Bad Movies by Great Directors?

Tools    





And exactly in the way Hollywood is a flawed masterpiece, so is Cassavetes' Killing of a Chinese Bookie.


Neither streamline their stories into irrelevance. They actually exist in the world the characters live in. In almost real time. And this is important because it is this dead time which allows us to invest in them beyond simple genre whaterverism.


Just because a film defies expectations of what a genre requires, does not make these things flaws. The flaw is expecting adherence to what we want.



This will obviously vary for everybody, but as of now, Hollywood is my #3 Tarantino, behind Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. I think it's excellent.

Sounds like the perfect top 3 for me.



Since this is entirely subjective, these are my least favorites from several well-known directors...

PTA - Magnolia (haven't seen it in 20 years, though)
Bergman - The Seventh Seal (have only seen 6 films)
Cameron - Piranha II
Coen - Intolerable Cruelty
Fincher - Mank
Hitchcock - Champagne
Kubrick - Fear and Desire
Lynch - Wild at Heart
Mann - The Last of the Mohicans (haven't seen it in 20 years either)
Nolan - Interstellar
Scorsese - Gangs of New York
Spielberg - The Post
Tarantino - The Hateful Eight
Villeneuve - Arrival

Bold are ones I've seen all films from them.
Personally, I love Magnolia and I don't agree with your pick for Spielberg either...I have to go with The Terminal



Personally, I love Magnolia and I don't agree with your pick for Spielberg either...I have to go with The Terminal
To be fair, some of these films, I don't dislike. They just happen to be the weakest from a strong batch of directors.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



Since this is entirely subjective, these are my least favorites from several well-known directors...

PTA - Magnolia (haven't seen it in 20 years, though)
Bergman - The Seventh Seal (have only seen 6 films)
Cameron - Piranha II
Coen - Intolerable Cruelty
Fincher - Mank
Hitchcock - Champagne
Kubrick - Fear and Desire
Lynch - Wild at Heart
Mann - The Last of the Mohicans (haven't seen it in 20 years either)
Nolan - Interstellar
Scorsese - Gangs of New York
Spielberg - The Post
Tarantino - The Hateful Eight
Villeneuve - Arrival

Bold are ones I've seen all films from them.
I find it shocking that The Arrival would be considered a bad movie. Likewise Magnolia or The Seventh Seal.



I find it shocking that The Arrival would be considered a bad movie. Likewise Magnolia or The Seventh Seal.
To be fair, some of these films, I don't dislike. They just happen to be the weakest from a strong batch of directors.
Arrival is not bad at all. I think it's a pretty good film. I admit I don't feel as strongly about it as most people, but it just happens to be the "weakest" from a director that really hasn't missed, as far as I'm concerned (still need to see Dune, Maelstrom, and August 32nd...)

Magnolia is a film I had a strong reaction back when I saw it in 1999. Was loving all of it, but the climatic event pushed me out of everything and I found it hard to come back. I've been meaning to rewatch it since, but just haven't gotten around to it. Still, not a bad film at all.

The Seventh Seal is another one I've been meaning to rewatch. It was my first Bergman, probably 10 years ago, and I guess I had my expectations high and the film was not what I was expecting; but again, not bad at all. For what it's worth, I've loved every single Bergman I've seen since.



I know the title of the thread was "Bad Movies by Great Directors", but like I prefaced on my list, those were just the ones I consider "weakest" from those directors' filmographies, which doesn't necessarily mean they're "bad".



Out of all of the Bergman film's I've seen, which is probably most of them (I haven't seen a few of his earliest), Seventh Seal must be in my bottom 5 or 6. And as good as it still is, it taking so much of the shine away from so many of his other clearly better movies, has always frustrated me.


As for Magnolia, it might be my second to least favorite Anderson (Hard 8 is clearly his weakest, even if it is still pretty good), but it is still a revelation of a film. And that 'scene', for me, might be one of the great cinematic epiphanies of that decade. I've rarely been so simultaneously moved and baffled and shocked, which is pretty much the perfect reaction I'm always looking for in any movie.



I forgot the opening line.
Since this is entirely subjective, these are my least favorites from several well-known directors...

PTA - Magnolia (haven't seen it in 20 years, though)
Bergman - The Seventh Seal (have only seen 6 films)
Cameron - Piranha II
Coen - Intolerable Cruelty
Fincher - Mank
Hitchcock - Champagne
Kubrick - Fear and Desire
Lynch - Wild at Heart
Mann - The Last of the Mohicans (haven't seen it in 20 years either)
Nolan - Interstellar
Scorsese - Gangs of New York
Spielberg - The Post
Tarantino - The Hateful Eight
Villeneuve - Arrival

Bold are ones I've seen all films from them.
I'm considering only movies I deem pretty bad - with the same list of directors, I'll go...

