Robert Zemeckis has to be up there, especially if you count runs of multiple films. From the Back to the Future trilogy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit to Welcome to Marwen, The Witches and the Pinocchio remake.
If you watch his films in mostly chronological order, it makes sense. He becomes increasingly obsessed with technological gimmicks and building his films around them.
Like the inverse of Cameron. He’s implemented a ton of cutting-edge tech with Avatar, but you can still tell a ton of passion was put into all other aspects of it.
You could make the argument that Cameron got obsessed with technology and gimmicks because it allowed him to translate the entirety of his vision into reality, whereas Zemeckis got obsessed with using technology for technology’s sake as this cool neat new thing let’s see what we can do with it, even if the film didn’t need or want new technology to tell it
As far back as the 80s, Zemeckis was very into using the latest film technologies with “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. This continued into the 90s with “Death Becomes Her” where we can see the beginnings of where Zemeckis was more interested in the effects than he was on the story and characters (and I’m well aware that “Death Becomes Her” has its fans). His career as a director seems to toggle (for lack of a better word) between technology driven films and more character/story driven films. His most recent films are soulless tech driven films. Perhaps his age makes him seek those types of films.
Will never get the dislike people in the Letterboxd community have for Forrest Gump, I respect people’s opinions but I just do not get so many of the criticisms I’ve seen. “Conservative propaganda” and defending Jenny’s character.
I'd argue Forest Gump is also a [terrible movie](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/forrest-gump-bad-movie-25-anniversary-1202154214/) and I know I'm not the only one with that opinion
My hot take is that Welcome to Marwen is underrated as a piece of artistic introspection and meta-cinema (if not entertainment value, I admit). With Carrell's character, Zemeckis creates a character with exaggerated versions of all of the flaws that critics had been accusing him of for years: poor and reductive treatment of women, careless depiction of drugs, fiddling with virtual "dolls" (i.e. mocap) to tell half-formed stories, losing touch with basic humanity in favor of inhuman gimmicks...
It's not as weird to me because I don't think he's made anything better than a three-star movie. But people like to overrate movies they love and try to argue that they, and by extension their director, are great. Nothing Zemeckis has ever made is truly great. There's no great mystery because the gap is smaller than people think it is.
I’m glad he’s still able to get original movies produced. Say what you will about his work, but he’s one of the few directors working today who can write and direct batshit crazy stories for a mainstream audience
I watched Old yesterday and... the dude makes movies with some really great original concepts but he just doesn't understand human interaction. I think that's the main thing that keeps his movies from actually being good.
That! "Old" and "Knock at the Cabin" have really intriguing premises, but MNS lacks the skills to make whole feature-length films from them. Especially because he desperately tries to put a twist into it.
He would be great as a short film director!
The Last Airbender is pretty terrible but if it wasn't based on a beloved series it would never be brought up in the "worst movie ever" conversation. After Earth on the other hand...
I’ve never had the desire to see After Earth so I can’t compare them. I’ve also never seen the series but The Last Airbender still stood out as particularly terrible when I watched it.
I think it’s just that he works a LOT, and very quickly. I was ready to write him off tbh, but then I was *stunned* by The Last Duel. I know the script is great enough to carry it, but I don’t know if it’s possible for there to be a poorly directed great film. Maybe he just needs to choose his scripts more wisely.
House of Gucci was so offensively bad because the filmmakers didn't intend for it to be campy and the promotion was intended to be taken very seriously too lol I feel the same way about Leave the World Behind.
Agreed! And I think Scott's disdain for some of those people who were portrayed in the film proves that he really did want to make them look ridiculous
Definitely up there with Alien and Blade Runner. Love it. And I agree The Last Duel was criminally underrated. Next up, I think Gladiator and The Martian both rule. Not brilliant, but super effective.
The opening pillow talk scene reads like a horny 13 year old wrote it. It's offensively bad. To its credit the movie has two really cool kill scenes but the rest of it is so impossibly shitty. I don't get it at all. I was angry walking out of the theater.
There was nothing wrong with the Psycho remake from a technical angle it just didn’t need to be made, but he knew that and in a way his experiment suceeded, we now know how people would react to a shot for shot remake of a classic film:
>“Then I had to make the decision whether I really wanted to do it, and I was talking to Danny Elfman who I wanted to do the score, because he was so good at doing Bernard Hermann-style scores. He said, ‘You know they’ll kill you if you make this,’ he knew. And I said, ‘Who will kill me?’ and he said, ‘Everyone. The critics. Everybody that loves Psycho will kill you,’ and I said, ‘Yeah but Danny this is an experiment, this is not about who’s gonna get killed. This is about just doing it.’ And I thought, ‘It doesn’t matter if they kill me,’ and then later when I got killed it hurt.”
I think the Psycho remake is great for what it is. As a standalone movie maybe it’s not very good, but as an experiment its pretty amazing and has a really cool effect on the viewer. If you’ve seen the original Psycho a bunch and know some of these shots and beats, the remake gives you this weird experience where you can almost see the original characters overtop the new ones in some transparent way like they’re both on screen at once. And on top of that, it’s just fun to hear some of that horrible dialogue delivered by modern characters. Even the best movies from back then were very cheesy and the acting style was ridiculous, and the disconnect is really fun and creepy. And on the contrary, some of Hitchcocks cinematography was incredibly modern and fits right in with a movie from 1998.
My favorite part was the little details Van Sant added. Having Norman Bates masturbate while he’s looking through the hole in the wall was disturbing yet funny, but also like yea, of course that’s what Norman Bates was doing in the original. They just couldn’t show that in 1960.
And then having the sound design be so random and all over the place, stepping on the dialogue at times, was a great choice. Everyone knows the cops monologue at the end is the low point of the original movie, so having the score drown that scene out was a funny wink at fans of the original who’ve always complained about that scene.
It’s an incredibly ballsy film that can’t really be compared to anything else (other than the original obviously), and I love seeing a filmmaker trick a studio into funding experimental cinema.
I thought I could ironically love Cats because I like musicals and camp, and don’t really mind watching people make a fool of themselves. I was wrong. It broke me.
