Movies Films where the Director was the problem

Two Crows

Two Crows

Purple Belt
@purple
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
3,755
We have a few film nerds on the dog, so I wanted to take things in a different direction and offer something new/different from our weekly "best of .../ top ...".

A couple of weeks ago I rewatched a 90's film that stuck with me, but I have NEVER seen mentioned in general conversation. I watched the whole film again, start-to-finish, very intently. I read the trivia and various tidbits related to the production, the alterations of the story, the work of the actors, etc. etc.

The film was Apt Pupil (1998), directed by Bryan Singer, starring Brad Renfro & Ian McKellen, and written by Stephen King.

Parts of the film, viewed as an adult who has somewhat studied film, absolutely blew me away. McKellen in his marching scene is astonishing, he is legitimately frightening with his zeal. Renfro (RIP) is one of the most realistic sociopath portrayals of all-time (up there with Michael Rooker as Henry). The premise is original, the story keeps you intrigued about it's direction (back when King could write). It's an amazing composition that somehow failed.

The film essentially bombed and was forgotten, but with all that talent, why? The truth is, to my mind, Bryan Singer. The famous Director.

Singer got the performances from the screen talent, he (or his cinematographer) got the shots for the big screen, he had the plot and basic script from the most successful writer of several decades, but the man at the helm transformed fundamental elements of the story into a incomprehensible mess. His attempt to turn the plot into some sort of homosexual metaphor sabotaged the brilliant work being contributed by the rest of the cast (including Elias Koteas, who never gets the recognition he deserves).

Why does this matter? Because it's still a good film, and when we discuss the quality of film, we are generally discussing the quality of the Director and their work, or the failure of the Director's supporting team to perform.
But not this time. This film would have been great, EXCEPT for the work of the Director (IMO).


TLDR; what films do you feel would have been good/great if the Director had not been the weak link/failed? No one ever blames them, it's always Cast, Production, Producers, Writers, ... anyone but the Director.
 
Do I remember reading something on here about Singer getting into some hot water for that film because of the high school boys’ shower scene?
 
Been along time since I'v watched it but my memory was more that it ended up a rather generic King adaptation more than anything.
 
Jack Reacheround said:
Do I remember reading something on here about Singer getting into some hot water for that film because of the high school boys’ shower scene?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of stories about Bryan Singer if you want to Google them but I don't want to derail the thread.

My pick is the movie about 9/11, I think it's called United 91 or something. Directed by Paul Greengrass, and the problem is that he fell madly in love with the "Shakey cam"

He was just so convinced that the more you shook the camera, the more it would add to the tension, but it didn't. It distracted you from the story.
 
Fedorgasm said:
There are a lot of stories about Bryan Singer if you want to Google them but I don't want to derail the thread.

My pick is the movie about 9/11, I think it's called United 91 or something. Directed by Paul Greengrass, and the problem is that he fell madly in love with the "Shakey cam"

He was just so convinced that the more you shook the camera, the more it would add to the tension, but it didn't. It distracted you from the story.
Click to expand...
Really I think that technique had its day in the LOTR films were Jackson used it sparingly to get across a sense of confusion in battle scenes but still had plenty of wider stready shots to allow you to see what was happening.

Shakeycam and hand held are not really the same thing though I would say, lots of cinema uses hand held shooting when were is a little movement to get across more of a personal view without the excessive movement of shakey cam.

Bourne 2 I remember giving me a headache at the cinema with the excess shakey cam.
 
The best example of this for me is Clint Eastwood's direction of Richard Jewell.

Amazing story, fantastic cast (Any cast with Sam Rockwell is fantastic) but oh my God was this movie awful.

And it's full of horrible directing.

Part of the movie takes place in a crowd, and there were supposed to be thousands of people but Clint only hired like 100 extras. No big deal, as there are techniques to making a crowd look bigger than it is. But then Clint goes and takes a wide overhead shot where it really shows how small the crowd is.

Then there's another scene where a reporter played by Olivia Wilde walks into work after landing a big story and everyone gives her a standing ovation and the scene just... Doesn't work. I can't explain it but you know those scenes that look fine in the script but when you actually shoot it for some reason it's just not translating to the screen well? It's the director's job to recognize that and adapt, but he didn't.

Add to that the fact that there are several times where the actors are given shitty dialogue and instead of letting them ad lib or directing them to get a better performance he just shoots one take and moves on.

If I watched it again I'm sure I could write a book on every bad directing decision he made but I never want to watch that crap again.

And I love Clint Eastwood too, but he really mailed it in on this movie.
 
Fedorgasm said:
The best example of this for me is Clint Eastwood's direction of Richard Jewell.

Amazing story, fantastic cast (Any cast with Sam Rockwell is fantastic) but oh my God was this movie awful.

And it's full of horrible directing.

Part of the movie takes place in a crowd, and there were supposed to be thousands of people but Clint only hired like 100 extras. No big deal, as there are techniques to making a crowd look bigger than it is. But then Clint goes and takes a wide overhead shot where it really shows how small the crowd is.

