Richard Kely.. and other "fluke" directors

Basq

So.. I'm after wasting 115 minutes of my life on the absolutely mind-numbing and just downright dreadful movie 'The Box' by director Richard Kelly.

For those who don't know.. although I suspect most do.. Richard Kelly's directorial debut was the cult favourite (and a personal favourite of mine) 'Donnie Darko'. A film that was acclaimed by critics and audiences alike.. and it was followed up by absolute box-office-bombs and universally panned 'Southland Tales' and 'The Box'.

I've seen both.. well, I admit I couldn't finish 'Southland Tales' and wish I didn't finish 'The Box' (as it was absolutely awful). It got me thinking... that's 1 for 3 in Kelly's case. And it's got me thinking was Donnie Darko a fluke? Is Richard Kelly's directorial talent (if any) quickly dwindling on each project he's taking on?

Another director that many could consider a "fluke" director would be M Night Shymalan (most people think he's been on a decline since 'Unbreakable', although I admit I liked 'Signs' and 'The Village').

Anyone else wanna share their thoughts on this?

krudler

Shyamalan I like in small doses, I think Unbreakable is his masterpiece, he does have a sense of smugness in his movies though,like Tarantino he has established a "brand" for himself. The problem with his movies is that they tend to fall apart on second viewing, The Sixth Sense especially, The Village is much maligned but if you watch it as a love story rather than a horror movie its much better, the blind girl in the woods segment is still ridiculous though, William Hurt could have just went himself and saved his daughter the terrifying ordeal. Signs I like and it has some genuinely creepy moments, Gibson catching a glimpse of a figure standing on his roof is still unsettling, and the home video of the birthday party is one of the greatest jump moments I've ever been a part of in a cinema

mike65

Its quite hard to think of many directors who have had just one really good film and the rest junk. Michael Cimino nearly counts - Thunderbolt and Lightfoot his debut is definitely his best film even if he is far more famous for overrated The Deer Hunter and of course Heavens Gate. Joesph Seargant would have to be mentioned - one really good flick (The Taking of Pelham 123) and a few other far less notable films and millions of tv movies.

krudler

George Lucas

johnny_ultimate

Totally agree on Kelly basquille, the Box was a disaster of jaw dropping proportions. Seriously, for anyone who wants to see a bad film that is truly bad watch that piece of garbage. It starts off well enough (I admit I'm a sucker for mystery boxes that do random ****) but then it goes utterly insane and turns into one of the worst film I've ever sat through. It really makes you wonder what happened to the person who made Donnie Darko, a truly refreshing / unique / intelligent film. Southland Tales was unwieldy and sloppy, but at least you could see some of the ideas he was addressing (even if he mostly failed). But The Box... just wow.

I'd say Shaymalan too, although his films were more a downward spiral. Up until Signs he showed signs (pun not intended) of talent, but anything after that - in particular The Happening, which isn't even worth commenting on using more than four letters - showed up his weaknesses big style.

I'm struggling to think of anymore too tbh.... Zach Helm arguably qualifies - wrote the promising Stranger Than Fiction ---> directed Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium ---> instant obscurity. 3 years one, he has yet to resurface. The Zucker crew seem to qualify too (Airplane et al, to the Scary Movie crap they're pumping out these days). Oh, another one - Wachoski Brothers. The Matrix was most definitely a fluke if the sequels and the rest of their output is anything to go by.

lizardfudge

I quite like M Night Shymalan as a director... I just think he needs to stop making terrible films he's written himself.

I didn't mind Southland Tales too much either... it was overly ambitious though... tried to do so many things but didn't really succeed at anything.. it was like he was trying to make a film that was both Kubrick and Altman in style. I've avoided seeing The Box so far... as well... I'm pretty sure I've seen that episode of the Twilight Zone already and I can remember how it ends.

krudler

Oh, another one - Wachoski Brothers. The Matrix was most definitely a fluke if the sequels and the rest of their output is anything to go by.