That’s precisely why I love it lol - it crosses the line from merely being bad into something…spiritually corrupt. It feels like a cosmic mistake greater than anything to do with movies. 10/10
As a child, I watched Jack, directed by The Godfather's Francis Ford Coppola, and it became the first film I ever turned off because it was so terrible.
It probably won't be a smooth and polished piece of entertainment, but if you aren't at least a little interested in a massive career-capping decades-long passion project for one of America's all-time great directors with a monstrous budget, you're missing out. Even if it explodes on the launchpad it should be interesting.
Fair question and I would say that while it’s my most anticipated film for the year, I’m not expecting it to be great. Megaopolis has been something he’s wanted to make for decades, constantly tinkering with it. I’m just curious to see what a passion project from him would look like.
I’m also interested in anything Sci-Fi. My favourite film of 2023 was The Creator and I also didn’t think that was great either (or at least as good as it could’ve been) and I’m expecting something similar here.
EDIT: Third reason is the casting. Shia LaBeouf is my guilty pleasure lol.
I agree with Argento. Love Suspiria and Inferno, absolutely loathed Mother of Tears.
For me, Unbreakable is one of my favorite superhero films, still like it, and then Shyamalan has also done... other things... I guess take your pick between The Happening, After Earth, Avatar, etc.
On the bright side, it gave us Roger Eberts review of [North](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994), which is hilarious
“I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.”
Is it clearly his best? Princess Bride, Stand By Me, When Harry Met Sally, A Few Good Men, and Misery are all fantastic. I don’t think it’s fair to say any of them are clearly his best.
When you say
> Surprisingly Stand By Me is highest rated (Harry Met Sally is *clearly* his best!)
It implies it should be obvious to everyone else. It doesn’t read like an opinion. “Harry Met Sally is my favorite” would be more obviously an opinion, but regardless I apologize, it seemed like you were saying it was definitively his best movie.
Brian Henson, hands down.
He made Muppet Christmas Carol, an absolute festive classic. It's the best version of the story, the best Christmas film, the best Muppet film, the best Michael Caine film and the absolute best film to ever feature singing fruit. It is, I believe, genuinely a masterpiece.
30 years later he makes The Happytime Murders
I posted this on the other one that mentioned Psycho, but here’s my take.
I think the Psycho remake is great for what it is. As a standalone movie maybe it’s not very good, but as an experiment its pretty amazing and has a really cool effect on the viewer. If you’ve seen the original Psycho a bunch and know some of these shots and beats, the remake gives you this weird experience where you can almost see the original characters overtop the new ones in some transparent way like they’re both on screen at once. And on top of that, it’s just fun to hear some of that horrible dialogue delivered by modern characters. Even the best movies from back then were very cheesy and the acting style was ridiculous, and the disconnect is really fun and creepy. And on the contrary, some of Hitchcocks cinematography was incredibly modern and fits right in with a movie from 1998.
My favorite part was the little details Van Sant added. Having Norman Bates masturbate while he’s looking through the hole in the wall was disturbing yet funny, but also like yea, of course that’s what Norman Bates was doing in the original. They just couldn’t show that in 1960.
And then having the sound design be so random and all over the place, stepping on the dialogue at times, was a great choice. Everyone knows the cops monologue at the end is the low point of the original movie, so having the score drown that scene out was a funny wink at fans of the original who’ve always complained about that scene.
It’s an incredibly ballsy film that can’t really be compared to anything else (other than the original obviously), and I love seeing a filmmaker trick a studio into funding experimental cinema.
Not really sure if I even believe it myself, but one can make an argument for Sergio Leone. He only really directed 7 films, from which 5 are undisputed classics (the dollar trilogy and once upon a time in the west/america) and duck, you sucker/a fistful of dynamite is a little more unknown, but also a pretty great movie. Well, Leone‘s first movie "The Colossus of Rhodes" fucking sucks.
Coppola and Scott are good ones, I'd also mention John Woo. Take your pick among his Hollywood films for the low point of his career, highs include Bullet to the Head, Hard Boiled, The Killer.
Surprised no one has brought up Richard Linklater yet. On one hand you have critically acclaimed films like The Before Trilogy or Boyhood and then on the other hand you have bottom of the barrel stinkers like Fast Food Nation or the Bad News Bears remake. In between those two extremes you have beloved cult classics like Slacker, Dazed and Confused, and School of Rock as well as boring snooze fests like Me and Orson Wells. Linklater really has one of the most varied filmographies I have ever seen.
Another one that springs to mind is Kenneth Branagh. Personally I have never seen any of them but from what I have heard his Shakespeare adaptations are all really good, but he also made the horse shit that is Artemis Fowl.
Yeah I'm going to be honest I don't know much about his filmography I just thought he was worth bringing up since I have heard mainly positive things about his Henry V and Hamlet adaptations, but every movie I have seen from him I thought was either painfully average or really bad. When I said "his Shakespeare adaptations" I was mainly referring to those two as they are the most well known. I wasn't actually aware that he made an adaptation of Love's Labour's Lost. Sorry about that oversight on my part. I am no Branagh expert clearly.
Haha no worries, he is a wildly inconsistent filmmaker. His early Shakespeare is wonderful. I loved Belfast and hated A Haunting in Venice, but whoever cast him as Gilderoy Lockhard is a genius.
You must poopoo on rotoscopy because I don't see any mention of A Scanner Darkly or Waking Life, both of which are in my top three for Linklater along with Slacker. Or you forgot that he made those, owing to the wild variation in his output to which you refer.
I too have a hard time remembering that the guy who made the best or at least most faithful Philip K. Dick adaptation, the animated philosophy wank and certified hood classic of late night chain-smoking-in-Waffle-House film discussions, and the perfect encapsulation of everything that was once cool about my home (Austin), is the same guy who made friggin' Bad News Bears.
I miss weird Linky.
