but, they get to keep working anyway.
Let’s start with
Uwe Boll… although, sad to say, I’ve never seen a film of his. But he’s the poster boy for bad films. Any update on that bet of his? Did the voters make him quit or is he still around?
Also, I haven’t like anything Noah Baumbach has done. A lot of people blame his collaboration with Wes Anderson for the severe drop-off from Tenenbaums to Life Aquatic. And after seeing Margot at the Wedding, I’m convinced that man sees nothing but misery and disfunction in life.
Regarding Baumbach: I liked Kicking and Screaming. I thought everything else was kind of… just ok. I didn’t see much revolutionary, or even particularly noteworthy, of the Squid and the Whale. I thought it blended too well with the pack of dysfunctional-family independent dramas/dark comedies.
Also, I’d like to add those guys that make those heinous “parody” movies to this list.
True, I forgot about Kicking and Screaming. That is actually my favorite of his before his venture into exactly what you said… “the pack of dysfunctional-family” films.
I think, although, already mentioned by Number 6, Roland Emmerich embodies the name of the topic, although I liked Independence Day… when I was a kid, lol.
Uwe Boll is the king of crap. He has the opposite of the “Midas touch.”
Worse than all of them are Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Schumacher, Boll and Bay, at least you can see that they TRY to make a good movie and sometimes they do make one. Friedberg-Seltzer spoof “movies” are positively soul-sucking.
I’m gonna just say it: the four “godfathers” of American cinema should have retired years ago and become producers or taken up gardening: SPIELBERG, SCORSESE, COPPOLA and LUCAS! They should have quit while they were in their “prime”, they’re just boys playing with toys now and going through the motions because they can’t ‘not be’ filmmakers (which is fair enough in some respects) but come on, what have they really offered/contributed to cinema since the late 80s or early 90s that would be truly missed? … George I’m still waiting for those “Avant Garde” films that you talk about making.
Erect them a Mount Rushmore-like statue in the Hollywood hills and call it a day.
(and yeah, if you’re gonna thumb me down, then at least enlighten me)
Scorcese has definitely still got it and he’s still one of the most sought-after directors in the entire world. That being said, even though a lot of his best work was in the 80’s, 90’s etc., that doesn’t mean that he all of a sudden isn’t a good film-maker. His first film with a real plot garnered him his first (and long overdue) directing Oscar, which many directors jokingly suggested was due to some of the conventional mindset that exists in Hollywood.
Spielberg: Wait, did you forget Saving Private Ryan? The most accurate and realistic depiction of WWII combined with some of the best camera-work and cinematography you’ll ever see? And I think his career has shown that he could care less about what most critics and cinephiles think about his films because he makes movies for entertainment and the fans. I think Paul Thomas Anderson says it perfectly, “I watch [Steven Spielberg] movies, and know: Those are fairy tales. I understand what he does. And I make a film on cancer and frogs – however I want that many spectators nevertheless! I find that is a good goal, and I consider it a weakness of mine that I haven’t reached it yet”.
Coppola: I’m not too sure if you can make an argument about Coppola too much because he really cut back on his work right around the early 90’s, though he did have the bug and did make a few forgettable pictures (Jack, Rainmaker) since then. But yeah, I think he even knows that he’s past his prime and so he doesn’t take on any more directing besides small projects he’s interested in. And so that’s why he has taken on a lot of producing since then (which you suggest he should to).
Lucas: C’mon, you’re going to rag a guy who openly admits that Star Wars will be his legacy no matter what he does and frankly doesn’t care otherwise? When you have three friends from your youth that are some of the biggest directors of all time, I’m pretty sure that the Star Wars discussion has been killed, ran over and thrown into the river.
If you’re talking about contribution, then I would say that there is clearly no argument. If you’re talking about technology and the technical side of film-making, there is no one that compare in terms of what they have contributed and done for the film industry. If you knew Lucas’s personal feeling on the issue, you’ll know that on every picture he works on (whether he produces, or ILM works on it), he’s extremely concerned with the ability to translate those techniques, ideas and innovation so that they “can completely revolutionize the operating procedure” because he knows that everyone is going to do what they can to get a film made, and he’s extremely generous in that sense of helping other film-makers achieve those goals. Now, I’m not trying to say that he’s completely in control of every aspect that his production companies work on because he’s not, but he finalizes those decisions and has instilled that mentality into his production teams and they in turn, have been able to contribute to countless films.
