Movie Rant: Blackfish

When the film 'Blackfish' was released back in 2013 it instantly became something of a gateway drug into the camp of stereotypical animal welfare campaigners. It's easy to see why so many people were sucked into a downright disturbing documentary that does well to highlight the singular issue of killer whales in captivity, using methods that appealed to a broad audience; and to that extent we have to applaud the achievements and widespread appeal of this film. However that love of being shocking and widely accessible for effect is ultimately this film's downfall in terms of credibility. This, like many animal rights documentaries I've come across, is a plague on the often sophisticated and well informed serious documentary genre. The sole composition of 'Blackfish' is a one sided narrative that exploits the emotions of viewers to buy into a singular cause that is in no way presented accurately by this film. As a student in this field I would like to say that I'm not in direct conflict with the primary issue that 'Blackfish' aims to highlight, rather the narrative based brainwashing that clouds over a very controversial issue. Both myself and this film share a dislike of seeing animals used solely for entertainment purposes, which is why I find it all the more inexcusable that the approach a documentary takes on this subject revolves around feelings rather than facts.

The portrayal of killer whales in this film is odd, and more resembles the dramatisation of a fictional character. One minute these marine mammals are portrayed as beautiful creatures that have zero killer instincts towards humans in a natural environment despite being apex predators, but suddenly when they're confined they become these cold-hearted ruthless killers hellbent on maiming those in contact with them. The film tried its best to portray certain trainer deaths as senseless aggression from the orcas, but unfortunately never got round to making an informed judgement. The only explanation the viewer ever came across of this unbelievable change in behaviour can essentially be paraphrased by the expression 'muh captivity'. There wasn't any evidence to back this wild claim up, but then it's not like evidence is important in making a formal argument is it?

Irritatingly 'Blackfish' never actually pegs onto the idea that orcas might only be killing a few people in public aquaria because that's the only time orcas are in close proximity with humans, and so the only time there's ever going to be any conflicts between the two species. Even though there is evidence that in the wild orcas have displayed aggressive behaviour towards humans, the film still thinks it's necessary to constantly shoved down our throats the misleading statistic that orcas have never killed anyone in the wild. Let's not forget that killer whales are an apex predator that can happily tackle sharks and larger whales, so just because they haven't killed anyone in the wild doesn't mean they don't have the potential to. A correlation is not automatically a causation; a phrase that unfortunately wasn't repeated enough to those involved in making 'Blackfish'. Maybe captivity does change the behaviour of orcas and makes them more aggressive, however I'm not aware of anyone on the planet who has solid evidence that this is the case. To simply generalise the behaviour of a whole species, irrespective of their background, from the case study of a single whale is highly unreliable evidence. When you consider how this film goes about presenting evidence it becomes instantly clear that this is not an objective documentary by any stretch of the imagination.

Aside from the appalling lack of evidence there is a noticeable absence of explanations in any form throughout the film. The core argument this film is based around relies on the huge assumption that captive killer whales would benefit from freedom, a human based emotion. Applying this logic to a vastly different species with millions upon millions of years since their last common ancestor is anthropomorphising to say the least. The film knows this as well, and so instead of insightful comments from seasoned experts there is a focus on opinions from former employees of 'SeaWorld' and animal rights activists, who rely on subjective comparative techniques to convey scientific messages, simply conforming to the film's narrative rather than analytically addressing the issue. In fact 'SeaWorld' themselves have actually highlighted the lack of expertise and experience of the 'Blackfish' cast; that's a fair criticism, and a factor that often goes amiss in discussions surrounding this issue. The facts are that there is still no clear evidence that captivity has a profoundly negative effect on the mental wellbeing of orcas, which may be because there is a lack of research on the area, but that doesn't stop this film from parading that notion around like it's an obvious fact. This is a serious issue and so uninformed hypothesises should have no place in a factual documentary posing as a scientific debate.