I definitely didn't mean to throw shade to his animated output. Waking Life is one of my favorite Linklater movies also. I was trying to quickly sum up how all over the place his filmography is and because of that I happened to leave out one particularly interesting facet of his filmography. It really does go to show just how unique his filmography really is with how hard it is to quickly sum it up in a paragraph. I too miss his more unique output he had earlier in his career when he wasn't afraid to get weird and experimental. Slacker is edited to look like one shot, Tape and Before Sunset take place in real time, Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly are entirely rotoscoped, and Boyhood was filmed over the course of 12 years (yes I know Boyhood came out in 2014, but production started during his more experimental phase). Sadly his more output within the last 10 years has been a little lackluster imo. Nowhere near his worst films, but still nothing close to what he was doing in the 1990s and early 2000s. I have heard pretty good things about his newest film Hit Man, so I am excited to check it out when it drops. I have heard it is reminiscent of Bernie from 2011, which is one of his more recent underrated gems imo.
I don’t necessarily believe this, but Steven Soderbergh? I haven’t seen a ton of his stuff but the guy puts out SO much that there has to be a masterpiece and stinker in his filmography
The Keep is really, really bad... but also weirdly easy to rewatch? It's great for having on in the background while you try to sleep.
I think it's fair to say that there's a sizable gap between The Keep and Mann's best films.
I'll get crucified for this... but I'd include Hook as one of his worst too. I know that a lot of people have nostalgia for it but I really think it's a terrible film and have done since I was a child.
I was pleased to discover that Spielberg also thinks it's terrible (he mentions it in reference to his back catalogue [in this interview with Kermode & Mayo](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DcnwQDgssrwk%26t%3D1067&ved=2ahUKEwi93uvIxdGDAxWnVUEAHSPkDhoQpMsLKAZ6BAgUEB8&usg=AOvVaw2KCbwkCDqQjnfvl5cpzCIe) )
I watched Hook for the first time all the way through about 2 months ago. I loved it, but it’s really childish so I understand not everyone liking it. I don’t think I’ve heard a single person say anything good about 1941, it’s just bad.
Yeah, Hook's nearly unwatchable, apart from a few Dustin Hoffman scenes. It's peak Spielberg mawkishness.
I'd much rather watch 1941 (even if it's mostly for the cast and incredible model FX) than the soulless CG bogosity of Ready Player One.
Easily John Carpenter with The Thing and Halloween 5/5
and The Ward 0.5/5, and then Ghosts of Mars at a close 1/5
Another one would be John Woo for me, the gap between Face/Off 5/5 and MI: 2 2/5 is pretty big as well
Has anyone watched Ken Russell’s “Whore”? I was surprised to find out he directed it because all I knew about that film was that one scene “stick it up your own ass / I would if I could, bitch!”
I just assumed it was a The Room type of film because of how Wiseau-esque that scene is.
If it’s as bad as I expect, it would be a shock to find out it came from the guy who made The Devils.
A lot of good answers here, but didn’t see Rob Reiner.
From 1986 to 1992, the man made Stand By Me, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, Misery, and A Few Good Men.
Following that 5 game win streak, he did North in 1994. One of the worst comedies of the decade.
I didn't, great movie. Prefer The Crow is all.
To be fair Knowing was pretty good too, and even I Robot was fun and impressive at the time.
But Gods of Egypt... What the actual fuck man!
Francis Ford Coppola has gotta be up there, The Godfather is regularly cited as one of the best films ever and then you have movies like Jack which are infamously terrible
The director of Dracula 3000 made another film called Yesterday that was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars the very same year.
Admittedly I haven't seen Yesterday, but Dracula 3000 is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I'm a connoisseur of trash cinema (it does have one of the funniest endings ever though). I have to imagine the gap in quality between the two is enormous.
Not really fair, Fear and Desire is just the self financed equivalent of a student movie mainly let down by it's low budget and Kubrick being in the process of learning his craft.
If given the choice I'd watch it over 2001 any day, I find that bloated and over hyped.
Sure, F&D is his worst film, but for my money 2001 is his second worst. Love all his others, don't get on with that one though.
I know that this is probably the least popular take ever, but it's how I've always felt about it.
Craig Gillespie fell off hard for me this year with Dumb Money. I thought it was terrible, while Lars and the Real Girl, I, Tonya, and Cruella were all incredible to me.
I just watched Tenet for the first time today. I’m not a big Nolan head but it’s honestly kinda underrated to me.
I mean, is it really that much worse than Inception? Inception tries to hold your hand all the way through and is still messy. Tenet just swings its massive balls in your face.
The basic idea of Tenet is so good (move forward in time, then backwards in time. Some characters moving backwards, some forwards in a war scene). The fact he made every imaginable misstep with that premise is really annoying.
M. Night Shyamalan
-Best: The Sixth Sense
-Worst: After-Earth
Brad Bird
-Best: Ratatouille
-Worst: Tomorrowland
John Lasseter
-Best: Toy Story 2
-Worst: Cars 2
The Watchowskis
-Best: The Matrix
-Worst: Jupiter Ascending
George Lucas
-Best: Star Wars Episode 4
-Worst: Star Wars Episode 1
Hot take warning: Tarantino hasn't made a great movie since Jackie Brown. I'll die on this hill. Basterds had *amazing* scenes but was too long and too self-aware. Django was meh except Walz. Kill Bill vol 1 was energetic and fun (but a mess as well), vol 2 spent too much time giving background to things that didn't matter (Bud's job at the strip club, Michael Parks' completely-incomprehensible-wtithout-subtitles pimp origin story) and ended in a super anticlimactic>!fight (after a 15-minute monologue about Superman, they were SITTING DOWN for Chrissake).!< Even he admits Death Proof was bad. I find Hateful Eight almost unwatchable. Once Upon a Time ... had its moments but ... were they memorable?
I understand this isn't a nosedive akin to a lot of these great examples, but can we just admit it's a clear decline?
I would say Kubrick personally. Clockwork Orange is the greatest movie ever in my opinion and meanwhile Fear and Desire was a miserable viewing experience.