Speed Racer gets unfairly bashed imo, they wanted to create a living cartoon and they did just that, ignore the stupidly annoying child and chimp and the rest of it is a visual feast with some stunning race sequences, especially the grand prix finale

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

Speed Racer gets unfairly bashed imo, they wanted to create a living cartoon and they did just that, ignore the stupidly annoying child and chimp and the rest of it is a visual feast with some stunning race sequences, especially the grand prix finale

I've only seen bits and pieces of it in work, and I agree it looks visually interesting, but the sound and characters do seem to be rather irritating. I haven't seen the whole film, so I'll be fair and not comment on it, but even just taking the Matrix films I'd still say they are somewhat fluke directors, as they seemed to misunderstand what made their own film so fascinating in the first place.

Hank_Jones

krudler wrote: »

Speed Racer gets unfairly bashed imo, they wanted to create a living cartoon and they did just that, ignore the stupidly annoying child and chimp and the rest of it is a visual feast with some stunning race sequences, especially the grand prix finale

Fancy visuals is not something that makes a good film.
A film should have a proper storyline and good dialogue.

Of course a lot of people who saw Avatar would probably disagree with me.

krudler

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Fancy visuals is not something that makes a good film.
A film should have a proper storyline and good dialogue.

Of course a lot of people who saw Avatar would probably disagree with me.

It does, of course its all a bit tongue in cheek but the central story of the family is excellent, and theres not many "kids" movies that deal with multinational corporations fixing motorsports and the politics that go along with it.

The Wachowski's did have a big hand in V for Vendetta as well, I never read the graphic novel so I enjoyed the movie for what it was, and Hugo Weaving is brilliant in it

Also, why cant a movie just be "fancy visuals"? stuff like Fantasia, or Koyannisqatsi have no plots or storys, doesnt make them any less engaging, film is a visual medium first and foremost, thats like saying a song that has nothing more than a catchy tune is less valid than something with lyrics with deep meaning

Sir Gallagher

Jesus The Box was a mad film, but i liked it a little just because it was so barmy.

lizardfudge

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've only seen bits and pieces of it in work, and I agree it looks visually interesting, but the sound and characters do seem to be rather irritating. I haven't seen the whole film, so I'll be fair and not comment on it, but even just taking the Matrix films I'd still say they are somewhat fluke directors, as they seemed to misunderstand what made their own film so fascinating in the first place.

I quite liked Bound when it first came out... I was sort of disappointed when they got stuck into making big budget blockbusters like the Matrix.

magma69

Matthieu Kassovitz. Director of the cinematic masterpiece and, imo, one of the greatest movies ever made, La Haine. His movies since have gotten progressively worse. The Crimson Rivers is a pretty decent detective story. Definitely worth a watch but won't blow you away. Then MK went to Hollywood and, surprise surprise, it all went pear shaped. Utter tripe like Gothika and Babylon A.D soon followed.

Admittedly, I have not seen Babylon A.D. but everyone, whose opinion I respect, told me to stay well away from it. An imdb rating of 5.3 does not inspire confidence either.

DrumSteve

magma69 wrote: »

Matthieu Kassovitz. Director of the cinematic masterpiece and, imo, one of the greatest movies ever made, La Haine. His movies since have gotten progressively worse. The Crimson Rivers is a pretty decent detective story. Definitely worth a watch but won't blow you away. Then MK went to Hollywood and, surprise surprise, it all went pear shaped. Utter tripe like Gothika and Babylon A.D soon followed.

Admittedly, I have not seen Babylon A.D. but everyone, whose opinion I respect, told me to stay well away from it. An imdb rating of 5.3 does not inspire confidence either.

I'll give you a clue

its crap

johnny_ultimate

Alex Proyas is another one I thought of last night. Dark City was a very inventive and atmospheric sci-fi film that differed from the norm. I haven't seen the Crow, which is meant to be decent. But then came I Robot, a moderately entertaining blockbuster, but not a patch on Dark City, and truly obnoxious product placement. Then we got Knowing, up there with The Box for WTF were they thinking. The last half hour of that film also has to be seen to be believed.

Decuc500

I don't know, I seem to like a lot of the films and directors mentioned.

Alex Proyas only has one misstep, that Will Smith vehicle. The Crow and Dark City are fantastic. I really liked Knowing. I don't get why it's ridiculed so much. Roger Eberts review got it spot on for me.

I liked The Box. It's got a creepy, dreamy 70's vibe and while it was way too long and couldn't sustain it's ideas over 2 hours I liked the wtf am I watching feeling it gave me. Southland Tales was an enjoyable, overindulgent mess and not in a bad way...

johnny_ultimate

Decuc500 wrote: »

I don't know, I seem to like a lot of the films and directors mentioned.

