Dec 09 2010

8 Surprisingly Crappy Movies By Great Directors

Published by at 9:00 am under Movies

It happens to the best of us.  We put up stinkers.  Athletes have off days.  Actors perform in movies that you can’t possibly believe.   Hell even a doctor botches a surgery once in a while.  We’re human.  It doesn’t mean we don’t get criticized but we are in fact human.

Same goes for directors.  Even the best of directors in Hollywood (and abroad) have directed movies that make you think “what they hell were they thinking?”

Here are eight notable movies that fit……

Jack – Francis Ford Coppola


Let’s face it people, Jack wasn’t really a good movie at all.   The concept was great but I just don’t think the movie hit home all that well.  And just because you have Bill Cosby playing a cool doctor doesn’t really help.  Personally I enjoy movies like The Sandlot a hell of a lot more than this in terms of males doing fun stuff at a young age.   I don’t know.  For some reason I didn’t really fee any sympathy in this film.  It’s just odd that this is the same guy that directed The Godfather.

Even Cowgirls Get the Blues – Gus Van Sant


You could also argue Psycho but it’s not like that’s his fault.  I mean that was a remake.  Poor decision to actually agree to do it but again,not all his fault.  But this film?  Compared to his others and compared to other normally decent films, this one just isn’t up to par.  I’m sorry but it’s not. Maybe it’s that he was credited as Van Sant Jr. that did it.  At least Pat Morita was in it!

The Ladykillers – Coen Brothers


I’m always a bit leery of Coen Brothers movies.  I feel like there’s always something small that’s teetering on the brink of making some of their movies bad, yet they always pull off a good movie.  The Ladykillers was just bad, period.  In fact I even forgot that I saw this.  And Tom Hanks of all people?  Wow.  I think this is when his hair started getting wacky.   P.S. that was one hell of an interesting cast but a movie that just didn’t live up to par.

Ready To Wear – Robert Altman


Has anyone ever seen this?  Good God it was horrible.  And to take all that talent and put it into one film that’s this bad?  Yikes.  I seriously couldn’t tell if it was supposed to be a comedy or serious stance on the fashion industry.  I mean I know it’s spoofy but good Lord it’s just really really bad.  Come on Robert!

Rhapsody In August – Akira Kurosawa


Kurosawa is considered one of the best directors out there.  To be honest I didn’t see this movie but having done research there are countless people that think it suck.  So I’m going based on the mobs.  Sorry.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – Tim Burton


I swear to God the second I saw the Oompa Loompa song I literally turned this movie off.   I’ve never seen a remake do less justice for an original than this film.  I was literally pissed off watching this pile of crap.  And normally I really like Tim Burton’s weirdness.  Not here.  Not at all.  Not ever.

The Rookie – Clint Eastwood


I feel like Eastwood just wasn’t yet hitting his stride as a director yet.  I mean it’s kind of cool that he did this movie with Charlie Sheen during his prime and all but it was no better than any other action movie back then.   I mean Eastwood does some quality stuff and this was merely average.

1941 – Steven Spielberg


It’s either this movie or Always.  Take your pick.  They are both hands down two of Spielberg’s worst movies and I don’t even think it’s close.





More Unreal Posts


35 responses so far

  • Jared

    The Tim Burton Charlie and the chocolate factory followed the original book much more closely than the Gene Wilder version. It wasn’t a remake of the first one, it was its own movie.

  • Blake

    I feel The Lady Killers wasn’t that bad… I found it quite comical… A serious man though, that wasn’t as enjoyable. I understand it was based off The Book of Job, but still. Just kinda felt like I wasted my time watching it.

  • Greg

    75% fail on this list…

  • AH

    I disagree with choice to put Charlie and the chocolate factory on this list, especially if the reason is that it wasn’t a good remake of the Stuart film. Burton’s film was an adaption of the book, not the previous movie. Hence why it’s called “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” which is also the title of the book rather than “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”. And Burton actually did a good, if not better, job of adapting the book. I’m not arguing that Burton’s version was good and so it shouldnt be on the list (although i do believe this). Im disagreeing with a reason for putting it on this list is because it didn’t conform with the previous film.

    To say a movie is bad because you simply didn’t like it or it has flaws is one thing. But to say it is bad because it didn’t ‘do justice to an original’ which it clearly never attempted to is wrong.

    Also i don’t see how you can put Rhapsody in August on the list if you’ve never seen it. Just comes across as unfortunately lazy and sheepish to me. Going by popular opinion rather than your own. I’m sure you could have found another film which you have actually seen to put on this list.

    ~

  • will

    i come to this site for the links, never for his writing/opinions.

    if you want more visits to your site, stop writing your idiotic opinions and just post links.

  • http://www.unrealitymag.com Paul Tassi

    What? Now you want more links and less original content? You guys are killing us.