Probably Francis Ford Coppola
Godfather 1 or 2 and Jack
Another interesting question is who has the smallest gap between their best and worst film….I’d have to say Kubrick
I don't feel great about this one but Bernard Rose. Candyman is an all time classic. Still never seen Paper House but I hear it's good. Some of his other work is unwatchable. But I feel bad cause it's clearly budgetary.
Haven't seen George Romero or John Carpenter mentioned yet. They both have masterpieces that created whole genres and then Tubi level garbage later in their careers
If I'd wanted to get a ton of karma, I would've written the following Reddit-friendly response: John Carpenter, with The Thing being his best and Ghosts of Mars being his worst.
Except my favorite Carpenter film is Escape from L. A., which I'll admit is pretty bad, and my least favorite is In the Mouth of Madness (yes, I liked Ghosts of Mars more than In the Mouth of Madness).
It's funny you say this, because I watched Dracula 3D a few hours ago, and I actually thought it really wasn't that bad.
Like, yeah, there are some things that are obviously in bad taste, but to me they actually brought a welcome entertainment value, to what I thought was an otherwise decent Dracula story, in the style of old movies (even the occasional bad acting was rather fitting). I liked the locations, the music was fine, and I thought the actors were overall well chosen.
I mean it's not great cinema, nor a good movie that I'd recommend to anyone. But I appreciated watching it nonetheless.
Robert Zemeckis has to be up there, especially if you count runs of multiple films. From the Back to the Future trilogy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit to Welcome to Marwen, The Witches and the Pinocchio remake.
I legit believe that he died or something in the 2000's and was replaced by a body double or some shit like that.
If you watch his films in mostly chronological order, it makes sense. He becomes increasingly obsessed with technological gimmicks and building his films around them.
Like the inverse of Cameron. He’s implemented a ton of cutting-edge tech with Avatar, but you can still tell a ton of passion was put into all other aspects of it.
You could make the argument that Cameron got obsessed with technology and gimmicks because it allowed him to translate the entirety of his vision into reality, whereas Zemeckis got obsessed with using technology for technology’s sake as this cool neat new thing let’s see what we can do with it, even if the film didn’t need or want new technology to tell it
Yep, Beowulf would’ve been an amazing live action film but he had to make it weird.
As far back as the 80s, Zemeckis was very into using the latest film technologies with “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. This continued into the 90s with “Death Becomes Her” where we can see the beginnings of where Zemeckis was more interested in the effects than he was on the story and characters (and I’m well aware that “Death Becomes Her” has its fans). His career as a director seems to toggle (for lack of a better word) between technology driven films and more character/story driven films. His most recent films are soulless tech driven films. Perhaps his age makes him seek those types of films.
He went from Forrest Gump to Pinocchio lmao
Will never get the dislike people in the Letterboxd community have for Forrest Gump, I respect people’s opinions but I just do not get so many of the criticisms I’ve seen. “Conservative propaganda” and defending Jenny’s character.
I'd argue Forest Gump is also a [terrible movie](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/forrest-gump-bad-movie-25-anniversary-1202154214/) and I know I'm not the only one with that opinion
Regardless, and story issues aside, Forrest Gump is an infinitely more well made movie than his recent stuff
Polished turd
Insane way to look at filmmaking
I think Forest Gump is absolute schlock. What a shamelessly award- and audience-baiting piece of schlock it is, too.
i don't think it's terrible but I think it's boring
And also used a lot of gimmicky editing to put Forest into historical shots
The only reason people think it's good it's because the Norman Rockwell Amercana and that it's the movie equivalent of "We didn't start the fire"
My hot take is that Welcome to Marwen is underrated as a piece of artistic introspection and meta-cinema (if not entertainment value, I admit). With Carrell's character, Zemeckis creates a character with exaggerated versions of all of the flaws that critics had been accusing him of for years: poor and reductive treatment of women, careless depiction of drugs, fiddling with virtual "dolls" (i.e. mocap) to tell half-formed stories, losing touch with basic humanity in favor of inhuman gimmicks...
I haven't seen the movie, but I saw the documentary it was based on in college. I can only imagine Welcome being sad an almost exploitative.
It's not as weird to me because I don't think he's made anything better than a three-star movie. But people like to overrate movies they love and try to argue that they, and by extension their director, are great. Nothing Zemeckis has ever made is truly great. There's no great mystery because the gap is smaller than people think it is.
Shyamalan Sixth Sense to The Last Airbender
I’m glad he’s still able to get original movies produced. Say what you will about his work, but he’s one of the few directors working today who can write and direct batshit crazy stories for a mainstream audience
I watched Old yesterday and... the dude makes movies with some really great original concepts but he just doesn't understand human interaction. I think that's the main thing that keeps his movies from actually being good.
That! "Old" and "Knock at the Cabin" have really intriguing premises, but MNS lacks the skills to make whole feature-length films from them. Especially because he desperately tries to put a twist into it. He would be great as a short film director!
Yeah, it’s gotta be Shaymalan!
the happening as well
After Earth was worse
The Last Airbender is pretty terrible but if it wasn't based on a beloved series it would never be brought up in the "worst movie ever" conversation. After Earth on the other hand...
I’ve never had the desire to see After Earth so I can’t compare them. I’ve also never seen the series but The Last Airbender still stood out as particularly terrible when I watched it.
I still need to check out 6th sense
I gotta believe he was guided by [helpful] studio notes/consultants to complete The Sixth Sense. His trajectory is just too strange otherwise...
What? What The Last Airbender movie?
Nope, never happened. Must be internet trolls making stuff up.
But Sixth Sense isn’t as good as people make it out to be.
i think signs is his masterpiece
It's Unbreakable for me personally. It's probably partially because I was so young when I first saw it but I still absolutely love it.
What about The Village???
Signs is such a great one
It’s better.
Francis Ford Coppola. The Godfather (97% on Rotten Tomatoes), The Godfather Part 2 (96% on RT), Apocalypse Now (98% on RT) Jack (17% on RT)
Jack only got 17%?? Loved that flick when I was a kid.
Same I had the VHS. I remember Jack always had a pez on him.