Alex Proyas only has one misstep, that Will Smith vehicle. The Crow and Dark City are fantastic. I really liked Knowing. I don't get why it's ridiculed so much. Roger Eberts review got it spot on for me.

I liked The Box. It's got a creepy, dreamy 70's vibe and while it was way too long and couldn't sustain it's ideas over 2 hours I liked the wtf am I watching feeling it gave me. Southland Tales was an enjoyable, overindulgent mess and not in a bad way...

I actually think Roger Ebert's reviews of both the Box and Knowing are interesting, and I kind of see where he is coming from, but I personally can't agree. Knowing, again, is not completely worthless IMO

(I thought the scene in the child's bedroom was very creepy)

but I just can't get over how silly most of it was. It has a bit of character - although I thought the

splatter cam in the subway car

was too much! - but the inherent ridiculousness of the central plot was far too distracting. Same with The Box - that 70s vibe is still there, but as a two hour long film it is a total failure. The attempts at ambiguity are poorly CGIed images and poorly written dialogue (all the scenes in the hanger are shockingly bad). Both films represent directors that have tried and failed to emulate the uniqueness that made them special in the first place. Both Dark City and Donnie Darko are mysterious and weird, but do so in a refreshing, intelligent way. The in-your-face strangeness of The Box and Knowing felt obnoxious and messy in comparison.

Basq

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The attempts at ambiguity are poorly CGIed images and poorly written dialogue (all the scenes in the hanger are shockingly bad).

Martin Teague: Sir? If you don't mind my asking... why a box?
Arlington Steward: Your home is a box. Your car is a box on wheels. You drive to work in it. You drive home in it. You sit in your home, staring into a box. It erodes your soul, while the box that is your body inevitably withers... then dies. Where upon it is placed in the ultimate box, to slowly decompose.
Martin Teague: It's quite depressing, if you think of it that way.
Arlington Steward: Don't think of it that way... think of it as a temporary state of being.

* slow handclaps *

:eek:

johnny_ultimate

basquille wrote: »

Martin Teague: Sir? If you don't mind my asking... why a box?
Arlington Steward: Your home is a box. Your car is a box on wheels. You drive to work in it. You drive home in it. You sit in your home, staring into a box. It erodes your soul, while the box that is your body inevitably withers... then dies. Where upon it is placed in the ultimate box, to slowly decompose.
Martin Teague: It's quite depressing, if you think of it that way.
Arlington Steward: Don't think of it that way... think of it as a temporary state of being.

* slow handclaps *

:eek:

Exactly. Vague nonsense.
But I will give this to Kelly (or perhaps the Twilight Zone) - Arlington Steward is a ****ing awesome name.

clusk007

The first name that popped into my head was Bryan Singer. Everything was downhill after the usual suspects, although in fairness it would be for most directors as it was such a class film. I did expect a lot more rather than crap like Superman returns! I know there are some who will say X-Men but it was 'meh' and it seems like he went in a totally different direction to the promise the usual suspects showed..

Nolanger

Anyone remember Bill Forsyth? Thought not!

bonerm

Michel Gondry is another one I'd like to lump in here. After Human Nature and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I thought he was great, but Science of Sleep and Be Kind Rewind have convinced me that this guy shouldn't be directing feature films and should probably be teaching arts and crafts classes to pre-schoolers. Plus as far as I can tell, anything that was good about SoS and BKR were despite of him not because of him. As to the BH and ESOTSM? I've a feeling even I could direct a good movie if Charlie Kaufman was behind the script.

krudler wrote: »

George Lucas

Yep, he only managed to direct two of the most enjoyable and profitable movies of the 70's before realising he could accomplish more by taking over the industry instead of just being a cog in the machine.

Nolanger wrote: »

Anyone remember Bill Forsyth? Thought not!

I do. Well I don't (well that's a lie, his peak was before my time) but I do enjoy his movies.

johnny_ultimate

bonerm wrote: »

Michel Gondry is another one I'd like to lump in here. After Human Nature and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I thought he was great, but Science of Sleep and Be Kind Rewind have convinced me that this guy shouldn't be directing feature films and should probably be teaching arts and crafts classes to pre-schoolers. Plus as far as I can tell, anything that was good about SoS and BKR were despite of him not because of him. As to the BH and ESOTSM? I've a feeling even I could direct a good movie if Charlie Kaufman was behind the script.

