Best Movies Made in Spite of Their Ridiculous Directors

Best Movies Made in Spite of Their Ridiculous Directors

If a film is great, who do you congratulate? If the film is terrible, who do you blame?

This week, we're blaming the director.

Read Full Article

The only Director/Actor I'd ever want to have a drink with is Clint Eastwood. God, just about every movie he's in, I just can't pull my eyes away from the screen.

Anyways, your intro paragraph is repeated at the very end of the article. Figured you might want to know.

Dying_Jester:
The only Director/Actor I'd ever want to have a drink with is Clint Eastwood. God, just about every movie he's in, I just can't pull my eyes away from the screen.

Anyways, your intro paragraph is repeated at the very end of the article. Figured you might want to know.

Yikes, how odd! That wasn't there when I wrote it, I can tell you that. I blame it on PAX stretching the staff thin.

I think it's amazing Michael Cimino got Deer Hunter done, considering the shit he pulled in his next movie.

wait? Spartacus is a great film?

It's barely even a good one.

It's the archtypical "insert protagonist with modern values in ancient times and have him spout modern ideals at the the stupid, ignorant people's from earlier times" movie I loath because they're the go to premise for most historical movies these days, instead of presenting a realistic world, people and conflicts set in actual history.

Stanley Kubrick knew how to drain actors till he got that perfection alright. Something I see that lacks greatly in today's films. Those frightened parts performed by Shelley Duvall really matched it up perfectly, becoming the most dramatic scenes in the whole film.

Saw Spartacus for the first time not too long ago and I was very surprised how fun it could be. Also discovering where some memorable scenes came from after seeing them referenced in other movies/shows.

beastro:
wait? Spartacus is a great film?

It's barely even a good one.

It's the archtypical "insert protagonist with modern values in ancient times and have him spout modern ideals at the the stupid, ignorant people's from earlier times" movie I loath because they're the go to premise for most historical movies these days, instead of presenting a realistic world, people and conflicts set in actual history.

96% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes with an 87% rating among audience reviews. Your opinion seems to be in the minority. Doesn't mean you're wrong for having it, but it does make the surprise in hearing it called a great film a little weird considering that seems to be the near universal stance among critics.

Scars Unseen:

beastro:
wait? Spartacus is a great film?

It's barely even a good one.

It's the archtypical "insert protagonist with modern values in ancient times and have him spout modern ideals at the the stupid, ignorant people's from earlier times" movie I loath because they're the go to premise for most historical movies these days, instead of presenting a realistic world, people and conflicts set in actual history.

96% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes with an 87% rating among audience reviews. Your opinion seems to be in the minority. Doesn't mean you're wrong for having it, but it does make the surprise in hearing it called a great film a little weird considering that seems to be the near universal stance among critics.

As someone that really likes Spartacus, don't look to ratings for facts. We have no idea why all those people voted it up, it's not like everyone is a great judge of art, and even then it is just one website, so minority might not be right word either. You have to consider that many many people never bother voting, like me and everyone I know. Also popularity does breed popularity too.

Now I understand why you brought it up, but it's usually interesting to hear why others go against the flow, because everyone see's things differently and can offer very different criticism. Beastro is not impressed by how cliche' the story premise has become, and he's right because it is common. And it would be interesting to see a film try to replicate history realistically or try to avoid as many tropes as it can.

Nazulu:

Scars Unseen:

beastro:
wait? Spartacus is a great film?

It's barely even a good one.

It's the archtypical "insert protagonist with modern values in ancient times and have him spout modern ideals at the the stupid, ignorant people's from earlier times" movie I loath because they're the go to premise for most historical movies these days, instead of presenting a realistic world, people and conflicts set in actual history.

96% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes with an 87% rating among audience reviews. Your opinion seems to be in the minority. Doesn't mean you're wrong for having it, but it does make the surprise in hearing it called a great film a little weird considering that seems to be the near universal stance among critics.

As someone that really likes Spartacus, don't look to ratings for facts. We have no idea why all those people voted it up, it's not like everyone is a great judge of art, and even then it is just one website, so minority might not be right word either. You have to consider that many many people never bother voting, like me and everyone I know. Also popularity does breed popularity too.

Now I understand why you brought it up, but it's usually interesting to hear why others go against the flow, because everyone see's things differently and can offer very different criticism. Beastro is not impressed by how cliche' the story premise has become, and he's right because it is common. And it would be interesting to see a film try to replicate history realistically or try to avoid as many tropes as it can.

The only fact I was bringing up was that the majority of critics rated Spartacus highly. Rating collation sites are good for that. I wasn't challenging beastro's opinion itself, merely his expressed surprise that it was included in a list of great movies.

It's like someone expressing surprise that Final Fantasy 7 made a top 10 JRPG list, or being surprised at the excited E3 reception of its remake announcement. Certainly, there are criticisms that could be made of the game, even taking into account its age. But that it was well liked by critics and gamers alike isn't something that should be a surprise to anyone who is aware of the game at all.

Scars Unseen:
The only fact I was bringing up was that the majority of critics rated Spartacus highly. Rating collation sites are good for that. I wasn't challenging beastro's opinion itself, merely his expressed surprise that it was included in a list of great movies.

