Amph Good Films by Supposedly Bad Directors: EDWARD D WOOD, JR Glen Or Glenda

Well, we had bad films by good directors, so quid pro quo...


Good films by supposedly bad directors

by Simon Brew & Mark Pickavance

Some directors quickly get lambasted as rubbish, and their films labelled as must-avoid. But perhaps that's not entirely fair...

Published on Jan 27, 2009

"There are some directors who the mere mention of sends eyes heading to the ceiling, and gets people planning to go anywhere but to the movies that night. But among the brigade of so-called bad directors - and we'd debate whether some of the chaps we're about to discuss are bad directors - are actually some surprisingly good films.

Just take a look...

JAN DE BONT
Speed

Jan De Bont is routinely dismissed by many as not being a strong modern-day action director, and his curriculum vitae gives a number of reasons why. Twister, Speed 2, Tomb Raider 2 and The Haunting are, in their own ways, poster childs for the failings of the Hollywood system (clue: good scripts really, really help), and as De Bont now works on the mooted Point Break prequel, it?s fair to say that his card doesn?t tend to get near the pile when studios are looking for a hot action director for their latest project.

But it didn?t used to be so. For after a career as cinematographer that had seen him shoot films such as Die Hard, Basic Instinct, Lethal Weapon 3 and The Hunt for Red October, he stepped into the director?s chair for one of the finest action films of the 1990s. Say what you like about the slightly underwhelming third act of the film, but Speed remains one of the most exciting and adrenaline-fuelled action spectaculars that the decade threw up.

And while some dismiss it as a fluke from De Bont, if we all had flukes like that, then we?d be very rich people."

 

Whatever man, I like Twister. Well I did as child. Some channel was airing it last year and I didn't like it as much.

 

I think it's obvious.


None of the other films have Keanu Reeves.

 

PAUL W S ANDERSON
Event Horizon/ Death Race

"A trickier one to justify in some eyes, given that the mere mention of Paul W S Anderson tends to bring to the fore what the man did to the worlds of Aliens vs Predator and Resident Evil. Neither, it?s fair to say, were his finest hour (yep, we'll splutter at the understatement there, too).

Announcements of his new projects are generally greeted with an air of vitriol, and while his films continue to make money, his directing style continues to ? with some justification ? attract criticism.

So let?s look at two films that, combined, at least offer some sort of defence. Event Horizon undoubtedly blows it when it enters its final act (and blows it big style), but seen on the big screen with a quality surround sound system, it?s really quite an impressive spectacle. Granted, Sam Neill helps you buy what?s going on, but from the opening shot onwards, there?s at least a feeling of a director who knows what he wants here. And, whisper it, this writer thought it was a pretty decent flick.

The remake of Death Race that Anderson churned out last year, replete with Jason Statham as an added comfort blanket, hasn?t made it before my eyes yet, but even that, I?m reliably informed by a couple of colleagues, is really quite good fun. Again, we?re not suggesting that it?s any kind of classic, just that it goes against the grain of Anderson?s reputation somewhat?

Help yourself to Mortal Kombat, Shopping, and the aforementioned Resident Evil and AvP movies, though."

 

Event horizon is pretty good; AvP, when viewed in the context of its mind-numbingly awful sequel, actually comes off as a quality film. Which is sort of said, as the original really isn't that great a film, but the sequel makes it look shin by comparison, IMO.

And Speed is a GREAT movie. One of those films I can just watch and wach and never get tired of.

 

MICHAEL BAY
The Rock

"The Michael Bay argument is inevitably a divisive one, and personally, I?d go along with the argument that his camera leers at his subjects far more than it directs and shoots them. But the films that he manages to churn out are, generally, at the very least quite entertaining, with a couple of exceptions.

Most of us know someone who, for instance, will make the case for Bad Boys, The Rock and Armageddon (and sign me up for the last two), and for a ?bad? director, he does manage to get across some fun, dumb and loud blockbusters. We?ve thus picked The Rock, for all its bloated running time and extensive period in the first half when Sean Connery is kept off the screen for no good reason, as the film to show Bay doubters. There?s no guarantee it?ll convert them, but it is damn good fun. Personally, I'd go for Armageddon, but my ears still ache from the last time I stuck up for it.

