By Sean Nelson
Special to MSN Movies

Summer is here, and with it blockbuster season at the movies. Big events this year include the return of Indiana Jones and "X-Files" agents Mulder and Scully, Hulk and Batman sequels, a film version of the '60s TV series "Get Smart," plus vehicles for funnymen Mike Myers, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy and Will Ferrell, and a rash of other big budget extravaganzas.

Odds are good that many of these pictures will prove popular with moviegoers, who, as we all know, will see just about anything a good ad campaign tells them to. Odds are even better that many, if not most, of these films will suck, hard.

There are plenty of reasons movies conceived to be big moneymakers don't age well -- the cheap thrills, special effects and so-called "high concepts" associated with blockbusters tend to wear thin on repeated viewings, and once the marketing wears off all that's left is a dim memory of being pandered to for a couple of hours in a room full of strangers. You can't even really blame the filmmakers, except in some cases (see below). After all, the more people you have to please, the less you're able to say.

In fairness, not all blockbusters are bad; take a stroll down the top 20 moneymakers of all time and you're likely to find several titles that qualify as legitimate classics. But as studios feel the pressure to put up bigger and bigger numbers, the bigger hits start feeling like bigger disappointments as years (and DVDs) go by. Here's a list of some of the box office's worst successes, with a couple of lifetime achievement awards included to dishonor two repeat offenders.

"Star Wars" Episodes I, II, III (1999, 2002, 2005)
This tale has been told many times, but it bears repeating. When George Lucas reopened the Pandora's box of his "Star Wars" series to make three "prequels" for a new generation of consumers, he ruined everything. Even the original trilogy now feels like some kind of weird suppressed memory. Looking back, weren't they kind of chintzy and awful, too? They certainly are now with all the digital changes Lucas has added. But, by contrast with the new trio, Episodes IV, V and VI are "The Godfather" I and II and "Citizen Kane"! Forget Jar Jar Binks -- "The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" were all born dead, victims of lazy and cynical writing, filmmakers more interested in technological breakthroughs than in captivating viewers and, ultimately, a lack of vision. Lucas knew people would come see anything that said "Star Wars" on it, so he killed the goose to see where the gold came from. Even the force can't save him now.

"E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" (1982)
Not so fast, Spielberg. You may be respectable now with your "Schindler's List" and your "Saving Private Ryan," and you may have hit a few home runs with movies about dinosaurs and sharks and the like, but let us never forget that you once made the most preposterously sentimental and manipulative film ever, and you put a puppet with a glowing finger in the middle of it. When I was 9 years old, I cried at the sight of Elliott being forced to say goodbye to his one and only true friend, the little Reese's Pieces-loving (nice marketing, there, by the way) potato head, because I, too, was a child of divorce, and I knew how it felt to feel alone. Looking back now, I feel cheated out of those tears and incredulous that the whole world once lined up to see such a cheap looking toy tear a little boy's heart out.

"Home Alone," "Home Alone 2" (1990, 1992)
Speaking of little boys, here's a movie that no one could have seen coming. (Well, two movies, actually, but they're identical.) An adorable little towhead gets accidentally ditched by his family, then spends 100 minutes playing in an empty house and sadistically pummeling two hapless burglars using techniques devised by Bugs Bunny. If it sounds like it was created by a machine, it was.

(Story Continues On Next Page...)

Page 1 of 2

Next