Top 10 Worst Directors Working Today

The Denouncer

With help from work colleagues, I don't agree with Ridley being there but was out-voted.. Anyway this is what we came up with..

1. Uwe Boll
2. M Night Shyamalan
3. Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer
4. Brian Robbins
5. Keenan Ivory Wayans
6. McG
7. Paul W.S Anderson
8 . John Carpenter
9 . Peter Hyams
10 . Ridley Scott

The Denouncer

By the way generally based on their last 3 movies or so

garthv

1. Uwe Boll
2. Uwe Boll
3. Uwe Boll
4. Uwe Boll
5. Uwe Boll
6. Uwe Boll
7. Uwe Boll
8. Uwe Boll
9. Uwe Boll
10. Michael Bay

Decuc500

John Carpenter, Ridley Scott... Ten worst directors working today??? Carpenters worst movies beat 90% of current horror movie makers. Evidently your colleagues haven't seen a Rob Zombie movie.

The Denouncer

I wanted Rob Zombie but in fairness John Carpenters last 3 movies aren't good though I respect his earlier output, even Christine. Ridley shouldn't be there alright, he is legend. But his last 3..

Mr E

According to IMDB, JC's last 3 directed movies were Ghosts of Mars (2001), Vampires (1998) and Escape from LA (1996). Vampires was good fun... (lets not mention the Jon Bon Jovi sequel)

Ridley Scott just came off directing American Gangster.... nothing wrong with that, it was a very good movie.

BlitzKrieg

But his last 3..

are at worst boringly average (I assume you mean An American Gangster, A good year and Kingdom of Heaven)

[though personnally I thought with the exception of orlando bloom annoying the hell out of me and the caribean drums porno track Kingdom of Heaven was quite good. But I am big into the Total War games]

That is not enough to warrant him onto the top 10 worse directors list.

On the list itself, I actually had to look up a few names because they are directors who's work I wouldnt go near (I am thankful to have not watched any of the date movie/epic movie crap) So I wouldnt complain about them being on the list, Uwwe Boll thrives on this sort of thing, so much so its just not fun to put him at the top anymore. and Paul W.S Anderson should be there because as capable as he is in getting so many things right he is boringly unimagitive in his work and writing that his films always end up feeling very castrated.

I'd agree John Carpenters last few films have been muck (though vampires was a laugh) but his masters of horrors segment is meant to be good (havnt seen it myself) and really he hasnt done anything in six years. And he has only announced a new film for this year. Peter Hyams hasnt done anything for a while too, but he's never done anything fantastic to start with really.

I would question the lack of Micheal Bay, his last 3 films have been right horrible stinkers. (transformers, The Island and Bad boys 2) and coupled with pearl harbour he has worn out any kudos he earned for the Rock or Bad boys.


Also I would nominate Johnathan Mostow aswell.

Vic Vinegar

Have to agree with Uwe Boll... also the brothers Strause should have a mention for AVP 2 (their first film i know but terrible)

BlitzKrieg

I would support the brothers Strause being on the list except I am hoping AVP 2 will be their only film and we wont hear from them again.

Vic Vinegar

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I would support the brothers Strause being on the list except I am hoping AVP 2 will be their only film and we wont hear from them again.

(crosses fingers)

McG fairly stinks as well, can't believe he's got the new Terminator movie!! :mad:

There's no fooking way Ridley Scott is in the top 10 worst btw!!

Killgore Trout

Guy Ritchie, two flawed - derivative - style over content- but ultimately likeable geezer gangster flicks, then Revolver, which was unforgivably shíte.

The Denouncer

I would rather have put Tony instead of Ridley or preferably neither of them, perhaps a boards top ten would be a better reflection of the movie loving masses..

Vic Vinegar

Killgore Trout wrote: »

Guy Ritchie, two flawed - derivative - style over content- but ultimately likeable geezer gangster flicks, then Revolver, which was unforgivably shíte.

Agreed on Revolver. Absolute twoddle

OP - what about a poll?

BlitzKrieg

Problem with Tony is that if we are sticking with the last 3 films guideline, then it goes Deja Vu, domino and Man on Fire.

While Deja Vu was indeed crap and Domino too, Man on Fire is gobsmackingly fantastic.

The Denouncer

I liked Spygame which is > 3 movies ago, but I didn't think much of Man On Fire, it wasn't awful though, definitely not a bottom 3 director. The Scotts are excused.