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0072491/ (yes, that’s just Industrial Light and Magic)
Just realized this thread is about “consistently” bad directors, and somehow Scorcese and Spielberg snuck their way into the likes of Uwe Boll and Michael Bay. (And yes, if you thumbs down-ed Antoine over there, feel free to give him your opinion)
@ Me E 2 Me: lol
Mr. Jealousy is Baumbach’s best movie. I enjoy the hell out of it.
It’s driving me crazy that Spielberg keeps putting Lincoln off. The guy has definitely made more bad movies than good, but if he ever does Lincoln with Liam Neeson I have no doubt that it will be incredible.
Oh, and Brett Ratner is probably the biggest piece of garbage in Hollywood. Holy God is he ever worthless.
Uwe Boll definitely makes the list, but I can almost excuse his existence. I saw him last year at a festival doing a Q&A for POSTAL, his pathetic attempt at making something controversial. He obviously enjoys the negative attention, though he seems to want his movies to be better. As long as video game companies keep paying for these “commercials”, he’ll keep making them. It seems they just like that he works fast and cheap and does what he’s told (which is the problem with most of these guys) and they don’t really care about quality. They just want to get the dvds out. I think the only thing that’s a little interesting about Boll’s movies are the casts he manages to scrape up.
Friedberg and Seltzer are a worthy addition. Who keeps paying for that garbage?
Antoine, I wanted your name, but you got to it first.
I know how you feel, but I agree that Scorcese, especially, and Spielberg mostly, can still put out good work.
I think Coppola has always been overrated, and only has GODFATHER 1 and 2.
Lee, I appreciate your thoughts on Lucas. I also tend to think he resents his STAR WARS legacy, and he should have let others direct the prequels if he had no love for the job. He’s worthy of his own topic, if not several.
I would also like to add Paul W.S. Anderson to the pile. Not to be confused with P.T.A., in case you are unfamiliar with his work. He’s another video game adapter and is also responsible for AVP and the recent DEATH RACE retrash.
I agree w/ Lee. I believe The Departed holds up with Raging Bull and Taxi Driver. The 80’s were the only real bad time for him, and even that’s debatable.
Joel Schumacher is a bastard. He’s always made terrible movies, and always will.
Haha For a second I thought he meant Paul Thomas Anderson ^^
Uwe Boll is definetly…horrible. I, unfortunately, saw Postal. What a piece of crap.
Also, besides A New Hope. All Lucas directed star wars were mediocre or crap.
re: Joel Schumacher~I liked the costumes in Sleeper ;)
haha! nice number 6! i’ll let you know when i retire the name … yeah i guess it would be nice to think they could still make the more grounded, well written, entertaining and “relevent” films which established them in the first place, but i seriously doubt it, i think they have totally become slaves to the hollywood juggernaut (which they had a hand in perpetuating), to technology, to the box office and well written scripts/ideas take a backseat … also when i watch their films, and scorsese and spielberg have been guilty of this for a while now, i can literally see the storyboards before my eyes (the “pre vis”), they really over “think” things and it shows, hitchcock’s films are very “storyboarded” when you break them down (that is the camera placement is completely choreographed to achieve the greatest result/impact) but with his films this is all very seamless and feels natural, perfect even, and of course they’re brilliantly written.
(The south park episode with lucas and spielberg was genius! disturbing! but genius!)
also rewatch (or watch) spielberg’s interview in wender’s “chambre 666” (it’s available on youtube) – his attitude is quite interesting and very telling in the context of the other filmmakers interviewed about the “state of cinema” – all he really talks about is himself and money – but of course he is a “hollywood director”.
The Dardenne Brothers
multiple cock up
Please forgive all of the above vandalism.I’m not sure what happened.
David’s point about justifying opinion intelligently(see below) is a good modus, but folk also just want to chip in sometimes. I like boards that oscillate between the more indepth discussion but are peppered with ‘givens’……it’s colourfull…in my humble opinion.
This thread is actually a great example of the discussion on these boards slowly regressing.