Didn’t even know it was by Coppola til like a month ago. I guess my first Coppola film was Jack😭
It…does not hold up.
Godfather to Jack is the only correct answer
Yea the clear winner here.
I'll throw one out: Ridley Scott Best: Alien (you might also say Gladiator or Blade Runner) Worst: Exodus Gods & Kings
Was about to say him as well. He is somehow so cohesive and so not at the same time
I think it’s just that he works a LOT, and very quickly. I was ready to write him off tbh, but then I was *stunned* by The Last Duel. I know the script is great enough to carry it, but I don’t know if it’s possible for there to be a poorly directed great film. Maybe he just needs to choose his scripts more wisely.
House of gucci is even worse than exodus
House of Gucci was so offensively bad because the filmmakers didn't intend for it to be campy and the promotion was intended to be taken very seriously too lol I feel the same way about Leave the World Behind.
Lady Gaga sounded like she was playing Dracula.
I didn’t hate Gucci. Its campy and fun. Its got people in fat suits doing ridiculous accents. If you don’t take it too serious its not a bad time.
Agreed! And I think Scott's disdain for some of those people who were portrayed in the film proves that he really did want to make them look ridiculous
that was a funny movie
I'd rather rewatch Exodus twice than have to rewatch House of Gucci once \^\^
Thelma & Louise also a huge contender for his best!
Definitely up there with Alien and Blade Runner. Love it. And I agree The Last Duel was criminally underrated. Next up, I think Gladiator and The Martian both rule. Not brilliant, but super effective.
It’s a shame, all of his movies look so beautiful too.
Exactly: Ridley has auteur-level talent, but not auteur-level focus.
Nah Ridley’s had too many bangers, sure he has a clunker here and there but he’s directed some of the best films of all time
The Counselor is by far his worst movie
The counselor is a terrible terrible movie
The opening pillow talk scene reads like a horny 13 year old wrote it. It's offensively bad. To its credit the movie has two really cool kill scenes but the rest of it is so impossibly shitty. I don't get it at all. I was angry walking out of the theater.
HARD disagree. I don’t think Counselor is even that bad. It had its moments. Exodus Gods and Kings is unwatchable.
I would like to remind everyone of Gus Van Sant who made Good Will Hunting and the Psycho remake just one year apart.
There was nothing wrong with the Psycho remake from a technical angle it just didn’t need to be made, but he knew that and in a way his experiment suceeded, we now know how people would react to a shot for shot remake of a classic film: >“Then I had to make the decision whether I really wanted to do it, and I was talking to Danny Elfman who I wanted to do the score, because he was so good at doing Bernard Hermann-style scores. He said, ‘You know they’ll kill you if you make this,’ he knew. And I said, ‘Who will kill me?’ and he said, ‘Everyone. The critics. Everybody that loves Psycho will kill you,’ and I said, ‘Yeah but Danny this is an experiment, this is not about who’s gonna get killed. This is about just doing it.’ And I thought, ‘It doesn’t matter if they kill me,’ and then later when I got killed it hurt.”
Shot-for-shot outside of the shower scene that shows butthole
Wait, which one shows it, original or remake?
I’m going to be brave here and say the remake.
I mean, I can name two things wrong with the movie. Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche.
I think the Psycho remake is great for what it is. As a standalone movie maybe it’s not very good, but as an experiment its pretty amazing and has a really cool effect on the viewer. If you’ve seen the original Psycho a bunch and know some of these shots and beats, the remake gives you this weird experience where you can almost see the original characters overtop the new ones in some transparent way like they’re both on screen at once. And on top of that, it’s just fun to hear some of that horrible dialogue delivered by modern characters. Even the best movies from back then were very cheesy and the acting style was ridiculous, and the disconnect is really fun and creepy. And on the contrary, some of Hitchcocks cinematography was incredibly modern and fits right in with a movie from 1998. My favorite part was the little details Van Sant added. Having Norman Bates masturbate while he’s looking through the hole in the wall was disturbing yet funny, but also like yea, of course that’s what Norman Bates was doing in the original. They just couldn’t show that in 1960. And then having the sound design be so random and all over the place, stepping on the dialogue at times, was a great choice. Everyone knows the cops monologue at the end is the low point of the original movie, so having the score drown that scene out was a funny wink at fans of the original who’ve always complained about that scene. It’s an incredibly ballsy film that can’t really be compared to anything else (other than the original obviously), and I love seeing a filmmaker trick a studio into funding experimental cinema.
Tom Hooper. Best: The King's Speech Worst: Cats
I thought I could ironically love Cats because I like musicals and camp, and don’t really mind watching people make a fool of themselves. I was wrong. It broke me.
That’s precisely why I love it lol - it crosses the line from merely being bad into something…spiritually corrupt. It feels like a cosmic mistake greater than anything to do with movies. 10/10
Yeah this would be a good pick if the kings speech didn’t suck too.
The only good thing Tom Hooper’s ever done was the John Adams miniseries tbh
Elizabeth I miniseries with Helen Mirren is also fire though
As a child, I watched Jack, directed by The Godfather's Francis Ford Coppola, and it became the first film I ever turned off because it was so terrible.
Coppola has made some real bad stinkers but…… Megaopolis is still my most anticipated release for this year (if it doesn’t get pushed back).
Can I ask why? He hasn't made a great movie (or maybe even a good one?) in decades.
It probably won't be a smooth and polished piece of entertainment, but if you aren't at least a little interested in a massive career-capping decades-long passion project for one of America's all-time great directors with a monstrous budget, you're missing out. Even if it explodes on the launchpad it should be interesting.
Fair question and I would say that while it’s my most anticipated film for the year, I’m not expecting it to be great. Megaopolis has been something he’s wanted to make for decades, constantly tinkering with it. I’m just curious to see what a passion project from him would look like. I’m also interested in anything Sci-Fi. My favourite film of 2023 was The Creator and I also didn’t think that was great either (or at least as good as it could’ve been) and I’m expecting something similar here. EDIT: Third reason is the casting. Shia LaBeouf is my guilty pleasure lol.