The thing that really grinds my gears with 'Blackfish' however is the attitude this film has towards the consumers that pay money in order to see killer whales. I'm sorry these normal people who perhaps don't realise there is a serious debate surrounding the issue are desperate to see an animal as amazing as a killer whale in person. I have absolutely nothing against trying to persuade these people against funding killer whales in captivity, but to then demonise enthusiastic tourists trying to see these animals from their own perspective simply because they haven't watched some one sided slander is absolutely disgusting behaviour. How fucking dare you judge people who would rather see a killer whale in captivity rather than shell out thousands of pounds with the vague hope of seeing one in the wild. Since when has it been acceptable for a misleading documentary to take the moral high ground?

This love of taking the moral high ground is apparent with every thinly veiled accusation this film can muster. 'Blackfish' has the audacity to expose 'SeaWorld' for lying to consumers by lying to consumers. I'll admit that 'SeaWorld' are hardly my favourite organisation, but this is the very definition of hypocrisy. Just one questionable behaviour from an organisation is enough to shun a varied animal care programme in the eyes of this film. Of course it doesn't matter that boycotting 'SeaWorld' would eradicate rehabilitation programmes, and presumably leave the other animals in their care without a home, because the real evil in this system is the captivity of a few individuals. 'Blackfish' however doesn't actually bother discussing solutions, because its narrative would rather ignore the fact that you absolutely cannot just release long term captive animals back into their natural environment due to the dire and unpredictable effect that would have on the gene pool. Funnily enough 'Blackfish' never even mentions previous reintroductions of captive killer whales into the wild, which may have something to do with the fact that previous schemes to free these animals have been anything but successful. In my funny little world I would have thought that would be a very fucking important point to mention.

Emotion unfortunately is more powerful in a documentary than factual and balanced arguments. There is however a fine line between a biased documentary and pure propaganda that intentionally misleads the viewer at every available opportunity despite appearing to be purely factual. As a documentary maker you have a moral responsibility to portray a compelling argument that doesn't mislead or flat out lie to the audience when pushing an agenda. Obviously there is always going to be a bias in any documentary, but documentaries are an art form just like any other film, and so this sort of underhanded tactic devalues the whole genre and reduces the integrity of truly factual films as a source of information. 'Blackfish' contains zero elements of a great documentary. Any film can invoke an emotional response from the audience, but in a documentary there should be a debate, there should be insightful points backed up by solid evidence, and there certainly shouldn't be a narrative formed around lies and misleading the viewer. Why the hell 'Blackfish' feels the need to take the moral high ground in all its arguments is another question, because in reality it follows the reprehensible system of lying to people who were previously unaware of this issue. 'Blackfish' is purely a propaganda piece that fuels an anti-captivity movement despite providing a lack of any concrete evidence as to why captivity is inherently bad, only succeeding in exploiting rare deaths for purely emotional purposes, manipulating people's existence to misrepresent a very complex issue. In a film that preaches moral duty there is an alarming absence of integrity in this irresponsible and slanderous ploy; and yet it's a ploy that activists will blindly follow thanks to the immoral attitude of this so called 'documentary'.

A Hugh Mungus Response

Because this blog has yet to jump on the 'Hugh Mungus' bandwagon I thought I'd give a retrospective overview on this whole debacle. If you're not aware of what the 'Hugh Mungus' incident is then a quick internet search will quickly find you a woman screaming at various men because of a completely harmless joke. Of course being a radical feminist this woman decided that even though she was clearly the aggressor in this situation she would still play the victim with a series of videos. I think you can see where this is headed.

Fuck me is this a depressing video. The music is like something out of a morbid charity appeal, the half assed acting makes low rent pornos look like Academy Award candidates, and the editing in this is shocking. For some reason this woman thought that weird close-ups of people allergic to shaving passed as a good quality video, when in reality this shoddy production makes my presentation skills seem almost meritable. Is this type of video really what the world of activism has become? I've seen many shit YouTube videos over the years, so I honestly wouldn't have given a shit about this disaster if it hadn't of been for the ridiculous content. In what must be shock of the century a viral video from a feminist contains misleading and rarely sourced evidence, mostly based around unreliable internet sites that are then applied to the real life personalities of any man. It's amazing how often this one sided debate switches from anecdotal evidence and personal feelings to a general argument, which apparently is impossible to invalidate because I'm part of a mystical power structure that for some reason cannot be objectively correct. Say for example I actually bothered to look up some statistics, which this woman strategically forgot to source, and found that they're not consistent. Well unfortunately that wouldn't be a valid line of reasoning because of the skin colour I was mistakenly born with. It's a shame that this woman cannot understand logical reasoning, because then she wouldn't make the mistake of glossing over such critical information as the fact that her sources vary from widely different areas. Cherry-picking information if it conforms to your narrative is certainly not the way to prove that there is a universal patriarchy oppressing you.

