Just Pillow Talk’s Birthday Nightmare: Mr Wrong (1996)
While I’m temporarily distracted with the Haskell Diaries , I’d like to thank Just Pillow Talk for stepping into the breach and continuing on his epic quest to watch many of the worst films made by man or beast. Actually, that’s unfair, because if animals could operate cinema equipment then I’m sure they wouldn’t turn out the witless dross he’s had to watch.
This time around, he’s gone back to 1996 for Ellen DeGeneres stinker Mr. Wrong. This is a truly, truly agonising film spawned by a hideously misconceived idea. It’s miscast, unfunny, squirm-inducing crap and I really feel sorry for him that he’s had to sit through it. Particularly when he recently endured Valentine’s Day.
Over to you JPT:
What’s really wrong is my fucking birthday list on so many levels. It’s like I’ve opened the Ark and had my face melted off. Not pleasant. So now I have to watch Ellen DeGeneres play a single chick who is looking for the right..ahem…guy. First off, for a movie of this type to succeed, the woman has to be attractive and adorable. You have to think, yeah, that chick is desirable on some level. Instead we have Ellen DeGeneres. Dressing like a man. How the hell am I supposed to buy into this?
She’s not wearing any makeup in this photo
Sigh…so she ends up meeting who she thinks is Mr. Right, Bill Pullman. Things are going just grand, so she ends up taking him to meet her parents. On the ride home he admits that he wasn’t acting himself in front of her parents. She tells him to be himself, which he is so excited to hear her say that he declares that they need to have some fun. His version of fun is going to a local convenience store and stealing some beer. She doesn’t enjoy going to see his mom either, so that’s when she decides to break things off with Pullman. But Pullman, he loves her, and to prove it breaks his pinky finger.
To make matters worse for yours truly, Joan Cusack shows up as an ex-girlfriend of Pullman and puts in her worst, most annoying performance yet. It’s a thing of pure agony to watch. Mrs. Pillows has called it a train wreck that you can’t look away from. Quite frankly everyone involved in this atrocity should be embarrassed about this film.
Hey, that’s not Bill Pullman!
I just don’t know what to say about this stupid ass movie. No one believes her that he’s a bit crazy, constantly hounding and harassing her. Everyone still thinks he’s her sweet guy of her dreams. She ends up getting hit by a flower truck that was delivering yet more flowers to her house and wakes up to find herself in a hospital…with a diamond ring on her finger. I just can’t go on with this movie. The pain…
So no one believes her…that she ends up being held hostage by Pullman, and tell her that she’s just trying to sabotage her happiness. I think the same line of thought should have applied to The Beast Within. The monster isn’t raping you, oh no, you’re just sabotaging your happiness with the grotesque monster. Egads.
This movie is devoid of anything resembling a good movie.
I take that back, this movie has got me down to single digits left is this cunt of a series.
Show your anger orange monkey!
Pillow out
The Nightmare so far…
1973 The World’s Greatest Athlete 1 / 4
1974 Deranged 0.5 / 4
1975 Shampoo 1.5 / 4
1976 Taxi Driver 3 / 4
1977 Black Samurai 1.5 / 4
1978 The Betsy 0 / 4
1979 Quintet 0 / 4
1980 Hero at Large 2/4
1981 Dogs of War 2.5/4
1982 The Beast Within 0/4: The Orangutan of Doom
1983 King of Comedy 3/4
1984 Blame it on Rio 0.5/4
1985 Lost in America 0/4
1986 Quicksilver 1/ 4
1987 84 Charing Cross Road 1/ 4
1988 Shoot to Kill 1/4
1989 The Mighty Quinn 2/4
1990 Revenge 2/4
1991 The Silence of the Lambs 4/4
1992 Wayne’s World 2.5/4
1993 The Temp 0/4: The Orangutan of Doom
1994 Blank Check 1/4
1995 Heavyweights 0.5/4
1996 Mr. Wrong 0/4- the Orangutan of Doom
1997 That Darn Cat 0/4
1998 Sphere 0/4
1999 ?
2000 The Beach 0/4
2001 Down to Earth 0/4
2002 ?
2003 ?
2004 Fifty First Dates 1/4
2005 ?
2006 ?
2007 ?
2008 ?
2009 ?
2010 Valentine’s Day 0/4- The Orangutan of Doom
Werewolves On The Moon 
Down to 1.05 now.
Still got Son of the Mask to go. The less than 1 trapdoor is starting to open.
All I have left to do in the 90’s is Blast from the Past, and if that manages to tickle my fancy enough for a 2.5, the 90’s will be currently my highest rated decade of (drum roll) 1.3. Dammit. Can’t believe that’s the highest I can score.
I think the 2000’s will take the cake as shittiest decade for me. Hands down.
Probably.
For me:
2010’s were an impressive 2.75 (average of 2 films though)
1970’s were an even more impressive 3.5 (average of 2 films though)
Then 1980’s were 1.6
The 1990’s were 2.15
2000 were 1.3
That’s waaaaay down and nearly shat on my overall rating if Conan hadn’t been surprisingly good.
I really did have a remarkably easy run in the 90’s. While some like Freeway weren’t as good as I remembered, I had a LOT of 3 chang films.
I can’t match ANY of those ratings…not even the 1.3 of 2000’s.
If anyone else decides to post their birthday list reviews, they’ll all be 2 something averages.
Pah!
Don’t forget though, that I had Xanadu, Dirty Dancing, Columbus, My Boss’ Daughter, all of which were nailed on 0’s, and as a result, I only finished with 1.9
Good lord, this was a terrible movie. In any other list this would be the undisputed champion of misery, but when there’s Beast Within nearby, who can stand?
Xanadu.
Seriously, one of the worst films I’ve ever seen, and I’m almost positive I’d rather sit through the beast within than watch a legend like Gene Kelley humiliated in a pink zoot suit on roller skates in a pinball machine.
Oh yea, Xanadu is worse than BW, but Mr. Wrong maybe not so much. It’s crazy. This entire conversation has become like trying to identify the diferences between several types of rotting feces. One sniff lets you know it’s bad, but when you are down in the sewer, you have to be discerning.
Xanadu – 93 minutes
The Beast Within – 98 minutes plus two monster rape scenes.
I would have gladly done an even up trade.
Im pretty sure the musical numbers in Xanadu were rape scenes
You’re underestimating how bad Xanadu was.
Also- Columbus weighs in at 120 minutes of rock-solid tedium.
