fair enough, cutler. fair enough…
Anyone named MARSHALL
Garry, the worst
Penny, first runner up
Rob … well, I’ll give him time to improve
J.R. said it perfectly in his last post
BERTRAND BLIER !!
MARCO FERRERI !!
CECIL B. DE MILLE !!
McG. Isn’t that that fast food joint?
I second the Tim Burton addition. Hate that guy. Ratner… evil.
I would like to address the Cassavetes legacy discussion earlier. I agree in principal to the issue of Cassavetes’ legacy vs Scorsese’s legacy. Scorsese’s, while already shining bright, will continue to do so for long after he has died. Cassavetes’ legacy should not be so casually cast aside as existing only with a statement like this:
“Just because cinephiles, film-junkies and the people who run the Criterion buy his (Cassavetes) DVDs, doesn’t make him any different than the hundreds of other directors that get the same treatment.”
This statement, while based entirely in the realm of personal taste, is rooted in the falsehood that Cassavetes is a ‘minor’ filmmaker of whom the masses are largely unaware. It would be possible to go into greater lengths to explain how false this statement is, but instead I think a simple thing may illustrate it.
When the United States Postal Service created the “American Filmmaking: Behind the Scenes” series of stamps, Cassavetes was the ‘directing’ stamp. See it here:
http://www.usps.com/news/2002/philatelic/stamps/03_filmmaking37_f.jpg
Scoff, if you will but it is a small indicator of how important the legacy of John Cassavetes is to American filmmaking.
whit stillman. can’t stand his self-pitying garbage. boring. the antithesis of bunuel. oh! the indignities of privilege! give me a break.
I guess it really depends on what kind of bad we’re talking about (which is the most illuminating part of the discussion). Personally, I find a lot in most movies that on some level is redeeming. Even directors whose films I don’t much like, such as DePalma’s “Black Dahlia” have something about them that interest or fascinate me (In this particular case, the cinematography and design). So for all the failings and consistence of mediocrity in some of the old masters, I agree with some of the posters who can see the passion and talent involved in the crafting of even the most average (or even bad) film.
It’s the really cynical “bad” filmmakers who are consistently awful that I think deserve the most calling out. Yeah, Coppola has had a bad run for a long while, but his heart is in his work and it shows, even if the quality isn’t so high. But man, those “______ Movie” guys are rotten as Hell, and I’ve seen my fair share of their stuff thanks to television airings. Their work is the definition of what makes a film “bad” in my opinion: Cynical moneymaking ploys, zero style in either the design or camera work, uninspired acting (always traceable back to directors who could care less) and no actual care put into the script. It’s the utter lack of vision at the end of the day. Even Joel Schumacher has a vision. Granted, it’s one that often is terrible, but he digs dark camp (a la his Batman flicks, “Lost Boys”, even “8MM” to a degree) and sticks to it when he’s not doing work for hire tripe like “Bad Company”.
I guess my argument is based on the “Art for art’s sake” concept, but I’ll take that idea over shameless cash grabs by people with no intention other than to make a buck.
This is purely a matter of opinion so I’ll duck out of the way before the tomatoes are hurled…many of the indie filmmakers of the 80’s and 90’s seem to have run off their creative rails
Any Spike Lee movie after Clockers.
Any Kevin Smith movie after Clerks (let’s face it…he’s essentially recycled the same material ad nauseum)
Any Coen Brothers film after The Man Who Wasn’t There (yes…I found No Country for Old Men a rather self-conscious affair…it rhymes!)
Any Gus Van Sant movie after and including Good Will Hunting
Any Richard Linkletter movie after Dazed and Confused
Any Robert Rodriguez film after El Mariachi
Most Steven Soderbergh films after Schizopolis
Self-proclaimed auteur Vincent Gallo!
I can roll with the Spike Lee, Soderbergh, Smith, and Rodriguez… but certainly not Van Sant or Linklater.
And… on the subject of Schumacher, if I remember correctly, Tigerland wasn’t that bad, but maybe that was just comparatively.
Re: Lindenbrock
Any Richard Linklater movie after Dazed And Confused?! Some of his best work is after Dazed And Confused. Before Sunrise, the even better Before Sunset, Waking Life, Tape, even School Of Rock.
