The Classical Music Guide Forums

It's a pretty vital question for movie buffs: What's the worst feature ever made by a director with a major reputation?

What's the kind of film you think he should be ashamed of himself for making? Likely candidates appear in many, many corners--among the general consensus, there're nominees like:

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA:
One From The Heart

ALFRED HITCHCOCK:
Under Capricorn

SIDNEY LUMET:
The Wiz

SYDNEY POLLOCK:
Bobby Deerfield

STEVEN SPIELBERG:
(several entries competing:) Hook, 1941, Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom

RON HOWARD:
How The Grinch Stole Christmas (or, possibly, Far And Away)

ARTHUR PENN:
The Missouri Breaks

VINCENTE MINNELLI:
The Sandpiper

ROBERT ALTMAN:
Popeye

The Sandpiper's my personal nominee (with Temple Of Doom not far behind).....'course, Ron Howard's never been taken as seriously as the other guys here, and you doubtless have a nominee not on this list of hopefuls.

'Waterworld'- A big budget flop directed by Kevin Costner as a baseball player. Enough said.

Costner did win a best Oscar for 'Dance With Wolves' in 1991. I wonder does that qualify him for the title of Great Director?

stenka razin wrote:'Waterworld'- A big budget flop directed by Kevin Costner as a baseball player. Enough said.

Costner did win a best Oscar for 'Dance With Wolves' in 1991. I wonder does that qualify him for the title of Great Director?

Well, perhaps no more than Michael Cimino....both men very quickly built their reputations as directors & got Oscars for it, only to meet with well-publicized flop follow-ups (of course, Costner was given the Oscar ostensibly so that nobody would have to bother giving him Best Actor).

With Ron Howard, I know I was stretching it a bit, though he always had his "please take him seriously" crowd. His award for A Beautiful Mind was thought almost to be an "apology" Oscar. But Grinch was the kind of movie a lot of us suspected he'd eventually make.

Ingmar Bergman: Now About All These Women

What about M. Night Syamalan dropping from "Sixth Sense" down to the level of "Lady in the Water."

Wowee, I've only just started exploring Bergman in more depth--didn't know he was capable of a bad picture. He's human just like you & me, but still....

Here're a couple more:

JOHN BOORMAN
The Exorcist II: The Heretic

HAL ASHBY
Lookin' To Get Out (of course, Lance might very well want to substitue The Last Detail....and still others might pick the Rolling Stones concert movie, Let's Spend The Night Together)

Martin Scorsese:

In case Scorsese meant Shine a Light as homage to Fred Wiseman, I'll go with Gangs of New York.

But I'm making invidious comparisons to two Scorsese masterworks:The Last Waltz and Mean Streets

jserraglio wrote:Martin Scorsese:

In case Scorsese meant Shine a Light as homage to Fred Wiseman, I'll go with Gangs of New York.

But I'm making invidious comparisons to two Scorsese masterworks:The Last Waltz and Mean Streets

Gangs of New York? Come on, man! DDLewis and most of the character actors were terrific, the mise-en-scène was marvelous, and the movie was strong enough even to overcome the stultifying presence of Leonardo DiCaprio--something no other movie has ever achieved. For really bad Scosese you need look no further than The Last Temptation of Christ.

At least Scorsese really is a great director. I don't think most of those mentioned above come close to qualifying.

Stanley Kubrick - Barry Lyndon

-G

GOTTA settle down to finally seeing Barry....I've just duped an entire Kubrick filmography onto DVD-R for my own use. OTHERS may point to The Shining (which I like) for this special honor.

Let's go to MIKE NICHOLS: the man may have achieved distinction 4 decades back with The Graduate and Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? ; but the man's debased himself more and more with his entries of the past quarter-century. I think he really hit bottom with Heartburn (which rank among Streep's & Nicholson's artistic disasters as well....no thanx to money-mad writer Nora Ephron as well).

There are some, too, who'd consider Wolf, or even Working Girl, as the dregs of Nichols' "art."

Wallingford wrote:GOTTA settle down to finally seeing Barry

Do...one of the greatest of his many great achievements. The natural light cinematography is stunning, right up there with Ridley Scott's The Duellists.

I have never seen Barry Lyndon, but I have noticed it on the list of greatest movies of all time. My curiosity is piqued now.