I'm a bit of a Gondry fanboy, so perhaps take this with a pinch of salt, but I would by no means say he is a fluke director. I'd agree with Be Kind Rewind, but that is his only disappointment in my eyes. Human Nature isn't brilliant, but is more a case of Gondry and Kaufman honing their style. I'll have to disagree with you on Silence of Sleep, but even disbarring SoS Dave Chappelle's Block Party - which showed he had a bit of diversity - and his wonderful segment in the otherwise so-so Tokyo! confirm him as a considerable talent, plus has a hugely inventive music video CV (and plenty of other fun stuff like his Flight of the Conchords Episode). There is an argument that he hasn't surpassed ESOTSM, but it is an impossible act to follow.

Again, Gondry fanboy, so I'm obliged to disagree with you

Bog

Guy Ritchie anyone?

I must admit that Lock, Stock etc. was a breath of fresh air in British cinema, quite original, funny and stylish. Since then every film he's made has gotten progressively worse, reaching its nadir with that absymal Madonna vehicle. Admittely, I haven't seen Sherlock Holmes but it doesn't seem to be that great.

lizardfudge

I'd go with Kevin Smith as well.

Clerks was great... but since then it's all been a steady decline of garbage. He's more a victim of his own success I guess.

bonerm

lizardfudge wrote: »

I'd go with Kevin Smith as well.

Clerks was great... but since then it's all been a steady decline of garbage. He's more a victim of his own success I guess.

I was about to nominate him but I let it go because I think Chasing Amy is a modern classic. I do think he's a just fanboy who got lucky but the Clerks movies (yes ptII as well) and C.A. are enjoyable stuff imho.

magma69

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm a bit of a Gondry fanboy, so perhaps take this with a pinch of salt, but I would by no means say he is a fluke director. I'd agree with Be Kind Rewind, but that is his only disappointment in my eyes. Human Nature isn't brilliant, but is more a case of Gondry and Kaufman honing their style. I'll have to disagree with you on Silence of Sleep, but even disbarring SoS Dave Chappelle's Block Party - which showed he had a bit of diversity - and his wonderful segment in the otherwise so-so Tokyo! confirm him as a considerable talent, plus has a hugely inventive music video CV (and plenty of other fun stuff like his Flight of the Conchords Episode). There is an argument that he hasn't surpassed ESOTSM, but it is an impossible act to follow.

Again, Gondry fanboy, so I'm obliged to disagree with you

I'm with you. I'll have none of this blasphemous slandering of Gondry's talent.:p. A look through his music videos squashes any sort of notion that he is a fluke director. He is a genius behind the camera. Made a few dodgy movies alright but he is no fluke.

Nolanger

F*ck it I'll say Jim Sheridan! Does anyone really rate him anymore as a top-class director? "We have our own stories to tell" and then he makes a film about 50 Cent!

Bodhidharma

I think Frank Darabont. The Shawshank Redemption was like a perfect storm of every element of film. He doesn't have to do anything good again for the rest of his life and he'll still have that on his cv.

The Green Mile, The Majestic and the Mist were all ok, but nowhere near the level of Shawshank.

Whether or not it was a 'fluke' is hard to say.

Basq

Bodhidharma wrote: »

I think Frank Darabont. The Shawshank Redemption was like a perfect storm of every element of film. He doesn't have to do anything good again for the rest of his life and he'll still have that on his cv.

The Green Mile, The Majestic and the Mist were all ok, but nowhere near the level of Shawshank.

Whether or not it was a 'fluke' is hard to say.

Really? Funnily enough, Darabont for me is one of those really consistent directors.

I think it helps that he only directs a feature once every 5 years or thereabouts, but his directorial sheet reads a helluva lot better than most because of it.

No, he won't get near the same level of 'Shawshank'.. but 'The Mist' was a remarkable film!

