MOVIE REVIEW: Driving Miss Daisy

Like Argo that came after it, Driving Miss Daisy won the Academy Award for Best Picture without winning, or being nominated for, Best Director. The Film School Rejects call it "the impossible Oscar," and I certainly agree; when the chances are against you, it's hard to win. In the end, though, could this be one of the best films ever made?

I had planned to review this earlier, but technical difficulties ensued. Now that I've seen it, I have to say it's a really great film. Directed by Bruce Beresford (Double Jeopardy, Black Robe), Driving Miss Daisy tells the story of a stubborn Jewish lady, Miss Daisy (Jessica Tandy from The Birds and Fried Green Tomatoes) and the relationship between her and her chauffeur Hoke, played by Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption, Now You See Me). And that's simply it. One could easily fail to make such a film good; it could have become a long and boring affair of a woman being stubborn and it could have gone nowhere. Luckily, playwright/screenwriter Alfred Uhry transfers his play into a cinematic masterpiece with themes of civil rights and friendship.

The film is complete with great performances and magnificent writing, but the area where this film shines is definitely make-up. The aging of the characters over a 25-year period is extremely remarkable in its realism and subtlety. Jessica Tandy as Miss Daisy isn't young by any means, but they make her look 97 by the end of the film, and it's hard to tell where the makeup begins and when it ends. Same with Dan Akyroyd (Ghostbusters, Blues Brothers); he's not an old feller today and he certainly wasn't back in 1989, but he looks very aged by the end of the film. The film is worth watching solely for a study on film/stage makeup design. It's magnificent and it definitely deserved that Oscar.

Hans Zimmer also provides a very uncharacteristic (for him, at least) score for the film. He's typically known for his epic-sounding scores with hints of electric instruments such as in the Pirates of the Carribean films or in any of his Christopher Nolan film scores (The Dark Knight Rises, Inception), but this score is more like his work on Sherlock Holmes--quirky and bouncy--but with the personal feeling of The Lion King score. I enjoyed the score, and it was nice to hear something different from Hans Zimmer. Now whether he's better than John Williams, that's debatable, and another story for another time (John Williams is better).

The film does bring up some interesting themes. Prejudice is heavily featured on both sides of the spectrum. Throughout the film, the audience, and Miss Daisy, come to realize the people like Hoke aren't being treated as equal, as Hoke brings up in a very notable scene, saying that "If he needs to make water, he'll make water...without asking [her] like a little child." Same happens with Miss Daisy later in the film when her Jewish beliefs are attacked. As I also said before, the film shows how the relationship between Daisy and Hoke becomes a friendship. In the same scene Hoke needs to make water, Hoke leaves Daisy alone, in which Daisy realizes she needs Hoke; Hoke is her protection. When Daisy starts to mentally suffer, she remembers Hoke--a timeless friend beyond any disease or ailment. Even in the final shots, Daisy brushes aside her own son so she and Hoke can share a friendly moment together as Hoke helps Daisy in her frail, old age. It's because of these themes that I would show this film to my kids in the future--show them a wholesome film where friendships last forever and that even the oddest couple can create something timeless and fantastic. I especially love the last shot where Hoke feeds Daisy a pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving as you faintly see one of the many cars Hoke drove Miss Daisy in (I want to go back and watch the film again so I can see whether it was the first or the last--I can't remember). In other words, Daisy, although she may never say it, is thankful for her time with Hoke and the friendship they have made. It's storytelling at its best!

The film definitely deserved the awards it got, Best Picture especially, but I can see why there wasn't a Best Director nomination for it. The direction isn't very significant--unlike Argo, where the direction played a big role in the film's success, Beresford doesn't bring anything significantly interesting to the table. What was smart of him, though, was to make the writing, performances, and other little things--such as makeup and art design--stand out in front, making Driving Miss Daisy one of the best Best Pictures ever made. A normal moviegoer doesn't often see a film dependent on its screenplay--others use special effects or unique cinematography to put butts in seats--but Driving Miss Daisy has an exquisite screenplay, similar to A Few Good Men (which was also a film dependent on the screenplay). Everything in this film is rather great, and there's certainly enough to digest and dissect, so I don't feel bad about giving Driving Miss Daisy 5 out of 5 stars. There's really nothing to complain about at all. The film takes its time and it's timeless!