This is a fair point. I finished with only 7 on half or less.
Plus you can’t keep going back to that one and try and hold it up to my body of work here. I mean, my series just swallows that up and it becomes one of my shitfest borg films.
I already have a dozen films under a 1, and I was kind on Blank Check for no reason. That number will only increase I’m sure.
15 on half or less, actually pillows. That run in the 90’s fucked you hard.
The shittiness has been a never ending road. I had a small glimmer of normalcy from 89-92, but besides that….gloom!
It’s the up and down of some of it that’s so bad- you get 1980 and 1981 with OK films then Beast Within then King of Comedy.
That howler stands out really badly in that run.
I think I’ve seen this. Or at least some of it. Don’t remember anything about it though.
I have nothing against Ellen Degeneres. I don’t feel strongly either way about her. I don’t find her that funny, but she seems like a nice enough person in real life.
Me neither. I find her mildly annoying, but no more so than half the actresses out there. She is minging though.
No, she’s not very attractive. But minging might be a tad harsh given that there are beasts like this out there…
Christ. I thought she was dead.
That looks almost like the creature from The Beast Within.
She’s a mentally ill fat Glaswegian warbler being exploited by slippery turd-fondler Simon Cowell.
With any luck she’ll eat him.
Too late now. He’s basically started an unstoppable movement. If you cut him off, another two will spring up in his place.
So then the apocalypse is upon us since this thing appears to be like The Bates 2…two Bates creatures cannot exist in the same universe. This sounds like a Bay film to me….
Son of Mask! Cant wait! hehe 😉
Of the films I’ve seen on his list, that’s far and away the worst.
No need to sugarcoat it Jarv.
I’m sure the baby pissing in the guys face with a veritable torrent of urine will make you laugh.
Only if that baby is wearing a hat.
You’re right on one thing Droid, Ellen isn’t annoying as fuck like some others, but she shouldn’t be doing this role. Actually, Joan Cusack is far more annoying in this. And Pullman just comes across as a douche in this.
I always confuse this with Mr. Jealousy.
That sounds pretty bad looking at the plot summary.
Its the movie where Armond White said that the directors mother should’ve had him aborted.
Not one to mince words, huh?
Who’s Armond White?
he’s the iconoclastic reviewer who tends to break the tomato meter. We have discussed here before, I think in reference to Easy A, or the time he said Transformers 2 was a better movie about child’s wonder with toys than Toy Story 3.
He’s the Koutch of the actual critic world. He calls it as it is and people bitch about him just being some troll. Also he stopped Toy Story 3 from getting 100% Rotten Tomatoes rating, which was a big no no amongst the twitter world. Also Ebert defended is negative review of District 9 then took back his defense. Sometimes he can be a little high minded, but when he nails a movie he nails it.
I like reading him though because he’s at least got an interesting writing style which makes him better than 99% of all other movie critics.
When does he nail it? He talked about how Gamer was so much more well-thought out and mature than Avatar. I dont doubt the guy is smart, but he seems to be doing what he does as some sort of experiment. He’s another that doesn’t seem to watch movies very closely–he thought Hamm was a villain in TS3. I assume this is because was, for the first two minutes of the movie.
Naw Hamm is always the villain it never makes sense to me why after Toy Story 1 why anyone would listen to that fat fuck. Yeah some times he talks in fucking circles. Check out his Shutter Island review for a solid review, and I’m not saying that because of my view on it, he points out why the movie isn’t a success pretty well. Fuck he had some recently as well that were solid. I think he’s more honest about just having fun at a movie, there may be a little antiness to some of his reviews, but I’d rather that then just sucking off a movie because everyone else is. There was one movie he loved that was critically loved, it may have been Tree Of Life not 100% sure, but he’s not always out to be the opposite.
One thing I found weird was that he never reviewed How To Train Your Dragon.
Another thing people don’t get about Armond is that he doesn’t assign ratings to the film he reviews, he’s more interested in talking about how it made him feel or any weird subliminal messages the movie may contain, it’s more of a discussion on film in general then some encapsulated review saying is a movie is a 2 star film or a 4 star film. Yeah you can usually tell if he likes or hates a film, but he says some shit about a movie people love and people just flip out like babies rather than fully reading what he is saying.
And also I don’t think he likes Transformers 3, I’ll admit his transformers reviews do seem just like opposite reviews, probably because he just doesn’t give a shit about them.
Sorry Koutch, but that Easy-A review was utter bullshit from start to finish. It was so far off, and contained so many inaccuracies about the plot (in one case actually contradicting what a character SAID in the movie) that it made me doubt that he’d seen it.
Honesty though, is following what you thought about a movie, regardless of what others say. It’s only honest if it truly rflects what you think and your thinking hasn’t been bought and paid for.
A thought on critical honesty, not meant to restart a fued, but real critical discussion as it were.
I honestly really enjoyed Drive. It doesnt make me right that I think it’s good and someone else doesnt, and Im not attempting to step back into that. I think your thoughts on Drive–minus the obvious hyperbolic It blows’–were honest. I think your actual thoughts on most movies are honest even if I rarely agree with them. But, be sure, if I say I like something it’s because I did and while it might be biased for any number of reasons, it’s how I felt at the time. Sure it changes. In retrospect, I no longer think King’s Speech was best movie, and Im less interested in Scott Pilgrim than when I first saw it. Will that happen with Drive? Maybe. But from my perspective here, it worked for me.
Well that’s the thing with Armond, I think most films bore him, and he’s more interested in what they say about our culture are some shit, and yeah a lot of times he’s reviews aren’t even reviews. Which most people don’t get and sometimes he’s boring and just talking trash, but still to me that’s more interesting then rereading a fucking plot synopsis again. It’s just something different. I don’t even know why he’s on Rotten Tomatoes anyway since that place is all about homogenizing critical discussion which is something he’s not interested in. I wanna pick up one of his books and see what they are all about, but I don’t think he’s done one since the 90s. That’s another thing that sets Armond apart, is that he’s in touch with the rest of the world and aware of other shit beyond movies. Sure some critics occasionally know some stuff, but Armond talks about music videos, art and TV all the time in his reviews.
I mean come on he nails LIttle Fockers:
” A pretext to continue one of the lamest franchises in contemporary Hollywood history.”
I get that, but surely when you’re basing the entire premise of your review on such a gross misinterpretation that it made me doubt that you’ve seen it, then you may want to rethink your stance a little?
