presented an epic story on par with such films like "Last Temptation of Christ", to present a controversially perplex movie.

In fact, if you watch merely the beginning of this movie, you can see a great build up in the story. A man sees the evil of the endless battles fighting in the crusades; which causes him to lose his faith along with his comrade. They both become drifters scouring the land for shelter, until they're hired to escort a woman who everyone believes is a witch, but she seems like a harmless little girl. Granted, from hearing this premise, one might think there's a load of possibilities for creating a great story, but you'd be wrong. Not only is every plot twist predictable as sin in this movie, but the film never even tries to be subtle about the message it's trying to convey. I think had this film made it's message a bit more subtle, and made it a lot less obvious on what the girl actually is, then this movie might have turned out a lot better. Unfortunately, this is arguably the most disappointing film of 2011.

Adam Sandler really struck out in 2011. Not only did he make a travesty of a film in "Jack and Jill", we're also treated to this half a** romantic comedy. Although I can normally forgive a lot of things in a Adam Sandler film, as I think anyone who expects any kind of groundbreaking performance from him is simply kidding themselves. Heck, if anyone truly expects any kind of Oscar worthy movie from him, then you're going to be disappointed one hundred percent of the time. However, that's not why fans of Adam Sandler watch any of his films. No, his movies are mainly based on pure escapism, and nothing more. He's not out to make any movies with stellar stories, art direction, character development, and etc. No, most of this films are designed to entertain, and make people laugh.

Unfortunately, this isn't one of those films. Unlike most of Sandler's romantic comedies, where he can somehow come off as the lovable smart a**, or the lovable moron, this movie makes him come off more as the sad pathetic loser, who feels the need to con women into sleeping with him. Yet, he's a good guy though...according to this film. As I mentioned earlier in my review of "Jack and Jill", all of his films are nothing if not extremely predictable; thus I don't expect much else from his movies. However, I do expect to laugh from his films, and this movie did nothing for me. Not one chuckle, giggle, or grins. No, all this film provides is a lot of awkward pointless moments; along with many various recycled jokes that were used in some of Sandler's other romantic comedies that were done a helluva a lot better.

To all my readers, I have a huge confession to make. I've always loathed, despised, hated, detested, and disliked the romantic comedy genre in movies, for as long as I can remember. Don't get me wrong, there are quite a few diamonds in the rough that are good like "Crazy, Stupid, Love" and "500 Days of Summer" for instance. But for every "500 Days of Summer", we always end up with like over a million really bad romantic comedy movies that tend to fall into every damn cliche in the book; which makes most of them come off as boring as sin.

This is why it takes a lot to impress me with this genre, and lets just say that "No Strings Attached" does absolutely nothing to impress me at all. Not only is the chemistry between Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher come off as ill contrived and forced half the time in this movie, but the dialogue is just horrendously terrible to the point of being severally distracting. In fact, the only good thing about this movie is the supporting cast, but even they're not good enough to save this movie.

To be honest, I'm not going to go on record saying that any of the "Twilight" films are among the worst films that I've ever seen, but there is a bit of an annoyance to them. In every film, I can always sense a hint of what it could be if the script had been done right, and maybe there had been a bit more effort put into it like the acting, directing, and etc. Yet, it never happens. Going into each "Twilight" film, I always try to approach each film with an open mind, and I'm always disappointed to some degree at the end of each film.

Although, I will admit that I have been a bit too hard on Robert Pattinson in these movies, as some of my readers have been quick to point out, and I apologize for that. Besides, it's not his fault why the film series is so freakishly terrible. No, Robert Pattinson is just miscast in a role as Edward, as he's actually a good actor if anyone ever bothers to watch "Water for Elephants" and "Remember Me." Plus, from what I've seen of his work, he's basically the type of actor that not only needs a great script to work with to be successful, but he can only play himself on screen. Anytime you force him to play outside his own character, then you genuinely get an uninspired performance like we see in the "Twilight" series. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad thing.

After all, Brad Pitt can only play Brad Pitt in a movie. Same thing with John Wayne too, as I dare any movie fan out there to name ONE movie that John Wayne did where you did not believe for a split second that it was John Wayne playing a role. Don't worry. I'll wait. Not that I'm comparing Robert Pattinson to John Wayne or Brad Pitt, but the point is that all these actors can only play themselves doing a role..and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Besides, not all actors can be as versatile as someone like Heath Ledger, where they can go from one movie being a gay cowboy, from "Brokeback Mountain", to an insane narcissistic psychopath in "The Dark Knight."