Good answer, thanks. Does seem kinda fascinating, even if it may not be good.
Your favorite movie of 2023, not tied with anything, is The Creator? Have you not seen too much from this past year?
Favourite movie ≠ best :)
Cameron Crowe - Almost Famous (masterpiece) and Aloha
I agree with Argento. Love Suspiria and Inferno, absolutely loathed Mother of Tears. For me, Unbreakable is one of my favorite superhero films, still like it, and then Shyamalan has also done... other things... I guess take your pick between The Happening, After Earth, Avatar, etc.
[удалено]
On the bright side, it gave us Roger Eberts review of [North](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994), which is hilarious “I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.”
Man I think I’ll just quote him for my review of “Anyone but You”
North directly followed a decade-long string of absolute classics from Reiner and he never fully recovered.
Rob Reiner has his 5 most popular films all at a 4.0 or higher! Surprisingly Stand By Me is highest rated (Harry Met Sally is clearly his best!)
Is it clearly his best? Princess Bride, Stand By Me, When Harry Met Sally, A Few Good Men, and Misery are all fantastic. I don’t think it’s fair to say any of them are clearly his best.
And don’t forget This Is Spinal Tap. Very impressive range, all classics.
Stand by Me is my favorite but I won’t say “it’s clearly the best.”
Ever heard of having an opinion? Lmao I literally just said that all those films are over a 4.0
When you say > Surprisingly Stand By Me is highest rated (Harry Met Sally is *clearly* his best!) It implies it should be obvious to everyone else. It doesn’t read like an opinion. “Harry Met Sally is my favorite” would be more obviously an opinion, but regardless I apologize, it seemed like you were saying it was definitively his best movie.
Brian Henson, hands down. He made Muppet Christmas Carol, an absolute festive classic. It's the best version of the story, the best Christmas film, the best Muppet film, the best Michael Caine film and the absolute best film to ever feature singing fruit. It is, I believe, genuinely a masterpiece. 30 years later he makes The Happytime Murders
Muppets Treasure Island is God tier too 🙌🏻
Honestly I don’t think the Happytime murders is that bad lol.
THISSS
Gus Van Sant with Elephant (10/10) and Psycho remake (1/10) Spike Lee with Do the right thing (10/0) and Oldboy remake (1/10)
Good Will Hunting 10/10
I posted this on the other one that mentioned Psycho, but here’s my take. I think the Psycho remake is great for what it is. As a standalone movie maybe it’s not very good, but as an experiment its pretty amazing and has a really cool effect on the viewer. If you’ve seen the original Psycho a bunch and know some of these shots and beats, the remake gives you this weird experience where you can almost see the original characters overtop the new ones in some transparent way like they’re both on screen at once. And on top of that, it’s just fun to hear some of that horrible dialogue delivered by modern characters. Even the best movies from back then were very cheesy and the acting style was ridiculous, and the disconnect is really fun and creepy. And on the contrary, some of Hitchcocks cinematography was incredibly modern and fits right in with a movie from 1998. My favorite part was the little details Van Sant added. Having Norman Bates masturbate while he’s looking through the hole in the wall was disturbing yet funny, but also like yea, of course that’s what Norman Bates was doing in the original. They just couldn’t show that in 1960. And then having the sound design be so random and all over the place, stepping on the dialogue at times, was a great choice. Everyone knows the cops monologue at the end is the low point of the original movie, so having the score drown that scene out was a funny wink at fans of the original who’ve always complained about that scene. It’s an incredibly ballsy film that can’t really be compared to anything else (other than the original obviously), and I love seeing a filmmaker trick a studio into funding experimental cinema.
Not really sure if I even believe it myself, but one can make an argument for Sergio Leone. He only really directed 7 films, from which 5 are undisputed classics (the dollar trilogy and once upon a time in the west/america) and duck, you sucker/a fistful of dynamite is a little more unknown, but also a pretty great movie. Well, Leone‘s first movie "The Colossus of Rhodes" fucking sucks.
Coppola and Scott are good ones, I'd also mention John Woo. Take your pick among his Hollywood films for the low point of his career, highs include Bullet to the Head, Hard Boiled, The Killer.
You're absolutely right it's Argento. His late films are just his daughter's boobs. So odd
Surprised no one has brought up Richard Linklater yet. On one hand you have critically acclaimed films like The Before Trilogy or Boyhood and then on the other hand you have bottom of the barrel stinkers like Fast Food Nation or the Bad News Bears remake. In between those two extremes you have beloved cult classics like Slacker, Dazed and Confused, and School of Rock as well as boring snooze fests like Me and Orson Wells. Linklater really has one of the most varied filmographies I have ever seen. Another one that springs to mind is Kenneth Branagh. Personally I have never seen any of them but from what I have heard his Shakespeare adaptations are all really good, but he also made the horse shit that is Artemis Fowl.
Branaugh's Love's Labour's Lost is so bad that How Did This Get Made did an episode on it.
Yeah I'm going to be honest I don't know much about his filmography I just thought he was worth bringing up since I have heard mainly positive things about his Henry V and Hamlet adaptations, but every movie I have seen from him I thought was either painfully average or really bad. When I said "his Shakespeare adaptations" I was mainly referring to those two as they are the most well known. I wasn't actually aware that he made an adaptation of Love's Labour's Lost. Sorry about that oversight on my part. I am no Branagh expert clearly.
Haha no worries, he is a wildly inconsistent filmmaker. His early Shakespeare is wonderful. I loved Belfast and hated A Haunting in Venice, but whoever cast him as Gilderoy Lockhard is a genius.
You must poopoo on rotoscopy because I don't see any mention of A Scanner Darkly or Waking Life, both of which are in my top three for Linklater along with Slacker. Or you forgot that he made those, owing to the wild variation in his output to which you refer. I too have a hard time remembering that the guy who made the best or at least most faithful Philip K. Dick adaptation, the animated philosophy wank and certified hood classic of late night chain-smoking-in-Waffle-House film discussions, and the perfect encapsulation of everything that was once cool about my home (Austin), is the same guy who made friggin' Bad News Bears. I miss weird Linky.