Gus Van Sant? I’ll admit he’s hit or miss, but Paranoid Park was brilliant, and while I haven’t seen Milk yet, it looks great. But I’ll agree with you that Good Will Hunting isn’t one of his better films.
Spike Lee – I’ll agree with you on this one assuming you’re not taking his documentaries into account. Let’s not forget 4 Little Girls or When The Levees Broke.
I’ll agree with you about Spike Lee’s documentaries (I had forgotten about that, Levees was a great film. Lee’s future really seems to belong in documentary work).
As I’ve said it’s a matter of opinion, but I found Linkletter’s Waking Life to be absoutely hideous to sit through. I guess I’m the old grumbly curmudgeon, but watching Before Sunrise and Sunset didn’t exactly leave me with my jaw dropping (except to let out some drool).
As far as Van Sant, I was never really a big follower of his films to begin with, and I just never responded to his later stuff. I felt that Elephant was a really overrated movie.
I agree with those who have previously nominated Tim Burton, who consistently makes terrible movies (but obviously has the most forgiving fan base in the world). Close second goes to Oliver Stone.
Uwe Boll, definitely. But with someone like Michael Bay, who claims to be an artist, his being an awful director seems strengthened by the fact that he’s stated this. Sadly, he even has two Criterions to back himself up.
I still enjoy ‘Beetlejuice,’ but that’s about it when it comes to Burton.
Wes Anderson. More sleepy time tea flicks for chicks. And I love that his fans can’t take it when I criticize him.
Rushmore Sucks. Time for thumbs down from the (m)asses of his fans who obviously cannot take it when anyone talks shit about him.
Go watch a real movie like Ivan the Terrible instead of flicks only your girlfiends make you watch
Vincent Gallo and Harmony Korine have never showed any talent. And Rob Reiner who started out okay with Stand By Me, Say Anything, Spinal Tap and Misery hasn’t made a good film in years.
Paul W.S. Anderson and David Goyer
After reading through these I almost tend to agree about Tim Burton…I enjoy his movies when I sit in the theater and stare at them but once one puts thought towards any of them, they tend to be lacking. That being said I did enjoy Sweeney Todd quite a bit but his output is pretty sketchy before that…Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Big Fish, Planet of the Apes, The Corpse Bride..it’s not very flattering..
Also Soderbergh has been on a downward spiral ever since Traffic…-I can’t believe he has followed that film up with the likes of Full Frontal, the Ocean movies, the awful re-make of Solaris, and The Good German…I hope Che changes that streak.
The winner has to be Rob Reiner though..I mean the guy was never going to be an incredible filmmaker but Spinal Tap is one of the funniest movies of all time, Misery has some great acting, and any 10 year old boy who hasn’t been moved by Stand by Me probably has no soul. Still…The Bucket List, Alex and Emma, Rumor Has It, The Story of Us….Ouch.
Reiner’s definitely overdue, but he’s far from consistently terrible. Steve mentions a handful of his pluses, I’ll watch “The American President” any day, and “A Few Good Men” has more than a few worthwhile moments. (His John Cusack movie was “The Sure Thing,” though. Cameron Crowe directed “Say Anything.”)
I guess my thoughts was who is now consistently terrible…Reiner certainly has some good films in the past (in addition to the three I mentioned) and I admit to forgetting about A Few Good Man…good entertainment if I ever saw it.
Still thought for consistent crap these days Reiner kinda takes the cake for me
I suppose I could take the easier route and say Brett Ratner…that guy just sucks.
I certainly wasn’t stomping on your cake, Alexavier. Funny thing about opinions: mine are as wrong as anyone’s, sometimes more often. Whether Reiner or Ratner, stand your ground. I don’t work for either of ’em.
Jerome, you need to calm down and relax. You don’t like wes anderson, we get it, he makes movies for girls, fine, congrats on having a handle that proves your a 14 year old boy.
And if your not, wow.
