The Monuments Men was one of my most anticipated films of 2013. It was positioning itself for Oscar season and then got delayed.  A clear sign that something was wrong.  There are worse films out there, but what makes Monuments Men take the top spot on my list is the pedigree of the actors involved.  It's directed by George Clooney, a director that knows his way around the director's chair. The cast is rounded out by some of my favorite actors including Matt Damon, Bill Murray and John Goodman.  One of the main problems is that the film couldn't make up its mind as to what it wanted to be. Sometimes it was serious, sometimes it was playing for laughs. Regardless, nothing could help the fact that it just felt like too much was being made about saving art when hundreds of lives were being lost on both sides of the war.

Not Cool is half of the cinematic experiment depicted on the Starz TV show The Chair.  The idea was to give two directors the same script and see what kind of film they both could make.  The answer is a bad one on both accounts.  Not Cool is directed by YouTube sensation (take my word for it) Shane Dawson.  The film is packed with crude, gross-out humor, but that's hardly the biggest problem with the film. It looks like a student film and the male lead, played by Dawson himself, is wrong for the part.  There's almost nothing that worked here, except for a few quiet scenes that showed that Not Cool could have been something more if the director was able to move away from his normal brand of humor.

Hollidaysburg is the other half of The Chair experiment.  It's only slightly more tolerable than Shane's film and at least looks and feels like a real film.  The biggest problem is that it's blindingly boring.  At least Shane's film kept you interested with his off-the-wall antics, Hollidaysburg is just blah.  Do yourself a favor and watch The Chair and skip the films.  The process of making these two movies is way more entertaining than the actual films.

Ahh, what could have been.  With the subject matter, a great cast, (Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) Devil's Knot could have been a great film like Zodiac or Prisoners, instead it's kind of a mess. Delayed numerous times, Knot tells the true story of the murder of 3 young boys.  The story turned into somewhat of a phenomenon, spawning 4 documentaries, the last of which was produced by Peter Jackson.  I really loved the documentaries.  They were fascinating and the case they chronicle was even more interesting. Unfortunately, Devil's Knot fails to capture the complexity of the case.  Do yourself a favor and spend a few nights on Netflix watching the docs.  You won't be disappointed.

I really enjoyed the two previous Expendables films.  They really bring back memories of some of my favorite action films growing up. Unfortunately, Expendables 3 feels nothing like the first two films and nothing like the 80's films it's paying homage to.  The main reason for this is the decision to make the film rated PG-13 instead of rated R like two previous films.  Besides a softer more tame film, the result is an editing nightmare.  Every action scene feels like there are parts missing.  My other problem with the film is that the big stars are benched halfway through the film in favor of a bunch of nobodies. My idea of an action star is not a boxer or a UFC fighter. Say what you will about some of the actors in the Expendables, but they know how to carry an action film.

After seeing Sex Tape, I didn't think it was horrible.  It just wasn't that funny.  Most of the best scenes were shown in the trailer and the film is surprisingly tame for a film titled Sex Tape.  I like Jason Segel and I'm usually a fan of his work, but he's starting to play the same character in all of his films.  My other problem with the film is Cameron Diaz, not only do I not buy her as Segel's wife, but she can't carry a film as a comedian. Then there's the fact that the film felt like a super long add for the iPad.  Seriously, they aren't even trying to hide it. I suppose Sex Tape is a harmless film as long as you make it a rental only.

I really enjoyed the first Sin City film.  It's one of the most visually stunning  films I've ever seen.  I remember having a blast in the theater when I saw it.  Needless to say, I was eagerly awaiting the sequel.  Maybe I was a victim of my own hype machine, but A Dame to Kill For just didn't do anything for me.  I often found myself bored and waiting for something to happen.  Like the first film, Sin City skips around from story to story.  Except the stories never quite connect and the story that draws the most focus wasn't nearly as interesting as the one revolving around Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character.  After almost 10 years, the visual style doesn't feel quite as fresh either.  Dozens of films have tried copying it, even car commercials have tried their hand at it.  I suppose the two main reasons to see A Dame to Kill For is Eva Green.  Google it.

Some films grow on you after you exit the theater and some films you sour on as time goes by.  After the credits rolled for Noah, I was the only person in our group that liked the film.  It wasn't until a few days later that I started to realize that it wasn't that good.  The story of Noah's Ark is such an interesting one, but it's all well told.  There's really not a whole lot of places to go with the story, so I commend director Darren Aronofsky for taking risks, I'm just not sure they really worked out so well.  My other problem with the film is that it's just so gloomy looking.  There's really no heart and everything is shot in brown and gray tones.  It's not a horrible film by any means, but it's also not something I'd ever sit down and watch again.

Big Bad Wolves is an Israeli film that popped onto my radar after Quentin Tarantino touted it as his favorite film of the year.  Naturally, I was instantly intrigued.  I can see why Tarantino would like Big Bad Wolves, it has some wickedly funny scenes and some truly twisted humor.  Unfortunately, the film didn't hit the same marks for me as it did for Tarantino.  Wolves lacks suspense and has trouble weaving any sort of mystery.  Much of the film is essentially an extended torture scene.  Tarantino doesn't usually lead me astray with his film picks, but this is a miss for me.

Let me just say this first, Godzilla is not a bad film.  However, it's another film that I soured on a little after seeing it.  Its place on this list is more of a representation of the fact that I felt cheated a little. The film is called Godzilla, but he has much of the film hijacked from him by a couple other random monsters.  The other big problem with Godzilla is its paper thin characters.  Once Bryan Cranston exits the film, there wasn't another character I cared about.  I understand this is a monster movie, but you have to have somebody to care about and feel something for.  If not then what's the point?