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

Harlin's not a bad director. He's not one of the greats, for sure, but he's a competent, workmanlike director of unpretentious action thrillers that are forgettable but generally unobjectionable, except on those occasions where he's feeling ambitious. My guess is that he could have made a very good career as a TV director if he'd not chosen the route of a mediocre career as a film director.

 

Harlin has directed at least some TV; he did a couple of Burn Notice episodes not long ago. Did pretty well with them.

 

Clearly.
Such a shame that he took a 5 star stage production and turned it into a 3 star movie. Although I blame Andrew Lloyd Webber as much as Schumacher for the end result, he never should have allowed certain casting to go ahead and he should have pushed harder to have it done better. I'd rather watch the concert DVD now than see the film version.

I don't know how the upcoming film of Les Miserables will do or how good it will be, but I'm willing to bet Cameron Mackintosh won't put up with the movie being done half-heartedly.

It's fine for a guy like Johnny Depp to do a part like Sweeney Todd, he does not have a hugely demanding vocal part and the grit of Depp's voice added to the character. But Depp like Butler would have made a bad Phantom however good an actor he is. The part is about the vocal ability, if you can't do it you shouldn't be cast. The emotion of the character comes from the voice, not the acting. If they wanted to do a movie with an acting Phantom, adapt the book.
Schumacher's movie focused far too much on making everything look nice and almost no time developing anyone except Christine as a character. All the male vocal parts are flat and uninspiring, that's just not acceptable for a musical about repressed love and rage.
Disney showed how it should be done with Beauty & the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The difference is those were watered down for kids, Phantom could have been as dark and demonic as Sweeney Todd was, but Schumacher couldn't get it done.


Simply put - If you want a dark tale done, don't give it to Schumacher or he'll brighten up too much (Batman & Robin still haunts my brain)

 

Kilmer is a brilliant Bruce Wayne and the story arc he has is actually really well done. That is why I consider Forever to be the best of the first series. Burton is not interested in Bruce Wayne at all.

As for Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey going over the top, yeah it is a problem but it is also a glaring problem in the Burton films as well. Nicholson goes bonkers in that and we are more apt to forgive him because of who he is.

 

STEPHEN SOMMERS
The Mummy

"Sommers doesn?t get namechecked too often in a bad directors list, to be fair, but some of his films are regularly appearing in collections of not very good movies. Examples? The Mummy Returns is an absolute shambles, and we say that as Brendan Fraser fans, while Van Helsing looks like a videogame gone wrong, pissing away an abundance of great characters on a dumb and not very fun special effects extravaganza.

But then there was The Mummy, and it?s easy to forget just how much fun this was (there was Deep Rising too, if you?re so inclined). The first film since Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to capture the spirit of an Indiana Jones film (Crystal Skull included), it was funny, a bit too long, had impressive effects that supported rather than interfered with the film, and has plenty of rewatch value. And Sommers deserves real credit for that.

To be clear, though: the sequel is a travesty."

 

Isn't the sequel just basically the same thing? I thought people loved it when they did that.

I enjoyed The Mummy when I last saw it. Which was long ago. I suspect time hasn't been kind, for whatever reason.

 

There really was a great little stretch of two or three years between 97-00 where even the crap like the Mummy, Deep Blue Sea, and Deep Rising were really good viewing. And they haven't aged badly at all, either.

 

The original Mummy is a fine B Movie special effects action film. It's silly and the dialogue is stupid at times but I really think that it is solid in being an exciting summer film. I also think it bends genres very well.

 

I think Sommers gets a lot of unfair hate. None of his films are masterpieces, but they are all fun and have a lot of humour that is well executed by a reliable cast. I own both Mummy movies and enjoy them, the second has a lot of great scenes and is pretty funny -

"I was forced to find an alternative means of transportation"


Van Helsing is a great ride, even if it is ridiculous. Jackman is good and although the horror is mild the action is big and it has laughs that aren't annoying. Sommers wants to entertain, no-one is supposed to take his movies seriously. GI Joe was not a good Joe universe movie, but it was still fun to watch. It got Prequel-style hate because it wasn't accurate enough, which is a fair point but it was still a good movie.

Mummy 3 was a poor movie, but he didn't direct that. The first two are fine.