Bodhidharma

The Shawshank Redemption- Classic
The Green Mile - let down, also quite boring
The Majestic - poor
The Mist - better than expected but wasn't expecting much to begin with

The only consistent thing is the Stephen King link

magma69

Nolanger wrote: »

F*ck it I'll say Jim Sheridan! Does anyone really rate him anymore as a top-class director? "We have our own stories to tell" and then he makes a film about 50 Cent!

Maybe not top class but he is a damn solid director. He is the opposite to a fluke director really. He has made great to good movies and one turkey. I have not seen In America but it was well received. As is his latest movie, Brothers. In The Name of the Father, The Boxer and The Field are all quality movies. My Left Foot is a masterpiece. No way is Jim Sheridan a fluke director.

hitlersson666

I nearley pissed myself at The Box so did my friend :P anyway he should just go back to his old scrips and do like another low budget movie and hope it becomes a hit like darko!!!!

Raekwon

Okay this might be a controversial inclusion but I think John McTiernan might fit into this category.

He started his career with with Predator & Die Hard respectively then he went on to direct drivel such as Rollerball, Medicine Man, Basic & a remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Okay he did redeem himself with Die Hard with a Vengeance & possibly The Hunt for Red October but he has been an active director for the past 14 years now and has come no where near bettering the movies he made way back in 1987/88.

Magic Eight Ball

Richard Kelly's future lies in television me thinks!

I'm gonna add the antichrist of modern cinema, more commonly known as Michael Bay to the list.
Bad Boys & The Rock, pretty good for what they are.. followed by Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Island, Transformers, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

It's like he's trying to make each one a little more nauseating than the last.

krudler

Bodhidharma wrote: »

The Shawshank Redemption- Classic
The Green Mile - let down, also quite boring
The Majestic - poor
The Mist - better than expected but wasn't expecting much to begin with

The only consistent thing is the Stephen King link

The Green Mile isnt boring, its slow paced, theres a huge difference, its got enough good characters and story to still be engaging when not much is happening.

The Majestic is hugely underrated imo, its one of,if not Carrey's best acting performances and its a really simple, sweet (if a little far fetched) story

niallon

Raekwon wrote: »

Okay this might be a controversial inclusion but I think John McTiernan might fit into this category.

He started his career with with Predator & Die Hard respectively then he went on to direct drivel such as Rollerball, Medicine Man, Basic & a remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Okay he did redeem himself with Die Hard with a Vengeance & possibly The Hunt for Red October but he has been an active director for the past 14 years now and has come no where near bettering the movies he made way back in 1987/88.

Not going to disagree that McTiernan has gone downhill recently but the timeline is a little skewed there. McTiernan went Predator, Die Hard, The Hunt For Red October, Medicine Man, Last Action Hero, Die Hard With A Vengeance, 13th Warrior and Thomas Crown Affair. Excluding Medicince Man, all great films (Yes even The 13th Warrior and YES Last Action Hero will never be properly understood. That's seven greats over 12 years, not too shabby. Rollerball and Basic are unforgiveable though.

As for a director that's gone downhill, would anyone agree on Doug Liman? From the excellent Swingers and the absolute indie masterpiece Go to a bad Ludlum adaptation (without Greengrass stepping in Bourne would have disappeared) and then to spawning Brangelina whilst coming to a stop with Jumper, possibly the most over hyped piece of trash I've ever seen?!?!?!

Decuc500

Doug Liman's last two have definitely been disappointing but the first Bourne movie set the template for the sequels. If the sequels hadn't done the shaky-cam to death, The Bourne Identity would be considered the great action movie it is.

I've only seen The Green Mile once when it was released but I remember it as a slow, ponderous, overlong, boring movie but Frank Darabont redeemed himself directing The Shield.

uncleoswald

Nolanger wrote: »

Anyone remember Bill Forsyth? Thought not!

I think the excellence of Local Hero rules him out of this.

A nomination from me would be Jan De Bont. Speed is such a good no-brain action flick, right up there with Die Hard in my books, but then he followed it up with Twister, Speed 2, The Haunting and Tomb Raider 2.

And how the hell has this thread gone three pages without a mention of the Blair Witch guys (googles names... Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sanchez) !?

Sanjuro

Basquille, have you seen the Director's Cut of Donnie Darko? If not, then don't. It's a complete disaster of a film. Pacing is absolutely destroyed by the addition of scenes that also kill the mystery of the film by explaining every single nuance of tangent universes, etc. Also, he changes musical queues in the film which completely ruin otherwise great scenes. For example, in the opening scene, which featured Killing Moon by Echo and the Bunnymen, Kelly replaced that song with Never Tear Us Apart by INXS. It completely changes the tone of the scene.