Vic Vinegar

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Man on Fire is gobsmackingly fantastic.

D'ya think? I thought it pretty much sucked bums

"Creasey's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece" - cheesy as fook!

Creature

Ridley Scott and John Carpenter wtf? No Michael Bay? I call shenanigans.

Pigman II

As much as I come on here lambasting the guy I can actually tolerate David Lynch cos I know deep down he is a good director (just misguided). On the other end of the spectrum I can even tolerate Michael Bay because I know he's 100% achieving in making the films he wants to make and is unabasedly brazen about it.

However I can say without reservation that Guilliamo Del Toro (I'm not even gonna check the spelling of his name) is the worst director out there. He seems to get big budget movies and critical acclaim but to me anyway he consistently produces rubbish that fails to even be entertaining let alone thought provoking or emotionally engaging.

Look at his list of crimes:
1. Mimic (a plodding mess that had me running from the theatre ... not in fear tho).
2. Blade II (takes an entertaining/interesting franchise and flushes it down the toilet)
3. Hellboy (this film is just plain garbage masking as a "deep" comic book adaptation)
4. and lest we forget the champion of all Emperors-New-Clothes movies .....Pan(t)s Labyrinth (a movie that suffers from a level of directorial schizophrenia I haven't seen since Sam Raini's basebollox movie "For the Love of the Game" )

Truly this man needs to have his bullhorn and deckchair confiscated immediately.

humanji

Killgore Trout wrote: »

Guy Ritchie, two flawed - derivative - style over content- but ultimately likeable geezer gangster flicks, then Revolver, which was unforgivably shíte.

I honestly thought Revolver was his best film. I thought it was nice to have a film that I had to think about when I expecting Lock Stock 3. Plus, whatever you think of the plot, the directing of the film was excellent.

I think people here are lumping directing and writing together.

Petey2006

May I recommend Brett Ratner. Goddamn, he sucks.

The Denouncer

Pigman II wrote: »

As much as I come on here lambasting the guy I can actually tolerate David Lynch cos I know deep down he is a good director (just misguided). On the other end of the spectrum I can even tolerate Michael Bay because I know he's 100% achieving in making the films he wants to make and is unabasedly brazen about it.

However I can say without reservation that Guilliamo Del Toro (I'm not even gonna check the spelling of his name) is the worst director out there. He seems to get big budget movies and critical acclaim but to me anyway he consistently produces rubbish that fails to even be entertaining let alone thought provoking or emotionally engaging.

Look at his list of crimes:
1. Mimic (a plodding mess that had me running from the theatre ... not in fear tho).
2. Blade II (takes an entertaining/interesting franchise and flushes it down the toilet)
3. Hellboy (this film is just plain garbage masking as a "deep" comic book adaptation)
4. and lest we forget the champion of all Emperors-New-Clothes movies .....Pan(t)s Labyrinth (a movie that suffers from a level of directorial schizophrenia I haven't seen since Sam Raini's basebollox movie "For the Love of the Game" )

Truly this man needs to have his bullhorn and deckchair confiscated immediately.

I'd vote a million times to keep Del Toro OFF the list. I think his movies are fun, engaging, smart, fantastic looking. Pans Labrinth was amazing I thought, especially compared to a lot of the muck out there. The Devils Backbone, Cronos were both excellent. Hellboy very enjoyable comic book movie especially compared to crap like The Fantastic Four, and Blade II is simply great fun, amazing DTS soundtrack to boot.

RastaRed

Pigman II wrote: »

As much as I come on here lambasting the guy I can actually tolerate David Lynch cos I know deep down he is a good director (just misguided). On the other end of the spectrum I can even tolerate Michael Bay because I know he's 100% achieving in making the films he wants to make and is unabasedly brazen about it.

However I can say without reservation that Guilliamo Del Toro (I'm not even gonna check the spelling of his name) is the worst director out there. He seems to get big budget movies and critical acclaim but to me anyway he consistently produces rubbish that fails to even be entertaining let alone thought provoking or emotionally engaging.

Look at his list of crimes:
1. Mimic (a plodding mess that had me running from the theatre ... not in fear tho).
2. Blade II (takes an entertaining/interesting franchise and flushes it down the toilet)
3. Hellboy (this film is just plain garbage masking as a "deep" comic book adaptation)
4. and lest we forget the champion of all Emperors-New-Clothes movies .....Pan(t)s Labyrinth (a movie that suffers from a level of directorial schizophrenia I haven't seen since Sam Raini's basebollox movie "For the Love of the Game" )

Truly this man needs to have his bullhorn and deckchair confiscated immediately.