 

"Van Helsing" was a terrific idea executed terribly.


MICHAEL WINNER
Death Wish

"To be fair, modern cinema should be eternally grateful that Michael Winner isn?t allowed near a movie set any more, and instead spends his time eating posh dinners and then writing about them in the paper. His list of films over the past 20 years reads a bit like a ?what to avoid in Blockbuster? guide. Parting Shots? Dirty Weekend? Bullseye? Every one of them not just a duffer, but an absolute disaster.

But spare a thought for Death Wish (although not its sequels). The first film actually had something to say, was well made, and while time inevitably dates it, it was a good, solid action flick based around a good, solid star. It was, whisper it, quite well directed too. If you're lucky, Winner might tell you about it over dinner, too. We hear he always picks up the bill...."

 

I love both of the first two Mummy movies. They're like the perfect summer action movies. Fraser has charisma and can do self-deprecating humor well, Rachel Weisz is both beautiful and can do self-deprecating humor well, John Hannah is a riot and . . . can do self-deprecating . . . I'm seeing a pattern here. I loved that the movies were both sort of taking the piss out of action-horror movies and yet also kind of the best action-horror movies in years. They just have a spirit of absolute fun and exuberance that I just can't discount. They're really sort of archetypal parodies, if that makes any sense, and I love them both. The production design, the special effects, generally used in service of great iconic images and not just for stupid thrills, the winking script, the high-energy action . . . they really are the closest thing to Indiana Jones since Last Crusade and the reviewer is right: they are better than Crystal Skull even. Been a long time since I saw the second one, but I caught the first one on TV again not that long ago. I clicked onto it about the time Evie was reading from the book and Rick was lamenting how often ominous gusts of wind seem to blow through camp. I watched it through to the end, because who wouldn't? And it was still a blast. They're not deep movies or moving human dramas. But as what they are? They're great.

 

EDWARD D WOOD, JR
Glen Or Glenda

"Infamous for his low production value sci-fi movies, and for making what?s regarding as the worst film of all time in the shape of Plan 9 From Outer Space (it clearly isn?t), Ed Wood directed this 1953 film was originally supposed to be about a sex-change, but instead became about transvestism, a pastime of Wood?s.

It's now considered by many to be one of the best 'bad movies' ever made, and its fans include David Lynch of Eraserhead fame. To keep production costs down Woods used one of his infamous techniques, with 20% of the running time being composed from stock footage.

The edge to all this is Wood?s own transvestitism, which only became public knowledge after the production, as such it's seen as his filmic admission of his interests. Only in this movie can the handing of an angora sweater to a man, have such significance.

Granted, the man?s back catalogue is hardly Scorsese-esque, but there?s at least a passion to his work, and something of interest to take from many of his films."

 

I think we want to love Ed Wood because he has been romanticized as the worst of all time but the fact is his movies are still bad. Plan 9 is campy but it's also very boring a lot of the time. I think Wood's work is better in short little segments and so clips from his films are ideal for youtube but it is hard to sit through a full Ed Wood movie.

Plus, I kind of hate seeing Lugosi hit rock bottom so hard.

 

I haven't sat down and actually watched one. I hope Uwe Boll won't be a cultural anti-hero like this in the future, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re: Lugosi, apparently his drug addiction was so severe by this time he hardly knew where he was. I agree, not the ending anybody deserves--unless it's Rush Limbaugh.

 

The thing about Wood movies IMO is that they really are terrible films. He wasnt an ahead of his time genius in any of his work. Its equally as terrible today as it ever was. His real life human experience was brilliant and poignant - his film craft was NOT. And the passion you talk about is true but its also what makes them gut bustingly funny. And I agree with an earlier sentiment - its sad to watch Lugosi, although he does remain a complete professional even in the end.

 

Did this list seriously call Glen or Glenda a "good film"? Because I love Glen or Glenda, but I would never, ever use the word good, unqualified, to describe it. It's no Plan 9.

POOOOOL DA STREEEEEEEENK!

 

PULL THE STRING!!!

I've enjoyed all of Ed Wood's films, but nothing beats a morphine-addled
Bela Lugosi superimposed over stock footage of stampeding buffalo.