Kim Vickers

Seriously, do you think it was the coke or the weed? Or some mixture of the two?

Agreed. I can't quite put my finger on it, but anamorphic lenses seem to do something to the 2.39 frame that Super35 doesn't do. Maybe what I'm seeing are technically "flaws" but I always like the look. Sometimes I almost feel like I'm seeing things that are a little distorted vertically, streched a bit. I'm talking about a micro, micro bit of stretching, nothing too obvious. Anyway, whatever it is, I like it. It's got character.

Sounds reasonable. But is this primarily a focus consideration or a "quality in low-light" consideration? Also, David, I'm sure you've seen Alien: Did you see any problems with the fact a lot of it was shot wide open or thereabouts?

Both. I've seen it many times in a theater, in 70mm, in 35mm, and digitally projected (for the revised cut that RS put out a couple of years ago). The idea that the image in this movie is somehow lacking in quality or sharpness of any kind just strikes me as absurd. You would think a blowup to 70mm especially would have revealed any quality issues with the lenses wide open, but I certainly didn't feel that way. If anything, I was continually astonished at how absolutely gorgeous the movie looked in virtually every shot. A couple of years ago, I spoke with a camera technician about this anamorphic versus Super-35 debate, and he told me that all modern cinema lenses are engineered to be at their best when used wide open. He said older lenses looked better in the middle apertures, but generally the newer stuff was fine when used wide open. I should also note that in his opinion, he felt anamorphic was purely an "ego trip" because it involved a lot of extra expense, lens weight and was very hard on focus pullers -- all for an aesthetic that was only marginally different from spherical and therefore not worth it. Anyway, from all the info I've cobbled together over the years, I'm beginning to think that the problems with anamorphic are simply over-sold by people who are either nervous about the degree of difficulty involved or envious of those with the money to afford it. If anamorphic lenses had any serious quality issues in low light, I seriously doubt a director with an eye as good as Ridley's would ever touch them. Maybe in inexperienced hands these lenses have issues, but the issues appear to be quite manageable for those with experience.

I hear this alot, but on the DVD commentary for Alien Ridley Scott says most of that movie was shot with anamorphic lenses wide open, which he acknowledges is dangerous and hard on the focus puller, but there's no denying the film looks beautiful, and many of the scenes were shot in very low light. My point here is that if wide open anamorphic in 1978 was good enough for Ridley Scott, how "real" are these issues that people have with shooting anamorphic in low light? The alleged "quality issues" don't seem to have hurt Alien any.

Speaking of great comebacks, here's one from Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a letter saying I approved." Anyway, I'm sure there are people who will feel that way when Gallo says goodbye, but so what? I don't see anybody else out there pushing the envelope of mainstream filmmaking.... Okay, maybe David Lynch, but he's yesterday's news. Despite the "indie" movement we're allegedly seeing, movies today look as safe as they did in the fifties. Somebody has to make dangerous movies. Otherwise it's just a buffet of processed cheese.

I thought Thelma & Louise should have won best picture in 1991. I don't think it was even nominated. I thought Sin City should have been at least nominated this past year and I thought Crash was just a TeeVee movie-of-the-week with a better budget. But I digress.... IMO Raiders of the Lost Ark was by far the best picture of 1981. The Academy gave the Oscar to Chariots of Fire, a soundtrack in search of a movie. I also think Apocalypse Now got jobbed in 1979. Kramer Vs Kramer is a good film, but come on.

Munich.

Bad movies I love (guilty pleasures): BLUE THUNDER: Helicopters are very cinematic (see also: Airwolf), but after a promising start the story just becomes totally absurd in the third act and devolves into an unintentional laugh-fest. I love anything with Warren Oates and some of his lines are priceless, but the movie takes you for a complete idiot, and that's bad in my books. Still, I own the DVD. SHAKEDOWN: Lame Peter Weller vehicle with an OK car chase. The scene at the end with Sam Elliott hanging on to the landing gear on a Lear jet above NYC is one of the most laughably wrong-headed things I've ever seen in a movie. Makes Knight Rider look like A-list entertainment. Very bad and very funny. TOP GUN: As one critic put it, "It's 60 pages of gay innuendo punctuated by great flying sequences." Excellent (unintended?) laughs and the aerial sequences are still the best ever filmed.

I'm a guy, but no worries, I'm used to that by now. I think I like Excalibur a little more than you did, but it is ageing pretty quickly. For a real hoot, you should check out another Boorman film called Zardoz, with Sean Connery. Definitely Does Not Work. Not to beat up on Boorman, but The Emerald Forest didn't work for me, either. Some great photography, though. Re: Ridley, Alien is the best looking movie I've ever seen, period. The only glitch is the "mother" room, with those sad-sack flashing LiteBrite bulbs in the walls, looks like it was taken from a rejected Buck Rogers set. Everything else looks perfect.

I think you're right. I also think you can split Ridley Scott's career into two phases, pre-Thelma & Louise and post-T&L. That movie was the first time he had a real, solid script in his hands, and IMO it's his best work by far. I saw it on DVD last week and it's just as good today, fifteen years later, as it was then. Maybe better. The people are real. The emotions are real. The characters connect with you. You feel involved in their situations. He's made some mediocre films since then, but no total washouts like Legend. Generally I feel his heart is in the right place post-T&L, whereas before T&L he was primarily concerned with his style. I know some people prefer his style-first attitude, but listening to the commentaries on his DVDs you get the feeling he's moved on and he's happy about it. I liked Matchstick Men. I hope he finds a few more character-based films to do before he retires.