Are you for real, Blade 2 was the best of the trilogy, Pans was a fantasic film and Hellboy rocked. Ridley Scott is still a brilliant director too(what was wrong with american gangster, it was no goodfellas or godfather but was still an excellent movie just as good as The Departed) and althought Michael Bay does deserve stick for Pearl Harbour, he did a great job on Transformers

spiritcrusher

So those directors are worse than those who make nothing other than bottom of the barrell family films?

krudler

Ridley Scott are you for ****ing real?! so his last 3 movies havent been to the stanard of his usual stuff (american gangster was excellent though) but the man made Alien, Legend, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator,Hannibal,Black Hawk Down and The Duellists, which is one of the most impressive cvs of any director working today

MisterAnarchy

Pigman II wrote: »

However I can say without reservation that Guilliamo Del Toro (I'm not even gonna check the spelling of his name) is the worst director out there. He seems to get big budget movies and critical acclaim but to me anyway he consistently produces rubbish that fails to even be entertaining let alone thought provoking or emotionally engaging.

I thoroughly agree,he is a hack.
He almost ruined the Blade franchise the garbage that was Blade 2.
Hopefully he wont be allowed near the Hobbit film as he no doubt will destroy it.
He isnt a patch on Uwe Bolle though.:D

Bubs101

Bit harsh to have McG in there, most of his movies are succesfull at what they're meant to do (e.g. getting girls to see Charlie's Angels) but having anyone above Anderson is a crime

Karl Hungus

Honestly, how Ridley Scott gets a mention there is beyond me. I'd even say that Kingdom of Heaven is criminally under-rated. See the director's cut people! Have to say I really enjoyed Matchstick Men as well, probably not everyone's cup of tea, but even Nic Cage was on form there, and I usually despise him.

Raekwon

My personal Top 10 list would consist of:

1. Uwe Boll (everything he does!)
2. Roger Christian (Battlefield Earth)
3. Jan De Bont (Tomb Raider)
4. Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cut Throat Island)
5. Andrzej Bartkowiak (Doom + a few movies starring rapper DMX)
6 Dennis Dugan (Directed 3 Adam Sandler films, 'nuf said)
7. Tim Story (Fantastic Four)
8. Roland Emmerich (Eight Legged Freaks, Godzilla)
9. Martin Brest (Gigli)
10. Terrence Malick (great cinematographer, boring as hell director)

Decuc500

I'd have to disagree with Martin Brest as he made Midnight Run so he's excused and Terrence Malick should be in the top 10 BEST directors working today.

There are some truely horrible film makers working, but to have Ridley Scott as one of the 10 worst filmmakers of all time is a bit of a stretch. If you ignore his output in the 90s then his resume is easily up there with the best.

It seems quite popular to bash Michael Bay. His films are made to entertain, they're not message films trying to get a point across. No, they're all about blowing **** up and dazzling camera work and in that regard he succeeds magnificantly. His films are never boring which is something a lot of more respected filmmakers cannot claim.

A quick thrall through the internet finds hundreds of threads lamenting McG's involvement with Terminator 4. Everyone complaining that he's going to ruin it, this is before a single scene has been shot. Sure his track record isn't great but surely he deserves a chance. Look at how many people were ready to write off Shoot 'Em Up once they saw Michael Davis resume.

Vic Vinegar

Darko - have you seen either of the Charlies Angels films? the guy's a f**king hack!

As far as i know he's only done one other film and a few music vids

death1234567

John woo. Just awful.

mountain lips

mountain lips wrote: »

Darko - have you seen either of the Charlies Angels films? the guy's a f**king hack!

As far as i know he's only done one other film and a few music vids

I saw the first one and it was passable mindless junk. He also directed the pilot for Chuck and his last film We are Marshall is mediocre at best, but desplays a level of restraint sorely lacking for Charlie's Angels. I know that thus far he has yet to prove himself a great director, but to write the film off all ready is a bit unfair. When Bay got Transformers the internet erupted with out rage, yet when the film was released it was well recieved by fan boys and new fans alike.

The fact that Chrisitian Bale signed on is very encouraging. Do you really think he'd sign on to any film if he did'nt have confidence in the director?