'Course, I'm not much of a Ryan O'Neal fan, though this presumably was when he was still a hot property.

DavidRoss wrote:

Wallingford wrote:GOTTA settle down to finally seeing Barry

Do...one of the greatest of his many great achievements. The natural light cinematography is stunning, right up there with Ridley Scott's The Duellists.

Sure looks nice, but it's a bore!

-G

IcedNote wrote:(Re. Barry Lyndon) Sure looks nice, but it's a bore!

I felt similarly at the time of its original release when I was in my mid-twenties. When next I saw it, many years later, I was not bored at all...nor the last time just four or five years ago. How do you feel about Scorsese's The Age of Innocence, Ang Lee's The Ice Storm, or any Merchant-Ivory film?

John F wrote:Ingmar Bergman: Now About All These Women

I thought I had seen all of Bergmans films (some many times) but this one escaped me...I guess I am fortunate....I consider myself a big fan...What year did this come out What actors did he use..

Robert

Spielberg's 'Hook'. What a misguided effort.

stenka razin wrote:Spielberg's 'Hook'. What a misguided effort.

I liked that movie! Of course, I was 10 when it came out.

-G

practically anything Woody Allen has directed since 1992's Husbands & Wives...

Jared wrote:practically anything Woody Allen has directed since 1992's Husbands & Wives...

Yes, he was a great director, wasn't he? From the early comedies--most of them destined to be classics--to the occasional forays into Bergman-inspired seriousness, like Interiors and Crimes and Misdemeanors, his films were must-sees, mostly brilliant, touching, amusing, and fundamentally tender and sympathetic glimpses into our human souls. Then, around the time his relationship with his adopted daughter became known, his art went off the rails and his movies became hit and miss. Nowadays, instead of lining up for tickets on the opening day of a new Woody Allen film (I saw Manhattan three times the week it opened!), I don't even bother to rent them on DVD, having been disappointed at least one time too many.

DavidRoss wrote: Nowadays, instead of lining up for tickets on the opening day of a new Woody Allen film (I saw Manhattan three times the week it opened!).

I hope you were then inspired to take a teenage girl to see 'The Sorrow & The Pity'...

Jared wrote:

DavidRoss wrote: Nowadays, instead of lining up for tickets on the opening day of a new Woody Allen film (I saw Manhattan three times the week it opened!).

I hope you were then inspired to take a teenage girl to see 'The Sorrow & The Pity'...

No, but I was inspired to tell everyone I knew about the glories of Gordon Willis's cinematography, of Gershwin's music, and of Allen's self-parodying skewering of pretentious intellectuals.

DavidRoss wrote:

Jared wrote:

DavidRoss wrote: Nowadays, instead of lining up for tickets on the opening day of a new Woody Allen film (I saw Manhattan three times the week it opened!).

I hope you were then inspired to take a teenage girl to see 'The Sorrow & The Pity'...

No, but I was inspired to tell everyone I knew about the glories of Gordon Willis's cinematography, of Gershwin's music, and of Allen's self-parodying skewering of pretentious intellectuals.

so, who else would you place in your 'Academy for the Overrated' besides Schumann?

Jared wrote:so, who else would you place in your 'Academy for the Overrated' besides Schumann?

Ha! Not Schumann, of course. He's not one of my favorites, nor would I rank him among the dozen or most extraordinary "greats," but I wouldn't quibble with putting him in the second rank, consistent with the critical consensus, so I don't think he's overrated at all--except by a particular fellow whose hyperbolic proselytizing for his main squeeze probably puts more people off Schumann than not...just as a fellow at the "other" forum is notorious for doing with Elgar.

By the AftO, do you mean movie directors?

^^ well, as per the film, any artist from Mahler to Van Gogh, irrespective of form...

and your comment about Elgar is an interesting one. I don't frequent any other CM forums beside here, but in the UK, there resides a small but sizeable minority who will vehemently defend Elgar's 'genius'; something I find rather off-putting... it's not helped by the text at the Elgar birthplace museum itself, which seems to take for granted that Elgar is the greatest composer Britain has ever produced..

