As a movie journalist/critic, I see 200+ new movies a year. Ask any reviewer and they will tell you that the least enjoyable films to watch are the average and mediocre. The movies that fit into the 4-6.5 on a 10 point scale. Bad films are atleast fun to tear apart, and great and good films are fun to gush over, but those movies in the middle are just uninteresting. And the worst thing you can ever be is boring or uninteresting.

The actual definition of “hack” is “to work for hire” or to “just do the job”. It’s a common misconception that “hack” means horrible or bad. It in fact means mediocre or average. The reason why Michael Bay or McG does not fit the definition of hack is because he offers a style that is over and above the call. Like him or hate him, he has a look and feel of his own, which he actually works towards. II could present you with a set of clips, one directed by Michael Bay, and you would be able to point to the clip even without having seen the movie. Brett Ratner on the other hand is just average. He brings nothing to the table, and what he does bring is average and mediocre talents and insights. The first Rush hour movie was fun, the other two were progressively bad.Ratner was able to take great source material for the X3 script and turn it into a bland super hero movie, which falls far from it’s two Bryan Singer predecessors.

Quick question: why do you (and countless other people) keep insisting that Brett Ratner is a “hack director”? His movies are at least as enjoyable as the ones by, say, McG (who you defend), Stephen Sommers, etc… The Rush Hour movies are fun, they were never meant to be great movies. After The Sunset was incredible fun, and beautiful to look at. As for X-Men 3, it’s the worst of the trilogy, but I think the problem lay more in story than in directing. Brett did a good job in keeping Bryan’s vision.

Anyway, just my opinion