Directors who totally missed the mark

Chris Morgan67 said:The main issue for me in that movie is how obnoxious and grating Tom and Nicole are.

Absolutely revolting.

That’s what gets to me most—honestly, she’s the worst part. She's enough to drive anyone insane. 👎

Chris Morgan67 said:The main issue for me in that movie is how obnoxious and grating Tom Hanks and Nicole Kidman are.

Purely nauseating...

Agreed.

Chris Morgan67 said:The main thing that bugs me about that movie is how obnoxious and irritating Tom and Nicole are.

So gross, ugh...

Such a terrible choice!!!👎

crimsonmoose3 said:Exactly. End of discussion. 🙂

"End of discussion," right? And yet here we are, still trashing this movie.
I don't get the hate for Tom & Nicole. It’s easily one of their best pairings—especially Nicole Kidman. Tom Cruise is maybe only better in "Rain Man" or "Moneyball."

Jerry Morales78, thanks for having my back...

Jerry Martin19 said:The debate was over, yet somehow people are still tearing this movie apart.
I don't see the issue with Tom & Nicole. It’s easily one of their best pairings—especially Kidman. Cruise might only top it with "Rain Man" or maybe "Money Color."

Jerry Morales78, thanks for the backup...

And everyone just conveniently forgets about "Magnolia," I suppose?

I didn't restart the argument once I posted my piece... 🙂

crimsonmoose3 said:So everyone just forgets about Magnolia, huh? Damn...

I wasn't the one who restarted the debate after my post. 🙂

Honestly, I haven't even seen Magnolia (my bad, feeling guilty now), but everyone keeps hyping it up...

Jerry Martin19 said:Honestly, I haven't seen Magnolia—I'm embarrassed to admit it, but everyone keeps recommending it.

No, you absolutely have to watch it. It’s pure cinematic bliss, and the opening sequence is masterful. 😁 Plus, Tom Cruise playing a seductive guru? One of the top 50 movie villains...

Come on, guys, let's stick to the topic. First off, the idea that someone fell into a crisis because of one movie—especially since the whole afterlife thing doesn't help that argument—is pretty silly. By that logic, they’d just be in a "permanent crisis." So, the point isn't about who "missed the mark" with a single film, otherwise everyone in Hollywood would end up on your blacklist. Besides, if we're really debating *Eyes Wide Shut*, I might as well move all these posts over there.

Jose Miller17 said:Alright folks, let’s stick to the point... First off, saying someone hit a crisis because of one movie—especially since the whole afterlife thing doesn't even help that argument—is just kind of silly. By that logic, they'd be in an "eternal crisis"... So, the topic isn't about who "missed the mark" on a single film, otherwise every director in Hollywood would end up on your list... And if we're actually debating *Eyes Wide Shut*, then I'm moving all these posts over there...

Fine, we'll stop here.

Tarantino’s "Kill Bill." I guess it’s worth a watch, but it doesn't even touch his stuff like
"Reservoir Dogs," "Pulp Fiction," or "Jackie Brown." Even "Four Rooms" was alright, though you have to give credit to all four directors there...

Word on the street is M. Night Shyamalan totally tanked with Lady in the Water...
haven't checked it out yet

Jerry Martin19 said:Tarantino's "Kill Bill." It's worth a watch, though it doesn't quite reach the heights of his
"Reservoir Dogs," "Pulp Fiction," or "Jackie Brown." "Four Rooms" was decent too, but that’s a group effort from four different directors.

No worries, he'll redeem himself with "Grindhouse"—it looks promising... 😉
P.S.
Kurt Russell shows up. The ultimate cinematic badass... 🙏 🙏 🙏

crimsonmoose3 said:P.S.
We get the ultimate cinematic badass, Kurt Russell. 🙏 🙏 🙏

Snake Plissken, Cash, Soldier...🙏
absolute legend👍

this old Carpenter fan

crimsonmoose3 said:no worries, he'll pull it together for Grindhouse, which looks promising.😉

he better

In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

wearytinker8 said:In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

Just because I haven't seen a particular film doesn't mean it isn't any good. For instance, I've heard plenty about four of the titles mentioned above, yet I haven't sat down to watch a single one. However, this decline following Dracula is genuinely concerning; perhaps he simply entered a different creative phase. We should ask Jerry Martin19 if he ever caught Youth Without Youth (2007).

wearytinker8 said:In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

Is this supposed to be bad? They certainly aren't as brilliant as the first two mentioned. Regardless. 🙏Take a look at his recent watchlist: Gladiator (2000), Black Hawk Down (2001), and Kingdom of Heaven (2005). I haven't caught that last one yet, so I'll have to add it to my list.🙂 In my opinion, he proved himself to be one of the finest directors working today. I remember seeing his early work in a small theater in Chicago, and even then, his vision was unmistakable.

wearytinker8 said:In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

Now, this part might be a bit sensitive. Personally, I've never been a huge fan of this director. There are some of his "cult" hits I skipped entirely or just found overrated. You actually missed Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above. It's a fantastic movie. Moving on to his 90s work: I watched Body Bags (1993), In the Mouth of Madness (1995), Village of the Damned (1995), and Vampires (1998). Body Bags and Mouth of Madness were great, Village was just okay, and Vampires was weak. It seems clear his pace has slowed down significantly.

I think Oliver Stone is slowly creeping his way onto this list too. What he did with Alexander the Great was—in my opinion—a complete disaster. Usually, even with a bad historical epic, there’s enough actual history to anchor the story and pull it back to reality, but with Alexander... there's just no saving it. It feels like he's following a pretty nasty pattern, too, with how he handled 9/11. The only thing that kept that movie from being a total train wreck was pure American patriotism and that desperate urge to act like we were much bigger victims than we actually were...

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

wearytinker8 said:

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

One simply cannot expect to produce a masterpiece every single time. I won't be discussing Kubrick, as I haven't actually sat through most of his filmography yet.

wearytinker8 said:

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

Money is a powerful motivator. One has to provide for their family, after all. I remember my own father always saying that stability comes before ego. If this director had enjoyed the kind of luck Cameron has—where nearly every film is a massive blockbuster—he might have felt more comfortable taking risks. But look at Scott's filmography; he tackled just about every genre imaginable. He was willing to gamble while Cameron played it safe with action hits.

wearytinker8 said:

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

That is a pure representative of the action genre, infused with just a touch of that classic 80s flair. It reminds me of the old movies I used to watch on Saturday mornings.

The lead actor is comedian Nicolas Cage. He is absolutely hilarious to me, especially now that he’s sporting a mustache.

A comedian? Have you actually sat through any of his dramatic performances? I personally found his recent stage work to be quite underwhelming.

Coppola’s definitely the guy...

He really went downhill after Dracula...

But honestly, if he had just stuck to Dracula, I’d be calling him a total genius. The way that movie was shot? Pure perfection...

Jerry Martin19 said:Point one: Eyes are actually shut (that’s the movie title, "Eyes Wide Shut")...
Point two: It's a great flick. Honestly, Kubrick levels of greatness—might even top "A Clockwork Orange" for me. You can really feel that signature Kubrick vibe. For me, it was just a killer experience...
Pro tip—watch it again...

Eyes Wide Shut might actually be his weakest outing. Look, I am a massive devotee of his work, but you simply cannot compare the absolute zenith of Kubrick's career (like ''A Clockwork Orange'') to what I consider to be his decline (''Eyes Wide Shut'').