The first scary film I saw in a theater was the original Halloween, which was considered fairly strong stuff when it came out in 1978. (I saw it on DVD last year and it doesn't hold up as well as I thought it might, but horror films almost never do.) I liked Silence of the Lambs. I also liked The Hitcher. I thought Session Nine was one of the creepiest things I've seen. I also liked Blair Witch Project, but I didn't ingest any of the pre-release hype. I knew nothing about it before I saw it. I also smoked a joint and was a bit paranoid when I saw the movie; I think that probably helped ;) I snuck into the theater to see The Shining when I was 12. I've seen it a few times on DVD since then. I keep waiting for it to turn into a good film, as sometimes happens with Kubrick movies. I didn't like 2001 the first time I saw it. I had to read the book, then go back to the film and watch it a few times. Now I think it's a masterpiece. My mind could change on The Shining, but I've since read King's book, and I rate it as a masterpiece of horror writing. I just can't say the film works for me. If you're going to read one book by Stephen King, though, The Shining must be it. (One of the things I miss in the movie is the heartbreaking quality of the wife's recollection of her husband's abuse of the child. I just don't feel like anybody in the movie version is a real person. The vision is too remote for me.) I think I'm way off topic now. What are your noteable misfires?

The Shining didn't scare me. A horror film that doesn't scare me is like a comedy that doesn't make me laugh. I can't truly say "it worked for me." Great camerwork, yes. But camerawork and direction are not synonymous (as some people on this site would have us believe). State of Grace had Jordan Cronenweth behind the camera but the movie didn't work. I know quite a few Kubrick afficionados (like myself) who think The Shining is by far his weakest film. Again, all opinion here. I'm not trying to diminish anyone's enjoyment of these pictures. Part of my problem with Blade Runner is that I read the book first. I'm a Philip K. Dick fan. I've read Hampton Fancher's first draft script, which follows the feel of the book more closely, and I rate it far superior to the Peoples' draft that was filmed. When you're making big changes to what is arguably one of the two or three best science fiction books ever written, you should tread lightly indeed. That didn't happen and the story and characters got hopelessly muddled, IMO. If Peter Jackson had manhandled Tolkien in such a fashion, there would have been riots in the streets. The only thing that stopped this from happening on Blade Runner is that, in 1982, few people outside of sci-fi circles had even heard of PK Dick. And, to put it bluntly, the movie was widely viewed as a flop when it came out, so I'm certainly not alone in this opinion. Based on what Ridley Scott has said about how his attitude towards scripts has changed over the years, I suspect if he were to film the movie today he would go with the more emotionally charged script that Fancher delivered. Admittedly, that's not just opinion, that's pure speculation.

To me, a film that "just doesn't work" is something apart from a film that out-and-out sucks. A film that doesn't work can have some good elements and yet simply not coalesce into a solid viewing experience. I could list a lot of films that I thought sucked, but I don't learn anything from watching pure crap. It's the near-misses and well-meaning fiascos that are the most instructive for me. Then there are films that are severely compromised by one or two unfortunate elements. I put Ladyhawke and Blade Runner in this category. Ladyhawke had a ridiculous musical score and Blade Runner had a sloppy script. They both work, I suppose, but barely. I personally feel Heaven's Gate belongs in the "severely compromised" category. I also put two of Kubrick's films here: Lolita and The Shining. Spielberg gets honorable mention for 1941, Empire of the Sun, Hook, Always and A.I. Some spectacular misfires there. Some unqualified duds (IMO): The Tailor of Panama Extreme Prejudice Kundun Broken Flowers Deal of the Century

Speaking of the Coen Brothers and films that don't work: The Ladykillers Intolerable Cruelty A few more from different directors: Legend Broken Flowers A.I. Malice Sunset Blood Work

We can all agree this is a totally subjective opinion. There's no point in defending any film in this context. Let's stick to the subject of the thread: "Films that just don't work." Post your lists and let us watch and decide for ourselves.

This is a great subject. I think we learn far more from failed or mediocre films than we do from great films, because great filmmakers, like great athletes, make it all look so easy. Bad and mediocre films are good for showing us how NOT to do things. I also agree that No Such Thing didn't work at all. There are films that are so flat-out bad and cheaply made that they're depressing; I'm more interested in "quality misfires" -- in which the filmmakers seem to be trying hard, but the movie just doesn't work, for a variety of reasons. Here's a short list of "quality misfires" that I've gone back to a few times. You can often find these DVDs in the cheapie bins. (As a side note, I've found a disproportionate number of films in this category are MGM titles from the eighties and nineties. Hmmmmm....) State of Grace (DOP: Jordan Cronenweth, ASC) The Mean Season (DOP: Frank Tidy, BSC) Catch-22 (DOP: David Watkin, BSC) Wind (DOP: John Toll, ASC) Dreamcatcher (DOP: John Seale, ACS ASC) All these films look either very good or great. But as the credits indicate, even the best DPs in the world are not miracle-workers when the problem is in the script. If anybody's got a list of their own "quality misfires," please post.