10 Movies You Don't Want to Admit You Love - Part 5

2. Star Wars: The Prequels

Pictured: Rape?

Oh, George Lucas... Could you have not let things be? Weren't the first three movies enough? The original trilogy is made up of three undeniable classics that defined a generation and redefined movies forever. The epic following surrounding Star Wars is surpassed only by Jesus [citation needed]. It redefined nerds. It redefined culture. Yes, culture. It is literally a real part of not only cinematic, but American History. There is not a single movie or series of movies out there that can claim to have had as much of an impact on American culture as Star Wars.

So why make three more? Is it money? Because I think prior to the prequels George Lucas was pretty much set for life. Thanks to THX, Skywalker Sound and Industrial Light & Magic, I firmly believe George Lucas receives a paycheck for pretty much every movie that is released. And let's not forget all the licensing and rights to broadcast Star Wars, merchandise... did George Lucas really need more money?

Why We Pretend to Hate It:

Rape. That's the word purists are using for it. It began when Lucas re-released the original trilogy in theaters back in 1997. Thanks some technological advances, he was able to recreate scenes with extra CG X-Wings, a never-before-seen Jabba the Hutt scene, singing CG creatures that are more annoying than the muppets they replaced and a single added gunshot more infamous than the one at Lexington and Concord.

Pictured: Rape?

So in 1999, when he released The Phantom Menace, purists everywhere cried foul for a couple reasons.

Pictured: Rape?

No use beating around the bush. The number one reason the Star Wars prequels have attained such a high degree of infamy is a single character: Jar Jar Fucking Binks. This unintentionally racist, loud, obnoxious character is present in nearly every scene of The Phantom Menace. It is unclear what, precisely, George Lucas was thinking when he created this monstrosity - whether it was to appeal to the "younglings" (more on that later) or just sell more toys, but seriously... what... the fuck.

Reason #2...

The Guinness World Record holder for youngest person to ever deserve a dropkick to the face

It's kind of mean to be very critical on an actor as young as Jake Lloyd was in '99. But there are a couple problems with this casting. For one thing, he's playing one of cinema's most iconic characters. This is the kid who's gonna grow up to be Darth Fucking Vader. And who is it? A cutesy sitcom character who uses phrases like "this is tense", and other modern lingo that does not belong anywhere near the Star Wars universe. More on the dialogue later. But little Anakin has a love interest. Someone this young, you'd expect to have someone like the little girl from Matilda or something. But who is his love interest?

That would be the one on the left.

Sweet statutory! What the fuck, George? Natalie Portman is at least a decade and a half older than this kid. And we are expected to believe that these two will eventually mate and conceive the hero and heroine of the original trilogy. There's something very inherently wrong with that. But obviously, it's not gonna happen right away. Anakin is presumably gonna get older and less cutesy, and the relationship is gonna get less awkward.

Pictured: The whiny douchebag who eventually becomes Darth Vader.

Once Attack of the Clones rolls around, we are introduced to an older, less jail-baiting Anakin Skywalker. George Lucas missed a great opportunity to pick an amazing actor for the role. Nope, had to go with Hayden. George Lucas lucked out with The Phantom Menace. Due to all the space politics and the fact that Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor were the leads, he was spoiled with not having to do much directing for the actors. Now, an inferior actor is pushing the story forward, and George Lucas isn't exactly the best guy to pull a great performance out of him.

Anakin's age makes his relationship with Padme less wrong, but by no means is it less awkward. George Lucas is only slightly better than Stephanie Meyer at writing a love story. Can someone please tell me why, in a Star Wars movie, is there a scene in which two characters roll around in the fucking grass? And why, in any galaxy, regardless of how far, far away it is, is it considered a romantic gesture to compare your lover's skin with sand?

And here comes the dialogue. Yes, it's bad. It gets particularly bad in Revenge of the Sith on a scene that takes place on a balcony in Coruscant.

"You're so beautiful."

"That's because I'm so in love."

"No, it's because I'm so in love with you."

"So love has blinded you?"

"That's not exactly what I meant."

"But it's probably true."

Surprisingly, that exchange did NOT happen in this movie.

Why We Secretly Love It:

Because it's fucking Star Wars. In spite of how "unpopular" the first two were, people still lined up, dressed up, and got all excited over Revenge of the Sith - which, mind you, sat comfortably on the IMDb Top 250 for at least a year. In spite of all of its flaws, bad dialogue, a giant shrieking peacock-iguana, and Darth Vader sullying his own image worse than Mel Gibson on a night of heavy drinking...

Pictured: Rape? (Click for video)

Revenge of the Sith was on the same list as films like Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Shawshank Redemption, and so on and so forth. For at least a year. Which means not only did people go see it, they fucking loved it. Oh, and Attack of the Clones? At least a month on that very same list. Why would such a poorly-written movie be so well-regarded?

Fuckin' A.