Then there's another scene where a reporter played by Olivia Wilde walks into work after landing a big story and everyone gives her a standing ovation and the scene just... Doesn't work. I can't explain it but you know those scenes that look fine in the script but when you actually shoot it for some reason it's just not translating to the screen well? It's the director's job to recognize that and adapt, but he didn't.

Add to that the fact that there are several times where the actors are given shitty dialogue and instead of letting them ad lib or directing them to get a better performance he just shoots one take and moves on.

If I watched it again I'm sure I could write a book on every bad directing decision he made but I never want to watch that crap again.

And I love Clint Eastwood too, but he really mailed it in on this movie.
Click to expand...


I think Eastwood and his Train to Paris movie come to mind...just in terms of the sheer hubris in casting people with no acting experience as the stars of the film and expecting it to work. He then failed (as anyone probably would have) in getting good performances out of them, but his overconfidence in himself in the casting process shot him in the foot.

He kind of did the same thing with the kids in Gran Torino. He knows how to direct himself for sure...but he is not a stickler for perfection in terms of doing take after take until other actors get it right. He "satisfices" and moves on because he's tired or bored and just kind of says fuck it, good enough.
 
Anyway, the answer to the TS' question is...

JOHN WOO.

If he had made Schindler's List it would have been 30% dove footage and 10% dudes in concentration camps jumping across the screen in slow motion with guns in both hands.
 
BisexualMMA said:
Anyway, the answer to the TS' question is...

JOHN WOO.

If he had made Schindler's List it would have been 30% dove footage and 10% dudes in concentration camps jumping across the screen in slow motion with guns in both hands.
Click to expand...
I tend to think the problem with Woo in Hollywood was moreso that he became a bit of a cliche of himself.

Hard Target I think is a very good over the top action film because its much closer to his HK films but after that I think the films actually became much more generically Hollywood in the way they were shot just with people jumping firing guns and everything exploding in sparks.
 
moreorless87 said:
I tend to think the problem with Woo in Hollywood was moreso that he became a bit of a cliche of himself.

Hard Target I think is a very good over the top action film because its much closer to his HK films by after that I think the films actually became much more generically Hollywood in the way they were shot just with people jumping firing guns and everything exploding in sparks.
Click to expand...


Yeah his stuff from Asia was great and then he kind of adapted in moderation with Hard Target. Face / Off is 80% awesome and 20% unintentional John Woo comedy.

But by that point he was almost a parody of himself and thus...the problem.

When Windtalkers came out I was just thinking...man this guy shouldn't be touching anything as serious as World War II. And what does he do right out of the gate...get a Swedish guy with a heavy Swedish accent to just paste a Texan accent over the Swedish and play the commanding officer in the Pacific Theater.
 
BisexualMMA said:
Yeah his stuff from Asia was great and then he kind of adapted in moderation with Hard Target. Face / Off is 80% awesome and 20% unintentional John Woo comedy.

But by that point he was almost a parody of himself and thus...the problem.

When Windtalkers came out I was just thinking...man this guy shouldn't be touching anything as serious as World War II. And what does he do right out of the gate...get a Swedish guy with a heavy Swedish accent to just paste a Texan accent over the Swedish and play the commanding officer in the Pacific Theater.
Click to expand...
To be fair I don't think its that he lacks seriousness in his early work, by HK standards of the time it does tend to take itself seriously, its just very over the top and operatic.
 
HereticBD said:
McG

"Terminator Salvation"

You get friggin' Christian Bale as John Connor, and the future war scenario everyone wanted, and you go and hire that hack to fuck it all up.
Click to expand...
To be fair I don't think the film is terribly directed, its just very mundane with a director adding little to an already not very inspired script.

Honestly I feel T3 maybe worse directed, as BisexualMMA has pointed out that film is so full of low effort bland daytime shots that look like they should be out of some direct to cable film.

I just feel both of those though are generic exec led safe sepuel cash ins to the core, there was never any danger of either of them being a great film.
 
Last edited:
I blame the director when creative choices destroy source material, and also for pacing issues. Sometimes the story is just not a good one and the director does the best he can. Sometimes a Directors ego makes the movie too long or outrageous.

M.Knight--I actually really like most of his movies. I even like the ones people complain about like Signs, Lady In The Water and The Village. I enjoy his tone and style. But HE is the reason The Last Airbender failed. His casting choices were not accurate and his choices killed the movie.

Nia DaCosta-The Marvels. Her woke choices and agenda made this movie boring and silly. She took a top level hero and made her bullshit. Pacing sucked, no real suspense or threat was felt at all. That is on the director. Her DEI cast felt forced and weak and uninteresting.

David Ayer-Suicide Squad--His decision to sit the Joker cost that movie dearly. He admits it. They actually shot a Joker and Harley movie and he cut the crap out of it and only gave Joker 9 minutes on screen. That IS THE VILLAIN, no one else can touch The Joker so the movie was below average.

George Lucas-Phantom Menace---Too jerky, too fast paced jumping from scene to scene. Jar Jar was a mistake as was giving the kid so much screen time. Darth Maul needed to be fleshed out and a major role as he was badass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,113
Messages
55,468,171
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top