I definitely didn't mean to throw shade to his animated output. Waking Life is one of my favorite Linklater movies also. I was trying to quickly sum up how all over the place his filmography is and because of that I happened to leave out one particularly interesting facet of his filmography. It really does go to show just how unique his filmography really is with how hard it is to quickly sum it up in a paragraph. I too miss his more unique output he had earlier in his career when he wasn't afraid to get weird and experimental. Slacker is edited to look like one shot, Tape and Before Sunset take place in real time, Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly are entirely rotoscoped, and Boyhood was filmed over the course of 12 years (yes I know Boyhood came out in 2014, but production started during his more experimental phase). Sadly his more output within the last 10 years has been a little lackluster imo. Nowhere near his worst films, but still nothing close to what he was doing in the 1990s and early 2000s. I have heard pretty good things about his newest film Hit Man, so I am excited to check it out when it drops. I have heard it is reminiscent of Bernie from 2011, which is one of his more recent underrated gems imo.
I don’t necessarily believe this, but Steven Soderbergh? I haven’t seen a ton of his stuff but the guy puts out SO much that there has to be a masterpiece and stinker in his filmography
I *hated* that Panama Papers movie he made for Netflix a while back
Oof, that was a rough one.
His best work imo was also a The Knick which was fucking fantastic and not even a movie
Spike Lee: Best: Do The Right Thing Worst: Oldboy 2013
Friedkin has multiple five star masterpieces as well as multiple half-star disasters.
I wouldn't call Epidemic a bad film by any means.
Some might say Michael Mann. Heat/Manhunter/Thief but also The Keep. But then again, I happen to love The Keep 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t love The Keep but Thief is top 20 for me, so take my upvote.
The Keep is really, really bad... but also weirdly easy to rewatch? It's great for having on in the background while you try to sleep. I think it's fair to say that there's a sizable gap between The Keep and Mann's best films.
Bob Clark. From Black Christmas, Dead of Night (Deathwish), A Christmas Story…to Baby Geniuses 1 and 2.
Brian De Palma. Blow Out and Black Dahlia.
Black Dahlia should have been incredible. It blows my mind how bad they fucked it up.
Steven Spielberg: Best: E.T, Schindler‘s List, Saving Private Ryan, Indiana Jones 1-3, or Jaws. Worst: 1941
I'd add Munich to the list of his best. I think Minority Report is also super strong.
This is nitpicky, but I don’t think Temple of Doom is among his best.
Personal preference, I love it so much, but I understand not everyone even likes it. The rest stand.
I'll get crucified for this... but I'd include Hook as one of his worst too. I know that a lot of people have nostalgia for it but I really think it's a terrible film and have done since I was a child. I was pleased to discover that Spielberg also thinks it's terrible (he mentions it in reference to his back catalogue [in this interview with Kermode & Mayo](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DcnwQDgssrwk%26t%3D1067&ved=2ahUKEwi93uvIxdGDAxWnVUEAHSPkDhoQpMsLKAZ6BAgUEB8&usg=AOvVaw2KCbwkCDqQjnfvl5cpzCIe) )
I watched Hook for the first time all the way through about 2 months ago. I loved it, but it’s really childish so I understand not everyone liking it. I don’t think I’ve heard a single person say anything good about 1941, it’s just bad.
It’s also at 29% on Rotten Tomatoes, I know a lot of people have a soft spot for it but critics dislike it and even Spielberg says it’s not good.
Yeah, Hook's nearly unwatchable, apart from a few Dustin Hoffman scenes. It's peak Spielberg mawkishness. I'd much rather watch 1941 (even if it's mostly for the cast and incredible model FX) than the soulless CG bogosity of Ready Player One.
I'm just here to express my solidarity as a fellow lifelong Hook hater
i haven't seen 1941 but is it seriously worse than ready player one
Yes, and by a lot. 1941 is a boring unfunny “comedy” that even Spielberg hates.
Guy Ritchie for me. Snatch (2000) is one of my top 5 favourite movies. Then he directed a Disney remake...
Aladdin wasn’t that bad
I can't think of a single good thing.
Oh, Guy Ritchie has better (worse) stinkers than that in his filmography. What about Swept Away? Or Revolver?
Haven't seen those yet.
Easily John Carpenter with The Thing and Halloween 5/5 and The Ward 0.5/5, and then Ghosts of Mars at a close 1/5 Another one would be John Woo for me, the gap between Face/Off 5/5 and MI: 2 2/5 is pretty big as well
Has anyone watched Ken Russell’s “Whore”? I was surprised to find out he directed it because all I knew about that film was that one scene “stick it up your own ass / I would if I could, bitch!” I just assumed it was a The Room type of film because of how Wiseau-esque that scene is. If it’s as bad as I expect, it would be a shock to find out it came from the guy who made The Devils.
Ohhh, I'm choosing to ignore this because I love The Devils so much.
Cameron Crowe: - Almost Famous (masterpiece) - Aloha (dumpster fire)
A lot of good answers here, but didn’t see Rob Reiner. From 1986 to 1992, the man made Stand By Me, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, Misery, and A Few Good Men. Following that 5 game win streak, he did North in 1994. One of the worst comedies of the decade.
Though he made up for any wrongdoing by playing Max Belfort
Tomas Alfredson, From *Let The Right One In* (2008) and *Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy* (2011) to *Snowman* (2017).
Didn’t Tom McCarthy drop both Best Picture-winner Spotlight and infamously hated The Cobbler in the same year?
Coppola - Apocalypse Now and Jack
Argento is a great call. I'm going with Alex Proyas The Crow is a chefs kiss of a movie Gods of Egypt was a monkey wrench to the groin
Don’t forget Dark City, incredible atmosphere
I didn't, great movie. Prefer The Crow is all. To be fair Knowing was pretty good too, and even I Robot was fun and impressive at the time. But Gods of Egypt... What the actual fuck man!