A single scene in which we finally get to see Yoda kick some ass. Sort of. And he does it again in Episode III. Sort of. Actually, he kinda gets his ass kicked and runs away. But yeah. Yoda.

We can complain all we want, but in the end we are willing to forgive every flaw from Jar Jar to Hayden because... well, fuck it. It's Star Wars.

1. Batman and Robin

Holy franchise killer, Batman!

Before Christopher Nolan came in and reinvented the franchise with his pure awesomeness, Tim Burton wasn't doing so bad with it himself. His 1989 film was very well-regarded, and the sequel even moreso. Sure, it was over-the-top in its Gothic themes and Burton-esque Expressionism, but few can deny that the first two Batman movies were freakin' incredible. Then in 1995, Burton graciously handed the franchise over to Joel Schumacher. Suddenly, the series saw a few changes. Robin was added to the mix. Harvey Dent turned from a black man to a white man. But amidst its over-the-top cartoonish nature, Batman Forever avoided being a bad film.

The same cannot be said for what followed.

Why We Pretend to Hate It:

Where to begin? Oh, remember those dark, expressionistic sets that made up the first two movies? They're gone. Gotham went from a city designed by Fritz Lang to Peewee's Playhouse. And as far as I could tell, this was supposed to be the same franchise. But the list of what is wrong with this film is quite long. So let me break it down for you.

It's like they're staring right at you.

Look, I can understand the rubber suit with abs constructed into them. It's been done before, even in the previous Batman films. But they really need nipples? What purpose does that serve? Does the suit lactate? Is this all part of Joel Schumacher's plot to dress all the characters up in S&M gear? When I see that image, I don't see a vigilante crime fighter. I see a dude who wants to whip me into submission for sexual gratification. And that image could very easily be corrected if they removed the nipples from the suit. Seriously.

I bet he's got a really small dick. You know, from the 'roids. They'll do that to ya.

Bane. There was sort of an outcry when Christopher Nolan announced that Bane would be the villain in his third Batman movie, especially since Nolan liked to put a more realistic spin on the comic. And how realistic can it be when the villain speaks in one-word sentences and moves around like an inadequate henchman? Thanks to Joel Schumacher and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (Academy Award winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman - let that sink in), the non-comic-book-reading public's image of Bane is just that. Apparently, Bane is actually supposed to be an evil genius who also happens to be buff. That's the Bane Nolan is going for. Not the masked professional wrestling gimp.

lol, what?

The Poison Ivy I remember, from the cartoon, was a bombshell of a woman somewhat modeled after the femmes fatales from 1940's Film-Noirs... Or for you young people, a more sinister Jessica Rabbit draped in green. So... um... what was the deal with making her look like a hideous mess? Uma Thurman had an inherent sophistacted sexiness that made her perfect for the role - had it been written correctly. And costumed correctly. And made up correctly. There's an entire plot device that relies on Batman and Robin fighting over this woman. I understand she was using this intoxicating powder to win them over, but there's only so much disbelief one can suspend. Instead of sophisticated and sexy they went with... clown-like and/or prostitute-ish. Who does an over-the-top stance with every line she says like she's a Power Ranger.

Looks like a bad Halloween costume.

For the record, Batgirl is the Comissioner's daughter, NOT Alfred's niece. But I suppose they had to find some awkward way to work her into the plot. Because, you know... Batgirl just HAD to be in the movie. Which is specifically titled Batman and Robin. Wouldn't be complete without Batgirl. I guess.

Sidekicks have never looked so fabulous!

Isn't Robin supposed to be a teenager? If so, why is Chris O'Donnell playing the part? He's clean-shaven, but he doesn't look like a teenager. Not by a longshot. Robin is supposed to be vulnerable because of his young age, but Chris O'Donnell looks like the kinda guy who can take care of himself. I know that's more of a criticism on Batman Forever, but I digress. His costume is simply ridiculous and it looks like the costumer was intentionally trying to make this movie a 90 minute gay joke.

Okay, there is way too much going on here. My head a splode.

Wait... Hold on. This isn't right...

Why We Secretly Love It:

Pictured: A funnier man than Dane Cook.

Okay, we all know that this is a very, very bad movie. But think about it for a moment. Was there ever a moment you did NOT enjoy watching it? Think about it. Even if you were sitting down, complaining about every departure from the comic or all the bad one-liners, shitty wardrobe and over-the-top acting... admit it, deep down you had fun watching this movie. Why is that?

Go ahead. It's okay to laugh.

Let's face it, Batman and Robin is simply one of the most quotable motion pictures of all time. It's a terrible film, no doubt about that. The screenplay is a mess, the plot is overstuffed, there are way too many characters... It was a movie slapped together to sell more action figures and hold back George Clooney's career for a few years. But it's a difficult film to turn away from - in spite of the fact that it's truly an eyesore.

It's despised because it bastardizes the source material and turns it into a circus. But deep down, you know you love it because it's big, dumb, fun, and most of all... freakin' hilarious.