Aside from the pathetic argument presented in this video there is also the complete denial of this moron. There's a fucking good reason why people have been calling you an angry woman. No, it has nothing to do with sexism, rather the matter that you're a grade-A cunt who verbally harassed a harmless man. You're mistaking sexism for people not liking you. But no, according to this woman's fucked up brain I'm still the antagonist in this scenario for simply existing. Everyone from Abraham Lincoln, who helped end slavery in the US, to the white homeless man in the street is still a vile racist with more privilege over this woman, not because of their actions, but because of how they were born. Nothing unreasonable there. Also the evidence for racial inequality comes from prison populations. Since when have criminals, who you have absolutely no evidence have been falsely imprisoned, been a general trend in a population. And for that matter, how the fuck can you sit there and dictate that men are privileged when more men go to prison? The worst part is that all these bullshit accusations arise from a singular incident in which funnily enough the authorities didn't side with the person screaming false accusations. I can assure you a female officer would also understand that as they also have to follow the letter of the law, and not the bat shit code you live by. Essentially the whole argument comes down to this circular logic where a woman is having a go at the patriarchy for attacking people, when that's exactly her method of argument. Well, attacking people and making stupid videos with disabled comment sections to prevent any form of discussion. But to be fair to Zarna this video does have some damn hilarious lines. My personal favourite was discovering that it's not okay to make dick jokes because men historically stoned and executed women. Ha, that's like comparing apples to fucking planets. I for one can take a dick joke despite my ancestors being raped and pillaged by Vikings. Funny how that works.

I don't know why I was expecting this warped logic to improve in the second video, but it certainly fucking hasn't. Apparently denying that this lady was sexually assaulted, which she clearly fucking wasn't, means that I would have to admit that I've been sexually harassing women by merely existing. I don't quite know how denying a self depreciating joke about someone else's weight being sexual harassment leads to me, a virgin, sexually assaulting all women, but for some reason that makes sense in this woman's mind. This video refers back to the original situation, which once again is pinned on 'Hugh Mungus', who was apparently hostile in this situation, and not the woman shouting abuse. I'm not sure how this woman can them claim to be fighting safety, because she needs to take a hard look at herself if she thinks her actions are creating a safe environment.

In this video it becomes abundantly clear that this women cannot comprehend that there might be an alternative opinion. Anyone who does have an alternative argument is either branded a sexist, or accused of being indoctrinated by the patriarchy, presuming of course they have the right skin colour to blame. And if you disagree with Zarna, well that doesn't matter because sure enough this bitch will find a way to make you more privileged than herself, and so whatever you say cannot possibly be correct. Even as a loony conspiracy theory this is just so absurdly weak. Only absolute morons could ignore the catastrophic number of logical fallacies in this argument. The award for warped logic in this video could have gone to almost any point made, but my favourite is that apparently because most cops are ex-military, and rape is a big issue in the military, that means all cops must be rapists. I wonder if Zarna has intelligently noticed that bananas can sometimes appear to be green, which indicates they are unripened. Therefore Zarna would conclude that all bananas are unripened; even the yellow ones that clearly aren't unripened, because she's that fucking stupid. Zarna of course doesn't need logic for her argument though; all the evidence she needs is just an appeal to emotion.

You can probably predict what my criticisms are going to be for this one. Although there was another indication of retardation I spotted: In the intro there's an idiotic trigger warning to warn people that there will be mentions of various serious themes. What Zarna has done here is warned people that some things will be mentioned by mentioning them. It's this sort of shit that makes me hate this video for how condescending it is towards me. Thank you for speaking to me like a child lady who can't construct a formal argument.