    Forget it, we do want we want. If you like it, stick around.

  • Sam

    If you haven’t seen a movie don’t put it on the freaking list! Did you need 8 movies so badly you would just attack something other people hate? Now I haven’t seen rhapsody in august, so I’m not its lone fanboy attacking you. Just an annoyed reader complaining about lazy writers. Just make it a list of 7.
    As for the movies you actually saw, charlie and the chocolate factory is an adaptation of thee novel, not a remake of the gene wilder movie. Did you even know there was a book first? The worst tim burton movie is alice in wonderland, by far. I thought alice + burton = pure awesome but instead it just made a bad movie.
    I would also say blood work is a pretty bad eastwood movie. Which is surprising because its based on a book by my favorite author directed by one of my favorite directors. Huge disappointment.
    I would add funny people to this list. Apatow is usually solid but i hated that movie. It was 2 and a half hours of dick jokes with absolutely no likable characters. I thought leslie mann was good until she started screwing adam sandler while her husband was out of town.
    Oh yeah, and following the rules of this list, I’ve never seen it but some people on the internet really hate curly sue, directed by the late great john hughes.

  • J5

    “if you want more visits to your site, stop writing your idiotic opinions and just post links.”

    Looks like someone doesnt know how to use Google. Or just a lazy douche. Whichever.

  • TheBeav

    Boy, some people sure get butt hurt easily around here. By the way, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was terrible! I don’t care if it did follow the book better than Willie Wonka, the fact is people saw it as a remake, and a very poor one at that…

  • J5

    I like the Ladykillers a lot, but mainly because of a couple funny lines (He brought his bitch…to the motherfuckin waffle hut?) but outside of that, it’s definitely not the best movie ever.

    As for Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, that movie was horrible. I like Tim Burton movies, I like Johnny Depp, I love the book, but fuck that movie right in the face. I have to completely agree with the Oompa Loompa’s song, dance and overall presentation. The Loompas almost ruined that movie by itself/themselves. The only thing I liked about that movie was the occasional flashback of Fear and Loathing when Depp would eat something a certain way or do a certain mannerism that reminded me of his portrayal of Hunter S. (Or “Raul Duke”…depending on who you ask)

  • Josh

    I have to disagree with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory being on here. First, it wasn’t a remake. It was a separate adaptation of the classic book that was actually a far more accurate adaptation than the Gene Wilder classic could ever dream of being. Second, this is the best live action film that Burton has done in years, probably since Sleepy Hollow (though I know that Sweeney Todd definitely has its fans). On top of that, Depp’s portrayal of Wonka as being, well, Wonky, is something I think Dahl would have appreciated.

    I agree with the rest of the films, but not that one. You should have included Planet of the Apes which was nothing like Burton’s typical style and not even remotely good.

  • Michael R

    I think A.I. was Spielberg’s worst, personally.

    But yeah, I’m sorry man, this list is garbage. If I wanted a list-style op-ed article, I’d go to Cracked or Holy Taco or something.

  • Hyatus

    Seriously people? Go back and read the book and tell me that Tim Burton’s adaptation had f all to do with it. What was that whole ‘dentist father’ bit?
    You can argue(wrongly) that it was a better adaptation of the book but it still sucked. Planet of the Apes sucked, too, but it sucked just a hair less than that travesty.
    Tim Burton is done making good movies.
    Hell, look what he tried to do with Nick Cage and Superman. That’s vision?

  • Marc

    This list is bad and you should feel bad.

  • Stuntman Mike

    Tim Burton’s Charlie and he Chocolate Factory was a terrible adaptation of the book, and a terrible movie in general. It may have been somewhat closer in terms of what happened to the kids (Veruca Salt getting nutted), but dear god man…the acting was atrocious. The lead child who played Charlie was such a goodie two shoes about everything he did…unrealistically. EVen in the book, it’s not like Charlie was this wunderkind of good will and understanding. Peter Ostrum did a much better job with his Charlie.

    And Wilder’s Wonka is by far the better written character. I frankly hated Depp’s take on the role.

    And if it followed the book so well, where was the gigantic section in the book discussing Wonka’s origins as Candymaker? The book’s introduction is all there is, and it isn’t 60 pages of Wonka not being allowed to have candy by his dentist father, who apparently lives on some desolate plain….

  • Risuli

    As for Altman, I dare you to FIND, let alone sit through the movie “Quintet”. Two hours of Paul Newman, freaking PAUL NEWMAN, doing absolutely nothing in a dark and dreary future world covered in fake ice! Hell, I double dog dare ya!!!!! Some think Altman was a genius, but with Popeye and Quintet (I didn’t see your choice) he was a crap director.