However, whenever I see a "Twilight" film, all I can ever think about is how much untapped potential is wasted on each movie, which is probably one of the most infuriating things about this franchise. Unfortunately, I can't judge a film off potential, as I have to judge it for what it is, and for what the current film series happens to be, it's a giant piece of garbage....enough said.

What do you get when you mix "Dawson's Creek" with the classic fairy tale, "Beauty and the Beast?" Well, you end up with "Beastly"....oh joy...... The film is allegedly about some self absorbed high school pretty boy, who believes looks and idolized perfection is everything. However, when he pulls a prank on the wrong classmate, who happens to be a real life witch, he gets turned into a hideously disfigured man. Like the original story, he locks himself away from the rest of society due to his ugly new features. And, the only way to break said curse is to get a girl to fall in love with him before a designated time, or he'll remain hideously disfigured forever. Damn those witches. (No, I'm not prejudiced against witches, as that was merely a joke. I'm sure all witches rock and kick a**)

Anyway, I'm sure everyone that's ever heard this story play out a thousand times like I have, then you should pretty much have a general idea how this story plays out. Nothing new is added to the story, as the only originality this film presents is the fact that it happens to be taking place in modern times. Yet, even that novelty wears off fast, as the rest of the story comes off as a gigantic bore, and falls into every single damn stereotypical Hollywood love story cliche in the book; while delivering arguably some of the worst acting that you'll ever see in a movie.

Oh well. At least, this movie had Neil Patrick Harris to add some effort into this half a** production of a movie. Otherwise, this would've been ranked way higher than it was listed here.

Quite possibly the most visually stunning film that I've ever seen, and if it got nominated for "Best visual effects", "Best sound effects", "best art direction", "best costume designs", "best sound editing" and "best cinematography", in this year's Oscars, then I certainly wouldn't have an issue with it. After all, it's a very beautiful film in term of style. It's a real shame the rest of this movie stinks.

Not only does "Sucker Punch" present arguably one of the most confusing stories ever written for a movie, but nothing about it makes any sense. Granted, it does seem like Zach Snyder was trying to blur the lines of reality and fantasy with this movie, but to what end? Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that he was trying to be original with the story, but there's no solid narrative to it, or any kind of direction to at least help us understand what's going on better. The story is all over the map, and whenever it does slow down, none of the scenes make sense. Granted, the fantasy elements of this movie are used to convey a strong symbolic meaning, but since the film lacks any kind of focus or direction, the symbolism behind the story gets lost rather easily.

In the end, I would have to say this is probably the most beautiful bad movie that I've ever seen, since "Independence Day", and I didn't even think that was possible...

The return of a sub genre of horror that many feared might have become truly extinct in Hollywood is back. Although it seems like slasher films and "found videos" are starting to grow rapidly in the horror genre, it really has been a while since we've gotten a good old fashioned haunted house movie. In fact, it's a real shame too, as I bet all it would take is for one great movie to bring this almost forgotten sub genre back into mainstream pop culture again.

Unfortunately, "Insidious" isn't such a good movie. Not only did this film suffer from various plot holes, poor character development, poor direction, and an insanely predictable story, but it wasn't even remotely scary.

Don't get me wrong, I do applaud Hollywood for trying to bring back the haunted house sub genre of horror, as it's been a while since we've gotten a good one. Unfortunately, we might have to wait even longer for this sub genre to come back, as "Insidious" isn't that good, nor is it worth wasting any time on.

Granted, I'll be the first to admit that none of my reviews were any good on the live action films, since I mostly said things along the line of "The movie stinks, the characters are annoying, and it lacks any kind of derivative originality, but you can't expect much from a movie based on talking chipmunks." Sure, I do say a lot more than that, but you get the general idea. However, I'm going to make up for that now, as I'll try to explain exactly why this movie was so horrendously terrible.

First of all, I was not the biggest fan in the world of the chipmunks, as a child. No, like "Captain Planet", "Alvin and the Chipmunks" was just one of those run of the mill 80's cartoons that I only watched whenever there was nothing good to watch. Yes, I am aware they were originally created in the 60's, but I grew up with the 80's version. As I was saying, I wasn't the biggest fan of this franchise, but I did like the animated film, "Chipmunk Adventure." Although, it ranks as a slightly above average film, in my book, and I certainly would never compare it to any of Disney's best animated features (i.e. "Aladdin", "Sleeping Beauty", "Beauty and the Beast" and etc). But for what the film was, I actually enjoyed it as a child, and I still do as an adult.

