Directors who totally missed the mark

Jerry Martin19 said:The Warriors is generally a solid flick, but honestly, the acting is so abysmal that the whole thing isn't even worth a nickel.

Is it just me, or are you actually taking a massive swipe at The Warriors here??

Jose Chase2 said:Seriously—give it a rest! Just thinking about Batman Returns and Sin City... both are easily 150 times better than that Spider-Man trash.🙂

In the grand landscape of superhero cinema, Spider-Man arguably stands as the gold standard for comic book adaptations. I mean, if we aren't counting Batman—which, let’s be honest, operates in its own stratosphere—Spider-Man is the pinnacle. The brilliance lies in Sam Raimi's direction. He managed to tackle such visceral, high-stakes themes while maintaining a certain level of restraint; in those first two films, he delivered incredible tension without needing to resort to gratuitous gore or excessive bloodshed. It was handled with a certain grace. As for the third installment? I think I'll pass. That one was a complete disaster that completely lost its way.

Coppola's Dracula is a disaster in my eyes. And honestly, Apocalypse Now isn't nearly as great as everyone claims it is. On the flip side, Jack Nicholson delivers one solid performance in a comedy—a genre I usually can't stand.

Oliver Stone has become a total joke. Since his Nixon era, the guy hasn't delivered anything worth watching, peaking with that wild WTC movie where Jesus Christ shows up out of nowhere. 🙂

I'm pretty split on Ridley Scott. Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma & Louise are all fantastic. But Gladiator, G.I. Jane, and Hannibal? Absolute train wrecks. Black Hawk Down is actually a good film because the action on screen is genuinely spectacular. Unfortunately, though, it was made right in the shadow of 9/11 when cinematic patriotism felt mandatory. That forced sentimentality—like the scene where a character wipes away the blood of American soldiers with a towel—drops the quality by at least two notches for me. As for Matchstick Men, it's a perfectly fine, lighthearted way to spend a Sunday afternoon. No complaints there.

velvetcrane57 said:In the grand landscape of superhero cinema, Spider-Man arguably stands as the gold standard for comic book adaptations. I mean, if we aren't counting Batman—which, let’s be honest, operates in its own stratosphere—Spider-Man is the pinnacle. The brilliance lies in Sam Raimi's direction. He managed to tackle such visceral, high-stakes themes while maintaining a certain level of restraint; in those first two films, he delivered incredible tension without needing to resort to gratuitous gore or excessive bloodshed. It was handled with a certain grace. As for the third installment? I think I'll pass. That one was a complete disaster that completely lost its way.

And you think that's a good thing? Those "missing drops of blood" just mean a PG rating, which helps the movie pull in more cash here in the States. To me, that's an automatic 🙂

It's the exact same deal with most Disney releases like Pirates of the Caribbean or Narnia.

Uwe Boll—he’s never made a good movie, and he isn't about to start now.

By the way, I have to disagree on Scorsese; his work isn't bad. I don't see what there is to dislike about The Departed.

John Peterson3 said:Uwe Boll—he’s never made a good movie, and he isn't about to start now.

By the way, I have to disagree on Scorsese; his work isn't bad. I don't see what there is to dislike about The Departed.

Scorsese doesn't make bad movies. It's just that his newer stuff isn't quite hitting the mark like his older work did.

redowl90 said:Scorsese doesn't make bad movies. It's just that his newer stuff isn't quite hitting the mark like his older work did.

Well, what exactly was the expectation here?
Do you honestly expect a director to maintain the exact same level of brilliance found in *Taxi Driver* or *Raging Bull* for their entire career??

It's a bit absurd, really... *The Departed* and *Gangs of New York* are fantastic films; I find myself revisiting them quite often... much like those first two masterpieces mentioned.

redowl90 said:And you think that's a good thing? Those "missing drops of blood" just mean a PG rating, which helps the movie pull in more cash here in the States. To me, that's an automatic 🙂

It's the exact same deal with most Disney releases like Pirates of the Caribbean or Narnia.

Frankly, if someone fails to grasp the sheer technical brilliance of *Spider-Man*—and I am not referring to the character itself, but rather the sophisticated manner in which the film is directed—then they really have no business weighing in on cinematic discourse at all.

I honestly feel Ridley Scott doesn't quite belong in this specific conversation... If you look at films like *Gladiator*, *Hannibal*, *Kingdom of Heaven*, or even *American Gangster*, they stand as absolute masterpieces precisely because they are executed with that unmistakable Ridley Scott signature. It’s highly unlikely we will ever see the likes of *Alien* or *Blade Runner* again, so I think it's vital that we don't let ourselves become ungrateful for his legacy.

velvetcrane57 said:Frankly, if someone fails to grasp the sheer technical brilliance of *Spider-Man*—and I am not referring to the character itself, but rather the sophisticated manner in which the film is directed—then they really have no business weighing in on cinematic discourse at all.