As for the third video's content, well that's just a fucking joke. The 'that's sexual harassment' line I can only assume is in this video for comic effect, because it is absolutely brilliantly used as a comedic device, turning any fucking comment ever into sexual harassment based laughter. You name it, everything according to Zarna is sexual harassment. Jokes that aren't even sexual in nature, acting out of common courtesy; they're all sexual harassment. Even commenting on a random woman is sexual harassment, as well as making comments you wouldn't make to your parents. This makes perfect sense as I would absolutely never tell my parents how much I drink, so naturally I would never tell any woman how much I drink because obviously she's going to perceive that as sexual harassment. Maybe that's why these rapes never get reported because Zarna here is so hellbent on telling everyone that taboo topics spoken to random strangers is sexual harassment. Even simply believing the man in any scenario is apparently behaviour to be scorned at, as is expecting women to be nice to me, which isn't common courtesy as I assumed and actually a privilege I obtained from being born white. I don't know how any relationships form in Zarna's dystopian world, because even if I accidentally look at or breathe near a woman without consent I'm fucking harassing her. All the evidence we need as to why this clearly isn't the definition of sexual harassment is by the fact that Zarna has disabled the 'like/dislike bar'. And yes I can say that's the wrong definition of 'sexual harassment' as a white man because unfortunately definitions are a consensus of etymology that aren't determined by individuals. You can see the results of when an individual decides to devalue the English language by creating their own definitions in this fascicle video. And just to conclude this nonsense I'd just like to say that I have infected diarrhoea. And saying that is sexual harassment.

Oh good, we've moved onto more uplifting, but still very much out of place, ethnic pan pipe music. Smashing. The positive change in music for this video means my opinions of these videos have actually surpassed my opinions of Zarna herself, but then they both have the same likeability as ovarian cancer so that's hardly an achievement. I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck about critically analysing this video because I'm starting to sound like a broken record. The only difference in this final instalment is that it's like watching propaganda from an occultist. And fuck me this is dull. This video is just a cocktail of shit from the last three blended together. The points raised around really serious issues are so fucking trivial, and it's 19 fucking minutes of jack shit that doesn't contain a single piece of valuable information. If there was ever an advert on why Zarna needs to fuck off then this is the one. The final straw is when you discover that this woman set up a charity page for HER OWN WELLBEING. What a selfish cow. I wouldn't expect that sort of behaviour from a spoilt child, yet this entitled bitch thinks she deserves money for shouting at people. Just fuck off. How can any human being be this fucking deluded? This imbecile is on another fucking planet. She needs to be sectioned, not given money for no reason. I honestly give up; there's no use trying to reason with ignorant people like this.

Top 10 Worst Movie Sequels

Let's be honest, the majority of sequels are never as good as the originals. They all like to make as much money as possible by relying on previous installments to carry them, never finding the defining features that made the original work. Here are those infamous attempts where the subsequent film never even got close to the quality of the original.

Honorable Mentions:
The Godfather Part III - Don't get me wrong, this was a good film for the most part. However when compared with the other two films in the franchise this was a major disappointment.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - One of the greatest fantasy adventure films of all time was reduced to generic action nonsense with this thoughtless sequel.
Grease 2 - To be honest I hated the original as well. I just couldn't miss the opportunity to call this a shit sequel.


#10 Home Alone 4 (2002) (2/10)

The fourth installment in the 'Home Alone' franchise promised to be bigger and badder than the originals. What a huge fucking lie that was. There was good news however, as the central character of Kevin McCallister returns. Well, not really; the role is actually played by a new actor that looks completely different to the lovable pest in the original. I'm not going to spoil things for you, but let's just say that this new actor was so successful in this role that he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I just can't imagine what the casting crew were thinking when they thought that hiring a kid who's nothing like the original character was a good idea. Actually they probably didn't care. They had dollar signs in their eyes and were too lazy to do anything about it. Their laziness results in the new kid being about as bland as a character can get, becoming an irritating little pissweasel that deserves to be beaten into a bloody pulp by two of the worst villains in film history.