It's only after viewing the DC that you truly get an idea of how much the theatrical cut of Donnie Darko was a glorious mistake. Kelly's actually not that great of a director, and a worse screenwriter.

Basq

Sanjuro wrote: »

Basquille, have you seen the Director's Cut of Donnie Darko? If not, then don't. It's a complete disaster of a film. Pacing is absolutely destroyed by the addition of scenes that also kill the mystery of the film by explaining every single nuance of tangent universes, etc. Also, he changes musical queues in the film which completely ruin otherwise great scenes. For example, in the opening scene, which featured Killing Moon by Echo and the Bunnymen, Kelly replaced that song with Never Tear Us Apart by INXS. It completely changes the tone of the scene.

It's only after viewing the DC that you truly get an idea of how much the theatrical cut of Donnie Darko was a glorious mistake. Kelly's actually not that great of a director, and a worse screenwriter.

Yeah.. picked it up in Golden Discs for cheap a few years back. Absolutely dreadful!

I thought "ah well.. even if it's bad, there's an audio commentary with Richard Kelly and Kevin Smith that could be decent listen" but it was an awful boring commentary.

MisterAnarchy

From looking through this thread it seems most people are listing writer/directors as opposed to just directors.

The most important part of any film is the script.
If the script isnt good ,no matter how good the director is,the end product will be disappointing .
You cannot polish a turd.
Alot of high profile directors have been lucky to have a good script hand on their lap and kick start their success.
If I am looking at a film ,the first thing I look at is the writer ,not the director.
Too much is made of the director .
From the director of "blah" comes "blah blah".

Basq

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

From looking through this thread it seems most people are listing writer/directors as opposed to just directors.

The most important part of any film is the script.
If the script isnt good ,no matter how good the director is,the end product will be disappointing .
You cannot polish a turd.
Alot of high profile directors have been lucky to have a good script hand on their lap and kick start their success.
If I am looking at a film ,the first thing I look at is the writer ,not the director.
Too much is made of the director .
From the director of "blah" comes "blah blah".

Can't agree with you there!

Directing like anything else is a talent.. there's a reason the Spielberg's and Cameron's of this world are so renowned. A good script means absolutely nothing without talented actors and directors to shape it!

Prime example: 'Avatar' - can anyone seriously consider it well written? Not in the slightest.. I had plenty of faults with it. But it was EXTREMELY successful!

From the director of "blah" comes "blah blah".

Perfectly acceptable.. but THIS is not:

From the producers of "blah" comes "blah blah".

Producer's mean dick..!

Raekwon

niallon wrote: »

Not going to disagree that McTiernan has gone downhill recently but the timeline is a little skewed there. McTiernan went Predator, Die Hard, The Hunt For Red October, Medicine Man, Last Action Hero, Die Hard With A Vengeance, 13th Warrior and Thomas Crown Affair. Excluding Medicince Man, all great films (Yes even The 13th Warrior and YES Last Action Hero will never be properly understood. That's seven greats over 12 years, not too shabby. Rollerball and Basic are unforgiveable though.

I wasn't actually putting a timeline on the movies that McTiernan directed (I did check IMDb for dates etc), I was just giving examples of movies he made after the release of Predator in 1987 & Die Hard in 1988. I included him because he raised the bar so high for himself that people were obviously expecting big things from him yet he completely tailed off IMO.

Not too sure about your shout for Doug Liman btw, the only bad movie he has made so far has been Jumper..........but maybe he can redeem himself with Jumper 2 that is scheduled to be released next year :P

I actually found the perfect director for this list.......Simon West!

After releasing the excellent Con Air in 1997 West went onto release such turds as (in order): The General's Daughter, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, When a Stranger Calls & Purple Mountain (along with a few TV movies).

Sleazus

basquille wrote: »

Directing like anything else is a talent.. there's a reason the Spielberg's and Cameron's of this world are so renowned. A good script means absolutely nothing without talented actors and directors to shape it!

Prime example: 'Avatar' - can anyone seriously consider it well written? Not in the slightest.. I had plenty of faults with it. But it was EXTREMELY successful!

