Name the worst of all living film-makers.

[norton ash]

^^ Fair enough. I appreciate the strong feelings on defanging Sinclair's more radical message.

[8bitagent]

I agree with Tim Burton. Starting with Mars Attacks in 1996, I've found virtually every film he's done in the last 15 years nearly unwatchable. Though I havent even been able to bring myself to watch his more recent ghoulish offerings(Alice in Wonderland, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc) I did find Big Fish ok...but really other than his 84-90 stuff, Ive had issues with his work from Batman Returns on.

Ridley Scott. Ok now this chap went from being the shining example of mind blowing and precise cinema with big ideas and visuals we had never seen, with gripping storytelling...to just one flop after another by the mid 90's. I fail to see a difference between he and Michael Bay at a certain point. I'm holding out hope that the new Alien film "Prometheus" will be ok, but you can look at almost any film he's done since GI Jane and see how it doesnt even come close to measuring up.

Worst film Ive ever seen in my life? Sadly I have to say it comes from one of my FAVORITE directors: David Lynch's 2007 "Inland Empire". Man there was so many times I wanted to walk out of that theater. (Yes, I actually saw that turkey in the cinema) I appreciate the camcorder home movie look in some films, but not a Lynch.

Maybe the reason Kubrick never made more movies is because he never wanted to make a rotten egg. I've seen every Kubrickian experience and am blown away by every one, including the much maligned Barry Lyndon

Btw, what's everyones take on the Coen Brothers? I have yet to see a bad movie from them. Sure I didn't like Burn After Reading as much as No Country For Old Men or Lebowski, but even their quiet films like A Serious Man have something strong in them I can get into.

[DrVolin]

Worst film Ive ever seen in my life? Sadly I have to say it comes from one of my FAVORITE directors: David Lynch's 2007 "Inland Empire".

You've led a sheltered life. Watch Game Over aka Maximum Surge and get back to me

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382178/

[Spiro C. Thiery]

^^ Fair enough. I appreciate the strong feelings on defanging Sinclair's more radical message.

Cool. I guess I shouldn't get so worked up. If it helps at all, watch it again and imagine Ron Howard having made it. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[JackRiddler]

Maybe the reason Kubrick never made more movies is because he never wanted to make a rotten egg.

No one ever will be as thorough on development, which took many years, but otherwise it's financing falling apart, i.e., the same reason everyone doesn't get to make more movies, unless they're just some technician producing factory product.

I've seen every Kubrickian experience and am blown away by every one, including the much maligned Barry Lyndon

Maligned? By whom?! That's number one.

The maligned one was Eyes Wide Shut.

[streeb]

Maligned? By whom?! That's number one.

The maligned one was Eyes Wide Shut.

I think they were all maligned at first, from 2001 onwards. In my mind there's a general 10 year gap before people start saying, 'Wow, xxxx is actually an amazing movie.' I remember very dreary reviews for The Shining and Full Metal Jacket, from critics and viewers alike. On the other hand, those viewers were people like my mom and dad. Maybe I should adjust for that. (and lots of folk are still hating on EWS)

By the way, after six pages I'm sticking with Kevin Smith. Even though I liked Mallrats. But that's it. He doesn't understand cinema. Or he does, and he doesn't give a shit. On the other hand, all his movies are still better than any of the ones I've never made, plus Barracuda's right. 'I don't like it' isn't criticism.

[Nordic]

Kevin Smith made one of my most hated movies of all time, "Dogma".

But the worst movie ever to reach my eyeballs? Has to be "Caligula."

OR maybe "Speed Racer".

WTF happened to those guys, anyway? After "Bound", which was great, then "The Matrix", which was great, it was just like they fell off a cliff.

[JackRiddler]

.

Okay, DrV and Mr. Fish, you raise an important question: Who or what the fuck brought you into a movie theater projecting the work entitled Transformers 2?

.

[barracuda]

Speed Racer

I have to take exception to that. Speed Racer is, really, not a bad movie at all. Within the conventions of cartoon remakes, it is among the best, even if that's not saying much. And I think the Wachowskis were pushing the limits of visual territory with much of the imagery in the film. It has a great eye-blistering Japanese-influenced psychedelia about it, along with perfect casting and the exactly right uncondescending tone and ending. And a pitch-perfect performance by "Kenzie" and Willy" as Chim Chim!! I hated the cartoon, but I enjoyed the movie, and look forward to their next productions.