(so, can I just whisper quietly to you, that I prefer RVW?... )

Jared wrote:^^ well, as per the film, any artist from Mahler to Van Gogh, irrespective of form...

and your comment about Elgar is an interesting one. I don't frequent any other CM forums beside here, but in the UK, there resides a small but sizeable minority who will vehemently defend Elgar's 'genius'; something I find rather off-putting... it's not helped by the text at the Elgar birthplace museum itself, which seems to take for granted that Elgar is the greatest composer Britain has ever produced..

(so, can I just whisper quietly to you, that I prefer RVW?... )

Don't most people? (Though if I could take only one work by either it would probably be Elgar's VCC.)

From my point of view there's nothing wrong with Elgar, no need to defend or promote his "genius" (whatever that is--the minute people start talking about "genius" it's usually a good indication that their elevators don't go all the way to the top floor!). Some of his music is even "great" and universally recognized as such. But when the screwballs start running around proclaiming Elgar as the greatest composer who ever lived, Beethoven wasn't fit to wax his moustache, and anyone who doesn't agree is an idi*t...well, at that point they're obviously doing more harm than good, which they could see, too, if only their heads weren't so busy inspecting their lower intestines.

Let's see, BLAKE EDWARDS certainly had more than his share of meltdowns, including:

Darling Lili
A Fine Mess
Trail Of The Pink Panther
Skin Deep

(.....in fact, some would say 10 is unworthy of someone of his reputation)

JOHN HUSTON
Annie

Just saw a candidate this morning on AMC:
Modesty Blaise
-Joseph Losey...though I understand his The Assassination of Trotsky is on many such lists.

Others:
The Shining
-Stanley Kubrick...a film clearly elevating style over substance, but what style! FWIW, I love Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut, as well as most everything else he's done.

Where the Truth Lies
-Atom Egoyan...utter trash from a director I greatly admire.

Fred and Ginger
-Federico Fellini...it was downhill from Amarcord, though City of Women had its moments and resonances.

Faraway, So Close
-Wim Wenders...an off-target, over-indulgent sequel to his outstanding Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin) that needn't have been made.


And since we're weighing in on Ron Howard, I'd like to submit Gung Ho -- it depicts the worst exaggerations of traits supposedly attributable to both Japanese corporate culture and American unionized labor and puts Michael Keaton in the middle of it; I was not amused. With a smarter and more insightful script, this could have been a comedy for the ages. As it is, it's ultimately an abject embarrassment.

David Mamet

"Heist"
"Glengarry Glen Ross" <I know, I know, people raved about it, I thought it was horrid>

moldyoldie wrote:Just saw a candidate this morning on AMC:
Modesty Blaise
-Joseph Losey...though I understand his The Assassination of Trotsky is on many such lists.

Others:
The Shining
-Stanley Kubrick...a film clearly elevating style over substance, but what style! FWIW, I love Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut, as well as most everything else he's done.

Where the Truth Lies
-Atom Egoyan...utter trash from a director I greatly admire.

Fred and Ginger
-Federico Fellini...it was downhill from Amarcord, though City of Women had its moments and resonances.

Faraway, So Close
-Wim Wenders...an off-target, over-indulgent sequel to his outstanding Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin) that needn't have been made.


And since we're weighing in on Ron Howard, I'd like to submit Gung Ho -- it depicts the worst exaggerations of traits supposedly attributable to both Japanese corporate culture and American unionized labor and puts Michael Keaton in the middle of it; I was not amused. With a smarter and more insightful script, this could have been a comedy for the ages. As it is, it's ultimately an abject embarrassment.

Well, matters of taste are personal. I find The Shining to be the only Kubrick movie I can watch, and Far Away, So Close a marvellous counter-point to Wings of Desire. I would have picked Until the End of the World as Wenders "mistake".

But as I say, taste is unique. Most probably wouldn't share my adoration of Repo Man.

Brendan wrote:I would have picked Until the End of the World as Wenders "mistake".

I'm withholding final judgment till I see the three-part 280-minute director's cut...which may be never. I do accord Wenders plenty of style points on the theatrical version.

Another one some cinastes seem to look down on is The End of Violence. Even with it's humongous plot hole, however, it still resonates.

I've yet to see The Lisbon Story, The Million Dollar Hotel, Land of Plenty and probably others; so perhaps my Wenders entry is ipso facto premature.

Brendan wrote:Most probably wouldn't share my adoration of Repo Man.

