Stinkers By Great Directors (1 Viewer)

[Tommy R]

I’ve only seen it once but I thought The Lone Ranger was really good. If it took out those book ends with the kid, and all those cutaways to the kid throughout, it would have been better and more re-watchable. All that stuff just killed the pacing and has actually made me wearing of attempting another view. I also didn’t like that they spoiled the big finale shot of the train falling off the bridge in the trailer.

 

[TravisR]

I think the 2013 "Lone Ranger" is less a "bad film" and more a "boring film". It's too long and too convoluted and too dull.

It's not a movie I can work up the energy to hate - it's just blah!

The movie starts off fairly dull and it's probably two hours too long but like I said, skip to that last sequence and you're watching a great popcorn movie.

 

[Matt Hough]

Oh, I like his small films, too. I only used the those three because they were comparable to LOA. And where does Passage To India fit in? Small film or epic? Or a little of both.

A little of both, and my favorite of his 1960s, 70s, 80s films.

 

[Ejanss]

I’ve only seen it once but I thought The Lone Ranger was really good. If it took out those book ends with the kid, and all those cutaways to the kid throughout, it would have been better and more re-watchable. All that stuff just killed the pacing and has actually made me wearing of attempting another view. I also didn’t like that they spoiled the big finale shot of the train falling off the bridge in the trailer.

United Artists orphans have brought the '81 "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" back into streaming rotation (with "Twin Peaks"'s Michael Horse as a full-sentence Tonto who doesn't wear birds on his head), and while it's still not a perfect movie, it's still earnest, naive and well-intentioned enough to remind you that things could have always been a lot WORSE...And nobody rides any elephants.
(And, as with most UA orphans, the third-party-label Blu-ray is When, Not If.)

The movie starts off fairly dull and it's probably two hours too long but like I said, skip to that last sequence and you're watching a great popcorn movie.

I remember doing a lot of Internet focus-surveys in the 10's, including early surveys by understandably nervous studios asking us about the plots for Lone Ranger, Dark Shadows, AfterEarth and Grown Ups 2.
Most of the studio surveys tried to get a background on the responders by asking "Have you seen the following movies?:", and in Ranger's case, two of the choices were "Rango" and "Shanghai Noon".

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I HAD seen the Rango scenes of bursting into town through the water pipes, and the train crash from Shanghai with the last falling piece of the engine just narrowly missing Jackie Chan, thank you...

 

[Worth]

United Artists orphans have brought the '81 "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" back into streaming rotation (with "Twin Peaks"'s Michael Horse as a full-sentence Tonto who doesn't wear birds on his head), and while it's still not a perfect movie, it's still earnest, naive and well-intentioned enough to remind you that things could have always been a lot WORSE...And nobody rides any elephants.
(And, as with most UA orphans, the third-party-label Blu-ray is When, Not If.)

It's been out for five years.

See on Amazon

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The movie starts off fairly dull and it's probably two hours too long but like I said, skip to that last sequence and you're watching a great popcorn movie.

"If you just watch the end credits, it's awesome!"

 

[jayembee]

United Artists orphans have brought the '81 "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" back into streaming rotation (with "Twin Peaks"'s Michael Horse as a full-sentence Tonto who doesn't wear birds on his head), and while it's still not a perfect movie, it's still earnest, naive and well-intentioned enough to remind you that things could have always been a lot WORSE...And nobody rides any elephants.
(And, as with most UA orphans, the third-party-label Blu-ray is When, Not If.)

On the original Artisan DVD set of Twin Peaks: Season 1 there are features not carried over to any later home video editions of the show, including a bunch of short talks with several of the cast members (about their careers, as well as Twin Peaks). Michael Horse talks about getting a call from his agent about the LR movie, and he told his agent that he had no desire to play such a stereotyped role. When his agent told him how much they were offering, he replied with "Keee...moh.....sabe!"

 

[jayembee]

"If you just watch the end credits, it's awesome!"

Friends and I used to say about some movies, "Well, it was pretty good except for that one part in the middle between the opening and closing credits."

(For the record, I haven't seen either of the LR movies under discussion. Or even the ones from the 50s, though I did watch some episodes of the TV series.)

 

[Thomas T]

Friends and I used to say about some movies, "Well, it was pretty good except for that one part in the middle between the opening and closing credits."

Seriously though, some of those opening credits were terrific! Especially the work of Maurice Binder and Saul Bass. I'm not fond of the current trend of eliminating opening credits entirely and saving them for the very end. As a film geek, I want to see who did what and now I'm often stuck with trying to read them with people standing up and blocking them as they leave the theatre.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

John Frankenheimer: Island of Dr. Moreau (though, in fairness, he inherited a mess -- and he went out on a high note with the outstanding Path to War).

Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut. After such a brilliant career, he exited on a sour note IMHO. Many disagree and actually like this movie, but I think it's hard to argue that this film doesn't pale in comparison with most of the rest of his oeuvre.

Kubrick is said to have thought Eyes Wide Shut was his finest work.

 

[Jeffrey D]

Kubrick is said to have thought Eyes Wide Shut was his finest work.

I saw that film once- that was enough for me. Not even close to Kubrick’s best.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Oh, and I finally pulled out John Boorman's Zardoz (1974), last weekend, after Connery died, to give it a look. This was the one he made immediately after Deliverence (1972). I actually enjoyed Zardoz - no major film studio has ever released anything so bizarre - so I decided to take the plunge and continue with Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). That John Boorman was ever allowed to go anywhere near another film camera after a debacle like that (and he made some pretty good later ones too), is pretty remarkable.