These two give some of their best performances in Driving Miss Daisy.

So I'll leave the rest to you. Share your thoughts on Driving Miss Daisy below! And what current release--or classic/atrocity-- should I take a look at next? So until then....

MOVIE REVIEW: X2: X-Men United

Fox's 2000 hit, X-Men, gave birth to one of the highest-grossing film franchises ever, and spawned what many consider one of the best superhero movies ever made. Does X2 live up to the hype?

X2 is a 2003 film directed by Bryan Singer and loosely based off of the popular X-Men graphic novel God Loves, Man Kills. In this film, the staff and a handful of students from Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters--otherwise known as the mutant team X-Men--are confronted with a rescue mission after anti-mutant leader William Stryker kidnaps Professor Xavier, assistant Cyclops, and some of the mutant students. In order to succeed against a common threat, however, the X-Men find it necessary to team up with the deeply religious Nightcrawler and the antagonistic Magneto and Mystique. Such a team-up is conceptually interesting and, as an audience member, I found it engaging.

Unlike 2008's The Dark Knight, which benefited greatly from its top-notch performances (which I failed to recognize in my original review in July 2011--several performances, including Aaron Eckhart's and Heath Ledger's, are indeed Oscar-worthy, and I was foolish for thinking otherwise then), X2 doesn't run on performances, but rather its concept and action sequences. X2 does not contain many supporting plotlines, being mostly two hours of a single linear story, so certain characters don't get much spotlight until their necessary, such as X-Men's lead Rogue or character Jean Grey. That said, the primary storyline is, as I said before, engaging. I had fun during the film and in no small part due to the plot. Of the few side-stories are Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman of Les Miserables and The Prestige fame)'s struggle to remember his past and connections with William Stryker, and teen ensemble Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro fighting against mutant oppression from home. Out of the two, the Wolverine plotline was the more interesting one, mostly because the teens were sidelined for a majority of the film's final act.

While the plot is interesting, there are flaws with it. Storm (Halle Berry of Monster Ball and Catwoman fame) is one of the more recognizable X-Men, yet her character is sorely underdeveloped. Perhaps it's because the overall arc of the series is about Xavier and Magneto's relationship since 2011's X-Men First Class, but I was a bit disappointed that she was simply a fretful deus ex machina. Also, Jean Grey (Famke Janssen of Taken and GoldenEye fame), who serves as a major part of the finale, isn't developed enough to the point that we are affected by her actions, and that's a big fault on the filmmakers' part. However, Hugh Jackman and James Marsden display brilliant acting in the final sequence involving her, making the audience know that what she does was impactful--but the screenplay and Janssen's acting should have already done that and the reactions should've been the icing on the cake. For the majority of the film, Professor Xavier is confronted by a shadow of the past--Mutant 143--but Xavier's failures with 143 prior to the film are mostly implied, with not much backstory behind the encounters. The film is two hours, but methinks adding a bit more in order to flesh that part out would have benefited the film greatly. What I'm trying to say is that X2's biggest flaw is that it is sorely underdeveloped.

What I love most about the X-Men film franchise is the theme of intolerance, echoing racism and sexism greatly. If a superhero action film is brave enough to bring these issues forward ahead of the action, I have to give the film big kudos for that. I just find the whole thing fascinating, yet it's also interesting to see how far an opposer to civil rights will go to exterminate a movement. The theme is still relevant today no matter what way one sees things, and it's thought-provoking to an extent. Without a doubt, though, it is the strongest part of the film, leading in perfectly for an epic sequel, a last stand.

While there aren't as many action sequences as one would think, there are some very notable ones. Towards the beginning of the film, Stryker and his army invade Xavier's School, leaving Wolverine and a handful of students to stop them. While a few students are tranquilized and taken away, Wolverine manages to fend off the goons in a truly marvelous fashion. If you like your Wolverine and his claws, you'll definitely enjoy him slicing through each soldier with ease. In fact, this sequence almost guaranteed the film an R-rating--only a few cuts were needed to regain a PG-13--but the way the sequence stands, it's truly a great kickstarter for the film. One of the most famous sequences in the film is Wolverine's encounter with the similarly-adamantium-enhanced Lady Deathstrike. Seeing the two equally matched opponents go at it together--one a man trying to fight the monstrosity he's become and the other a soulless weapon--is truly exciting, and what's even better is Wolverine's expression of sorrow for gruesomely defeating one he relates to--one he is. The sequence is, in fact, so great that it made WatchMojo.com's Top 10 list of best superhero duels.