Lemme reread that Easy A review, that movie blew also. Critics get shit wrong all the time in reviews, it’s nothing new. Read any review of drive and no one can seem to figure out what the drivers job is.
I mean he fucking loved Hadewijch:
” Hadewijch goes from austere images of a wintry world to remarkably beautiful images of post-rainfall lushness. From desolation to revelation, humanism becomes visible in every living thing.” —
Nails is again here:
” If critics and fanboys weren’t suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, Afterlife would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to Inception and Avatar on every level.” — New York Press
Posted Sep 13, 2010
Ohhh Easy A was one of those double review things with Never Let Me Go, yeah he’s not as good at that as he thinks.
Yea, he does have an interesting style. I wish he was more interested in the criticism end, instead of tailoring a well-guarded opposite reaction.
Eh. Sounds like dick.
It does sound like someone you’d identify with, Koutch. What did he think of Drive?
He was honest about it. Fuck even some AICN guy was real about it, saying he wished the movie was as interesting as it’s casting.
Christ. Gamer is unwatchable. I turned that off after 15 minutes.
He’s a faux intellectual, but he is also smart. I’ll give him that. He brings music into things though in the wrong way. He wrote a full review where he compared the film Kick Ass to a new Lady Gaga video.
Im not saying one couldnt write a compelling argument for that, Im saything that he He didn’t build a compelling case in the article. It just sounded like he was trying to tie them into some greater ‘problem with society’ which is what everyone who saw KA did. Except, Kick Ass of all movies, while mean-spirited, dopey and not particularly good, is not the movie driving us to hell in a handbasket. At the end of the day, it just sounded like he compared them because they were the two things he had most recently seen.
I do appreciate his attempts to bring the focus to smaller movies no one sees, and he should honestly probably only be a critic of indie/foreign films because he only seems to give those honest chances.
Koutch, he wrote a big and pretty decent essay for a Criterion movie—Everlasting Moments—which was very good. As was the film he wrote it for. You could see real passion, not sensationilistic trolling shining through.
I still don’t get this trolling thing everyone calls him for? Who gives a shit if he intentionally sets out to hate a film, I find that funny, why not. Ebert’s still a bigger troll faux intellectual in every way whose more impressed with his review of a film rather than the film itself. Armond White’s reviews sometimes read like a fucking journal entry, I do think he needs to be edited better, like maybe he’s just old and not so good with the keyboard or what because I find repeated sentences every now and then in his reviews.
Koutch, it’s an actual description of what he does….he throws bits out there to stir up controversy, to make people say things, to garner emotional responses regardless of what he thinks. You have honestly said you enjoy doing the same.
Without using it as some kind of put-down, that’s quite simply what trolling is.
And it should be pointed out that the comment below is referencing Resident Evil Afterlife. That’s just stupid. How is Afterlife not based upon simple nihilism:
‘If critics and fanboys weren’t suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, Afterlife would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to Inception and Avatar on every level.” — New York Press
Posted Sep 13, 2010’
Naw Trolling is showing up all the time and be annoying as fuck, I wonder if Armond even know’s his reviews are on the internet. He types his reviews and that’s it, he’s got 0 online presence beyond that, he’s too obscure and removed to be a troll. Unlike someone like Ebert who feels he needs to be a voice on political matters and think that he’s views on things matter.
OH and I guess he didn’t review Drive? I thought I had read some blurbs from his review.
That’s the AICN definition of a troll. I’ve always understood trolling to consist of someone casting a divisive net out and waiting for all fish to come in.
ALso, I will add this: There’s a difference between Ebert the reviewer and Ebert the twitterer. He’s not nearly as good as expressing himself there, and he often says things he shouldnt.
Eberts not a faux-intellectual. You can’t be the best known film critic for 30 odd years and be a faux- anything. What he is, is a guy who can write about a film in such a way that Joe Bloggs off the street can understand a very basic, but clear and sophisticated opinion on what is or isn’t good about it. 99% of the time he doesn’t come off as pretentious, or looking down the nose at a film. He presents his arguments in layman terms. This is why his career has longevity. He’s not offensive to the high brows and his language allows everyday people who don’t know a lot about film access to discussion.
well said. i was constructing a similar response, but yea, that’s it in a nutshell.
I’m talking about Ebert outside of movie reviews, he writes all this political nonsense now. And says shit all the time on twitter. Also seeing as Ebert Presents has just become a gateway for Ebert to rerun his old show, he was such a douche to poor Siskel. And they keep showing old episodes where Ebert and Siskel think they are being intellectuals about what films say about America/the times and they are dumb as fuck and show that Ebert spends too much time in theaters.
Yeah in his movie reviews he keeps it simple and plain, that’s fine, he should’ve ever speak outside of his reviews.
Yea, I’ll agree with that.
Yeah it didn’t really start to annoy me until he turned Ebert Presents into some lame history lesson of what a GREAT CRITIC he thinks himself to be. They haven’t shown a new episode in like 2 months, I guess Ebert doesn’t like the two critics on the show and would rather enjoy the smell of his old farts then give them the chance to grow. Eh that show and idea is dead anyway, it was decent with AO Scott and Phillips but that got killed. With these two it more fun to watch the girl shit on the guy for being such a pussy, but now it’s just become the Ebert memory lane show.
It’s funny because I know why Ebert at first defended Armond White:
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/white.html
Those are pretty decent top tens beyond the weird love of De Palma I’d take most of those over most top ten list I see. But there’s on on there I know that’s why Ebert at first initially defended Armond:
10. Songs From the Second Floor (Roy Andersson)
Ebert fucking loves that film like no other and finally found someone else that knew what the fuck is was, but then Ebert caved in to popular opinion of Armond.
Well, funny enough…that initial defense of Armond is an example of the things you say you don’t like Ebert for–shooting off the cuff, striving to be a part of a culture discussion he hadn’t fully researched. If you read his article, when someone sent him one of Armond’s best of lists, it was then he realized he was defending a troll based off a few hotly-debated articles.
I dont think he changed based on the critical consensus, I think he changed because he realized he didnt have all the facts. He’s been guilty of that many times.
Yeah I know, but jesus watching those old shows with him and Siskel you can just tell he doesn’t give a shit about what Siskel says. I hope Siskel at least punched him in his fat face at least one before he died.
