Films that just don't work

[James Steven Beverly]

You think the Shining was a miss or as you put it "severely compromised"? Great direction, Great acting, Great story, great cinematography, great sound design, great set design. In what part exactly is there compromise? The Shining was a lesson on how to make a horror film and perhaps the best horror film ever made or at least tied with Psycho and The Exorsist. And Lolita? Maybe the Killing, but Lolita? Lolita was handled beautifully. It still works today as well as the day it came out. The Adrian Lyne version maybe you could call compromised but not the Kubrick version. The Kubrick version was perfection. And then there's Empire of the sun, That was also an excellent film. How you could dismiss it with honorable mention is really beyond me, but hey if that's your opinion, that's your opinion. I do doubt however that a whole lot of people would agree with you.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I must agree with the captain on this one. Also, I feel Kundun belongs on an"Underrated List", if there is one on this forum. One of my favorite Scorsese pictures after Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, the ganster flicks. But everyone has an opinion..... :D

 

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Blade Runner is just plain bad-ass. IMHO. Peoples and Fancher are also bad-ass. Again, IMHO.

Edited March 22, 2006 by BARCA

[Josh Bass]

AI had major potential. I do know people who loved it.

[Kim Vickers]

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.

[K Borowski]

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.

 

I have a real problem with this kind of thinking because it means that directors continually have to up the ante to get people scared. I admit I've never seen the entire film, but I'm sure if THe Shining didn't scare you, movies like Psycho, or Vertigo would make you yawn. Jaws would probably elilcit the same response. I think it's sad that people need movies like Pulp Fiction or Hostel just to get some sort of rise out of them now. Even seeing real death and destruction on TV pales in comparison to the classic horror movies or classic "thriller" films. Watch the stuff with a mindset of the time and place in which these films were made. Just because we've seen so much graphic filth in our day shouldn't diminish our appreciation for films of the past. It's like someone saying (I forget who but it was on this forum) that Citizen Kane was overrated and on of Lucas's Star Wars films did a far better job artistically. People who discount films based on their being black & white or not having graphic violence in them are missing the real point of what the main purpose is in making a movie besides just flat out making money off of it. Not trying to pick on you personally Kim; many moviegoers my age are of the same line of thought.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[James Steven Beverly]

If the Shining didn't scare you, I want to take you with me when I go into a war zone. I'm just curious and this is not an attack at all, what films did scare you?

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

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.

 

Great book. The opera seen would have been real cool in the movie. Scott didn't even read the book. Dick was angry about this until he saw clips of the film (he died before its release) and changed his mind on the aspect of what film can do for books, not the other way around. All that mattered to him was the ultimate vision no matter its closeness to the original material. And for this, and what he did see, Dick backed the screenplay and Scotts vision after initial anger and distrust of the system in general.

 

 

 

The whole thing about Scott and the way he "reads" scripts now happens to all filmmakers as they age,IMHO. At least the ones who started as stylists. The form IS content school. Which Scott was definitly a "part" of. Looking for good stories as apposed to good scripts. I believe there is a chasm between the two. Not to say Aliens or Blade Runner were bad scripts. The Aliens script reads like the barest of spec scripts which left tons of room for stylistic interpretation. Another interesting thing, if you watch earlier films by these kind of filmmakers, the spoken word count is alot less than their newer films. I'm not sure if that means anything or not, but it's interesting to say the least. :rolleyes:

 

Uh-Oh! I think I'm off topic now....

Edited March 22, 2006 by BARCA

[Max Jacoby]

Hope that makes some sense. That being said, "Snow Falling on Cedars" is one film I think that certainly didn't work.

You know what, I had the same impression when I first saw it. But I have been watching it several times since (mainly because of Bob Richardson's great cinematography) and I like it more and more every time. I'm not sure whether it's because I tend to overlook the faults of the movie (and there are a few) or whether it's actually not that bad. But the ending makes me cry every single time.

[Kim Vickers]

If the Shining didn't scare you, I want to take you with me when I go into a war zone. I'm just curious and this is not an attack at all, what films did scare you?

 

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?

[Kim Vickers]

Another interesting thing, if you watch earlier films by these kind of filmmakers, the spoken word count is alot less than their newer films. I'm not sure if that means anything or not, but it's interesting to say the least.

 

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.

[James Steven Beverly]

I actually think Alien was Scott's best movie. Now that was scarry. Although I liked Black Hawk Down alot. I'd say it's a close second. I aslo liked Black Rain and loved Blade Runner, but I never read the book. I liked Thelma and Louise as well but not nearly as much as you did. Could just be cuz I'm a guy and T&L was more of a Chick Flik. I'm assuming of course that you female because of your name, If your not please don't be offended or if you are don't think I being choavenistic, it's just certain films tend to appeal more to women than men.

