Even hack-fraud directors sometimes turn out movies that are pretty good, at least sometimes. What movies have surprised you considering how bad that director’s other movies are?
I’ll start.
Michael Bay - The Island. Wow, this movie was a surprise. My wife and I risked going to see this in the theater and walked out surprised by how good it was. I’ve tried other movies of his, and only the Rock approached even passable. None as good as the Island, though.
Brett Ratner - Red Dragon is a really good movie. No, really. A really good movie. Otherwise, he’s a hack. Well, Rush Hour was decently made as well. Still, he’s not talented. It’s amazing Ridley Scott made the terrible Hannibal, while Ratner turned in the superior Hannibal sequel(uh, prequel). Rush Hour 3, though, is unforgivably bad.
Zack Snyder - I thought **Watchmen **was brilliant, a great adaptation of the book I loved. Otherwise, he’s made trash.
Joel Schumacher - I love the Phantom of the Opera movie. I think it’s perfect. Hey, he did apologize for Batman and Robin as well.
Roland Emmerich - **Stargate **is a mess in some ways, but I like it a lot anyway. It launched a fun show as well.
That’s what I was going to mention. I reject the “He’s trying to be bad so it’s good” argument. I enjoyed *Total Recall *but it’s not a great movie and hasn’t aged well. Starship Troopers was awful. Basic Instinct was horrible. Showgirls made sex boring. In my youth I liked Flesh + Blood but I managed to catch it on cable a couple of months ago and realized it was awful. I must have been dazzled by naked Jennifer Jason Leigh. But Robocop worked on multiple levels.
Verhoeven had some good movies that got limited US release due to the fact that they were Dutch language. I really enjoyed ‘The 4th Man.’ I do agree that Robocop is excellent fun.
I agree with your assessment of Ratner as a generally bad director. But for me, the exception is Tower Heist. It had a large cast of characters and a complicated story, which gave it ample ground to be ruined by poor direction. But I feel Ratner delivered a solid movie.
Curtis Hanson - L.A. Confidential and a whole bunch of other movies ranging from crap to forgettable.
It’s certainly interesting. I wouldn’t say that I like the movie so much as granting that, from the fact that it’s a true story (and it really does seem to be 99% a true story), it’s just crazy to know that the events which took place actually took place. It’s certainly worth watching. I just wouldn’t watch it a second time.
Some cuts of Dune and Meet Joe Black have been edited enough that Lynch and Brest have disavowed those particular versions. Having not seen them, I couldn’t say whether they remain tolerable. It sounds like the MJB variant removes Anthony Hopkins and his business dealings, which is like 90% of what makes the film, so I’d venture to guess that you’re better off skipping that one.
This has to be the high watermark, though some of the other movies on his credits list were pretty decent. L.A. Confidential is simply one of the greatest noir potboilers ever.
Actually, he’s the opposite: A great director who makes terrible movies.
I’m a fan of his so I wouldn’t necessarily call his films terrible, but most people who hate his films cite the stupid premises or lame twist endings (or both) as reasons why the movies suck. The director stuff – mood, atmosphere, etc… – is usually regarded highly.
His main problem isn’t directing poorly, it’s that he’s is given too much control and does the other stuff poorly. Even I can see that when a movie like The Happening gets produced, something has gone terribly wrong. (But again, The Happening was directed well. It was just conceived and written horribly.)
Given that the source material was so rich and complex just making a coherent movie out of it was an accomplishment. He perfectly cut away what he didn’t need and left a gem. I love that movie.
I have to agree with that. He’s a good director who has made some terrible choices as a writer.