It's difficult to juggle all of them, but when they're together, the scene's terrific.

So despite some underdevelopment in the character department, X2's relevant themes, strong concept, and action-packed sequences keep it as one of the most enjoyable superhero films to date. Overall, I'd say that X2: X-Men United deserves 3.75 out of 5 stars, or 3 out of 4 (they're the same). I enjoyed it, but it's not quite at the level of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy. My advice is to watch X-Men First Class and the original X-Men film from 2000 beforehand in order to enjoy the film best, so you can better understand the tension between Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique. I felt while watching it that that knowledge made it several times better.

If you've seen X2, what'd you think compared to the others? Are you excited for Days of Future Past next summer? Comment below and let me know, and make sure to check every day for the latest film and trailer reviews.

Trailer Park 5: Thor: The Dark World Trailer Review

Trailer Park will not be following its usual pattern this weekend. To see how the segment usually works, and to visit a directory of the previous four installments, click here.

That is one heck of a poster.

It's been a very long week for sure, so since my energy is drained, I'll only be reviewing one trailer this weekend, one that's been having fans go crazy since it's been released, and that's the trailer for Thor: The Dark World. The trailer has our son of Odin, Thor, teaming up with his evil brother Loki in order to stop the coming purge of darkness that was left behind in the creation of the universe.



I never did see the original movie Thor, but I've heard mostly great things about it. I did, however, see last year's The Avengers, and this looks like a direct tie-in to that film. Iron Man 3, while getting mostly positive reviews, failed to meet audience expectations of tying-in to The Avengers, especially since Tony Stark's world was essentially crushed by The Mandarin. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) made a great villain in The Avengers, and he looks equally great, if not greater, than he was before. He gives that vibe of disinterest, yet still wanting to participate in the fun of what may come. I have a feeling that he and Hemsworth and Natalie Portman are going to have very nice chemistry, especially after all the conflict involving Loki in the past two films.

It looks like the stakes are higher for everyone, even Asgard-- the world of the gods--and it's going to be a great, action-packed ride. The villains look menacing, although bearing much resemblance to The Lord of the Rings movie creatures, and I feel that I will be excited when I enter the theater in November (so many good movies coming at the end of the year....how will I ever see them all?). One thing I want to really point out is the writing as it looks. Although some lines may not pull off quite as well in the final product ("This is for New York."), I do like how they're going to incorporate humor into it as well, taking a page from the Joss Whedon collection (Whedon was the writer/director of The Avengers). The end of the trailer reminds me of a sequence in The Avengers in which the Hulk comically punches Thor several yards after a tag-team battle. And I guess that's why I'm most excited for this movie: it's connections to Joss Whedon's The Avengers.

My writing's not up to par today as I would like it to be, but I will say that this trailer is. Without a doubt, Thor: The Dark World's official trailer is STURDY; in other words, it is an top-grade trailer. So until it's released, I need to educate myself in the way of the Marvel.

What's your reaction to this trailer? Are you excited for it? Which Marvel movie is your favorite? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below!

MOVIE REVIEW: The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park is easily one of the best and one of the most stunning movies ever made. In fact, it was so good that Steven Spielberg convinced the author of the book to write a sequel, The Lost World. But is this a Spielberg movie that's better if it stayed lost?

I'll start out by saying that The Lost World: Jurassic Park is not a bad film; It's simply a disappointing film, though not without its high points. This film stars Jeff Goldblum (Independence Day, The Fly), returning from the last film to reprise his role as chaos theorist Ian Malcolm who has now become a laughing stock among scholars for preaching against InGen's Jurassic Park ideas. However, while he is trying to distance himself from the Isla Nublar incident, Malcolm is called back to action by ex-owner John Hammond, who is trying to save the dinosaurs on the lost world, Isla Sorna, from the new owners' attempts to make a new theme park attraction: Jurassic Park San Diego. This public image stunt, however, turns into a rescue/escape mission when dinosaur and man interact. It sounds like an interesting concept, which is probably why it was such a box office success.