Fine—then we'll just end up reading nothing but you on this forum. 😢

northerncrane4 said:Fine—then we'll just end up reading nothing but you on this forum. 😢

Honestly, those who fail to grasp the sheer brilliance of Spider-Man simply lack anything substantive to contribute to the conversation... It’s quite transparent, really.

velvetcrane57 said:Honestly, those who fail to grasp the sheer brilliance of Spider-Man simply lack anything substantive to contribute to the conversation... It’s quite transparent, really.

Get real. You adults are absolute fools!

velvetcrane57 said:Frankly, if someone fails to grasp the sheer technical brilliance of *Spider-Man*—and I am not referring to the character itself, but rather the sophisticated manner in which the film is directed—then they really have no business weighing in on cinematic discourse at all.

I guess for you, the pinnacle of cinematic art is that scene near the end where the Green Goblin forces Spider-Man to choose between saving a woman or a full school bus of kids.

👎

Spiderman is easily one of the best things to ever happen to Hollywood since the legendary masterpiece "There Will Be Blood."

Look, if you just don't get it, well, damn, I guess we aren't all cut out for movies, right?

I’m honestly glad velvetcrane57 is sticking by that theory.

In my book, Raimi is miles ahead of his namesake Sam, who just churns out mindless garbage like that "Life Storm" flick where everyone's just messing around, or that "Road to Destruction" mess where some Forrest Gump wannabe tries to take down the entire mob. And don't even get me started on how certain directors just shoot from the hip—you can tell immediately when the Parker stunts are missing. Even DeFoe's performance in "The Tarantula Man" was something we haven't seen since "Crucifixion," where he starred alongside Gene Hackman—that guy with the French connections, the sax player from those Copland tapes, helping out Will and the "I Am Legend" Smith from Bel Air in "Public Enemy Number One," which isn't even Cagney anymore because Volle stopped acting after losing an eye like Nelson, and then there's Mandela fighting apartheid and winning a Peace Prize that didn't even sit well with big peacekeepers like Bakarić, aka "The Dead Man," but whatever, that's irrelevant. Spiderman is basically the Caligari of the 21st century, but the 21st century is passing by way too fast, so really...

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Spiderman is easily one of the best things to ever happen to Hollywood since the legendary masterpiece "There Will Be Blood."

Look, if you just don't get it, well, damn, I guess we aren't all cut out for movies, right?

I’m honestly glad velvetcrane57 is sticking by that theory.

In my book, Raimi is miles ahead of his namesake Sam, who just churns out mindless garbage like that "Life Storm" flick where everyone's just messing around, or that "Road to Destruction" mess where some Forrest Gump wannabe tries to take down the entire mob. And don't even get me started on how certain directors just shoot from the hip—you can tell immediately when the Parker stunts are missing. Even DeFoe's performance in "The Tarantula Man" was something we haven't seen since "Crucifixion," where he starred alongside Gene Hackman—that guy with the French connections, the sax player from those Copland tapes, helping out Will and the "I Am Legend" Smith from Bel Air in "Public Enemy Number One," which isn't even Cagney anymore because Volle stopped acting after losing an eye like Nelson, and then there's Mandela fighting apartheid and winning a Peace Prize that didn't even sit well with big peacekeepers like Bakarić, aka "The Dead Man," but whatever, that's irrelevant. Spiderman is basically the Caligari of the 21st century, but the 21st century is passing by way too fast, so really...

Then there's "War of the Worlds" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" following right behind...

wearytinker8 said:Then there's "War of the Worlds" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" following right behind...

So, here is our all-time top 5:
1. Spider-Man
2. War of the Worlds
3. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
4. Citizen Kane
5. The Godfather

redowl90 said:So, here is our all-time top 5:
1. Spider-Man
2. War of the Worlds
3. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
4. Citizen Kane
5. The Godfather

Personally, I’d still put "Spider-Man 3" at number one...

velvetcrane57 said:In the grand landscape of superhero cinema, Spider-Man arguably stands as the gold standard for comic book adaptations. I mean, if we aren't counting Batman—which, let’s be honest, operates in its own stratosphere—Spider-Man is the pinnacle. The brilliance lies in Sam Raimi's direction. He managed to tackle such visceral, high-stakes themes while maintaining a certain level of restraint; in those first two films, he delivered incredible tension without needing to resort to gratuitous gore or excessive bloodshed. It was handled with a certain grace. As for the third installment? I think I'll pass. That one was a complete disaster that completely lost its way.