I know that might sound silly to some people, but please hear me out before judging. Although "Chipmunk Adventure" wasn't a great film, but it had it's own unique charm all it's own. Sure, the story was predictable, and in the end, the chipmunks don't really seem to change at all throughout the course of the film. If anything, Alvin is still the little smart a** that he's always been. Simon is still the geeky one, and Theodore is still the fat innocent one. Brittany still acts like the stuck up prom queen who's conceited, while the rest of the chippettes act like female versions of their alleged boyfriend counterparts. But if that's the case, then why am I praising the "Chipmunk Adventure?"

Although the movie is fairly predictable, the magic of the movie wasn't so much where the movie was going to go, as everyone who's seen the trailer already knows how this film was going to end. No, the real magic of the "Chipmunk Adventure" came from the journey itself. Yes, you knew that, at some point, they were going to get from point "A" to point "B", but it's how they get there that made the movie so special, and original in a lot of ways.

Not only was the background animation beautifully done, but you could definitely tell the animators made excellent use out of the settings for the story. The film essentially follows the Chipmunks competing with the Chippettes in a race around the world, which is being run by two crooked criminals who're actually using them for a diamond smuggling scheme. Yes, we all know that everything will be okay, the bad guys will get what's coming to them, and most of their songs are derived from other bands of the time period. However, it's the journey itself that makes "Chipmunk Adventure" a great film to watch.

In one scene for example, Alvin and Brittany argue, in Rome, about who's the better rock band. Granted, they could have started singing right there in that scene, but they didn't. No, the animators took advantage of this layout perfectly, as the chipmunks and chippettes raced across town up to a Roman abandoned setting that not only helped create one of the best choreographed animated scenes of the film, but the artistry and creativity of the background layouts were simply breathtaking. Sure, there was some inconsistencies in the animation of the characters, but the use of the settings and beautiful artwork really made the original film fun to watch.

That's why it pains me to have watch "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked" so much. Not only does the film lack any kind of originality to it, but it doesn't even try to produce anything creative. Like the scene where some woman asks them who they are on a deserted island, they just do a quick song verse of a popular singer, and that's it. No running around to take advantage of the beautiful scenery, or setting, while singing. Seriously, where's the creativity? Where's the imagination? Sure, the original 80's version of "Alvin and the Chipmunks" wasn't great either, but at least, the animators of that show and "Chipmunk Adventure" TRIED to produce something resembling quality. Unfortunately, if you're expecting quality from this movie, then you're wasting your time here, as this film offers none of that.

It's been said that the original creators aren't involved in the live action movies at all, like they were in the previous Chipmunk adaptations, so I guess that explains why this franchise lost it's punch...

Let me put it you this way. If I have more fun writing a review, while pretending to be someone else instead of writing it as myself, then that's not a good sign for any movie. Granted, I can be EXTREMELY forgiving when it comes to most family and kids films, as you can't take them too seriously. However, if you produce a family film where none of the characters are even the least bit likable and/or interesting, while basing most of your humor on derivative nonsense that most third graders would even deem immature, then you pretty much know that your making a bad movie.

Not only is every character, in this film, annoying as sin, but not even the acting style of Neil Patrick Harris could save this movie. To make matters even worse, the adult humor that some kid films insert to appeal to older viewers isn't that funny. No, if anything, it just comes off as weird and very disturbing in a lot of ways.

Okay, I have another huge confession to make to all my readers...I am a closet Adam Sandler fan. No, this is not a joke. Please don't look at me, as it's not easy admitting that I am a fan of his; especially considering that most of the films he makes don't often fall into what most critics would deem acceptable. And to be honest, I don't think any true Adam Sandler fan out there really expects anything more than a few cheap laughs whenever they see his films.

Heck, I'm not going to lie here, as that's the only reason I even bother to watch any of his movies if at all. I don't expect any kind of great story from his films, as it's all about the entertainment factor when it comes to Adam Sandler. Unfortunately, this film fails to deliver on every single turn. Yes, I can forgive a lot of things in a Sandler film, but to not only come off as unfunny, but to push the farting jokes, cross dressing comedy, and slapstick to the point of being severely annoying is simply unforgivable in this movie. Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if this film's sole purpose was to make "Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn- Part 1" look better by comparison, as it was released about a week before... In fact, that's probably what this film's true purpose was for...EUREKA!