'Suicide Squad,' 'X-Men: Apocalypse' And The Worst Movies Of 2016 

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

\'Suicide Squad\' image courtesy of Warner Bros.

Okay, here are the worst films that I saw in 2016. I suppose if I were being super accurate, I should title this "my least favorite films of 2016," since "worst" implies that I\'m making some kind of objective statement about the quantifiable badness of the films on this list. Moreover, I must add the additional caveat that I didn\'t see every potentially terrible film, as my unwillingness to force my children to see bad kid-targeted movies for my professional benefit meant that we\'ll have to take it on faith that 

were that bad. And I tried to pick films that were both "very not good" and bad in a specific and important way. Other than that, this list needs no further clarification. This list is my list, which will be different from your list. As usual, these films will be listed in alphabetical order.

In an amusing bit of irony, in a pretty terrific year for multiplex horror, arguably the worst theatrically-released horror film of the year was the first theatrically-released horror movie of the year. Alas, this year\'s now-standard "first weekend of the year offers a lousy supernatural horror movie" offering was a "nothing happens and no one cares" adventure into Japanese urban legend. Natalie Dormer is fine as an American traveling to Japan to find out about her presumably dead twin sister, who allegedly committed suicide in the Aokigahara Forest. The performances are fine and the ending has a now-standard twist, but the vast majority of the film is an endless waiting game. The picture earned a halfway decent $37 million worldwide on a $10m budget. But there was much more on the way in terms of much better horror movies in what turned out to be a great year for scary movies.

This was a project that was a bad idea from before its predecessor was even released. Universal and friends weren\'t shy about their plans to throw Kristen Stewart\'s Snow White out of a would-be 

continuation in order to focus on Chris Hemsworth even before 

became a near-$400 million hit. And to be fair, they surrounded Hemsworth with Jessica Chastain, Emily Blunt and a cameo-ing Charlize Theron. But aside from the whole "throw the leading lady out of the franchise she made into a franchise" thing, the film itself was a lumbering affair which spent the vast majority of its running time explaining how and why it existed and justifying itself. The actors were mostly lost and the film spent more time setting up the chess board than actually playing chess. Little surprise that the (refreshingly cheaper) $115m offering earned just $164m worldwide. Free tip to the makers of

sequel: When your would-be franchise film makes bank partially because it is a female-centric genre offering, don\'t expect the same trick when you swap out the actress to give the dudes their time in the spotlight. That which was special becomes that which is routine.

I had hoped that Roland Emmerich would deliver something at least as thoughtful as the best parts of 

while offering a thematic reason to return to this not-quite-a-franchise. But this is basically a rehash of the first film, minus the drama and emotional oomph, where the returning vets (Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, etc.) get little to do and the new kids (Liam Hemsworth, Maika Monroe, etc.) have little to offer in the way of charm. The only selling point is "Hey, it\'s that movie you liked 20 years ago, but everything\'s bigger!" It also skips over two more interesting "past tense" stories (how the world came together after the invasion and how certain places had to fend off attacks from surviving aliens) to rehash the same one we saw two decades ago. The climactic reveal exposes the entire film to be glorified set-up for a cool-sounding sequel idea (we travel to the aliens\' home world and take the fight to them) that we\'ll now never get to see.

is a valuable lesson about telling the story you want to tell when you have the chance instead of presuming you\'ll get to do so in the sequel. With a $389 million worldwide gross (including less in North America than

\'s $104m six-day opening back in 1996) on a $165m budget, there will be no 

I enjoyed the Gerald Butler/Aaron Eckhart/Morgan Freeman-starring  

knock-offs that proliferated video stores (and premium cable channels) in the mid-to-late 1990\'s. And in a PG-13 era, I was pleased to see the R-rated action spectacular merit a sequel, even as I still argue that 

(the more expensive and PG-13 "Die Hard in the White House" movie of 2013) is a vastly superior movie. But

 toned down the cartoonish violence and upped the real-world xenophobia in a way that made it all guilty, no pleasure. Aside from being a (mostly) inferior action movie, the trading North Koreans for sympathetic "America killed my family!" Muslim extremists turned it into an exercise in Islamaphobia. Having Morgan Freeman voice a disconcerting defense of continuous overseas intervention is just icing on top of the spoiled cake. It\'s inferior to the first film and its indefensible in terms of content. Thanks to a $205m worldwide total, we\'re getting 

, but this warmed-over sequel deserves no such mercy. By removing Hart\'s underdog charm, someone who was inexperienced but wanted to do better/be better, we lose all sympathy for our protagonist and find ourselves rooting against the driving comic force. The would-be hero spends much of the time as the glorified MVP for the bad guys. Ken Jeong\'s reluctant hacker and Olivia Munn\'s Miami cop are underused. Instead of using these new characters to create a new dynamic, we get the same hostile Ice Cube/Kevin Hart antagonism as the first time around with the newbies mostly acting as window dressing. Same doesn\'t equal better, and it didn\'t equal bigger in terms of box office, as the $40 million comedy earned $90m domestic and $124m worldwide, compared to the $134m domestic/$154m total of the first

, but let\'s try to change the formula a little bit this time, eh?