The plot doesn't make any sense either, and like the characters is also incredibly bland. Clearly this is a younger Kevin McCallister from his heydays, yet the film's villains actually remember him from the events of previous films. Of course nobody really cares about these major flaws when you have the cringey level of awfulness in the comedy this film reluctantly provides, which let's be honest should be what a 'Home Alone' film is all about. Unfortunately the purposely shitty nostalgic slapstick in this new film was just dreadful, which is all this film managed to provide as well.


#9 Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) (5/10)

No I'm not going to be one of those stereotypical keyboard warriors that feels the need to slag this film off because everyone else does. This is a film that's actually not that awful, and there's some decent little sequences and lines from Harrison Ford, who as I always like to mention is a living legend, and his mere presence in any film is always a boost. This is however a dreadful sequel considering how good the first three films in the franchise were. If you thought the casting of 'Home Alone 4' was bad then you need to meet the people that cast Shia LaBeouf in the supporting role for Indiana Jones himself. I mean Harrison Ford does his best to carry the guy along, which he always does because he's a living legend in case I hadn't mentioned it, but are we seriously meant to believe that Shia is the next Indiana Jones? If that's the case then this film can fuck right off.

The rest of the cast aren't that interesting either, aside of course from the living legend Harrison Ford. It really is true that Harrison Ford carries this whole fucking film, and even he's bogged down by this emotional nonsense that has absolutely no place in a fantasy adventure of this caliber. That's not the worst thing though. The real sin of this film is taking the 'Indiana Jones' franchise away from everything that made it great. There's no sense of grand adventure here, and the climax ends up resorting in serious big budget effects rather than giving the audience a sense of genuine wonder. Yes, 'Indian Jones' has always been incredibly silly, but here they overstepped the mark. Aliens and computer generated images have no place in a franchise like this, especially when the rest of the film is so ordinary and plain. The originals were a series that were a product of their time, and this sequel was proof that some series should just be left in the generation in which they were created.

#8 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) (2/10)

In all honesty I've never been a fan of 'Star Trek', and this film sums up why I hate the franchise in a nutshell. Even the usually stellar aspects about 'Star Trek' films are missing here. It looks shit, the action sequences are even shitter, the characters aren't very interesting, and the plot is god awful and focuses on religion more than anything else. You can tell the script for this film was continuously rewritten because it's absolutely diabolical. The directing however is even worse, which doesn't say much about William Shatner's skills as a director, and also highlights the terrible quality of the material on display. There weren't enough rewrites in my opinion, because the final product is still absolute shit.

Some of the sequences in this film are so stupid you wonder how this pile of shit ever got released. Why the hell they made Uhura dance erotically for aliens is anyone's guess. I mean what the actual fuck is that all about? Was William Shatner aware that just his mere presence was enough for nerds everywhere to ejaculate profusely? You just don't need that needlessly smutty scene that perfectly sums up the thoughtless direction behind this film. This whole film reeks of the egomaniacal ignorance of William Shatner. He still hasn't properly apologised for this mess, rather blaming others for a film that he himself directed. Unfortunately for Shatner I'm a disinterested blogger, so he can go fuck himself for releasing this pile of steaming crap.


#7 Spiderman 3 (2007) (3/10)

You may be aware that I'm not a fan of comic book films, and if not well now you know. I did however enjoy 'Spiderman 2', and so naturally I was looking forward to a sequel that would surely be as exhilarating as the second. Unfortunately this sequel ended up being one of the worst superhero film I've ever had the displeasure of watching. Peter Parker, whose never been the best comic book character, is the absolute worst here. He's the least charismatic hero ever, and is just irritatingly bland in every scene. How is he the one that has to take down fifteen million villains? The villains incidentally are all identical in the respect that they all follow the same trait of having absolutely no depth and are just used as a shock factor rather than any actual merit. Maybe they should of stuck with the single well written villain like a good film would.

Yeah okay, this film still looks as good as the originals, but there's no substance. It's actually quite repetitive and boring, which for a superhero film is quite an impressive non-achievement. And I still don't understand how you can have three villains and still expect a decent story to present itself to the audience. Not surprisingly too many villains makes the plot become a convoluted mess, which isn't helped by this film never deciding whether it wants to be a superhero flick or a romantic comedy. The finished product shows us that this version of 'Spiderman' doesn't do either of those things at all well, which isn't surprising from a film that has all the hallmarks of a small kid in a sweet shop. At one time 'Spiderman' was becoming the next cool superhero. Not after this film was released.


