First off, a little business: Yesterday morning, I wrote a post regarding Edward Norton's involvement (screenwriting-wise) on next summer's The Incredible Hulk. For certain reasons (which I can't really go into), I've had to pull back the post. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I promise to update you as soon as I can.

But speaking of people who like to crush and ruin things, Brett Ratner has a new movie coming out this weekend. Rush Hour 3, you may have heard of it. I've already seen Rush Hour 3 (my review will come later this week), and it's pretty much what you would expect from an installment in the Rush Hour series. Will it entertain the hardcore fans? Most certainly. But I'd expect most critics to chalk it up as yet another uninspiring, unoriginal Ratner gem. The LA Times recently ran a story (in which yours truly was asked to contribute -- plug! plug!) asking one simple question: Why does the web hate Brett Ratner? I provided them with an answer that had to do with Ratner's consistent need to sex-up his off-screen life and then share it with the world. I don't think anyone cares how many girls Ratner sleeps with, or how many times he's visited the Playboy Mansion -- all we want from the guy is a good movie. And when we'd rather look at Ratner's newest flavor of the week over watching his latest film, that's a problem.

When I asked Cinematical's Scott Weinberg what he thought of Brett Ratner and why "the web" hates the guy so much, he said: "I don't get the praise or the hatred either way. The guy's made a bunch of profitable, mainstream, pretty bad films. If that's a crime against humanity, Ratner should be punished in line behind another 45 directors I could name. Regarding his personal life, I couldn't care less. Make good movies and I like you." But why can't Ratner make a good film? Some liked The Family Man, but I thought it was just another one of Ratner's attempts at a genre he truly didn't understand. Has the guy simply mastered the art of fast food entertainment? Case in point: Twenty minutes after Rush Hour 3 ended, I was hungry again for another, more satisfying film. He's obviously a bankable director box office-wise, but shouldn't we expect more for our dollar? Shouldn't we expect more from our directors?

Note to Brett: Stop pimping yourself out on eBay as if you're a f**king collectible Star Wars figurine, and start figuring out a way to make a compelling motion picture. It's great that you're doing stuff for charity (although 70% is kind of lame -- why not make it a full 100%?), but how about doing something for your audience too? And no, Rush Hour 4 is not an option.