Funny- first one I saw was 1997-
This is a terrible list:
01. Amistad (Steven Spielberg)
02. Happy Together (Wong Kar-wai)
03. The Delta (Ira Sachs)
04. Hamsun (Jan Troell)
05. Afterglow (Alan Rudolph)
06. Career Girls (Mike Leigh)
07. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg)
08. Nowhere (Gregg Araki)
09. Temptress Moon (Chen Kaige)
10. The Winner (Alex Cox)
I thought this was a joke at first, and then I saw this for 2001, and no, he’s just a dick with terrible taste:
01. A.I. Artifical Intelligence (Steven Spielberg)
02. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch)
03. The Day I Became a Woman (Marzieh Meshkini)
04. Gosford Park (Robert Altman)
05. The Man Who Wasn’t There (Joel Coen)
06. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai)
07. Faat Kiné (Ousmane Sembene)
08. The Adventures of Felix (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau)
09. Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet)
10. The Royak Tennenbaums (Wes Anderson)
That’s a combination of actively bad films, and things nobody has seen or ever will see.
Well that’s what Echo was saying, he’s probably better off pushing smaller foreign films rather then covering big films. I don’t mind his top ten list I think they are decent.
Although, the Siskel and Ebert show was great, and it was fun because it took the critic down a few pegs by showing critical opinion in the arena of two guys just talking film. It made the idea of talking about a film in a more mature sense–beyond rocks and blows–seem like something anybody could do.
I’m referring to his reviews. I don’t know anything about Twitter and whatnot.
While Ebert may go a little overboard in his political writings, he has wrote some amazing posts which reflect why he won the Pulitzer
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/perform_a_concert_in_words.html
I’ve not read anything Ebert has written other than his reviews and maybe a couple of bio’s for the recently departed. I’ve never been on Twitter, but I doubt anyone comes across as eloquent in a 150 character format.
No, it’s not a format for eloquence. Twitter is pop culture vomit.
See Ebert on Twitter is a total Troll, he just says shit to get a rise most of the time, he’s actually one of the few people I stopped following because he did become annoying to me.
I’ve worked out who Armond White is. He’s Steven Spielbergs bum.
1997
01. Amistad (Steven Spielberg)
07. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg)
1998
01. Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg)
2001
01. A.I. Artifical Intelligence (Steven Spielberg)
2002
02. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg)
04. Minority Report (Steven Spielberg)
2004
04. The Terminal (Steven Spielberg)
2005
01. Munich (Steven Spielberg)
02. War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg)
That is fucking disgusting.
Yeah he fucking loves Spielberg, which I think is cool if there is one director who deserves a pass it’s the Berg. That and Armond just fucking loves America like Steven.
No way. Love pre JP/ Schindlers Berg all you like. But he’s running to the end of his pass with me.
It’s now when I see his name on something, I don’t want to see it- That list of films that Armond loves of Bergs has lots that I fucking hate, and only a complete lunatic would pretend that The Lost World is anything other than shit.
Heheheh jesus, The Lost World is awesome, its goofy but that movie is fun as hell. And see he put it at 7th not number one.
The Lost World is dogshit. Orangutan of Doom level dogshit. There’s not one redeeming feature to it.
Ohhhh now whose being the Tool. The Lost World has a lot of awesome moments and looks amazing. Also has an amazing score.
When?
Because I remember being staggeringly bored before having my intelligence insulted. Oh, wait, you’re talking about the AWESOME bit where the little black gymnast girl kicks a dinosaur through a window. That was too KEWL.
I’ve never heard a defence of The Lost World before.
A free pass is the last thing the Berg needs right now. I haven’t liked something he’s done with any real interest since 2002 and Minority Report.
Man, I hope he nails T.I.N.-T.I.N.
Fuck’s sake, Jonah. Don’t you know that it is tIn tIN by now?
Nope. He’s put every single Spielberg movie released between 97 and 2005 on his top 10 list, no matter how shit it is. The Terminal for fucks sake? The guy’s opinion is worthless.
and he credited 1998’s Out of Sight to Spielberg. Dude is a tool.
That’s probably a typo, that’s not his site or anything.
Yeah, to be fair, that probably wasn’t him.
Look at 2006- this is a dude that doesn’t like cinema:
01. Broken Sky (Julián Hernández)
02. Neil Young: Heart of Gold (Jonathan Demme)
03. A Prairie Home Companion (Robert Altman)
04. World Trade Center (Oliver Stone)
05. Nacho Libre (Jared Hess)
06. The Promise (Chen Kaige)
07. Infamous (Douglas McGrath)
08. Akeelah and the Bee (Doug Atchison)
09. Bobby (Emilio Estevez)
10. Runnng Scared (Wayne Kramer)
Tintin will herald the Return of the Berg. Damn, that movie’s only one month away. Huzzah!
IT’S SPELLED
ti Ntin
And you know it.
Isn’t it spelled…
Fuck you.
Cunt.
Yeah, my bad.
There’s a typo there. I’ll fix it now:
T Intin.
I like Nacho Libre, but it wouldn’t go anywhere near a best of list.
I do too, and I take it back about 2006 and Nacho Libre. That’s an astonishingly bad year.
Oh, so the guy is a joke who blindly gives the Berg a hand job. Isn’t this exactly what you usually attack Koutch…someone who laps up some director even though they are putting out less than stellar product in recent years? Or certainly not up to their previous levels of achievement?
Yeah but it’s Steven Spielberg, I don’t love his films as most as most people even, including the great ones, but I love America and respect the Berg so he’ll always get a pass in my book as well. I’d rather watch a bad Berg movie then most directors good movies. Also he ALWAYS loves Berg, at least he’s consistent, I usually get mad when people out of nowhere talk about some actor/director as if they have been fans of their entire shitty career, I don’t buy that. I can buy someone loving every single one of Berg’s films.
I mean we’ll see, I can easily see Armond hating TenTen…..though I doubt he’ll hate War Horses.
Seriously, koutch.
I can make a strong case for SPR, The Lost World, Amistad, AI, The Terminal, Indy 4, Hook and a few others as being mediocre to downright terrible films. I don’t give a shit who the director is, if I think a film is crap/ good then I don’t care if it’s the man who made Jaws or the man who made Ultraviolet that made it.