Unfortunately, the film is almost entirely forgettable, and the film seems to forget itself at times, as well. First off, there are way too many characters in this film. The first film had a nice, balanced ten-man ensemble, and everyone had their chance in the spotlight, and even the less recognized characters are remembered afterwards--and the star power doesn't hurt either. This film juggles over fifteen, and, unlike in the first film, these characters don't mesh and are not fleshed out; the only purpose half of these characters serve is, like in a horror movie, to die. The rule of thumb for the characters in this movie is: if we didn't give you a backstory or meaning, or you're the main villain, prepare to die a horrible dinosaur death. This film mostly follows Ian Malcolm and his girlfriend, played by Julianne Moore (Boogie Nights, The Big Lebowski), his daughter, and Vince Vaughn's (Dodgeball, Wedding Crashers) character. Thing with Vince Vaughn's character is that after the island escape, which he plays a big part of, he's not mentioned or seen or heard from again, even in the big San Diego climax. He wasn't the most original or interesting of characters, but at least screenwriter David Koepp could have given him some closure. But then I think, maybe it's not entirely Koepp's fault.

The finale--the San Diego sequence--was a last minute idea. Originally, the film was going to end with a big dinosaur attack at the Isla Sorna control center, mirroring the original film, and then go on from there. However, since the development of The Lost World: Jurassic Park, director Steven Spielberg had in mind that the T-Rex gets loose in San Diego when carted over from Isla Sorna, though he was boo-hoo'd by producers early on. That didn't stop Spielberg as executive producer Kathleen Kennedy says that if you say no to one of Spielberg's ideas, he'll think about it even more and flesh it out, making himself more determined to go with it. In the end, that's what happened, and it shows. I understand that Spielberg's trying to elevate Koepp's point about naturalism prevailing over commercialism and "nature will find a way," but he just hit us over the head with it. The point hit home in the already-written scenes, so in the end, I think the movie ended up overspending on itself with a special effects heavy sequence. I want to say I liked the sequence, but I didn't. The Lost World became a monster-disaster movie, which is not what Jurassic Park was; Jurassic Park showed that nature should never be tampered with because, although beautiful, it can also be very dangerous and monstrous. In the end, I didn't get that from this sequel.

Another thing that I didn't like with this movie is that it overplayed the T-Rex and underplayed the rest of the dinos. In the beginning, Hammond says that Isla Sorna is teeming with his recreations, and while we do see the vegetarians for a while, our favorite predator, the velociraptor, isn't seen all that much. In the original film, they were the danger you never talked about, and when you saw them, you thought, "Am I supposed to be scared by these guys or the big T-Rex?" In this one, I didn't see them as a threat, unfortunately; they weren't there, and then they were, and then they weren't again.

Earlier I said that The Lost World isn't without its high points. It is nice to see Hammond and his grandchildren again, if only for a few scenes. Jeff "The Goldblum" Goldblum, returns with as much charisma from the first film as he could muster, and it helps since he's our hero. I wish I could say the same with the rest of the cast, though. The visual effects, though not as fresh as before, are still absolutely remarkable, which is why this film got nominated for that Oscar. Most notably is when Malcolm is facing off against a raptor towards the end of the film. Malcolm tears a door off its hinges and uses it as a shield against the raptor. It's amazing to think that the raptor really isn't there, since Goldblum plays the exchange off so realistically. Seeing the outtakes of the sequence and noticing how Spielberg is nitpicking every slight discrepancy of movement, it's absolutely astounding. While the entire film isn't able to be great and powerful, the scene of the T-Rex emerging from the boat in San Diego and Malcolm whispering to the villain, "Now you're John Hammond," brings back what made the original good. And while the theme is beat over our heads a bit, I like that the filmmakers tried to do it, and for a while, it was what made the movie better. If you are looking to study film and its underlying themes, this would be a good film to look at, even if it's not The Godfather or Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Certainly an interesting blend of characters, but perhaps a bit much.

After thinking hard about it, I'm going to give The Lost World: Jurassic Park 2.5 out of 5 stars. By no means is this at the typical Spielberg caliber, but not all good is completely lost. Despite some preachiness and a muddled execution, The Lost World: Jurassic Park excels in its visual effects, potential, and a worthy performance by Jeff Goldblum.