Look, I’ve been a massive Spider-Man fan since I was a kid. I grew up reading the comics and watching the old cartoons on VHS back in the day. I've always been a huge comic book guy—mostly into stuff like *Alan Ford* types, you know?

Since I knew the world surrounding this character so incredibly well, I was really hoping the movie would capture that specific "vibe" just once.
As far as the directing goes, I don't have much to complain about, but the pairing of Maguire and Dunst just turned me off instantly. Honestly, before the movie even hit theaters, I already knew I wasn't feeling it. It’s not a bad movie, per se, but it isn't the Spider-Man I was expecting.

Take the X-Men trilogy, for example. They changed quite a bit from the source material—like Wolverine’s suit, which sticks out like a sore thumb—but it actually worked well for the screen. That yellow, blue, and black shredded look probably would have looked pretty ridiculous in live action. Plus, the casting is better, in my opinion.

Bottom line: if I’m in the mood for a comic book adaptation, I’d much rather watch X-Men than Spider-Man.

velvetcrane57 said:Well, what exactly was the expectation here?
Do you honestly expect a director to maintain the exact same level of brilliance found in *Taxi Driver* or *Raging Bull* for their entire career??

It's a bit absurd, really... *The Departed* and *Gangs of New York* are fantastic films; I find myself revisiting them quite often... much like those first two masterpieces mentioned.

velvetcrane57 said:I honestly feel Ridley Scott doesn't quite belong in this specific conversation... If you look at films like *Gladiator*, *Hannibal*, *Kingdom of Heaven*, or even *American Gangster*, they stand as absolute masterpieces precisely because they are executed with that unmistakable Ridley Scott signature. It’s highly unlikely we will ever see the likes of *Alien* or *Blade Runner* again, so I think it's vital that we don't let ourselves become ungrateful for his legacy.

I agree with both posts...

Regarding *Spider-Man*, the first two were solid, but the third felt far too long. The pacing drags, and honestly, it just didn't do it for me.

*Days of Thunder* is a great one. I love the scene right before Tom's Midget car hits the pit stop wall where he says, "This is gonna hurt..." 😂

In my opinion, though, movies should be categorized by genre before being rated. Otherwise, everyone's subjective takes just end up canceling out the next person's list in an endless loop.

velvetcrane57 said:Is it just me, or are you actually taking a massive swipe at The Warriors here??

Look, do whatever you want with it, but for me... The Warriors... Pretty miserable movie. Or so they claim... garbage... It’s one of those classics that people swear by when they're younger, but honestly, I never got the hype. The script and directing are just lazy and uninspired, and don't even get me started on the acting—though that's not really why the movie stuck with me in such a bad way. Even if you look past all the technical failures, the whole thing was just incredibly dull. I didn't even know how to stay engaged. The action sequences were poorly executed, too. Maybe that's just how it's supposed to be... garbage... The aesthetics are fine, I guess, but there’s just zero tension in the action scenes for me. Makes the whole thing pretty dull. The only real upside is that vintage vibe they managed to capture, and the plot actually holds some weight, but beyond that... it's definitely a one-and-done kind of movie...

velvetcrane57 said: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'').

Being a Kubrick fan doesn't mean you're always right when you start talking about him... not that I'm claiming to be, I'm just saying... I don't know... just my two cents.). A Clockwork Orange. Honestly, this was easily the worst Kubrick flick I've sat through... and that’s saying something since I've already checked out these five: The Killing, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining... I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. You only typed "i"... Eyes Wide Shut... I’ve seen enough movies to feel like I know a thing or two about Kubrick... The Killing... i Eyes Wide Shut... Hands down, they're the best on this list...
I'm one of those viewers where the vibe is everything... Eyes Wide Shut... I'm feeling the exact same way. Also, I live for that Polanski-style mystery vibe—and this movie has it in spades. The visuals are killer, especially with those creepy undertones... Kubrick is just built different... vizual-sound It’s the director's job, so that's what you expect from him. Dark streets, endless wandering, searching for answers to questions that weren't even asked... those eerie sounds and that mysterious vibe—that's exactly why this is my favorite Kubrick flick. It gives me way more than that pretentious psychological deep-diving that ultimately leaves you with zero answers. Sorry, but I didn't really get much out of that one. What kept me watching was... A Clockwork Orange. Pure madness... It was all just vibes—visuals, sound design, the story itself—if you don't go digging for some deep meaning. The rest was just pure pretension and Kubrick's typical self-important philosophizing. Gave me nothing but a headache...