I agree with this - directors can make a huge difference.

Particularly if you look at it from the writer's perspective. There's generally relatively little consistency across a writer's filmography (great films and terrible films sit side-by-side) - that is perhaps the most illustrative of the sheer scale of a director's contribution to any given film.

That said, I don't think that writers get enough credit in Hollywood.

Nolanger

uncleoswald wrote: »

I think the excellence of Local Hero rules him out of this.

That overrated movie was 25 years ago when Forsyth was probably Britain's most acclaimed new director. What has done since? Housekeeping, Breaking In, Being human, Gregory's two girls. You'd be well pushed to find those titles on DVD!

norrie rugger

krudler wrote: »

Shyamalan I like in small doses, I think Unbreakable is his masterpiece, he does have a sense of smugness in his movies though,like Tarantino he has established a "brand" for himself. The problem with his movies is that they tend to fall apart on second viewing, The Sixth Sense especially, The Village is much maligned but if you watch it as a love story rather than a horror movie its much better, the blind girl in the woods segment is still ridiculous though, William Hurt could have just went himself and saved his daughter the terrifying ordeal. Signs I like and it has some genuinely creepy moments, Gibson catching a glimpse of a figure standing on his roof is still unsettling, and the home video of the birthday party is one of the greatest jump moments I've ever been a part of in a cinema

Signs completely falls apart in the final third though.

niallon

Raekwon wrote: »

I wasn't actually putting a timeline on the movies that McTiernan directed (I did check IMDb for dates etc), I was just giving examples of movies he made after the release of Predator in 1987 & Die Hard in 1988. I included him because he raised the bar so high for himself that people were obviously expecting big things from him yet he completely tailed off IMO.

Not too sure about your shout for Doug Liman btw, the only bad movie he has made so far has been Jumper..........but maybe he can redeem himself with Jumper 2 that is scheduled to be released next year :P

I agree and I didn't mean to pick up on chronology in your McTiernan list. Just saying that he did have a good run of consistent good films.

As for Liman, I wouldn't exactly say he's made some bad films, just that when you start with Swingers and lead to Jumper you've clearly gone downhill. And I think Identity is the weakest of all the Bournes, until Greengrass came in and kept them exhilarating I though Liman had ruined the Bourne's by nearly completely ignoring the novel.

TheDoc

This topic always springs Michael Bay to me, or maybe its something along the lines of, started good, then just got silly and poor.

The Rock was the first film of his I saw and thought it was pretty tremendous. Armagedon came next and was pretty decent too.

After that he landed a franchise I sometimes get baffled as to how people ****up. Transformers. I think he pretty much would be given all the money on earth for that and still managed to churn out two poor films.

Transformers 1 - €150 million budget
Transformers 2 - €200 million budget

Transformers the movie 1986 budget?

Cant find a figure, probably about 200 euro, and id watch it everytime over the new ones

jill_valentine

I'm inclined to agree that Donnie Darko was all in the editing.

I think Kelly has some cracking ideas - and no lack of ambition - but jaysus, he tends to drown them in other, really terrible ones. I wish he was forced to work with some totally joyless, pitiless jerk who would keep telling him when he was about to do something stupid.

The Wachowskis strike me as an example of genuinely talented writer/directors who were ruined by big budgets. Both Bound and the first Matrix movie are nearly note-perfect IMHO, but a lot of what makes the former so tightly-wound, and the latter so stylish, seem to me in retrospect to come from their creative solutions formulated by necessity as a result of budget limitations. Most of the wacky mechanics of the Matrix' world stay off camera, which makes it far easier to believe for the duration of the movie that maybe, just maybe, this is the world we're living in. For instance, the homeless guy that changes into an agent just as it cuts to the noisey subway train passing; a very cool little flourish that I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have come up with if they'd had the cash to just show him transform. A huge contrast with the totally gratuitous - and really horribly cartoony - CGI effects of the sequels.

Bound takes place almost entirely in about five rooms and has no visual effects to speak of, they didn't have any slack to be sloppy and the whole thing runs like clockwork. As much as I love the Matrix, I'd be inclined to look to Bound as a reason why they shouldn't be entirely written off just yet.

Skerries

yeah but did you see Speed Racer though!?