For many, this is the runt of the litter. Do you think this movie's underrated? What's your favorite Jurassic Park film in the series so far? Are you excited for the fourth one? Myself, I'm somewhere in between. The sequels so far have been less than spectacular, but I'm hoping director Colin Trevorrow (Safety Not Guarenteed) can pull it off. Sound off in the comments below.

Trailer Park 4: Elysium, Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters, Mr. Morgan's Last Love

If you still aren't up to speed on this little shindig I like to call Trailer Park, do click here. You'll also find a directory for every episode so far. Now that we're up to speed...

Let's git 'er done!

On this week's edition of Trailer Park, I'll be reviewing the Sony Pictures official trailer for the Matt Damon-Jodie Foster sci-fi film Elysium, the second trailer for teen favorite sure-to-be box office smash Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters, and the official trailer for German-French-American film Mr Morgan's Last Love.



Our first film is Elysium, the newest film from the director of critically-acclaimed film District 9. In this picture, Matt Damon, after a factory accident must break into the home of the wealthy and healthy--Elysium--and as you may tell, the government's not very happy about that. Now records show that I have not yet given a Sony Pictures film a positive score on Trailer Park yet, Mortal Instruments and The Smurfs 2 receiving the lowest marks. However, things will change with the trailer to Elysium. Armed with a strong and mostly original concept, great camerawork and stunts, and an all-star cast, it looks like a fun, if not great, summer movie. It is getting a somewhat mixed reaction so far, splitting the Schmoes Know Movies duo, but based off what I see, I would go see it. I have not seen District 9, so I can't give my thoughts on the director and use that as bias, but I see very little flaws with this trailer. The world-up-above-is-better concept has been done before, but it looks like writer-director Neill Blomkamp is going to use it to make it his own. My only worry is that, like Pacific Rim, it won't make its money back. However, I'll say that this trailer is STURDY.



With City of Bones, this is the movie that sort of inspired Trailer Park, when I would give a brief tidbit about my thoughts of the trailer on Facebook; now I do it here. This is also the sequel to one of my least favorite films of all time, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (who on Earth decided to give it such a long title, my word!), which I briefly touched upon in my recent article "What Makes a Movie Bad?" Am I excited for this movie? Absolutely not. Does the movie look sucky? Surprisingly, not as much I thought. I didn't read the original book, The Sea of Monsters, so I can't say how much that the filmmakers are going to respect the material (although it is written by the guy who wrote the Green Lantern movie). In this adventure, Percy, Annabeth, and Grover have to recover the Golden Fleece in the Bermuda Triangle in order to save every demigod and mythological character that walks the Earth. Hopefully this time they actually bring up Kronos the Titan in this version instead of making Luke, son of Hermes, the villain--seriously, who's idea was it to make the kid the bad guy? Such a stupid move, such a stupid movie. If they continue to have Luke be the big bad, then isn't he, in essence, trying to wipe himself out with everything relative to Greek mythology? Since Logan Lerman is a big star now in Hollywood--and with Perks of Being a Wallflower, a very talented star--hopefully he will carry this movie better than last time, and the cast around him will help carry the weight. Luckily, he has Nathan Fillion to help him out as Hermes. If you don't know who Nathan Fillion is, he is the star of several TV shows such as Castle and cult hit Firefly, but I know him best as Captain Hammer from Joss Whedon's Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. From what I've seen of Fillion, he's a great actor and he's probably the only reason I'd go see this movie. So because of Nathan Fillion and a couple of apparent improvements, I'll say that the Sea of Monsters trailer is IN NEED OF REPAIR. I'm hoping that this one won't make my Top Ten WORST Movies list, but you never know.



Our last trailer is a lesser-known dramedy starring Sir Michael Caine and directed by Sandra Nettelbeck, who may be better known to American audiences for her 2007 film No Reservations. This film shows an American philosophy professor who is still coping with the death of his wife, until he meets a young dance teacher, who brings happiness back to his life. Now at first glance, it seems like a creepy film about an old man who finds his last love in the French woman; but I think, like UP, the film will deal more with Mr. Morgan's coping through loss. And it looks like a cute little film as well. I will say, though, that it takes some getting used to hearing Sir Michael Caine talk with an American accent, or at least try. Knowing his performances, though, I think that, in the final product, he'll pull it off just fine. I don't think it'll be getting any Oscar nods, but it does look like a promising film and story. I can't say when the film will be released here, but I do hope to see it when it finally arrives. I'm going to say that this trailer is STURDY.