Also - Tim Burton. Whatever you may think of his later oeuvre, Corpse Bride is a work of art. It may be a successful work or not in your estimation, but it is a genuine attempt. As well, it is an act of patronage by Burton for an artform which is in need of preservation.

Okay, DrV and Mr. Fish, you raise an important question: Who or what the fuck brought you into a movie theater projecting the work entitled Transformers 2?

Most films with a budget over 100 or 150 million dollars will get a looky-look by me, though I must admit, I watch that one on DVD.

[DrVolin]

.

Okay, DrV and Mr. Fish, you raise an important question: Who or what the fuck brought you into a movie theater projecting the work entitled Transformers 2?

.

In that particular case, a 14 year old son. But I also see a lot of movies on planes that I wouldn't normally see in the theater or on DVD at home.

[8bitagent]

Kevin Smith made one of my most hated movies of all time, "Dogma".

But the worst movie ever to reach my eyeballs? Has to be "Caligula."

OR maybe "Speed Racer".

WTF happened to those guys, anyway? After "Bound", which was great, then "The Matrix", which was great, it was just like they fell off a cliff.

The Matrix Reloaded is my favorite of the Matrix films, with the third one an utter miserable loathsome experience in my view. I felt unease just seeing the Speed Racer trailer in just how garishly shitty it looks.

Maybe the reason Kubrick never made more movies is because he never wanted to make a rotten egg.

No one ever will be as thorough on development, which took many years, but otherwise it's financing falling apart, i.e., the same reason everyone doesn't get to make more movies, unless they're just some technician producing factory product.

I've seen every Kubrickian experience and am blown away by every one, including the much maligned Barry Lyndon

Maligned? By whom?! That's number one.

The maligned one was Eyes Wide Shut.

Well in film class, lists I've seen online and sentiments I've seen cast Lyndon as his most "boring". Eyes Wide Shut is my absolute favorite Kubrick masterpiece, followed by 2001. In retrospect I consider Eyes Wide Shut a sequel to 2001 after reading this: http://wrongwaywizard.blogspot.com/2008 ... izard.html

Watching 2001, it's astonishing filming began in 1965; as it looks so modern in a lot of it. So many films of 15/25 years later dealing with space look so unbelievably cheesy. But I also think THX 1138 is Lucas's best work.

[8bitagent]

Is it wrong that all the critic's favorite film of last year(Black Swan) was my LEAST favorite movie? I'm beginning to find Darren Aronofsky highly overrated. I wanted to like the Fountain, and while I loved The Wrestler, Pi and Requiem for a Dream...I just found nothing to like with Black Swan story/dialog and especially cinematography wise. Also wasnt impressed with The Fighter

And what happened to Michael Mann? He made these amazing films like Heat, Insider, Manhunter...even Collateral I loved. But Miami Vice? Public Enemies? Looked like they were filmed on an old camcorder, with just nothing interesting about them

.

Okay, DrV and Mr. Fish, you raise an important question: Who or what the fuck brought you into a movie theater projecting the work entitled Transformers 2?

.

Would it be safe to assume most of us feel Michael Bay is the worst director for artistic, political and other reasons? Transformers 2 was one of the most unpleasant viewing experiences I've had, a more racist muddled mess of a war propaganda film with zero sense of development or timing I cannot think of. It's definitely in my top 5 worst films list

[Searcher08]

He sounds like he would do projects like Sound of Music 2 - The Hills have Ears

[brekin]

barracuda wrote:

Nordic wrote:
Speed Racer


I have to take exception to that. Speed Racer is, really, not a bad movie at all. Within the conventions of cartoon remakes, it is among the best, even if that's not saying much. And I think the Wachowskis were pushing the limits of visual territory with much of the imagery in the film. It has a great eye-blistering Japanese-influenced psychedelia about it, along with perfect casting and the exactly right uncondescending tone and ending. And a pitch-perfect performance by "Kenzie" and Willy" as Chim Chim!! I hated the cartoon, but I enjoyed the movie, and look forward to their next productions.