 

As for films that I think didn't work but were worth watching dispite this, I already mentioned 1941, Excaliber is another one didn't quite work although it was a beautiful film. The Frisco Kid, Gene Wilder and Harrison Ford great actors, mediocer script. The Quick and the Dead, Even Sharon Stone in tight leather pants didn't save this thing but I did watch it cuz I LOVE Sharon Stone in tight leather pants. Mickey Blue Eyes and Extreme Measures I watch these cause I like Hugh Grant but they both blow. Analyze That, cuz Analyze This was so good I was REALLY disappointed by Analyze That.

Edited March 23, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Kim Vickers]

I'm assuming of course that you female because of your name,

 

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.

[David Sweetman]

Blade Runner, that's a great movie.

 

As for P.Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," there is a book that just flat-out didn't work. It would not be exageration to say I hated that book; I much prefer Asimov or Arthur C Clarke. Both are much more thoughtful and effective with their words.

[James Steven Beverly]

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 LOVED ZARDOZ. It's definately on my best of the worst list. The completely unapologetic violence in it is great. Connery did 2 (well more than that really) completely bizzar movies. Zardoz and Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (also on my best of the worst list).

[Leslie Farquharson]

I always wanted to know what Ewan MacGregor and Ashley Judd were doing in Eye of the Beholder. That movie just did NOT work, IMO. It felt like it was an editing issue, but I really don't know...and KD Lang's bit...what? I sat through that movie wondering if its just a big dice roll for actors who take the time to learn their lines and get out there thinking that magic is happening...

[Dan Salzmann]

The remakes of "Planet of the Apes", "Solaris", The Ladykiller's", "The Stepford Wives", Psycho" and "Cape Fear" were all pointless to make IMHO.

 

"Cold Mountain", "The New World", "The Village", "Kundun", "Gangs of New York", "MatrixII", Blair WitchII", "AI", "Memoirs of a Geisha" just didn't function for me as films despite sometimes interesting cinematography.

[Evan Guilfoyle]

"Belly" by Hype Williams is an incredible work of craft over content. It was shot by Malik Sayeed, and it suffers from "A Clockwork Orange" syndrome: the violent first half is far more engaging than the moral second half. Depsite an uplifting message from a Louis Farrakhan (sp?) look-a-like, the movie just doesn't work.

 

"The New World" and "Gangs of New York" are two recent movies I give an exception to. They DO NOT WORK on first viewings, but getting past their cinematic faux-pas are two flawed masterpieces. Malick especially created a unique language unforeseen in film with his latest. Daniel Day Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio are excellent in their roles even if the movie they are in tries to hard to be sweeping and epic.

 

As for your remake list:

"The Ladykillers" revealed every smart-allecky tendency the Coens have displayed and in some ways made me reevaluate their whole body of work.

"Solaris" is deserving of reevaluation. An emotional film wrapped in Kubrickian icy overtones.

"Psycho" and "Cape Fear": Nuff said.

 

"The Island" was a very flawed film, but on another view, one can see that Michael Bay is at least trying to smarten up his work as he gets further from Bad Boys I and Armageddon. GOOD CINEMATOGRAPHY TOO!

 

Not to retread on an old thread, but ALL POLITICS ASIDE: "Munich" fires on all cylinders until the third (or fourth, dependant on your point of view) act. Then it crumbles like a day old donut.

 

John Boorman is getting knocked on this list, but "Beyond Rangoon" was a bad movie. "Zardoz" and "Emerald Forest" aren't as awful as some say.

"Apt Pupil" should have ended Bryan Singer's career, but Stephen King was smart enough to not even address that cinematic fart-in-the-wind.

Edited May 23, 2006 by Evan Guilfoyle

[james caspar-wolfe]

Panic Room

Its all about Love

Alexander

National Treasure

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Controversial)

 

Incidentally, anything Simon West has ever signed on for.

[Tom Bays]

Gangs of New York. Though it had one of my favorite all-time performances.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Granted, you did put (Controversial) next to it, but Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind totally worked for me. First, second and third viewing. Interesting imagery, clever FX and a story about love that is as unromantic as it is romantic. I also thought all of the performances were great, including Jim who was sufficiently tethered. Just my opinion.

[Guest]

"And please, no one bring up box office numbers. That has nothing do with whether a movie is good."

 

Ahhh, you must work for the CBC.

 

R,

[Craig Agee]

'Gummo' scared the crap out of me...i liked it though

[Josh Bass]

Your mom works for the CBC.

 

Are you really going to argue this? All box office proves is that people went to see a movie, and spent money on it. It says nothing of their enjoyment of said experience, and since all of this is subjective anyway, one could argue that even if they majority of them DID enjoy it, that doesn't make it good, it just means that people are simple-minded etc. etc.

 

I have a feeling I've stated this in almost the exact same words earlier in this thread, but I ain't a-lookin'.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

You're right. But it's the only way to judge a films "quality" without involving taste (which, obviously, is all over the place). I think boxoffice can be at least an indicator for brainless popcorn movies, but it works less well on films that actually have something to say.

[Dajan Bozanic]

anything by Alan Smithee ;)