10 WORST "Best" Movies, Part 2

Submitted for your approval - the sequel to a much-maligned post I wrote a few years back, in which I trashed a handful of classic films: Avatar, Blade Runner, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Gladiator, Heat, The Lady Eve, Solaris, Tron, The Untouchables, and West Side Story. So, take all this with a massive heaping of salt. I mean, honestly - I'm the guy who actually likes such gems as The Godfather Part III, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and even Batman v. Superman.

So...yeah. Read and enjoy. Or try to. Sorry in advance on this one.

- An Education (2009): Is this thing even a movie? I mean, it must be. It was critically adored and nominated for three Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Surely that means its an incredible film, one that is well written, brilliantly directed, or at least memorable. Right? Right?

Nope. An Education might just be the blandest film ever made, populated by non-characters treading water through the vanilla conflict of a lukewarm plot. It's a love story, I guess, but without zip or spark of any kind. I kept praying for some awesome Twilight Zone twist to come out of nowhere, to bring this thing out of its purgatory squalor; strangely, I was hoping the male lead was actually Satan in disguise, but nah - nothing that interesting happened. Ever. It's only about 100 minutes long, but feels like you're watching Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, and all three extended editions of The Lord of the Rings back to back. It is the cinematic equivalent of overcooked, flavorless egg noodles - sticky and mushy and not at all what you were craving. Instead, watch Silver Linings Playbook, a romance that is witty and wonderful.

- The Birth of a Nation (1915): Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain myself on this one. It's a racist, rambling, 3-hour-long "epic" that glorifies the KKK and was considered bigoted even for its time. Who cares that it was innovative? Who cares that it helped legitimize the movie industry? Who cares that it was the first movie to screen inside the White House? This is a terrible film, simple as that, bloated and self-important and, worst of all, in very poor taste. If you're looking for a Civil War epic, watch 12 Years A Slave or Lincoln instead. Both of these should give you the subtleties and insights that the era deserves.

- Braveheart (1995): And then there's Braveheart. (*sigh*) Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I'm biased against overlong "historical" epics about the glories of war. Or maybe, just maybe, this movie isn't as good as we all remember. Because trust me - it ain't. Mel Gibson, who I think is actually a pretty talented actor, is nonetheless a ridiculously overrated director. How did this movie win Best Picture in 1995, especially when it was up against Apollo 13 and Babe? It's a mystery. This overstuffed, overblown mess of a movie is painfully dull. It wears its themes on its sleeves, and bashes you over the head with them until you scream "FREEDOM!" and sprint madly away from the television. From its historical inaccuracies to the hammy performances, from the clichés to the corny writing, I'll never understand why this flick is so revered. In the pantheon of over-the-top war cinema, Patton has got to be the best around, so watch that one instead. It's just as long but five times as good.

- Get Out (2017): For the first two acts of Get Out, I'd say it's a good movie - heck, maybe even a great movie. The performances are spectacular, the dialogue is clever, the plot is intriguing, and the overall vibe is eerie and unsettling. Unfortunately, when the third act hits - in all its convoluted, preachy, campy glory - the whole thing goes to, well, a sunken place. The goodwill that was banked from the first 90 minutes of the movie is washed away by a bloodless and befuddling finale. And yeah, I know it's basically heresy to dislike this movie (I've had the arguments and wear the scars to prove it), but I do. As a horror fan, as a horror writer, as a guy who's spent the better part of his life studying Stephen King, Joyce Carol Oates, and John Carpenter, I found this movie to be underwhelming at best and flat-out bad at worst.

Why? Well, at the top of the list is the wildly inconsistent tone. Honestly, this thing is borderline nauseating. I once read a review that described the genre as "horror/comedy/thriller/satire/political commentary." Yikes. Most good horror movies dabble with other genres, particularly comedy. But this? The third act tosses everything into a blender, offering up a totally different mood du jour per scene. Am I supposed to laugh? Cringe? Cry? Cower? When even the film can't decide, why should I? Instead of choosing a unified, coherent direction, each of these different tones is offered to the viewer like a platter of hors d'oeuvres. Choose whichever one suits your fancy, sir. It's on the house. This feels less like some multifaceted artistic statement and more like buckshot. If you throw enough crap at the audience, something is bound to strike them, right?

But it ain't all tone. The brain-swapping plot is about as campy as an early-60's B-movie, something cooked up by William Castle with Vincent Price mugging for the camera. The bloodless kills are sanitized and flaccid. The insinuation that all members of one race are predators and another are all prey is bafflingly broad-stroked. (Unless this is 100% satire, in which case the problem again boils down to tonal inconsistencies.) Writer/director Jordan Peele is a talented artist, no question, and I'm interested to see what he comes up with next. But for Get Out to be universally praised with four Oscar nominations? When so many better horror flicks are casually ignored? Come on. Instead, watch 2014's A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night or 2016's Green Room - both are brutal, biting, and bloody brilliant. And if you're looking for a nuanced account of racism in America? Watch 2017's Detroit. But be careful. It packs a wallop.

- Iron Man 3 (2013): This one's a mixed bag, for sure. Are there aspects I like? Of course. Some of the action sequences are exquisite - watching Tony's California palace get blown to smithereens is pretty neat, and the fireworks finale is loads of fun. Robert Downey, Jr. is again wonderful in the lead role, exploring Tony's humanity and paranoia with an impressive degree of control. And, as we've come to expect in any Iron Man flick, the sarcastic one-liners are to die for.