Heheheh I thought he didn’t like Crystal Skull….nope so I guess Tin Tin will be a hit as well:
http://www.nypress.com/article-18318-another-indy-classic.html
Yeah see you hate Berg films a lot more than me, I’ve never sat through a Berg film and hated it afterward, except for maybe Munich but I need to watch that movie again. Berg recently yeah he’s been odd, but even I didn’t hate Crystal Skull, but that’s more because I’m not in love with Indiana Jones and it felt like more of the same for me with it, just amped up ridiculousness. I do agree with Armond when he says that Indiana 4 is better than Ironman because it shows how fucking boring Ironman was. And I didn’t hate Ironman 1, I’m about even with IM1 and Crystal Skull, I don’t think either are very good films but I at least could see me watching Indiana 4 again, mainly because of it’s sheer nuttyness.
Funnily enough, I didn’t hate Crystal Skull. It was just so BLAH. I think Darth Lucas had his gizzard in that. I love the original trilogy, so should probably have not seen it.
It was the type of film made by a highly talented director not giving a fuck.
Ironman was better first time round- because of Downey. On repeat watch? About at the same level.
the thing is, I can’t think of any director really,. who has made more than five films, where I like all of their work.
Even Gilliam, who I am a huge fan of, has crap to his name and he hasn’t even made that many movies. Brothers Grimm and Tideland are inexcusable.
Hell, Malick has, what, five films to his name, and although Droid and I are big fans, we don’t even like all of those either.
I’d dare to say there’s prob not one (who has made anything in the double digits) where i like their entire body of work. Even the usual darlings like Kurosawa and Hitchcock have their off days.
This is a good question this one.
HItchcock? I even like Torn Curtain, and I think I’m the only person on the planet that likes that.
It’s not saying every film, it’s that Spielberg hasn’t made what I would consider to be an unarguably good film in nearly 20 years. He’s, actually, heading towards hackland at the rate he bangs films out at.
Take War of the Worlds for example, starts of great, turns into a steaming turd.
Partially, it’s because he can’t bring himself to make decisions now that he would have when he was younger- e.g. the son returning in WOTW.
The question wasn’t to defend the Berg, but to point out how full of it Armond is..saying you like a certain director, or he represents America or whatever, isn’t enough to excuse that kind of fidelity when the work doesn’t call for it. I respect the directors’ I really dig too much to ignore when they fail.
As for Hitchcock, the problem isn’t Torn Curtain, which I actually like too–it’s not a masterpiece but I can find plenty of good to say about it–but that Hitch was sooo prolific, especially early in his career. He’s churned out a few–Jamaica Inn comes to mind–that were tedious at best, and haphazard at worse.
Ohhhh shit Berg is directing Robopocalypse? Hrmmm FUCK I have tickets to Reel Steel tonight but it’s at the theater across town, don’t know if I wanna dick with that shit tonight or just wait to see it at the nice theater a mile from my house on Sunday night were I can enjoy it more.
Schendlers List/Hook/Et/Indiana 1-3/Jaws/Duel/Minority Report/Catch Me If You Can/Close Encounters
That’s 11 just off the top of my head. Berg is solid as fuck.
jesus JP. Come one you know Berg has more hits than misses.
Always/Empire of the Sun/The Color Purple/A.I. Artificial Intelligence/Amistad/The Lost World: Jurassic Park.
Always, AI, Amistad, TLW= shit.
Give you TCP, though.
Agree with Droid about Cameron.
wait, here’s the real revelation of the day! You like Titanic Jarv?
Aside from Titanic. I was still stunned at anyone thinking Hook wasn’t shit.
Naw Hook’s fine, and that effects and look of that film have held up Amazingly well, also solid score. Another almost completely solid film maker is Micheal Mann.
Well, Titanic is a pretty darn big blemish. It’s not Piranha 2. It’s the movie he won the Oscar for, and probably filled to the brim the most with his own ethos/worldview, etc.
It takes him promptly out of the running. Barring Titanic, then yeah, he’s done fine.
Hook is the worst kind of garbage.
You all need to rewatch Hook. I wish Tim Burton films held up as well as Hook does.
I did actually, recently, at my wife’s behest. It’s even worse than I–and she–remembered it.
It’s just so false and artificial and wrong-headed at every turn. Honestl, if anyone but the Berg had made it, they would have been accused of not even knowing the Peter Pan story.
It’s held up, because it was shit to begin with.
It hasn’t got worse.
And for the record, I watched Beetlejuice again the other day, and that holds up fine. It’s still a far better movie than human wookie Robin WIlliams frolics dodgily with the lost boys. I felt sorry for them when he was finding his happy thought- because I doubt they’ll be flying after that.
Hook is solid, I wish other directors took chances and risk’s like that. Fuck Hook, Waterworld soooo much better than shit we get now a days. Probably how you guys see Hook is how I see Green Lantern.
The only three films I’ve seen of Bergs that I didn’t like have been War of the Worlds (which I need to watch again I saw it on some shitty bootleg), Munich (which I need to watch again I saw it too close to Schindlers List and One Day In September) and 1941. Even Saving Private Ryan which I don’t fully like, I didn’t dislike it mainly because it was so good looking.
1941>>>> Hook and The Lost World.
That’s how bad they are.
I fucking hated Hook. Julia Roberts would have sunk the movie singlehandedly even if it wasn’t the most saccharine load of shit filmed.
He does. But not since Schindler’s list.
And of that list you’ve given I don’t like Minority Report, Hook (Seriously, this is a crap film) and Catch me if you Can.
If you go for Berg, I’d say Close Encounters, Indy 1-3, Jaws, Duel, ET, JP 1, Schindlers, Empire of the Sun- all great films.
I can pick out a lot of good ones, albeit with flaws- for example, Munich is 2/3 good film, 1/3 stinker.
The cliff scene in Lost World is brilliant. Nothing else in the movie is good. At all. Plus it’s fucking long, slow and boring.
Peter Storme was awesome, the long grass scene was great, the dino Rampage through San Diego was fun. Spotsworth was a blast. Also it’s a movie about Dinosaur’s…..not sure were great intelligence comes into play. Sure I’ll give you the gymnast scene, whatever harp on that all you want but don’t act like the whole movie was a failure. And you can’t knock that score. Fuck it’s probably Vince Vaugn’s and Jullian Moores 2nd or 3rd best film.
As much as I dislike Julianne Moore, it isn’t.
Vaughan, well, he makes shit, so it may be.
It’s a terrible film and the Dino in San Diego was just the turd cherry on the turd icing on the turd cake. It’s an amazingly bad film, and I can’t believe that you’re giving it a pass.
It’s funny, when Spielberg doesn’t give a shit about something, you really get the most amazingly tepid films- Indy 4, for example.