So once again, not a single trailer gets a "Fishtail" rating. Whether any of these will be great movies, I'm not sure, but the trailers look good enough to me. Personally, out of these three, I'm looking most forward to Mr Morgan, but what about you? I know plenty are excited for Percy Jackson because of leading man Logan Lerman. Which movie are you looking forward to most? It's hard to believe that the year is almost over, and there's only four months left! Since I've only seen one new film this year fresh from theaters, which movie should I review in theaters when I get the chance? I'll leave it to you to comment below, so until next time....

Soapbox: What Makes a Movie Bad?

Earlier this week, I was looking at my current top ten worst list of movies (yes, I do have one; no, I won't publish it yet--I haven't seen The Smurfs 2), and I began analyzing why I put them there. On my list, I have the Rotten Tomatoes percentage next to the films; while most of the films on the list are considered "Rotten," a few are borderline "Fresh" or very high on the "Tomatometer." Why did I not like the film while others did? Why do I find one film completely awful while another thinks it is above decent? So today, instead of a review, list, or memoir, I want to do an essay of sorts. "What Makes a Movie Bad?"
Note: This essay will include spoilers on several films, including Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Do proceed with caution.

I'm not feelin' very lucky... but I gots to know!

I hate it when a movie uses a deus ex machina to resurrect, or even save, a character's life through an unbelievable turn of events. A notable example is in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. In the extremely extended first action sequence, Indiana Jones is caught in the middle of a 1950's-style nuclear test zone. A countdown begins and Indy should be toast when the lady says "zero," yet after the blast, he survives while everything around him melts like Hiroshima. How? Lead-lined refrigerator. And thus the term "nuke the fridge" was born. Now, when I saw the film back in 2008/2009, the sequence confused me, and it still does. Now let it be said: the film isn't on my worst list because of the nuke the fridge sequence (there's lack of appropriate tone, out-of-place/needless CGI sequences, and lack of fun), but it certainly doesn't help matters at all. Indy should have been fried in the first thirty minutes of his movie--the test zone scientists who were almost out of the blast zone were!--yet Indy is the cockroach from WALL-E. It took me out of the film for a while, and nothing made up for it by the end. Another example is The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. I like the series--they're nice, fun adventure films--but this one proved much differently. Why do I dislike it? Besides being unmemorable and bland, they kill Brendan Fraser's character halfway through the movie... only to bring him back again simply to introduce a mystical character. It's not like in Last Crusade, where Indy seemingly gets ran over by a tank, or how Jack Sparrow still survived being eaten by the Kraken in Dead Man's Chest so he could return for the finale At World's End... because there was never a fourth installment--those kinds of things work in the film's universe or for their characters. Dragon Emperor only used it because it could, and that's just lazy writing right there. I'm sure the conversation went like this:

"Man, that was awesome how we had that fight scene with the yetis, man. Oh, ya-no-wha, dude; let's kill the main character... the audience will be like, 'What the $#%^ just happened, man?' Oh wait, we need the main character.... Let's just introduce another one to make him come back to life again so we don't have to rewrite all that. RIGHTEOUS!!" 

Yep. I get why some movies do it and it works for Doctor Who, but other films just use it as a lazy plot device with imaginations that are as dull as the above monologue. Such a thing does not kill a movie, but these kinds of deus ex machinas surely don't help its cause.

Another thing that hurts a movie pretty bad is the lack of passion. People give George Lucas crap for the Star Wars prequels-- and I'll admit: they are crap-- but at least Lucas went through years of development and he put his heart and soul into each of the six films. The worst kinds of movies are the ones where the filmmakers don't care. In cinema, there's the passionate crap and the I-don't-give-a-crap crap. Now don't get me wrong--sometimes the passionate crap doesn't come out quite right-- but if the filmmakers don't care, why should we? Notable examples are the fourth installments in a franchise. To list some of these, they are: Shrek Forever After, a bland attempt to recapture the original's humor... by flipping around everything from the original, for what other reason than kids' money; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, a boring installment that captures none of the fun or originality of the preceding films that only feels like another Depp vehicle; Paranormal Activity 4... need I go on? It's soulless.