Ridley Scott – American Gangster is one of the most unoriginal, uninspired, going through the motions gangster flicks I’ve ever seen (most of, I couldn’t get through it it was so poorly done), Black Hawk Down is a huge hit with the rough and tumble “We Heart Big American War Flicks” crowd, you know the type who watch a war movie and go “Yeah, that’s a blah blah blah 20 gauge blah blah blah, you can only get those with blah blah blah”, you know, dudes who get misty reading guns ‘n ammo, they heart Black Hawk Down, I however heart films with actors, not heart throbs looking gritty and sad praying for an oscar nom. Matchstick Men should have gotten Scott on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity, that film is unwatchable. Same with A Good Year, I can’t imagine who would like to see caveman russell crowe hanging out and drinking wine for two bloody hours. Gladiator wouldn’t be so bad had it been allowed to simply be a summer popcorn film, the fact that it was best picture should shame america just as much as guantanamo and abu ghraib, his early work, fantastic, Alien, The Duelists, Blade Runner (although I’m in the minority apparently who liked the v.o. narration), but the last 20 years have been complete crap, Hannibal? UGH. Nothing like taking a strong character like Clarice Starling and turning her into the weepiest broad around, courtesy of Julianne “I Heard You Needed A Weepy Broad” Moore, who I adore as an actor in most things she’s in, but she should’ve never been in that role and that film should never have been made.
Tim Burton – I consider “Ed Wood” to be the only true “film” he’s ever made, the rest being popcorn movies, also the more I delve into cinema history the more Burton’s films look extremely derivative and uninspired. Planet Of The Apes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Mars Attacks, Big Fish, complete and utter dreck, every single one of them. Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, are great movies, but he’s made far more unwatchable garbage than he has actually enjoyable films.
Levinson – Definitely. I don’t have anything more to add to the kicking he’s gotten already except, well done, everyone, he truly sucks.
I think most are being unfair to Uwe Boll, I like to think of bad films in two categories,
A. Bad movies that are just mindless, dumb flicks. Like a Steven Segall film. It’s a crappy movie, but really it’s not supposed to be groundbreaking art.
B. Bad movies that pretend they are good movies. The FAR worse of the crowd, here you find your “Southland Tales”, your “Revolver” types, your “Garden State”s, movies so puffed up with absurd pretension they make Matthew Barney look humble and introspective.
The second type are far, far worse in my opinion. I would rather a million Uwe Bolls than one Ridley Scott, I’d rather watch a Tony Scott film than a George Clooney film, it’s the pretension that ruins it.
And speaking of pretension, Speilberg is all but completely irrelevant to today’s cinema, he’s made nothing but one cinematic travesty after the next, I personally hate War Of the Worlds, A.I., and Minority Report, but at the very least, they look good and are competently made, the latest Indy flick is unwatchable. It looks like it was made by a confused film school drop out whose taking his first crack at this, not a season film vet.
I think David Goyer is a good call.
Meathead Reiner and Gary Marshall both had it and lost it, big time.
Tim Burton needs to stop doing covers, and produce something original again.
And, I can’t fault Linklater and Soderbergh for trying something new every film. Some of the experiments don’t work, but at least they’re taking risks. Not many mainstream directors change it up as much as those two.
While I sort of agree with what you say about Soderbergh…doing three Ocean films doesn’t exactly constitute originality. Also since his experiments constantly seem to fail, in my opinion, he would probably be better off going another route.
I’d agree with Linklater…his output is so diverse it has to be applauded..But that’s coming from someone who enjoys School of Rock and Before Sunset.
Did anyone mention Brian Depalma? The extent to which he has been able to descend from reasonably well-made films to complete dreck is weird.
Mathieu Kassovitz. I LOVE La Haine, but anything anything else he’s done is shit.
John Woo. His early Hong Kong stuff is awesome, but once he set foot in the US he just kinda sucked.
Joe Carnahan.
Let’s always say Brett Ratner!:) The ultimate shitty overrated ass kisser!
hellloooooo M Night Shyamalan… i mean, why do people keep letting him handle cameras ? Making 5 pieces of crap in a row ? FIVE, PEOPLE, FIVE!!
Baumbauch: ‘Mr Jealousy’ is very good, everything else of hisI perfer the SOUNDTRACKS to the films than the actual movies themselves. Dude has good taste in tuneage. (Luna! Evie Sands!… awesomeness)
BTW: ‘Multiple Cockup’ sounds like a gay porn film title. Someone needs to contact Falcon asap
Irvin Contreras
I’m not a fan but the first “Charlie’s Angels” movie had a fun, goofy charm and Bill Murray was terrific in it. I wouldn’t put McG in my list of WORST filmmakers.