Also - Tim Burton. Whatever you may think of his later oeuvre, Corpse Bride is a work of art. It may be a successful work or not in your estimation, but it is a genuine attempt. As well, it is an act of patronage by Burton for an artform which is in need of preservation.

I have to agree about Speed Racer. I just saw Tron Legacy and Speed Racer was everything Tron Legacy was suppose to be;
visually stunning, fast, compelling, simple, clean, etc and I also hated the cartoon, but the film is like a nice lozenge for your frontal lobes.
Tron Legacy was like having to watch a two hour narrative sequence between levels in
a video game. Speed Racer I found more enjoyable then all the Matrix's after the first one.

I actually missed Corpse Bride, but after Planet of the Apes, Willy Wonka, Alice in Wonderland, etc
it would be like going back to patronage a drug dealer who had sold you bad shit that had killed your girl friend.
Your only allowed so many.

One thing I think makes critiquing directors (or any other professional) who have done good or great things in the past and then later birth monstrosities is that I would think those first projects there were more obstacles, compromises, collaborations and limitations that they had to work with. As they get more successful they get more options, access, autonomy and power and so their work is a closer estimation of who they are and what they really want to accomplish.

The obvious example is George Lucas. If you read about the making of the first trilogy, and especially the first movie, you can see that for him it was a utter failure.
There was so much more he wanted to do, more planets, storylines, special effects, etc but he was squeezed and limited in every direction and could only accomplish a
fraction of his vision. That is what helped make those movie great I think.

With more time, almost unlimited resources and control he makes three more movies that even ardent fans probably only watch out of sense of duty. It's like the incredible
struggling punk band that finally makes it, and wants to put string arrangements in all their later albums.

[JackRiddler]

One thing I think makes critiquing directors (or any other professional) who have done good or great things in the past and then later birth monstrosities is that I would think those first projects there were more obstacles, compromises, collaborations and limitations that they had to work with. As they get more successful they get more options, access, autonomy and power and so their work is a closer estimation of who they are and what they really want to accomplish.

Interesting. Your example of Lucas fits this profile, but he's one-of-a-kind and exceptionally dweeby about his vision, which was harmless in the first place. Cameron is another one who probably gets to do exactly what he wants with half a billion dollars, but Avatar was practically financed out of his own pocket and anyway his return rates have always been phenomenal, unmatched. And despite this total freedom, what do you see? Other than that he's free to take his time, Avatar has the same hero-story conventions, act structure, sequencing of fights in order of the villain's importance, and predictable outcomes as in all the other big budget movies. ("But Pandora feels so real!! I wanna live there!!")

Generally I believe the opposite of what you say applies. Lower budgets mean lower stakes, more risks allowed. You can make an indie about two cowboys falling in love, but a studio and the bankers are not going to let Return of the Jedi end with Luke Skywalker and Han Solo happily married and having a swinger's foursome with Chewbacca and a robot on the freshly pimped-up deck of the Millennium Falcon, no matter how much Lucas may want that. (Pat Robertson probably thinks it already happened.)

Small production means one person might exercise control over all aspects. They may have more original ideas when young, thus produce more interesting work. If they succeed and access huge budgets that means more bankers and insurers, more rules, simultaneous crews in diverse locations, battalions of unknown animators in Korea, etc. You can't cast an ensemble of unknowns. A 100 million dollar budget will be run on commercial algorithms with sequels in mind. If you fuck up one of those, it's much worse than if you make an indie flop. (And actually there's no such thing as an indie flop, since most barely make any money in the first place and it's success if you get to haunt festivals and cable channels. Ever wonder why the thank-you lists are so long? At least half of those entries should be listed instead as "Unpaid Labor," from family and friends.)

How many current blockbusters ever really surprise you? It's all formula. Big budget places limits on creative control in a million ways. Transformers 3 will not see Earth destroyed, unless it ends with "To Be Continued" and T4 is already in the can with the story of how they un-destroyed Earth. There will not be a 20-minute interlude in which Shia LaBoeuf takes a ballet lesson and finds himself. "The Amazing Spiderman" is not going to see the hero beheaded on screen halfway through the movie, and then turn into a poignant bitter comedy about Peter Parker's funeral, not even if David Mamet writes the script and wins a Nobel Prize for it. Etc.

.