The Lost World isn’t some amazingly bad film, it’s fine, it’s just got some goofy shit in it. I’d much rather watch that then most summer films since it came out. Indiana 4 is a worse film than JP2.
No it isn’t. Indy 4 is miles better than JP2.
I can’t honestly believe your standing up for that heap.
There’s a new Lars von Trier that apparently Dunst is amazing in. I don’t believe that.
Yeah I bet that new Von Treir blows, it looks like shit. I do however want to see that Dunst movie she did with Gosling and directed by the moviehone creator, it looks odd.
Yup, that’s exactly what I said a few weeks ago or so when I caught some of that movie, and particularly that scene. It’s filmed brilliantly, you know what is going on, the tension is there, and it looks good. The rest of the movie: blah.
some of Ellen’s stand-up is actually pretty funny. I used to have a crush on her…can’t believe I’m admitting that
She wears some nice sweatshirts and vests in this one.
Muy caliente! 🙂
She only agreed to wear those sweatshirts if it was tasteful, artfully done, and developed the character.
that’s what drives me nuts Pillow. A female Mr. Rogers
She wears a very dull manish trench coat in this one too…:-)
say what you will but I will believe Ellen in a straight romantic comedy over the likes of Horse Face Killa
SJP?
Me too. Mrs. Jarv has decided that she doesn’t want to see I don’t know how she does it. I consider this to be a result.
Seriously…..does anyone else still remember when SJP was an interesting actress? I’m not imagining things, she’s been in some decent to good movies before. Ed Wood. It’s always odd to me that she did Sex In The City because that seemed like such a weird move for her, then it hit and now she thinks she can just keep making crap like that.
Or was SJP never an interesting actress?
Never-
SJP:
2011I Don’t Know How She Does It
Kate Reddy
2010Sex and the City 2
Carrie Preston
2009Did You Hear About the Morgans?
Meryl Morgan
2008Sex and the City
Carrie Bradshaw
2008Smart People
Janet Hartigan
2008Spinning Into Butter
Sarah Daniels
2006Failure to Launch
Paula
2005The Family Stone
Meredith Morton
2005Strangers with Candy
Peggy Callas
2002Life Without Dick
Colleen Gibson
2000State and Main
Claire Wellesley
1999Dudley Do-Right
Nell Fenwick
1997’Til There Was You
Francesca Lanfield
1996Mars Attacks!
Nathalie Lake
1996Extreme Measures
Jodie Trammel
1996The First Wives Club
Shelly Stewart
1996The Substance of Fire
Sarah Geldhart
1996If Lucy Fell
Lucy Ackerman
1995Miami Rhapsody
Gwyn Marcus
1994Ed Wood
Dolores Fuller
1993Striking Distance
Jo Christman
1993Hocus Pocus
Sarah Sanderson
1992Honeymoon in Vegas
Betsy / Donna
1991L.A. Story
SanDeE*
1986Flight of the Navigator
Carolyn McAdams
1985Girls Just Want to Have Fun
Janey Glenn
1984Firstborn
Lisa
1984Footloose
Rusty
The ones that stand out are LA Story, Ed Wood, and Mars Attacks, but there’s a lot of generic and terrible Rom Coms in there.
my wife and some of her friends went to see I don’t know how she does it, over the weekend. She thought it was pretty much crap, which it looked like. I don’t think i’d hate SATC as much if it was a completely different cast.
the only good thing she’s been in was Ed Wood and that was in spite of her, not because
Ohhh she was in Flight of the Navigator, that’s probably why I thought she was interesting for some time.
Never was Koutch. She was just in a couple of decent movies.
I wouldn’t be so hard on SATC if it was honest with us, and starred the guys from Queer eye for the straight guy.
I like State and Main too.
I’ve only seen like one episode of SATC, I didn’t hate it, didn’t like it just it felt so far removed from anything real or mattering to me, I could never give a shit about the characters or idea of the show.
I think part of the draw of SATC is almsot it’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous format. It’s a bunch of women in midlife who live these oppulant lives, can go out and do what they want in a lavish setting and have zero consequence as it always wraps up nicely. It’s a way for a vicarious living through the characters. I just can’t stand the pretense of the characters. But again, like with Twilight, I understand that it is pure fantasy and escapism whereas most guys like watching John Maclane because he embodies the ‘extreme testosterone’ of the hyper-male. We put ourselves in Mclane’s bare-feet because we want to be as badass as he is.
There’s my Armond White-ism for the day
Indy 4 as a movie was fine. But it was sub-par for an Indy movie. Like DH4, it looks bad when compared to it’s predecessors.
It’s almost fine. I actually think you are both right and wrong there, because I’ve considered it. It was very sub-par for an Indy movie, but when I try to think about what was honestly good about it, what made it ‘fine’, and it was those few places where it tingled my nostalgia.
If it weren’t Indy at all, it would probably be a bigger failure as entertainment.
If it wasn’t Indiana Jones. If it was Rick O’Connell and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it would’ve been a instantly forgettable adventure movie that no one got upset about. It would’ve been fine, because you wouldn’t have had any expectations.
I see your point, but no, it wouldnt have worked for me either. Because Mummy Returns and Mummy 3 didn’t work for me, and it had to do with the extremely haphazard nature everything was put together with.
I don’t hate any of those movies, but find almost all of them without any real points of interest outside the initial watch. There’s alot of problems with the way they handle the alien plot, how Indy doesn’t actually discover anything, just follows the path –with great difficulty I mgiht add–that a xrazy old man already trailblazed.
My biggest problem with Indy was the fact that everyone in that movie was indestructible, John Hurt the girl indy and shia someone should’ve fucking died jesus.
Joone. Awesome director. 100% strike rate.
That’s very true. He gets it in the hole every time.
Yep. He really nails them.
even so, I still think it’s ridiculous that so many line up to slob his knob.
OK- as a contender, and don’t laugh:
Russ Meyer.
The argument being he was basically making end-of-pier sleazy films about women with unfeasibly large norks, but they’re always entertaining. Even Vixen, which is ridiculous by any standards, is funny. Not to mention that Ebert wrote Valley of the Dolls for him.
Never seen a Russ Meyer film.
The best of them is probably Faster Pussycat..
Bitch Slap stole a lot from it. But they’re all basically exploitation trash cinema, but gleefully done and quite polished.