Thanks to behind-the-scenes panic over the reception of 

, a hastily-penned screenplay and a very well-received trailer, we ended up with a structure that spent the entire first act on multiple introductions for its evil team. But then the rest of the time was spent playing in a generic zombie movie sandbox. This was one of the very worst movies of the year. Will Smith and Margot Robbie did what they could, and Viola Davis can do no wrong, but you know you\'re in trouble when all of the cool shots from the marketing are in the first 10 minutes of the movie.  Yes, the film earned an impressive $325 million domestic and $745m worldwide (without China), and yes it\'s comparatively leggy run implies that it was better received by the masses than 

But this disjointed and visually sparse (most of the last two-thirds take place on a handful of abandoned city streets and vacant office buildings) botch lacks the cinematic razzle dazzle and topical pontification that at least made 

a noble effort. Its primary action mode consists of our heroes shooting and slicing innocent bystanders which takes the fun away. I\'ll (relatively) defend

until I\'m blue in the face, but this is the one that makes me scared for the DC Films franchise. This was supposed to save the summer and revive the DC movie franchise. It looks like the latter task is up to 

John Hillcoat\'s oppressively unpleasant crime caper offers up a superb cast (Casey Affleck, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Woody Harrelson, Anthony Mackie, Kate Winslet etc.) and strands them in a cut-rate genre offering that neither quickens the pulse nor entertains. The premise, a mix of dirty cops and hardened crooks planning to murder a fellow officer to distract from a heist, is promising enough, but the film is so mired in noir and filth that we have no rooting interest in any of the characters, heroes, villains, or anti-heroes alike. The film seems to give up at being a coherent narrative by the end of the first act. Yes, you may argue that I\'m picking on a relatively small film, one that made just $23 million worldwide this year and vanished without a trace. But if we\'re going to argue that Hollywood needs to release more star-driven, diverse, and original genre films in theaters everywhere, they have to be a lot better than the likes of 

and they can\'t make you wish you were home watching a TV crime drama instead.

We can flip a coin as to whether this ambitious and well-intentioned fantasy is better or worse than 

. Both are very bad, with this one offering painfully bland human characters, underused not-human characters, and a "throw you in the deep end" plot that spends most of its running time explaining itself and setting up a would-be sequel. The reason I\'m inclined to give Duncan Jones\' video game adventure the nod is that its huge $220 million sprint in China taught Hollywood all the wrong lessons. No one noticed that 

was more front-loaded in China than it was in America. No one noticed that, thanks to a $165m budget and massive marketing expenses, 

still wasn\'t a hit despite making $433m worldwide (the biggest-ever sum for a video game movie). No, all we got was "Hey, 

made a ton of money in China, I guess Hollywood should make terrible fantasy movies that will theoretically make lots of money in China!" That may not be 

comes off even better in comparison (there is a joke in that Ryan Reynolds comedy that specifically notes one of the worst parts of this movie as if they knew ahead of time). But this is the worst "team" 

. All of the pieces are in place for a barn-burning fantasy, such as a towering new villain (Oscar Isaac\'s title character), a bunch of new fan favorite mutants (Jubilee, Psylocke, etc.),  younger versions of somewhat neglected original series stars (Storm, Cyclops, and Jean Grey) and Jennifer Lawrence as your proverbial action lead. So what do you do? You sideline all of the female characters so you can turn it all into another story about Magneto getting pissed at humanity and lifting stuff while Charles and Mystique try to talk him down. The film spends half of its running time with Apocalypse lazily recruiting his horseman and the entire second half on a protracted action climax, complete with a 20-minute digression for the sole purpose of bringing Wolverine into the movie. Amazing is a film that makes $543 million worldwide, one of the biggest totals of said franchise, and yet still leaves the series in total disarray.

Ben Stiller\'s unrequested sequel, released nearly 15 years after its under-performing predecessor (deservedly) became a cult item via DVD and cable airings, is proof of the limits of social media-driven nostalgia. We\'ll stay home and watch 

on Netflix, but we won\'t drive to the theater and buy a ticket to a terrible sequel to a cult comedy from our childhood/college days. That\'s somewhat encouraging, but we\'ve known that since

bombed in early 2011. This awful film, which completely invalidates the entire arc of the first

solely so Stiller could team up with a different love interest, is powered entirely by celebrity cameos for its first two acts, only briefly coming to life once Will Ferrell returns in the finale. The film made just $55 million on a $50m budget, barely more than the original ($45m) back in 2001. There will be no post-theater afterlife to save this one, nor should there be. This film getting thrashed on opening weekend by 

was a kind of optimistic triumph, as the "new/different" clobbered the "old/past expiration date" nostalgia cash-in.

Okey-dokey, that about wraps it up. If I wanted to play the runner-up game, I\'d have room for (among others) the likes of 

(an abysmal sci-fi comedy from YouTube that might have been a game-changer had it made any money in theaters). And if you\'re wondering, I disliked but didn\'t hate Walt Disney\'s 

, I am betting that it will be merely "not good" (or "surprisingly good") as opposed to "worst of the year" bad.

1 && article.type === \'article\'" class="article-pagination preload-hidden"> 0" class="article-pagination-prev" target="_self">