What don't I like about this movie? Lots. The big "twist" before the third act is laughably cringeworthy. The antagonists have an odd potpourri of powers, chief of which is the ability to breathe fire, which I find hilarious. Whenever Iron Man does something astounding or heroic, it turns out to be a hollow suit that he's somehow controlling from a distance (where's the heroism in that?). And the ending, which I'll not spoil here, seems totally unrelated to the seriousness of the plot. This is, unquestionably, Marvel's worst entry in the MCU, and is a giant misfire overall. It's like Tony's mansion - gorgeous to look at and full of wonderful toys, but it crumbles to pieces oh so easily. Better superhero threequels include Captain America: Civil War, The Dark Knight Rises, and Thor: Ragnarok. Do yourself a favor and watch those instead.

- JFK (1991): Good lord, do I hate this movie. It has one thing - one thing - going for it, and that's a pretty nifty performance by Tommy Lee Jones. Everything else? Just dreadful. I dislike Oliver Stone's style in general, and here he takes it to a whole new level: obfuscating fact with fiction, building mountains out of molehills, lumpy pacing, and a misplaced sense of grandeur...they're all here, and in ubiquitous amounts. These sins sprinkle the 3-hour runtime throughout, and are practically unshakable. But the worst part? Like all movies with Kevin Costner, it's Kevin Costner. Am I the only one who sees it? The. Man. Can't. Act. He has the range of a doorstop and the emotionality of a block of cheese. It's even worse here, when he's surrounded by such tremendous performers (Kevin Bacon, Joe Pesci, Laurie Metcalf, Gary Oldman, Michael Rooker, Sissy Spacek, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Donald Sutherland, John Candy, Vincent D'Onofrio, John Larroquette, and the afore-mentioned Tommy Lee Jones). I just...I don't get it. But I guess this movie isn't for me. I'd recommend better presidential intrigue movies, namely All the Presidents Men or Frost/Nixon. They both have punch and panache in spades.

- Mulholland Drive (2001): Director David Lynch and I have never been the best of friends, but I've been intermittently smitten with his idiosyncratic style. I rather like Eraserhead if only for its utter absurdity, and movies like The Elephant Man and Blue Velvet are each effective and artistic in their own odd ways. But I'm completely underwhelmed by Mulholland Drive, the film that so many fans and critics seem to think is his best. Like many of the movies on this list, it's entirely too long, but that's hardly the biggest issue. Instead, its Lynch's total obsession with surrealism. The plot is nonexistent, the pacing is almost comatose, and the themes? They're there, I suppose, but only if you're willing to sift through the muck and piece them all together. You see, when I watch a movie, I'm looking for just 3 things: believable characters, an engaging story, and heart. Here, I get none of them. Instead I get art. Oh wow, man. With a painting, you get an immediate visual kick. With music, you feel goosebumps and might sing along. With this? I get bored. Very, very bored. This movie is supposed to be a neo-noir Hollywood mystery, so if that's what you're hankering for, then check out LA Confidential instead. It's actually, you know, entertaining.

- Superman (1978): I really feel bad about disliking this one. For the record, I think Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman were pretty solid casting choices as the man of steel and Lex Luther. That's...pretty much all I like. Sure, this is an influential movie. Sure, it wowed audiences at the time and launched the idea of the superhero movie. Beyond that, it's pretty forgettable. It's too long, foolishly grandiose, devoid of action, and is a total yawn. Whenever I think about this movie, the images appear in my head as hazy, like a dream sequence in some bad sitcom. And to me, that's how the whole production comes across - soft, saccharine, soulless. As a massive fan of both the genre and the character, I find this hard to get over. This movie just fails to stir any feelings in me - of wonder, of excitement, of nostalgia, of anything. Except boredom and remorse. I hate to say it, but I prefer Man of Steel from 2013, which was a far more visceral and enjoyable blockbuster.

- Titanic (1997): It's bad.

- Vertigo (1958): But if there's one shame I have in all this, it's my strident dislike of Vertigo, the classic mystery from Alfred Hitchcock starring Jimmy Stewart. Much like Blade Runner and Heat, there's an expectation that everyone who sees this movie should fall in love with it. Overall, everyone does. It's often considered to be Hitchcock's best film, and even one of the best of all time. However, it wouldn't be on this list if I agreed with all that. I think it's a well-made movie, one with solid performances and Hitchcock's usual competence, but...

...but it doesn't do anything for me. I've watched this thing three times now, and every time I pop it in, I'm less enchanted than I was before (and that's really saying something). The movie has this sort of droning quality to it, like a song played on the didgeridoo. I admire the skill required to make it, yet I'm unengaged with the finished product. Scenes seem to spiral into one another in big rambling loops, and if the effect is to make the viewer as confused and nauseous as the protagonist, then mission accomplished. But dude! You might be thinking to yourself. That's why this movie is so great! I disagree. When I watch Halloween, I'd rather not feel the knife through my sternum. You get the idea.

No, when all is said and done, I simply don't understand the mountains of adulation piled on this one. Movie snobs tend to fan this thing with palm fronds, but really it's just...fine. About as fine as plenty of other psychological mysteries from that era. There's lots of head but not a lot of heart, which really detracts from its accessibility and the ever-important re-watch factor. Instead, I'd recommend some of Hitchcock's more polished masterpieces - Rear Window, North by Northwest, and good 'ol Psycho. You'll certainly have a more enjoyable experience with any of those. I know I do.