Heheheh I saw Beyond the Vally of the Dolls, I mean yeah if you are talking silly crappy trashy films I guess Russ Meyer works. I’ve tried to watch some of his other shit but they bore me. I prefer Tito Brass.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen Tito Brass
he means tinto brass.. Sleaze director with a thing for junk in the trunk.
Yeah him too he did Caligula, or most of Caligula anyway. I need to see more of his work.
Fuck he’s still pumping out films.
I do wanna see Vixen!, Ebert was rambling about that the other week and even though hanging with Russ was Ebert’s only means to see boobies that movie sounded semi decent.
no pun intended.
Caligula is a terrible movie. Not because it tries so hard to be offensive, but because it’s just garbage and boring
See I thought Caligula was cool as hell because of how good it looked and just how nutty it got. It was one of the few “YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE YOU DIE” films that actually lived up to what you had been told about it.
I feel bad for the kids 40 years from now when movies of the 2000’s become these weird old movies JUST SO NUTS YOU HAVE TO SEE IT, they will be highly disappointed for the most part.
I know you guys won’t agree, but I’ve liked all of Camerons movies. Yes, even Titanic.
depends if Piranha 2 is being counted. But has he even made ten films? Eh, still, I can’t get the Titanic love. I understand how you can like it, but I think it doesn’t pass the ‘good movie’ test.
Titanic is a rotten film.
Sorry.
I don’t love it. I like it. I think it’s a brilliantly made film. It’s paced beautifully, and it really gathers momentum. Half way in when the sinking starts it’s barrelling along. I think technically, it’s a expertly made film. Maybe not from a writing or acting standpoint. But it’s a melodrama. It is what it is.
It’s also boring, badly written and badly acted.
*Puts head above parapit*
The last 45 mins of Titanic are some of the best footage ever committed to film.
Honestly, as the boat sinks, the sheer scale of the build they did, the extras, the art direction. And the emotion! Yes, that word! Kate and Leo aside, as people are dropping to their deaths, or panicking, or jumping, it is a rollercoaster.
And all that without ever dwelling on the love story. Bollocks to all the “I wont let go” stuff, its the people jumping to their deaths, or accepting their fate that leaves the real impact.
Its a so-so melodrama, but a 10/10 piece of film making. And yes you can be both
hehe
But I like Avatar too! 😉
No, I agree, R2. I like ‘Titanic’. I think it’s a good film.
I’ve never seen Hook all the way through. I’ve tried twice. Can’t watch it. Same with Thelma and Louise, which just bores the living shit out of me.
I’d say Kubrick falls into this discussion. I haven’t seen a film of his that I didn’t enjoy on some level, or what I’d consider a failed film. Even Barry Lyndon which is fairly boring, is brilliant on a technical level and enjoyable
I actually didnt much care for Eyes Wide Shut.
I didn’t like EWS at first, it took a few viewings but I really do enjoy that movie now. The score is amazing, the look fits the tone, some of the acting is great. The scene where Nic is talking about her fantasy and Cruise is just burning her with his eyes is incredible
I could not stand the shining. Hated jack in that and movie bored me in general. As for critics, i never heard of armond and have nevrr logged on to rotten tomatoes and could care less about someones elses opinion of a movie i want to see or have already seen.
The more I think about 2001…..the more I don’t get it. Maybe I just saw it too late for it to really have any impact on me? I find Kubrick films to tooooo fucking slow and boring, I haven’t been able to make it through A Clockwork Orange ever, I should try again. Heheheh was that his point with Clockwork Orange that even the most fucked up shit can be boring as hell when thought about and studied?
i don’t understand how you can find Clockwork boring. 2001 (yes I can understand that it it very slow in parts). But then again I enjoy social satire and couple that with futurism, and an unreliable narrator, oh and classical/early techno score and it’s pretty damn brilliant to me
Yeah I should fucking love Clockwork Orange, but for some reason it always puts me to sleep? I haven’t tried to watch it in a while I should try again. But also The Shining puts me to bed. Probably because of that I haven’t seen many of his films. I recorded Spartacus the other day but had to delete it to clear space, it wasn’t in HD anyway.
I’m not trying to be rude or anything but I think it may just be that you don’t like films that have a slow pace (which is almost all of Kubrick). I enjoy movies that take their time telling a story. And the Shining is a perfect example of a slow burn. each moment in that movie piles upon itself until it goes out of control, just like Jack does, in the end. Another great example of a slow burn would be Audition.
Naw I love slow movies. I’m one of the few people that didn’t find inception to be long. I like Michael Mann films, I even liked a three hour asian drama called The Taste of Tea, that’s got nothing to do with it. I know I need to try Clock Work again, but I know part of the point of Clockwork was to combined that clean style of film making with the anarchy of that world. Fuck I made it through Eyes Wide Shut just fine, and Full Metal Jacket.
Love clockwork orange love 2001. Hate shining
Love clockwork orange.
Hate 2001.
I was going to mention him, but I haven’t seen all of his films and Eyes Wide Shut didn’t work for me.
Barry Lyndon is actually a really good film.
Damn right. Barry Lyndon rocks.
Regarding the Berg discussion above, I actually think he has made very few masterpieces as people say he has (IMO, only Duel, Jaws, CEOT3K, Raiders and Schindler’s List actually qualify as something I could possibly label a masterpiece) but I will say the guy is like Scorsese or the Coen Brothers in that there is at least ONE thing in almost every movie that made me glad I bought a ticket.
JP: Lost World was a POS IMO, but the cab hanging over the cliff and the breaking glass was a masterpiece of suspense filmmaking. Armistad was a huge disappointment and seemed like a TV movie at times, but the middle passage sequence is as powerful as anything he did in Schindler’s List. I think SPR is vastly overrated, but the opening is one of the greatest things ever shot on cinema, something that even Xi I think would concur with.
While I do think the Berg’s quality has dropped (not as bad as his mid 80’s period where he was actually in danger of entering Friedkin/Bogdanovich territory) I do think the guy is such a great craftsman he can always make something that is at least worthwhile to watch.
So would you say there is a director out there whose made more than five masterpieces?
Hitchcock, Kurasawa and Ford come to mind right away.
Any more modern directors?
I’d say Berg has a wider variety of types of films you’ve deemed masterpieces over Hitchcock, Kurasawa, I need to see more Ford films.