#6 The Hangover Part 3 (2013) (2/10)

I never enjoyed the second Hangover film, but the third was worse on a whole new level. 'Annoying' would be the perfect word to describe this film. It certainly isn't funny, just disturbing how any of the scenes can pass as comedy. People often criticise comedy sequels, and here we have the perfect example of a franchise that's more than overstayed its welcome and completely run out of ideas. The jokes in this one were replaced by basic shock factor, albeit shocking scenes that weren't very exciting.

The plot is equally stupid. For starters there isn't even a hangover. The plot just tries to use former glories to promote a sub-standard film that desperately tries to be bigger and better than the previous two, but forgets that comedy should be the crucial element in a comedy film. Pulling off a comedy sequel is no easy task, but I have no time for lazy sequels that just want to act as a cash cow instead of becoming inspiring and professional standalone pictures. I do respect the people involved for trying to veer away from the previous 'hangover' premise of the first two films, even though that was the most interesting part and a big talking point for the audience, but you just can't replace that empty void with just a plain plot with little laughs along the way. Surprisingly despite this film's success there hasn't been a fourth in the franchise.


#5 Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) (3/10)

'Blues Brothers 2000'. A film that doesn't contain the original Blues Brothers, and was released in 1998. That doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster does it? To be fair to the film the music isn't all that bad, it's just that the comedy and action parts ruin this one; which is really everything else this film offers. This sequel is so totally different from the original that I'm not even sure we can count this as a sequel. The cast is so different from the original it blows my mind they thought of rehashing the whole idea of the first film. Dan Aykroyd returns; that's it. The rest is a cast of wannabes trying to fill the shoes of roles they never had a hope of emulating. Especially that fucking kid, who should never be anywhere near a mature comedy film like the 'Blues Brothers'. I don't know who he is or how they fucking found him, but in all honesty I don't give a shit. Why the fuck would anyone try and shove a child into a mature comedy?

Once you've stopped getting angry at the hopeless cast you have a plot that doesn't even try to uncover new ground to enjoy. It's same old, same old, and that's just laziness that shouldn't be allowed in a film that attempts to revitalise a cult classic. There's no passion, no energy in this one. You get the sense the actors here want to line their pockets because they've got nothing better to do. That attitude certainly isn't funny to me, but then neither is the film. Hell, it's not even amusing. This is a limp wristed imitation of a classic that should never have been released. John Beluschi, who was one of the stars of the original, must be turning in his grave.


#4 Jaws: The Revenge (1987) (2/10)

The final straw in a franchise so legendary it's shameful to watch it stoop to such lows. If you're wondering why this guaranteed moneymaker of a series hasn't been rebooted since then I suggest you give this a watch. You can actually physically see the series go down the drain when we discover that sharks somehow have a psychic connection to relatives of their food, and can therefore trace members of their victim's family to further terrorise. No really, that is the plot. What makes it even more stupid is that it's sometimes told in flashbacks where the character in question wasn't even present. How they ever convinced seasoned veterans like Michael Caine to climb aboard this disaster is a mystery to me. Surely Caine must have realised sometime through production that he had been given an uninteresting script, with shit costars, and a development that went through absolute hell.

Even the shark is terribly made. This once terrifying villain has been reduced to an ugly prop that roars. As a zoology student not only am I offended by this depiction of a supposedly realistic shark, but I'm also qualified to tell you that roaring sharks are just ridiculous. The original shark actually put fear into the hearts of moviegoers everywhere and made them stay out of the water for an eternity, but this shark, the subject of the film, looks worse than the original and feels about as living as a zombie. This once iconic character is now kept as the least mysterious monster in cinema history, essentially becoming an aggressive tumor that can't help but repetitively ruin scenes, always appearing with the same opened mouthed expression that I suppose is fitting for a shark realising he's appearing in crap like this. This shark is not scary in any way, it's just sometimes there in the film for absolutely no reason. It must be a miracle for this shark when it's finally put out of its misery, being stabbed in a scene that resembles a cocktail stick attacking a sausage more than an epic death. A fitting end to an equally terrible film that was so shit that it's managed to get a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