Ironically for this writer, it?s when he got more ambitious with The Island that the man?s limitations became all the more clear. Bay is, thus, back on safer ground in the summer, with Transformers 2. He gets to blow **** up in that, and he?s proven to be really quite good at it, warts and all. He might want to take heed of this letter we wrote, though."

 

The Rock is a great movie. Armageddon is a disastrously stupid movie. "He's got space dementia!" Yeah, and he's not the only one. Armageddon is annoying and frustrating. But The Rock is fantastic. I will hear nothing bad said about The Rock. It's Bay's one legitimate masterpiece and it still holds up, I find.

 

I've got a feeling one of the reasons the Rock is Bay's best movie is that it featured a knowledgeable,
combative actor in Sean Connery who demanded a certain level of quality. They mixed it up on the set,
and I think Bay benefited from Sean's insight and input.

 

I could see it said that The Rock is Bay's one masterpiece. It's silly and has a lot of the same problems the other Bay films have but it has something resembling characters rather than caricatures.

 

I'm devastated for cinema if The Rock is a "masterpiece" of any kind. It's not that good. It's just less crap that Bay's other films.

 

The Rock is a fine movie, it benefits greatly from having some good lead actors and doesn't have ridiculous action sequences. It seems more like Conney, Harris & Cage made that movie work rather than Bay.

 

The first half of the Island is probably the best thing that Bay has done.

 

Wasnt Tarantino a dialogue coach?

 

I don't know, but I seem to recall from the commentary, back in the days when I had time to watch movies with commentaries, that Harris was tinkering with the script even as the movie was shooting to make sure his character came across as a real character and not just a cookie cutter villain.

 

Yeah, I remember that too. He did a great job too. He added a lot of dialogue to help you understand that the villain actually had a real moral code.

 

It's good that Bay listened to others on how to improve his movie, George Lucas should try that more often.

 

JOEL SCHUMACHER
Falling Down/The Lost Boys/Grishams/Tigerland

"Joel Schumacher?s CV has some startlingly bad duffers on it, for which he?s primarily remembered. The two Batman films take pride of place (and for us, Batman Forever was just as bad as Batman & Robin), but then there?s the pissing away of a great concept in Phone Booth, the extreme yawn-fest that was The Phantom Of The Opera and his tired De Niro-Seymour Hoffman two-hander, Flawless (a film that yearned for a safer pair of directorial hands).

But heck, he made The Lost Boys! He made Flatliners! He did the really strong Falling Down! And even while he was doing the Batman movies, he snuck in two of the strongest adaptations of John Grisham books to the big screen to date. Both The Client and A Time To Kill are really quite good blockbusters, and then he also managed to 'discover' Colin Farrell, giving him the leading role in the impressive war flick Tigerland.

Schumacher is a frustrating director, and his ratio of bad films to good is worrying. But there really are some far better films on his resume than he's generally given credit for."

All I can say is: when he's on his meds, the movies are better...

 

RENNY HARLIN
Die Hard 2/Cliffhanger/Deep Blue Sea

"Again, you can debate all you like about the merits of Renny Harlin, but his back catalogue reliably manages to throw up some really good films.

His strongest run came in the 1990s, when Harlin was a go-to-guy for good, solid action flicks. His Die Hard sequel, for instance, was a fine follow-up to the original, that actually bothered to keep its spirit intact. Then there was his Stallone career revival vehicle, Cliffhanger, shot in many places at great altitude. And while it?s a fairly standard action flick at heart, the surroundings and spectacle of it lift it well above the norm.

Then there?s the constant Den Of Geek pleasure, Deep Blue Sea. Genetically modified sharks are as daft as they sound, and Harlin damn well knows it. Thus, he makes his film fun and funny. As simple as that. Some will happily cheer about The Long Kiss Goodnight too for as long as you?ll let them, and they may well have a point.