I would say Woody Allen
Annie Hall
Hannah and Her Sisters
Manhattan
Bananas
Sleeper
Interiors
Zelig
Purple rose of Cairo
and apparently now Midnight in Paris
I think it is harder for modern filmmakers to make as many masterpieces. 1 – they don’t make as many movies (fuck, John Ford had like 50-100 movies and 1-reelers before he did Stagecoach in 1939, his first masterpiece), and 2 – they got there first, so you have to not only match what they did but also go way beyond it.
It is hard to match being the first to climb Mount Everest, cross the North Pole or fly faster than the speed of sound. No matter what, you’re going to be living in the shadows of those who did it first. With film (or any art) you’re competing with the guys who invented the damn film language. Yeah, overall your film might be technically better, but sorry you didn’t invent the CU, or the Zoom shot, the L-Cut or the 180 rule or any of that. The earlier guys did and perfected it first so they get all the glory.
That’s another thing Berg has going for him, that does put out a lot of movies for a director of his size. And like you said it’s harder for film makers now a days because it’s already been done so for Berg to have five is still pretty amazing. I can’t really think of any other director alive now whose got five or more.
Maybe Micheal Mann and Ridley Scott.
With Mann being the tougher sell than Ridley.
oh and coens
The Coens…..eh them and Burton may have 2-3 masterpieces.
You also got Edward Zwick and Tony Scott who may have 2-3 masterpieces.
I would say neither Ridley or Mann have close to 5 masterpieces. Maybe 3 tops
Well none of them have five or more like Berg, they may have 3-4. See with Berg he’s got 5 steadfast masterpieces:
ET/JP/Jaws/Schindler’s/Jones 1
then he has his tier 2 films which may or may not be masterpieces depending on who you are talking to:
Close Encounters/Duel/Indy 2/Saving Private Ryan/Minority Report/The Color Purple (I mean hate Private Ryan all you want you know there are people that love it).
then his rest are sort of interchangable based on personal opinion.
yep Conti I agree the amphibious assault scene in SPR was well made unfortunately the rest of the movie is wretchedly awful, offensive and downright insultingly bad.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, although I will say I think the cinematography, editing, art direction, sound design, and other technical aspects of the film are all top notch. Too bad Berg, the screen writers and the cast couldn’t match the work of the behind the scene guys.
I don’t really agree with all the “masterpiece” labels being bandied about, as I think that there are very few perfect films and that’s how I would categorize a masterpiece. But Peter Weir has made a shedload of great films. And Spike Jonze is 3 for 3.
McT has the quadrella of Predator, Hunt for Red October and two Die Hards. And I really like Thomas Crown and 13th Warrior.
Ehhh Weir is close. He has huge gaps though. Jonze could be, I still don’t love Wild Things and it bores the shit out of me, but its very well made. He needs more movies.
Also outside of his last three I wouldn’t call any of his other films Masterpieces, and The Way Back or Truman Show being considered universal masterpieces would be a stretch.
Its all subjective of course. Picnic at Hanging Rock is fucking good. Gallipoli, Witness and Dead Poets are great films.
Yeah those films are all fine and dandy but you’d be hard pressed for them to have a majority of people calling them masterpieces. And I’d say Back/Master/Truman are better than Dead/Gallipoli/Witness, need to see Picnic.
Truman show is nailed on masterpiece.
Carpenter has a good few, Halloween, efny, big trouble, the thing leaping to mind.
Cronenberg is the other candidate: the fly, Videodrome, dead ringers, are masterpieces.
However EP, AHOV, Scanners, The Brood all come close to a greater or lesser extent.
DePalma has a good few as well:
Carrie, Scarface leaping out.
We’d be amiss to not mention Scorcese.
Yeah Scorsese and DePalma are in the 3-4 category. Jones is really the only director to emerge from the 90s with any sort of record.
Jones?
Think he means Jonze.
Fincher has Seven, Fight Club and Zodiac (his masterpiece). I like The Game and Alien3 as well.
Reiner has Spinal Tap (recently voted best comedy ever in something or other), When Harry Met Sally, Misery, The Princess Bride and Stand By Me. That’s a fucking brilliant line up.
People go nuts for mike Leigh as well
Like I said, its subjective. You’re never going to get 100% universal love for any film. Masterpiece is a term I wouldn’t use very often.
Yeah I know but ET/Jaws/JP/Indy 1/Schidlers is as close to five Masterpieces from one director as you are going to ever get agreement on.
I’m not a massive fan of ET. I like it, but CEOT3K is a much better film.
Yeah I’m not a huge ET/Indy/Jaws fan but I recognize their greatness. You could probably add Close Encounters on there and say Berg has 6 steadfast masterpieces.
Jaws is definitely a film I’d call a masterpiece.
Well yea, I go back and forth with Jaws. Some days I love it other days not so much. I just haven’t seen in a good 10 years.
The problem with the Berg is that he’s made mediocre to shit films for the better part of 20 years.
All those masterpieces were a long time ago and when I read about how he wouldn’t make something like encounters now because of the end, it makes me sad.
Hence you end up with the son appearing in wotw. He’s not the same man, as nobody would be, and I honestly think he makes exquisitely crafted bad films now- the Terminal being an almost perfect example.
I’d say his movies are a little newer than Hitchcock/Kurasawa/Ford’s.
Yes, agree. However, it shouldn’t get him an automatic nob polishing with every film.
There is no such thing as “great directors” but there are guys that have made great individual movies. A few have made more then one. There are other directors that have made mostly bad movies. The one thing both camps have in common, both good and bad directors, is that they all have complete shit on their resumes. Cameron, The Beard, Kubrick, Kurosawa etc have more in common with Bay and other “bad” directors then they do with other supposedly “great” directors. Shit movies don’t care about the directors pedigree and what they made before, crap is crap and that’s why directors should only be judged on individual movies and not dick sucked hard or shit on because they made some good or bad movies in the past.
But the same thing could be said about great ballplayers, boxers or athletes. Not every game Jordan played in was he great, but his consistency at putting up good numbers and winning the big games makes it easy to argue he was a great basketball player. Same with Ali in boxing or Joe Montana in football.
I think you could argue that certain directors were able to make films with such consistency and at such a high level (and were such innovators) that you could label them great. I guess what we are arguing about is how many MVP awards or who should be in the Directors Hall of Fame, which I admit is harder to do than sports because it is much more subjective.
Wickedy funny, sharply observed, charming & wonderfully acted…
None of the above apply to ‘Mr Wrong’.
Are you booked in for counselling once this series is finished, Pillow?
He needs it.