  • kate the great

    Not only did you use “literally” twice in the same review (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) but you used it incorrectly the second time. You were LITERALLY pissed off? Sounds revolting.

  • Patrick

    Personally find 1941 to be one of the most underrated comedies out there…should have gone with A.I

  • chelsea

    i wouldn’t put tim burton on this list since it says “great directors”… i think that should mean the director would have more than 2 good films which burton DEFINITELY does not.

    if you don’t even have to see his movies to know exactly what they’ll be like, he’s not great.

  • ant2206

    Tim Burton’s Chocolate Factory was an adaptation of the book and not a remake, yes. But that doesn’t disqualify it from being a complete stinker from start to finish. I actually can’t think of a single redeemable feature.

    @chelsea: I’d throw Edward Scissorhands down as not only his best film, but one of the best examples of pure storytelling in the medium. And Ed Wood is a good film which is quite un-Burtonlike.

    Beyond that, it really just comes down to his art direction and whether you’re a fan of it. If you are, the Batmans and Nightmare Before Christmas are amongst the best in their respective genres.

    Personally I think he has to be reined in. He seemed to be at his best when he was fighting against studios, when it was a struggle to get his ideas through. So what you ended up with with quirks on a base of convention – the real world dealing with something anomalous. Now his films are just all quirk.

  • ant2206

    Also: I love the lists, reviews, and overall writing on this site. It’s what makes it one of my most recommended blogs. Keep it up team!

  • Sam

    @ant2206
    You forgot a few.
    Big fish is one of the best movies from the last ten years. Hands down.
    Sweeney todd is one out the best musicals, though that’s mostly johnny depp’s performance.
    Mars attacks is a severely underrated comedy.
    Finally beetlejuice and pee wee hermans big adventures are classics.

    @chelsea
    Two good movies my ass

  • Flimsy

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory sucked. Tim Burton made a heaping pile of shit and people paid for it because his name is on it. STFU his shits weak. :)

  • Sean

    holy wow! when did this site start listing some art films?
    anywho, actually the Altman and Kurosawa films are actually really good. but i guess it all depends on the viewer.
    opinions. hm.

  • jaromir

    I like the writing/original topics on this site….(shrugs shoulders)

  • scott

    i will always and forever LOVE LOVE LOVE 1941!

  • Dian

    You forgot Oliver Stone, Alexander

  • DanOhh

    I would watch 1941 ten times in a row than have to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull one more time.

  • The Mutt

    1941 is hysterical. Vastly under-rated.

    I can only assume you’ve never seen Hook.

  • Xin

    @The Mutt

    Hook is an excellent movie and anything anyone says to the contrary is false. /$0.02

  • Craig

    Wow. I’m really glad I followed the link to such thought-provoking observations as “To be honest I didn’t see this movie but having done research there are countless people that think it suck.” I think perhaps the written word is not for you.

  • moodyriver

    Gangs of New York blew chunks, great cast, great director, great potential. but it starts our convoluted and spirals downward. I only watched it a second time because Daniel Day Lewis does an incredible job, but I ended up looking at my watch and thinking about how I had totally wasted three hours.

  • Steve Potter

    It always bugs me when people say Tim Burton’s version was closer to the book. How? The book was my favorite book until I was FOURTEEN, and I recognize it for the steaming pile it is! Consistently wrong in tone, a needless subplot for Willy Wonka, the tacked on ending…. I have no idea how it’s even CLOSE to the book.

  • donsuc

    Does some of this ppl comenting here understnds that this rewiew isnt about the movies alone but its about the best Directors “crapy” movies?!and whatts about Tim Burton?!does some of u that disses him realy understand’s him?!he doesnt really makes “regular” movies u know……there much tought in his movies….spielberg also….A.I rly?!?do u really understand the point Spielberg’s trying to point here?!guess not…… :D nvm great theeme btw Natyyb , keep up the good flow :D

    P.S:im suggesting a theeme here : best 3-ed sequel(like Terminator 3,Jura Park 3…etc)

  • PirateSpice

    As a rule, Tim Burton’s original works are awesome, but his adaptations are horrible insults to the source material. Charlie and the Chocolate Factor wasn’t a remake, and therefore shouldn’t be compared to the Gene Wilder film. But it -was- an adaptation, and it’s still a steaming pile of dung. Even Batman, though nostalgia keeps it alive for me, completely misses most of the key elements that make that story what it is. Planet of the Apes, Sleepy Hollow (which I’ll admit I like, but it’s a guilty pleasure), Sweeney Todd, Mars Attacks…all crappy adaptations. But his original material — The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, to name a few — sooo much better.

Categories

Celebrity Toob

Celebrity Gossip, Pictures, Videos, Net Worth & Bios

TVOvermind

TV News, Reviews, Recaps, and Spoilers

Archives