Granted, in recent years Harlin has fallen off the radar slightly for high profile productions, and the thought of sitting through Cutthroat Island again is not a happy one. But this is a man who deserves just a bit more than a hack director tag.

Heck, we?ve not even mentioned Ford Farlaine either?"

 

Gosh do I want to get into the Schumacher debate? Batman Forever is my personal favorite of the original Batman series and I may argue the best. Schumacher has a distinct visual style when he is let loose on films like Batman and Phantom and Lost Boys and I really kind of dig it. He's horrible at reigning in actor excess but he's not as bad as many make him out to be. Batman and Robin's dismal failure comes as much from the WB as it does Schumacher. That production was doomed to be cartoony from the start, Hasbro and Kenner were in the pre production planning.

As for Renny Harlin, yeah he's not a particularly good filmmaker but as for as the generic go to action directors go he is slightly above the crop. I think his Elm Street entry is a fun piece of pulp and colorful horror.

 

A Time to Kill is not subtle, but I love it. It's just relentlessly entertaining and the sheer volume of stars in that movie is pretty spectacular. Kevin Spacey, Oliver Platt, Donald Sutherland, Chris Cooper, Samuel L. Jackson and Kiefer Sutherland? I'm there.

As to Harlin, I will defend both Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger as great action flicks. I think, frankly, that Die Hard 2 is just as good as the first Die Hard and a good deal better than the third one, which just didn't click for me. I think the ejection seat explosion in Die Hard 2 is something like the pinnacle of the franchise and it's one of the wittiest shots I've ever seen in an action movie. And Cliffhanger is fantastic too; Stallone isn't exactly great in it, but the setpieces are fantastic and Harlin uses the scenery to great effect. Some of the sequences, like the opening in particular, are just incredibly intense and pulse pounding. Those two movies hold up, by God.

 

Thing is, Burton has a more gothic style better suited to movies such as Phantom or Batman (as evidenced by his own superior Batman movies and his own darker adaptation of a musical in Sweeney Todd) and Schumacher made odd decisions in many of his movies in terms of casting (Gerard Butler? Seriously?).

I think that unlike someone such as Bay Joel can direct actors, his problem seems to be his desire to lighten up gothic tales and thus spoil them to a degree and make odd casting choices (B&R fails in part because of people like Schwarzenegger hamming it up)

 

Batman Forever was a real waste and I think it could all be traced to over Shumacher's overdirection of his actors or else that he couldn't reign them in. I mean, the central problem with Batman Forever is that Tommy Lee Jones is Two Face and Jim Carrey is the Riddler and they're both so ever-lovin' annoying that I was just gritting my teeth anytime they were on screen. When you honestly just cannot stand a movie's villains because they're so obnoxiously over the top, that rather cripples the movie. And the reason this is too bad is because I think Kilmer is actually great casting for Batman/Bruce Wayne and he manages to get a few moments pretty right in the course of the film. I'd have liked to have seen Kilmer in a much better Batman movie.

 

On the Harlin front, I like the films listed as his good ones, and would add to the list his 1988 horror film Prison, which was one of Viggo Mortensen's first movies. Harlin certainly knows how to make entertaining thrillers.

Tragically, however, he has also made two of the worst films of all time (IMO), Cutthroat Island and -- most especially -- Exorcist: The Beginning. As a fan of pirate films and of The Exorcist, I shudder even to imagine myself repeat-viewing those two mind-numbingly awful schlock-fests.

 

On Schumacher, evidently I'm in the minority for appreciating his Phantom. I find it quite moving and beautiful to behold. I also like Butler in the part; the first time I watched the film I had no idea who he was, so I had no preconceptions. My wife opines that his voice is not as strong as the Broadway or tour singers, but I thought Butler's soulful performance more than made up for any modest inadequacies in his vocal range.

Lost Boys is still Schumacher's best, most accessible film, though. BF is exactly one-half of a good movie -- the half with Val Kilmer. B&R, meanwhile, should have all prints and copies incinerated, and all trace of its existence stricken from the Internet.