Raekwon

Decuc500 wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with Martin Brest as he made Midnight Run so he's excused and Terrence Malick should be in the top 10 BEST directors working today.

I put the word 'personal' before Top 10 for a reason

True Martin Brest did direct Midnight Run but then he inflicted Gigli on the world and made my list. As for Terrence Malick, he has made two movies since 1978 (The Thin Red Line & The New World) both painfully boring and overly long. As I said, the man is an amazing cinematographer but his directing sucks, unless you like silently staring at art for 3 hours?

Pigman II

Terrence Malick is over-rated. I loved Badlands but Thin Red Line is merely photography posing as a movie and, well, The New World is just painful viewing.

Thankfully he is notoriously unprolific so we don't have to hear about his work too often.

Lawless_Samurai

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Honestly, how Ridley Scott gets a mention there is beyond me. I'd even say that Kingdom of Heaven is criminally under-rated. See the director's cut people! Have to say I really enjoyed Matchstick Men as well, probably not everyone's cup of tea, but even Nic Cage was on form there, and I usually despise him.

Agree 100% what karl has said there. The directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven is a completely different movie and much much better than the origanal. If you havn't... watch it!

The opinion on Terrence Malick going on in this tread I do agree with though

How about the worst actors turned directors??? Just off the Bat on his last performance alone I'm no longer a fan of De Niro's Directing abilities. Just did not like The Good Shepherd at all, and I really wanted to

Vic Vinegar

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that Chrisitian Bale signed on is very encouraging. Do you really think he'd sign on to any film if he did'nt have confidence in the director?

I'd hope not!

Personally i didn't mind about Bay getting Transformers, he does action really well imo, it's just the cheesy bits i don't like much, Bad Boys II springs to mind "right next to the mine" (at the end, at Guantanamo Bay!)

Miguel_Sanchez

Bubs101 wrote: »

Bit harsh to have McG in there, most of his movies are succesfull at what they're meant to do (e.g. getting girls to see Charlie's Angels) but having anyone above Anderson is a crime

Not harsh at all. I had the misfortune to see one of the Charlie's Angels movies (first one I think, not sure) and there was some astonishingly badly directed scenes in it. Awful awful stuff with really bad basic mistakes all over the place.

He thinks that just by throwing some loud music over a scene it's automatically 'exciting'. Good god - the man will ruin whatever he touches.

Pigman II

I saw Charlies Angels 1 in the cinema. At the part near the end where the 3 burds go to Charlies beachhouse in order to find out what he looks like the negative of the movie just melted right up there on the screen right in front of the audience, thus ending the movie.

At first I thought this was some sort of radical avant-garde way of ending the movie abruptly and leaving us in mystery, but mostly I was just relieved it was all over.

Morlar

Ridley scott would be the best director around today in my opinion. At the very least up there with kubrick. I dont understand what kind of person would say he is the worst. Uwe Boll makes a certain kind of movie - once you get your head around that you realise he is pretty good at what he does.


Malick also should not be on there - thin red line is a whole new level of cinema. Its not a 'lethal weapon' type of movie - its in a league of its own imo.

Decuc500

Bit sad to see Terrence Malick being bashed. His movies really are like a moving picture and, yes, can be slow viewing but they're unlike anything else I've seen. Thankfully some directors have the guts to do something a bit different in cinema.

Maximilian

I wonder if the "work colleagues" who voted for RS have a drooling problem. Else, you must work in a glue or solvent factory.

The comments on Malick are so wrong. His movies are just brilliant.

Raekwon

Morlar wrote:

Malick also should not be on there - thin red line is a whole new level of cinema. Its not a 'lethal weapon' type of movie - its in a league of its own imo.

Decuc500 wrote:

Bit sad to see Terrence Malick being bashed. His movies really are like a moving picture and, yes, can be slow viewing but they're unlike anything else I've seen. Thankfully some directors have the guts to do something a bit different in cinema.

Maximilian wrote:

The comments on Malick are so wrong. His movies are just brilliant.

Okay, this is obviously down to personal taste. I put Terrence Malick on my list because, although his movies are beatifully shot, they are mind numbingly boring. He is an excellent cinematographer, that is not in question here, but I don't rate him as a director. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate film and I enjoy the work of the likes of The Coen Brothers, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, etc but Terrence Malick's slow, drawn out sometimes unbearably silent movies are just not my cup of tea. But in saying that I really enjoyed Andrew Dominik's 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' which I thought was shot in the same vein as most of Malicks work.