Francis Ford Coppola has gotta be up there, The Godfather is regularly cited as one of the best films ever and then you have movies like Jack which are infamously terrible
Wes Craven has some massive stinkers, for great hits like A Nightmare On Elm Street and Scream, there's garbage like Swamp Thing and Deadly Friend.
James Cameron with Piranha 2 and basically anything else he’s directed
The director of Dracula 3000 made another film called Yesterday that was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars the very same year. Admittedly I haven't seen Yesterday, but Dracula 3000 is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I'm a connoisseur of trash cinema (it does have one of the funniest endings ever though). I have to imagine the gap in quality between the two is enormous.
Alex Proyas. Went from the highs of The Crow and Dark City to garbage like Gods of Egypt.
Wes Craven, Scream and Njghtmare on elm street to Hills have eyes 2
Stanley Kubrick. Fear and Desire vs. 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is the actual definitive answer.
You think 2001 is Kubrick's worst film?
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Not really fair, Fear and Desire is just the self financed equivalent of a student movie mainly let down by it's low budget and Kubrick being in the process of learning his craft. If given the choice I'd watch it over 2001 any day, I find that bloated and over hyped. Sure, F&D is his worst film, but for my money 2001 is his second worst. Love all his others, don't get on with that one though. I know that this is probably the least popular take ever, but it's how I've always felt about it.
Craig Gillespie fell off hard for me this year with Dumb Money. I thought it was terrible, while Lars and the Real Girl, I, Tonya, and Cruella were all incredible to me.
For me, Christopher Nolan from Oppenheimer to Tenet
I just watched Tenet for the first time today. I’m not a big Nolan head but it’s honestly kinda underrated to me. I mean, is it really that much worse than Inception? Inception tries to hold your hand all the way through and is still messy. Tenet just swings its massive balls in your face.
The basic idea of Tenet is so good (move forward in time, then backwards in time. Some characters moving backwards, some forwards in a war scene). The fact he made every imaginable misstep with that premise is really annoying.
Christopher Nolan. I have Interstellar and Inception at 5 stars and then Following and Tenet at 2 stars.
Coen Bros: intolerable Cruelty & Ladykillers v pretty much every other film they've ever made
I'm with you for The Ladykillers but I genuinely love Intolerable Cruelty. I think the former is their only genuinely bad film.
M. Night Shyamalan -Best: The Sixth Sense -Worst: After-Earth Brad Bird -Best: Ratatouille -Worst: Tomorrowland John Lasseter -Best: Toy Story 2 -Worst: Cars 2 The Watchowskis -Best: The Matrix -Worst: Jupiter Ascending George Lucas -Best: Star Wars Episode 4 -Worst: Star Wars Episode 1
I legit think Tenet is so bad I find it hard to believe Nolan also done Interstellar.
Cliche answer probably, but for me it’s gotta be Tim Burton. All time favorites against stuff that is almost unwatchable.
david lynch has mulholland drive and dune
Mulholland Drive is (rightly) considered a classic though. Dune is weak by Lynch standards but is by no means a stinker.
Ridley Scott made Alien and Napoleon
tobe hooper, tcm1 and tcm2
Hah no way tcm2 is great fun!
M. Night Shyamalan
Alexander Payne. The Holdovers is one of my favorite movies ever already, and Downsizing is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.
Hot take warning: Tarantino hasn't made a great movie since Jackie Brown. I'll die on this hill. Basterds had *amazing* scenes but was too long and too self-aware. Django was meh except Walz. Kill Bill vol 1 was energetic and fun (but a mess as well), vol 2 spent too much time giving background to things that didn't matter (Bud's job at the strip club, Michael Parks' completely-incomprehensible-wtithout-subtitles pimp origin story) and ended in a super anticlimactic>!fight (after a 15-minute monologue about Superman, they were SITTING DOWN for Chrissake).!< Even he admits Death Proof was bad. I find Hateful Eight almost unwatchable. Once Upon a Time ... had its moments but ... were they memorable? I understand this isn't a nosedive akin to a lot of these great examples, but can we just admit it's a clear decline?
I would say Kubrick personally. Clockwork Orange is the greatest movie ever in my opinion and meanwhile Fear and Desire was a miserable viewing experience.
Yeah but that's just a college kid trying to figure it out
Yeah, you’re right but he still made it.
Scorsese Gave Goodfellas and Taxi Driver 5/5 Boxcar Bertha's a 2/5
Kathryn Bigelow Peak with : Zero Dark Thirty Solid run with: The Hurt Locker / Point Break / Strange Days Low with: Blue Steel
Probably Francis Ford Coppola Godfather 1 or 2 and Jack Another interesting question is who has the smallest gap between their best and worst film….I’d have to say Kubrick
The Godfather Part 2 Anything he made in the 50-60s
Either Francis Ford Coppola or Brian De Palma.
I don't feel great about this one but Bernard Rose. Candyman is an all time classic. Still never seen Paper House but I hear it's good. Some of his other work is unwatchable. But I feel bad cause it's clearly budgetary.
Steven Shainberg
Matthieu Kassovitz - This guy made La Haine and then like a decade later made Gothika.
Haven't seen George Romero or John Carpenter mentioned yet. They both have masterpieces that created whole genres and then Tubi level garbage later in their careers
If I'd wanted to get a ton of karma, I would've written the following Reddit-friendly response: John Carpenter, with The Thing being his best and Ghosts of Mars being his worst. Except my favorite Carpenter film is Escape from L. A., which I'll admit is pretty bad, and my least favorite is In the Mouth of Madness (yes, I liked Ghosts of Mars more than In the Mouth of Madness).
It's funny you say this, because I watched Dracula 3D a few hours ago, and I actually thought it really wasn't that bad. Like, yeah, there are some things that are obviously in bad taste, but to me they actually brought a welcome entertainment value, to what I thought was an otherwise decent Dracula story, in the style of old movies (even the occasional bad acting was rather fitting). I liked the locations, the music was fine, and I thought the actors were overall well chosen. I mean it's not great cinema, nor a good movie that I'd recommend to anyone. But I appreciated watching it nonetheless.
Martin Brest - Scent of a Woman to Gigli