Abduction and Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief aren't exempt. We all know why Abduction was made--to steal the money of little tween girls wanting to see Taylor Lautner. That's a whole new kind of nasty, similar to On Stranger Tides and any PG-13 Johnny Depp movie. And Lightning Thief was just trying to bring a new Harry Potter franchise to the table while paying no respect to the books. Jurassic Park may have gotten away with significant changes, but because Spielberg still captured the beauty and monstrosity of the dinosaurs that Crichton portrayed in the novels, it still had the right heart; only die-hard purists would be ticked. The thing of it is, Spielberg didn't make a cash-grab with Jurassic Park. Even with the highly disappointing sequel The Lost World, he tried to portray thought-provoking themes of hunter vs. naturalist that showed he wasn't trying to simply take money from innocent movie-goers. Then you have films like Sharknado or Movie 43 which don't have any care or passion or any technique involved. Like an orangutan, they throw poop at the screen and expects you to watch it decompose or do something with it. They make their money back and all's fine for them, but instead of watching films for entertainment, we become consumers willing to rigidly drink carbolic oil laced with cyanide. They don't care. It's infuriating and those movies rightfully deserve to be listed on worst lists only to never be heard of again. I just got done working on a short film and, while it still has a lot of work before it can be considered true quality entertainment, the crew and I worked our butts off amongst all the struggles, and we still do as production continues. But these guys are professionals who get paid to do what they do. As popular film fan/critic Chris Stuckmann said in his review/rant of Movie 43,

"There are so many people out there who would love to be making movies--in Hollywood or whatever--who have true ideas about what it's like to make a movie: people who are in film school, people who are learning about the art of filmmaking; and then you see this s***, just like, there! Why?!"

It's not so much the crappy product that they send out; it's the crappy attitude, disposition, and comprehension that's behind the camera that makes the film twice as bad.

No truer words have been spoken.

Now that I'm done ranting about that mess, one of the most tragic things that kills a movie is all the potential behind it. Recently, I reviewed Bye Bye Birdie from 1995, and honestly, I thought it would be great; it had everything going for it and it failed. Perhaps it's the expectations that I have with these movies, but I don't think that's the entire reason. Take Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. When I saw it last, I had no expectations, because I hardly remembered the last time I had seen it, and I still was bored and unentertained by it; and I consider that one of the worst movies I've seen. It's a shame, because Lucas put so much work, heart, and soul into developing these movies and his interviews talking about them are terrific, but, unfortunately, his tower of cards was unstable, and too many wrong moves made the whole operation come tumbling down. It is a real shame. I want to give the movie enough pity so that it doesn't end up on the worst list, but in the end, I have to look back on everything and its content, and these films with failed potential really are that bad. An odder example is Sharkboy and Lavagirl. Robert Rodriguez is a work of art. Friends with Quentin Tarantino-- who some consider one of the most influential directors of our time-- Rodriguez is not quite as good. He makes the bizarre films filled with violence and sex like Desperado and the surreal children's films like Spy Kids. Sometimes they combine and make Machete. Sharkboy and Lavagirl is one of his kids films and it is made for kids, strictly for kids, and Rodriguez has fun with it. The thing is, being a one-man show-- being the... everything in the crew--it isn't the best of films. I guess this is the part where I say that, there is passionate crap and the concept is good, but in the end, it's still crap. It is sad for me to say this, because you realize that these guys are trying to make the best film possible, but it just doesn't work out for them in the end. Most of these guys, like Lucas and Rodriguez, can be great visionaries trying to tell great stories, like with Star Wars from 1977 or Sin City, respectively, but the audience is left wanting something better. Unfortunately for them, the potential was missed, and people like myself were left disappointed.

So in a world where we get greats like The Tree of Life or The Shawshank Redemption, we still get our Gigli's and Plan 9's From Outer Space. While some actually try to tell great stories, others just don't care or are too lazy to convey something above average. No one is invincible--even Spielberg and Tarantino had their flops--and bad films are going to happen. But that won't stop us from paying money to see what the greats can do. As for my article, I could have gone more into bad acting and shoddy camerawork (i.e. Daredevil), but those are obvious. I simply talked about some of the unique things that make me consider a movie bad. Certainly, there are others, but I don't want to take the spotlight all by myself. What makes a poor movie-going experience for you? What's some of the worst films you've seen? And, on a side note, should I do more articles like these? Comment below, and tell me about it!