It's like someone expressing surprise that Final Fantasy 7 made a top 10 JRPG list, or being surprised at the excited E3 reception of its remake announcement. Certainly, there are criticisms that could be made of the game, even taking into account its age. But that it was well liked by critics and gamers alike isn't something that should be a surprise to anyone who is aware of the game at all.

A fact on that site alone. Thing is, we don't know if they are even good reviewers. I also noticed people prefer a reviewer who usually throw roses at most things. I see it all the time, people getting aggressive when something is voted down. I wouldn't say any of it is facts really when everything has been so twisted just to market everything.

I'm surprised Peter Jackson wasn't on the list. Before he did the amazing Lord of The Rings film trilogy the types of films he made would be seen as ridiculous by some if not most people. I love Jackson's older films but most people I have shown them to can't stand them.

From what I'd heard Spartacus is no more a Stanley Kubrick movie than a Kirk Douglas movie. Stanley Kubrick was apparently brought onboard after Douglas fired the previous director, but he wasn't allowed much control since Douglas was incharge and interfered with everything. I don't know the exact ins and outs, but it was something along those lines.

Wow, it's almost as if a person's politics or personality don't have shit to do with their creative works unless they inject them in.

Nazulu:

Scars Unseen:
The only fact I was bringing up was that the majority of critics rated Spartacus highly. Rating collation sites are good for that. I wasn't challenging beastro's opinion itself, merely his expressed surprise that it was included in a list of great movies.

It's like someone expressing surprise that Final Fantasy 7 made a top 10 JRPG list, or being surprised at the excited E3 reception of its remake announcement. Certainly, there are criticisms that could be made of the game, even taking into account its age. But that it was well liked by critics and gamers alike isn't something that should be a surprise to anyone who is aware of the game at all.

A fact on that site alone. Thing is, we don't know if they are even good reviewers. I also noticed people prefer a reviewer who usually throw roses at most things. I see it all the time, people getting aggressive when something is voted down. I wouldn't say any of it is facts really when everything has been so twisted just to market everything.

Well, Rotten Tomatoes pulls reviews from a very large number of publications and webistes, which tend to employ professional reviewers and critics. Of course, that doesn't mean their reviews have to be good, but it does mean Rotten Tomatoes is fairly representative of the critical consensus of a given work.

As far as I can tell, the movie press tends to be under far less pressure from rabid fans who demand high scores, aside from certain genres which appeal to geeks and thus draw the same (oftentimes fanatic) crowd as videogames. So I doubt movie critics would be under the same kind of pressure to like something, simply because the masses of the internet will be converge on them if they don't. This goes even more so for an older movie like Spartacus, for which a bad review will hardly draw massive amounts of ire.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to dislike it, and I definitely think critizing the character of Spartacus as merely a modern man inserted into the past, and therefore automatically being a hero, is a valid point, and one I would agree with. But to reiterate Scars' point, most critics doubtlessly consider it a "good" film nonetheless. Maybe sensibilities have changed in the years since, and maybe critics were merely wiling to overlook this weakness, or didn't consider it a weakness at all.

Fat_Hippo:
Well, Rotten Tomatoes pulls reviews from a very large number of publications and webistes, which tend to employ professional reviewers and critics. Of course, that doesn't mean their reviews have to be good, but it does mean Rotten Tomatoes is fairly representative of the critical consensus of a given work.

As far as I can tell, the movie press tends to be under far less pressure from rabid fans who demand high scores, aside from certain genres which appeal to geeks and thus draw the same (oftentimes fanatic) crowd as videogames. So I doubt movie critics would be under the same kind of pressure to like something, simply because the masses of the internet will be converge on them if they don't. This goes even more so for an older movie like Spartacus, for which a bad review will hardly draw massive amounts of ire.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to dislike it, and I definitely think critizing the character of Spartacus as merely a modern man inserted into the past, and therefore automatically being a hero, is a valid point, and one I would agree with. But to reiterate Scars' point, most critics doubtlessly consider it a "good" film nonetheless. Maybe sensibilities have changed in the years since, and maybe critics were merely wiling to overlook this weakness, or didn't consider it a weakness at all.

Yeah, that's an excellent point, definitely with Spartacus which is a classic that's already had it's time under the limelight.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is it really shouldn't be surprising when someone doesn't like a movie that's popular, with all that I've highlighted too. You always know there's going to be thousands, to millions, to possibly even billions that won't like the movie for their own reasons, you never really know, because nothing is ever perfect (well, I haven't found anything perfect yet).

I don't get why Citizen Kane is considered a good movie. I seen it, it was boring.

Directors are very important, but in my opinion writers get WAY too little attention. Imagine what the marvel movies would be without their fantastic zingy writing.

imo it goes like this rated by importance, but sometimes a movie cannot be saved no matter how good a single of its parts is, they all preferably have to be great:

Writing
Casting
Directing

Xavier78:
I don't get why Citizen Kane is considered a good movie. I seen it, it was boring.

Nobody does, but its been a "good" movie for so long you get laughed down if you say its anything but great...

Ok, so why is Werner Herzog not here?? Remember his movies with Klaus Kinski? Fitzcarraldo, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Cobra Verde??
Or at least Bad Lieutenant? The one where Nic Cage is a drug addict detective? ("Shot him again!.... His soul is still dancing").

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here