Not true; while not necessarily "adoring" Repo Man, I certainly enjoy and admire it.

Pleasant surprises are always welcome, including my own complete misreading of taste.

I'm just glad someone else even knows Repo Man exists.

Now I'm trying to think of Ridley Scott's "Big Mistake". Loved his early work and some of his later (The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down), but didn't muich care for Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. Now I thought of it, it has to be the latter.

Madame wrote:David Mamet

"Heist"
"Glengarry Glen Ross" <I know, I know, people raved about it, I thought it was horrid>

Yes--especially the latter. Simply awful.

Brendan wrote:Pleasant surprises are always welcome, including my own complete misreading of taste.

I'm just glad someone else even knows Repo Man exists.

Now I'm trying to think of Ridley Scott's "Big Mistake". Loved his early work and some of his later (The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down), but didn't muich care for Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. Now I thought of it, it has to be the latter.

Repo Man--Harry Dean Stanton at his best (Paris, Texas was pretty darned good, too!)

As poor as Kingdom of Heaven was, it still was less boring than 1492, and both were masterpieces compared with Legend, the only complete waste of filmstock he's made (hard not to flop with Tom Cruise in the cast!). As for Kubrick, the only complete turkey in his magnificent career was Eyes Wide Shut -- again the Cruise factor is hard to contend with (though both Anderson and Reiner ovecame it), but this flick was complete dreck even without Cruise figuring into it.

Well, I for one cannot abide Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket or Lolita. A Clockwork Orange always suffered from the exclusion of the final chapter (although I see it is cut from American editions of the book as well), Dr Strangelove is better in memory than watching it again, and I'm surprised how dated I find 2001: A Space Odyssey these days. Haven't seen Spartacus in a very long time.

But each to their own. I know plenty of people love Kubrick's work.

I never saw Legend (Cruise factor) so I'll take your word for how awful it is.

Brendan wrote:Well, I for one cannot abide Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket or Lolita. A Clockwork Orange always suffered from the exclusion of the final chapter (although I see it is cut from American editions of the book as well), Dr Strangelove is better in memory than watching it again, and I'm surprised how dated I find 2001: A Space Odyssey these days. Haven't seen Spartacus in a very long time.

But each to their own. I know plenty of people love Kubrick's work.

I never saw Legend (Cruise factor) so I'll take your word for how awful it is.

Yep, different strokes: Lolita, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket are three of my favorite films by any director. I agree that 2001 is dated, and Strangelove, too, but in the context of their times they were great. Spartacus, too, probably, though Paths of Glory holds up well. I never thought Clockwork was as good as the novel and not entirely on account of the screwed up ending of the film. And as trivial as The Shining may be, like all of Kubrick's movies it still offers many a delight for the eyes--and for me, that's what movies are mostly about.

At least I'm not going to suggest that you're mentally defective because your taste doesn't coincide completely with my own!

Madame wrote:"Glengarry Glen Ross" <I know, I know, people raved about it, I thought it was horrid>

DavidRoss wrote:Yes....Simply awful.

I'd be willing to wager that neither of you have a career in sales since so much of Glengarry Glen Ross rings chillingly true...or perhaps you have worked in sales and the scenario strikes too close to home. Not only does this film resonate with crackling dialogue and incredible star power, but it has one of the greatest lines ever: "Put that coffee down! Coffee's for closers only!"

DavidRoss wrote:As for Kubrick, the only complete turkey in his magnificent career was Eyes Wide Shut -- again the Cruise factor is hard to contend with (though both Anderson and Reiner ovecame it), but this flick was complete dreck even without Cruise figuring into it.

I'm flabbergasted. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Cruise (or Kidman, for that matter) as an actor or personality, Eye Wide Shut cuts surgically to the core of the latent male ego...again, with such inimitable style. The film is far from perfect, but it does resonate with mischievous truths. Sydney Pollack's character reminded me of a boss I once had!

Brendan wrote:Now I'm trying to think of Ridley Scott's "Big Mistake". Loved his early work and some of his later (The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down), but didn't muich care for Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. Now I thought of it, it has to be the latter.

DavidRoss wrote:As poor as Kingdom of Heaven was....