The weird thing is, I love Zardoz and find the ideas being explored pretty wonderful, but Exorcist 2 is a hard sit. It is also an interesting picture, in terms of the ideas, and it is beautifully shot with some pretty wild sequences. If you watch it with the sound off with music playing, it is pretty cool. He came at it with a rather bad concept about having Blair be the opposite of what she was in the first film and that crashes the film. Still, it is an oddity that probably should not exist and that makes it worth a watch.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I saw that film once- that was enough for me. Not even close to Kubrick’s best.

It is not what I would consider his best film either. I don't think it stinks, it is an interesting watch. The general topic though is no mindblower. It is about working at your marriage, how difficult that can be, and that in the end it can be rewarding. Nice, but probably sits at the bottom of the topics he chose to explore.

 

[Camps]

The thing about Kubrick is that nearly every one of his movies was either a classic of the genre the movie fell into, or actually was a groundbreaker. Even when he was working from novels, he innovated.

The Killing: a classic of the caper-noir genre
Paths of Glory: one of the great anti-war classics
Spartacus: a singular standout in the toga/peplum genre
Dr. Strangelove: the original, and of course seminal, apocalyptic black comedy
2001: arguably the best science fiction at its time, and certainly a groundbreaker
Clockwork Orange: another seminal, and very bold, film
The Shining: one of the best horror films, also seminal in many ways
Full Metal Jacket: one of the best Vietnam films, even though much of it was filmed in the UK

Directors often like to take contrarian paths from the moviegoers, tagging one of their critical misfires as their favorite. And I agree that special effects and violence are not necessary for a great movie.

The head-scratcher about Eyes Wide Shut is figuring out what genre/category it falls into... and what is the point of it all (?)

I'd imagine at some point along the way that Kubrick's producing partners and financiers probably started to opine that he could film a psycho-sexual drama/ drawing-room comedy about desperate attempts to spark a marriage ... on a much smaller budget....

 

[Ross Gowland]

As a fan of Leos Carax, I’d add Annette to the list of stinkers by great directors.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The head-scratcher about Eyes Wide Shut is figuring out what genre/category it falls into... and what is the point of it all (?)

Well, I guess I would call it a thriller and maybe marriage black comedy? Is that a genre? The main gist is the value of fidelity to your spouse. Which is a nice enough topic if as exciting as a glass of milk. Kubrick said it is a picture that could only be made by an older (old) man. I guess what he means by that is someone who had learned to appreciate being settled into his marriage.

I enjoy the odd way he approaches that idea, I find it kind of funny. So, it does seem like there is comedy mixed in. I take the stuff with the orgy and the Pollack character and all that as being humorous. It seems like it meant to crack you up, maybe not on the first watch where you are wondering WTF is going on, but on successive watches it plays like comedy. Much of the movie is funny.

 

[Jeffrey D]

Well, I guess I would call it a thriller and maybe marriage black comedy? Is that a genre? The main gist is the value of fidelity to your spouse. Which is a nice enough topic if as exciting as a glass of milk. Kubrick said it is a picture that could only be made by an older (old) man. I guess what he means by that is someone who had learned to appreciate being settled into his marriage.

I enjoy the odd way he approaches that idea, I find it kind of funny. So, it does seem like there is comedy mixed in. I take the stuff with the orgy and the Pollack character and all that as being humorous. It seems like it meant to crack you up, maybe not on the first watch where you are wondering WTF is going on, but on successive watches it plays like comedy. Much of the movie is funny.

The subject of infidelity is definitely an acquired taste- some think cheating within a marriage is appalling, unacceptable, and grounds for instant divorce. I have a major blind spot against this activity, and I for the most part base my like or dislike for a film
on if this is a plot/subplot.

 

[Camps]

I just think Eyes Wide Shut was a stinker (and despite the high IMDb score, I'm not alone in that assessment) in comparison to Kubrick's other movies -- admittedly an extremely high bar.

In a similar sense, folks lambaste Godfather Part 3 (to a significant extent due to the nepotistic casting), I'd argue largely because they were so spoiled by the excellence of the first two. Any sequel (or whatever you call it) would have to be miraculous not to pale in comparison. I happen to consider it a fine film, and were there no parts 1 & 2 I think it would be far more highly regarded in isolation.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The subject of infidelity is definitely an acquired taste- some think cheating within a marriage is appalling, unacceptable, and grounds for instant divorce. I have a major blind spot against this activity, and I for the most part base my like or dislike for a film on if this is a plot/subplot.

Yeah, part of the comedy of it is the Cruise character is trying so hard to cheat on his wife, because his wife told him she THOUGHT ABOUT cheating on him, and he has several opportunities but can never actually consummate, so in the end he goes back home to have sex with his wife. In the interim he kind of sees that everybody else is out there having sex and having a good time, but he is not suited to that. He is much more comfortable just going home to his wife. Who seems to kind of think he is a clown or at least she thinks he is too uptight.

There is kind of a joke in this in that this guy can't even get laid at an orgy.

It's an oddball movie and I would love to have asked Stanley what drew him to it in the first place.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I just think Eyes Wide Shut was a stinker (and despite the high IMDb score, I'm not alone in that assessment) in comparison to Kubrick's other movies -- admittedly an extremely high bar.

In a similar sense, folks lambaste Godfather Part 3 (to a significant extent due to the nepotistic casting), I'd argue largely because they were so spoiled by the excellence of the first two. Any sequel (or whatever you call it) would have to be miraculous not to pale in comparison. I happen to consider it a fine film, and were there no parts 1 & 2 I think it would be far more highly regarded in isolation.

I agree with that. I always feel that maybe I have not unlocked Eyes Wide Shut. That I have to see it again to try to get a better grasp of it. I keep thinking, am I missing something? Every time I watch it though, I just kind of see and feel the same things...except on my first watch in the cinema, where I was probably over thinking every aspect of the picture because...well...it was Kubrick. Sometimes an apple is just an apple.