PTA - No really bad movies
Bergman - No bad movies that I've seen.
Cameron - Piranha II (agreed)
Coen - The Ladykillers Unnecessary and ham-fisted remake.
Fincher - Alien³ Not what it was meant to be, and a sequel too far.
Hitchcock - Marnie Don't get me started.
Kubrick - Killer's Kiss I'm not sure of, and I haven't seen Fear and Desire.
Lynch - I'll pass. His range of quality varies, but I can't find a truly bad film.
Mann - Public Enemies. It's not bad bad, but it's very bland and disappointing.
Nolan - None - but Tenet was a little disappointing.
Scorsese - New York, New York I couldn't stand - but I'm going to revisit it one day.
Spielberg - Hook, 1941, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Tarantino - A couple of middling films, but no outright bad films.
Villeneuve - Nothing I've seen from this filmmaker has been even remotely bad.
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma

Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)



I'm considering only movies I deem pretty bad - with the same list of directors, I'll go...

PTA - No really bad movies
Bergman - No bad movies that I've seen.
Cameron - Piranha II (agreed)
Coen - The Ladykillers Unnecessary and ham-fisted remake.
Fincher - Alien³ Not what it was meant to be, and a sequel too far.
Hitchcock - Marnie Don't get me started.
Kubrick - Killer's Kiss I'm not sure of, and I haven't seen Fear and Desire.
Lynch - I'll pass. His range of quality varies, but I can't find a truly bad film.
Mann - Public Enemies. It's not bad bad, but it's very bland and disappointing.
Nolan - None - but Tenet was a little disappointing.
Scorsese - New York, New York I couldn't stand - but I'm going to revisit it one day.
Spielberg - Hook, 1941, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Tarantino - A couple of middling films, but no outright bad films.
Villeneuve - Nothing I've seen from this filmmaker has been even remotely bad.

I sort of love Marnie, even though it is a deeply unlikeable film. And ridiculous. And offensive. But I like it and consider it at the top of Hitchcock's B reel.


I've started New York, New York twice, and never got through it. The only early Scorsese I've yet to see. Not even sure what I can't abide, but I clearly can't abide.



As for Spielberg, it sometimes upsets me how many movies of his I think are dreadful. And then, how many I think are just nothing ass boredoms. No one as good as him should have as many completely disposable films in their filmography. He owes the universe an apology.


Ladykillers is a legitimately bad film from people who never make anything that isn't at least very good. An astonishing misstep.


The only film by Lynch that I think is bad is Dune. But I get why it has its defenders. And sometimes it makes me sad that I'm not one of them.


Killer's Kiss would be pretty great, if it was by anyone not named Kubrick. Expectations are killer.



As for Tarantino, how is Death Proof considered around here? Not forum poster Death Proof of course.

Grindhouse, as a double-feature, was about as much fun as I'd had in theaters in years. It did what it aimed to do. Tarantino's entry was the weaker of the two, but it was great to see Kurt Russell in a role outside of a dad in superhero high school or serious old agent man in a Fast and Furious farce. I think it's failing is that he slowly and subtly tries to turn a grindhouse slasher into a Tarantino film. The print gets cleaner the longer you go. The dialogue is a meta-commentary on the greatness of old car movies and old school movie stunts. But whatever, it was a lark. Kudos to him for doing it. I don't count this one for or against his filmography.



For me Tarantino's prime spans his first three films. He is the odd director who does not get more mature with time. You like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Great. I thought it was OK. It's not as good as Jackie Brown, IMO, so different strokes folks.



I'm a fan of Death Proof. I know it's usually considered to be Tarantino's weakest film, but I think the main issues people tend to raise for it (too talky/too slow) aren't entirely sound and don't scratch the surface of the film's strengths.



Welcome to the human race...
Now one for my opinion. Don’t hate me but...

Dr Strange into The Multiverse of Madness by Sam Raimi - This movie for me was pretentious nonsense like I said in another thread and then there was a weak story that I heard a million time already. Everyone I saw it with had headaches when (this?) was over. This movie only seems to have good marks because it is of the MCU. If it was of the DCEU, it would be trashed. I like the Spider Man trilogy much better than (this?).
I think the good marks come from it being the first Raimi feature in almost a decade (following the much worse Oz the Great and Powerful) and he gets to do enough of his own unique flourishes to make it stand out against more generic-looking Marvel works. Can't defend it too much, of course, but it's not where my mind goes if I have to pick a bad Raimi movie. Also hard to think of it as pretentious.

Anyway, I don't really have specific examples of my own. On a long enough timeline, the greatest directors will always produce at least one bad film (or at least bad for them).
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



As for Tarantino, how is Death Proof considered around here? Not forum poster Death Proof of course.
Not a fan; the final car chase was good, but the rest of it was an ocean of mindless, self-indulgent chatter, and that being the "point" of the movie doesn't redeem it for me at all.



As for Tarantino, how is Death Proof considered around here? Not forum poster Death Proof of course.
Overlong, and totally upstaged by Rodriguez's other half of the double feature, which is definitely not something I would've guessed.

My two cents on the Hollywood discussion is that it's closer to top-tier Tarantino than the rest and all that, but still a pretty long ways from Pulp, KB, and Basterds. And probably Jackie Brown. And yes I've rewatched it. It's not as rewatchable as most of his stuff, which is part of why I'm saying this, because his ability to make films that delight initially and continue to delight well after the point of almost total memorization is one of his cinematic superpowers.



Anyway, I don't really have specific examples of my own. On a long enough timeline, the greatest directors will always produce at least one bad film (or at least bad for them).
An infinite number of Tarantinos on an infinite number of word processors will eventually produce a Uwe Boll film.