Again, I'm flabbergasted. Kingdom of Heaven may have suffered from Farrell's miscasting, gaping plot holes (much as Gladiator), and a bad case of the PCs; but I found the film visually spectacular (I'm a sucker for sieges!) and, for the most part, historically heedful. As to the plot holes, the director's cut on DVD fills them in admirably.

I agree, Legend was unwatchable. Gladiator was an historical embarrassment and technical muddle...but I'm thoroughly grateful for its resurrection of the genre. Surprisingly, I've yet to see 1492: Conquest of Paradise.

DavidRoss wrote:For really bad Scorsese you need look no further than The Last Temptation of Christ.

As a brave speculation, I liked this film. I'd submit The Color of Money instead...perhaps it's the Cruise factor.

moldyoldie wrote:

Madame wrote:"Glengarry Glen Ross" <I know, I know, people raved about it, I thought it was horrid>

DavidRoss wrote:Yes....Simply awful.

I'd be willing to wager that neither of you have a career in sales since so much of Glengarry Glen Ross rings chillingly true...or perhaps you have worked in sales and the scenario strikes too close to home. Not only does this film resonate with crackling dialogue and incredible star power, but it has one of the greatest lines ever: "Put that coffee down! Coffee's for closers only!"

Well, there's sales ... and then there's sales ... this outfit is a bottom feeder, regardless of the money at stake. Reminds me of the Rainbow vacuum outfit ... the guys at the top were skimming the good leads and leaving the newbies with zip. Nothing wrong with competition in sales, but to be set up to fail is something else.

I know that Mamet captured the essence of this type of sales, and the actors were talented. What I couldn't grasp is why Alec Baldwin's speech was considered Oscar material -- you can find that kind of talk in the streets, with pimps, or with drug distributors.

I just thought this was a horrid movie that left me feeling like I needed a shower.

Let's see, among the greats there's also: SIR ALAN PARKER.

This gent directed so many stylish, classy films--masterpieces like Birdy and Fame.... near-greats like Mississippi Burning, Angela's Ashes and The Committments--that it's hard to nail him on anything truly bad. There are a few that rate something like two-and-a-half stars (out of four) in my book: the "just OK" level. Some of you may qualify the following as borderline-bad:

Bugsy Malone--a lot of you hate it, thinking "jeez, some concept...", but it's a neat little genre spoof deep down--and it is suitable for all ages;

Angel Heart--just plain tedious, IMO. Some admire it as an example of "color film-noir", but it's all so overbearing (I'm going off the uncensored version here);

Midnight Express--another one that dulls and wears out its welcome long before it's over--and writer Oliver Stone's Oscar triumph is solid proofs he's won more of those statuettes than he deserved.

Come See The Paradise--now, this one I really like (a good three-and-a-half stars), but critics' views were far more lackluster, the criticisms aimed toward its slightly-sappy love story, its anti-war stance and unfashoinable liberalism (it was released in early '91, just before we entered the Persian Gulf war: there are rumors the film was banned in many theaters as a result).

SAM PEKINPAH
Convoy

TERRY GILLIAM
Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas

WORST FILM BY A GREAT DIRECTOR
Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980) by Rainer Werner Fassbinder, all excruciating 15 + hours of it.

MOST OVERRATED POPULAR FILM, i.e., film most people loved but where I just didn't see nuttin.

Its a tie between

Out of Africa (1985) by Sydney Pollack. It IS a great travelogue--the aerial shots of wildlife on the savannah are wonderful. But the story sucks. Its about a woman writer who publishes under a male name who becomes a feminist heroine by getting the clap from a married man. WTF?

and

Terms of Endearment (1983) by James L Brooks. A woman in late middle age finally finds meaning and purpose in her life by learning to be free enough to talk dirty with her daughter. So, what's the point?

Spielberg's 1941 was such a big disappointment. It should have worked; you could smell the money that was spent in the production dance numbers and the effects. The movie had no charm and the humour didn't work at all - too over the top, shrill, and not funny. Too bad. Didn't everyone think Spielberg was all washed up after that?
Given the budget and the build-up and the reputation of the director, otherwise, I think it should be up there.

RebLem wrote:Terms of Endearment (1983) by James L Brooks. A woman in late middle age finally finds meaning and purpose in her life by learning to be free enough to talk dirty with her daughter. So, what's the point?

I always thought that should have been called "Terms of Endurement"...