#3 Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987) (2/10)

Remember when cheesy campness was good in a superhero film? Well this film decides there wasn't enough cheesy campness in the original 'Superman' films and takes it upon itself to ruin the legacy of possibly the most iconic superhero of all time. I'm not sure if there was a plot lying around somewhere in this film, but I sure as hell couldn't find one. The resulting mess is just a generic snoozefest, which isn't very impressive in a superhero film with quite possibly the ultimate superhero for an action packed laugh. The only laughs in this film are overshadowed by horror or sheer disbelief as superman saves the Statue of Liberty in possibly the worst looking scene of all time, and then saves and rebuilds The Great Wall of China from the horrors of a villain named 'Nuclear Man'.

'Nuclear Man' is actually so pathetic it's hilarious. Firstly he's called 'Nuclear Man', which already sounds like the shittest supervillain of all time, and that's even before you find out he's solar powered. He doesn't look any better than he sounds either, rather resembling something you would find in a back alley San Francisco club. And to top it all off he doesn't even talk. He's the most pathetic character of all time that we as the audience have to try and believe is the biggest threat to mankind. 'Nuclear Man' is if you haven't realised the worst social commentary for nuclear warfare ever created, and this film manages to butcher such a serious theme at such an unstable time. Turns out 1987 was just a terrible year for movie sequels. Saying this is worse than 'Jaws: The Revenge' is all you need to know.


#2 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) (5/10)

I'm one of those people that tries to defend this film from the barrage of hate it so frequently gets, but there's no denying that this was a dreadful sequel in one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history. The only thing 'The Phantom Menace' does better than the originals is look really nice, which is a shame considering this is a beautiful film that actually has some great action sequences and a fucking cool villain, but unfortunately no soul or depth that are crucial for a great space opera. But creator George Lucas knew this. He redefined the rules of sci-fi with the original trilogy, so there's no excuse for this film going so horribly wrong.

Everything fans loved about the original 'Star Wars' films was ripped to shreds by multiple dreary sequences, uninteresting characters and settings, and a less than spectacular plot. How can you possibly justify having such hateful characters as Jar Jar Binks and a young Darth Vader in such a prestigious series? And yes there was a spoiler there, but do you honestly still need one for the Darth Vader plot point? A crucial plot point may I add that was almost completely ruined by this film alone. It's an insult that when you have a universe as rich as the 'Star Wars galaxy' you make a film as mundane as this. The original trilogies had 'The Death Star' blowing up twice, but all we got with this revamped version was some trade disputes between parties that weren't at all interesting. And that's the problem with this film. There's no ambition, so sense of grand adventure, no sense that we're witnessing galaxy changing events unfold. To surmise this was a sequel that forgot what made the originals great.


#1 Batman & Robin (1997) (0/10)

Has anything positive ever been said about this pile of shit? In all honesty if I have to go through everything wrong with this film you'll be reading this article for years. I guess I have to start with the huge issue of characters. It's almost a competition which is the worst character in this film, because all of them are so fucking awful it's not even funny. My choices are the two pictured above. That's Poison Ivy and Bane, who have no chemistry, walk about the set like two planks of wood, and have zero character development. In truth there's not a single thing noteworthy about any characters in this horror show. It doesn't help that the two central villains working together want to freeze the planet so Poison Ivy can grow flowers on it. How does that make any sense?

Even Batman himself suffers from the same flaws. George Clooney is a dreadful lead here, and even the hilariously bad puns of Arnold Schwarzenegger can't save this stinker of a performance. The fact that these performances almost killed such a beloved character speaks volume about how bad this film really is. And it doesn't stop there. The shitty awfulness just keeps going and going, torturing your insides. Shit scene after shit scene just keeps on appearing. I was so tortured by this abomination that I'm now experiencing PTSD just writing about it. Director Joel Schumacher did eventually apologise for this film, but that's not good enough. Simply apologising for an easily preventable atrocity that almost ruined a historic franchise just rubs salt in the wound in my eyes.