There are opinions and ideas but still a huge lack of relevancy and an unwillingness to respond to their ideas being refuted. In other words, there’s a lot being said, but without anything to back up reason and why you might feel that way, opinions are hardly worth the pixels they’re displayed on.
Oliver Stone offends me and I’m not 100% sure why. Talk Radio was the last Stone film I went to but for some reason I rented Natural Born Killers. He seems to want to have it both ways – glamorizing Gordon Gekko and wanting us to root for him while presenting him as the ‘bad guy’, legitimizing conspiracy theories while claiming he’s only ‘exploring a possibility’ – even his screenplays for Midnight Express and Scarface are grotesque, gratuitously violent and morally ambiguous – and dumb. I saw him on ‘Celebrity Jeopardy’ years ago and Jodie Foster mopped the floor with him.
Antoine, I would only pose a question as to Scorsese simply because I think he still has a passion for the art. Spielberg, Lucas and Coppola no longer seem to share that passion—their passion, when it rears its ugly head is for the money and fame primarily. Scorsese’s Hollywood films are not god-awful nor are they great. They’re good. I hated Gangs, but I blame the Weinstein’s for that. Please, someday let Scorsese’s original edit out of the closet. The best thing that film had going for it was the side dramas around the edges of the main story, and that’s what got cut. I agree that Scorsese’s treading a narrow path that could have him fall into the hands of the cult of Lucas. He needs to remember what Cassavetes told him: “Martin, you just spend a year of your life making shit!” and come back to his own projects. Say what you will about post-GoodFellas Scorsese, I think Bringing Out the Dead is one of the most overlooked films in his oevure. Casino is an excellent film and I think that Kundun is easily pushed to the wayside when it should be seen much more.
David Lee, you may be correct about the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan, but did you forget the remaining two hours? Pure drivel. As an extravaganza filmmaker Spielberg is pretty okay. Jaws is really good, as is Close Encounters (original edit only), and Raiders. Everything else is passable at best or simply offensive at worst (I put all of his dramas in this latter category).
A guy who definitely belongs on this list: Barry Levinson. I guess he gets a pass because 1) he has an Oscar, and 2) he did make Wag the Dog. My replies: 1) Rain Man is a really mediocre movie, and reaches only that level because of Dustin Hoffman; 2) Wag the Dog was terribly directed, but had one of the best screenplays of the last twenty years. Now, let’s look at what else he has made since Rain Man, in reverse chronological order: What Just Happened, Man of the Year, Envy, Bandits, An Everlasting Piece, Liberty Heights, Sphere, Sleepers, Disclosure, Jimmy Hollywood, Toys. When I tell people, they don’t even realize Levinson made this garbage. Four of these (Man of the Year, Envy, Bandits, Sphere, Jimmy Hollywood, Toys) might be among the worst movies made by any director since Rain Man, let alone one man. Disclosure is garbage, too, but topical garbage. Sleepers only benefits from having one of the greatest male casts (De Niro, Hofffman, Pitt, Patric, Bacon, Crudup, Renfro) of the last thirty years, and that movie still stinks. I didn’t see An Everlasting Piece (which did the least business of any of these) or Liberty Heights. I haven’t see What Just Happened? either, but early review sound terrible.
What about before Rain Man? He made Good Morning, Vietnam; Tin Men (unseen by me); Young Sherlock Holmes; and Diner. After Rain Man, he made Bugsy and Avalon. Nobody watches any of these movies anymore because they aren’t very good. These aren’t that bad, but none is that great either. I think Levinson bothers me especially because he gets treated like an auteur. Ha! This run of movies isn’t just a bad streak either: Levinson honestly seems to have no vision behind the camera. Stories meander; editing is sloppy; the look is frequently washed out or too bright, like a bad Tony Scott movie. Oh, boy: why, oh why, is Tony Scott not on this list!
I find it quite amusing that someone can rag on Saving Private Ryan but think Close Encounters is a great film. That movie can’t shake a stick at any science fiction film, nor any good film with ANY science-fiction undercurrent whatsoever (E.T. comes to mind as a similar film to Close Encounters). That 15 minute pack of aliens scene at the end? Man, if it weren’t for Truffaut, I would have just stopped watching.
Although he’s dead-I think Ed Wood!
Jean-Luc Godard after the 60s