The Denouncer

Maximilian wrote: »

I wonder if the "work colleagues" who voted for RS have a drooling problem. Else, you must work in a glue or solvent factory.

I know I tell you what they should be ashamed of themselves. Blade Runner is my all time fav and they shot me down based on his last 3 movies. F**k 'em, I'm removing him, and the legendary John Carpenter to boot.

1. Uwe Boll
2. M Night Shyamalan
3. Paul W.S Anderson
4. Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer
5. Brian Robbins
6. Keenan Ivory Wayans
7. McG
8. Peter Hyams
9. Renny Harlin
10. Barry Sonnenfeld

fillefatale

garthv wrote: »

1. Uwe Boll
2. Uwe Boll
3. Uwe Boll
4. Uwe Boll
5. Uwe Boll
6. Uwe Boll
7. Uwe Boll
8. Uwe Boll
9. Uwe Boll
10. Michael Bay

WIN.

stevejazzx

Morlar wrote: »

Ridley scott would be the best director around today in my opinion. At the very least up there with kubrick. I dont understand what kind of person would say he is the worst. Uwe Boll makes a certain kind of movie - once you get your head around that you realise he is pretty good at what he does.

Kubrick is dead btw...but i agree Ridley scott on that list is just silly.

Vic Vinegar

Morlar wrote: »

Uwe Boll makes a certain kind of movie - once you get your head around that you realise he is pretty good at what he does.

Erm... are you being serious?

Nah, you can't be! :D

el dude

Ridley Scott? Pah!

Michael Bay and the twat that directed X-3. And any director with a name like McG warrants inclusion off the bat.

johnny_ultimate

Aside from some of the obviously awful directors around (e.g. Uwe Boll who I often am shocked to see folk defending - his films are just plain awful, and not in the funny Ed Wood sort of way, Mc 'The Hack' G etc...) there are some once great directors who are seriously passed their best.

Rob Reiner is one that always springs to mind. The man who once brought us Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride and Stand by Me is now relegated to nonsense like the Bucket List (the trailers for which have made me physically ill on numerous occasions). His name would regularly turn me off a film these days, as his latest output has largely been conventional trash.

And yeah, count me in the anti-Bay camp as well. How did he get giant transforming robots so wrong?

Snake Plisken

Ang Lee should be on there for forking up the Hulk!
And Anthony Minghella, would never ever watch another film from him after The English Patient
I wouldn't have Paul W.S. Anderson on there as he gave us the excellent Event Horizon.
M Night either as he gave us the sixth sense, Unbreakable and Signs, ok he's lost his mojo a bit with the village and the lady in the water, but lets hope The Happening will see a return to form.

ztoical

Snake Plisken wrote: »

And Anthony Minghella, would never ever watch another film from him after The English Patient

While films like the english patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, and Cold Mountain might not be to everyones taste story/pacing wise, they are well made films. Minghella at least understands what good direction means and uses good camera work, lightning, and editing.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

I wouldn't have Paul W.S. Anderson on there as he gave us the excellent Event Horizon.

Sadly with Anderson its a case of quality vs quantity - to many average to below average films not made up by one decent film in 10 years.

Also if we're forgiving Anderson for the likes of Resident Evil and Soilder based on one film then Ang Lee should be given some credit for films like Crouching Tiger and not banished for ever for one film. I will also give Lee credited for trying different types of films - a good director should be able to direct any type of movie, but alot of them can only do one genre and nothing else [ie Guy Ritchie]

Snake Plisken wrote: »

M Night either as he gave us the sixth sense, Unbreakable and Signs, ok he's lost his mojo a bit with the village and the lady in the water, but lets hope The Happening will see a return to form.

The only good thing about Signs was I had a professor in college who hated it so much that you could be guaranteed a good and very funny 20 minute rant on why it was so awful by just mentioning it to him.

Shyamalan lost me with Lady in the Water - he just went to far. It was self-indulgent and egotistical to an extreme. Guy needs a good smack round the head to get it out of his ass.

Michael Bay would def be on my list - he doesn't make movies he makes 2 hour long ads.

There are alot of directors I would consider good directors but their recent work has been a bit eh, like Sidney Lumet for example.

Should we have Alan Smithee on the list seeing as his name gets attached to so many awful movies