Richard Kely.. and other "fluke" directors

beans

bonerm wrote: »

Michel Gondry is another one I'd like to lump in here. After Human Nature and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I thought he was great, but Science of Sleep and Be Kind Rewind have convinced me that this guy shouldn't be directing feature films and should probably be teaching arts and crafts classes to pre-schoolers. Plus as far as I can tell, anything that was good about SoS and BKR were despite of him not because of him. As to the BH and ESOTSM? I've a feeling even I could direct a good movie if Charlie Kaufman was behind the script.

I thought 'Be Kind, Rewind' was great, really shows the 'Dodgeballs' of this world how to do it properly. I love his music-video output too, so I'm coloured pink WRT Gondry already. Must watch 'Science of Sleep' and see if it's any good...

indough

i thought 'be kind, rewind' was fairly good, definitely not a bad movie anyway

fluke

I'm a director!? Who knew?:p

speedboatchase

TheDoc wrote: »

This topic always springs Michael Bay to me, or maybe its something along the lines of, started good, then just got silly and poor.

The Rock was the first film of his I saw and thought it was pretty tremendous. Armagedon came next and was pretty decent too.

After that he landed a franchise I sometimes get baffled as to how people ****up. Transformers. I think he pretty much would be given all the money on earth for that and still managed to churn out two poor films.

Transformers 1 - €150 million budget
Transformers 2 - €200 million budget

Transformers the movie 1986 budget?

Cant find a figure, probably about 200 euro, and id watch it everytime over the new ones

Well before The Rock he made Bad Boys, which was pretty good too. I wouldn't call him a fluke director, just somebody whose output quality plumetted from one decade (The Rock, Bad Boys, Armageddon) to the next (Pearl Harbor, Transformers 1 & 2).

ps. Bad Boys 2 is a huge guilty pleasure of mine though

actuallylike

The problem with directors like Kelly and Shyamalan is their demise after their first film (Rian Johnson, I feel hasn't matched Brick either). The same goes for musicians or bands who fade into obscurity after their one hit wonder or their pitch perfect first (and only) album.

The reason imo is simple, a director would obviously be into films from a very young age, spending all their time watching and learning from films, putting all their knowledge into this one epic without leaving any ideas for another. As a wiser person than me once said

"You spend your whole life, from the moment you pick up your first instrument, making the best album you can. The you're expected to make something better within a year."

Drumpot

I actually enjoyed Southland Tales . .

First time I watched it, I thought WTF ! ! But I liked the soundtrack, the mood and the characters (but I couldnt understand why).

Then I read up a bit about the sort of mythology surrounding the movie and re-watched it and enjoyed it immensely.

Kinda like what happened to me with Magnolia . . Certainly not everybodys cups of tea .. Then again I loved the movie "Doom" so I have a very odd taste in movies . .

Sleepy

niallon wrote: »

As for Liman, I wouldn't exactly say he's made some bad films, just that when you start with Swingers and lead to Jumper you've clearly gone downhill. And I think Identity is the weakest of all the Bournes, until Greengrass came in and kept them exhilarating I though Liman had ruined the Bourne's by nearly completely ignoring the novel.

Liman made such a balls of the sequels to the Bourne movies that I had to look away from the screen and just listen to the dialogue for large chunks of them in order to to projectile vomit in the cinema.

The sad thing is, that's not hyperbole, the last time I experienced such bad camera work (gritty realism my arse, it's awful) was during the Blair Witch project and that did lead to me projectile vomiting.

Basq

Sleepy wrote: »

Liman made such a balls of the sequels to the Bourne movies that I had to look away from the screen and just listen to the dialogue for large chunks of them in order to to projectile vomit in the cinema.

The sad thing is, that's not hyperbole, the last time I experienced such bad camera work (gritty realism my arse, it's awful) was during the Blair Witch project and that did lead to me projectile vomiting.

Doug Liman only directed the first Bourne... Paul Greengrass directed the sequels.

The shaky-cam stuff never bothered me to be honest..

Nolanger

Pat O'Connor - back in the '80s he was Ireland's second best director now he's a nobody!

Miguel_Sanchez

basquille wrote: »

Doug Liman only directed the first Bourne... Paul Greengrass directed the sequels.

The shaky-cam stuff never bothered me to be honest..

Me either. I enjoyed the second Bourne film way more than the first. I think Greengrass is an excellent director.

Renn

Not a strong suggestion here but I'll go with Judd Apatow and Freeks and Geeks. I know he only directed a handful of episodes but it's far greater than the **** he's directed/written in the years following that tv show.

Tom Tykwer - Hasn't done near enough since Lola rennt.

Maybe Clint Eastwood and Mystic River, but then again I don't even think it's that good.

Basq

Renn wrote: »

Not a strong suggestion here but I'll go with Judd Apatow and Freeks and Geeks. I know he only directed a handful of episodes but it's far greater than the **** he's directed/written in the years following that tv show.

Really? I enjoyed Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin and the TV series Undeclared.

But yeah.. stuff like Funny People and Pineapple Express were woeful . Oh, but he did write Walk Hard too which I also thought people were far too harsh on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKtEpF-aYlE

Renn

Oh man, totally forgot about Walk Hard. Hated that film (think it was the worst movie I saw the year it came out) and didn't even realise he wrote it. Thanking you!

SamG

Andrew Davis - directed one of the very best films to come out of Hollywood in the 90s, THE FUGITIVE... and then... Well, look him up...

Oh and for what it's worth - Neil Jordan is one of the most overrated directors EVER.

SamG

SamG wrote: »

Andrew Davis - directed one of the very best films to come out of Hollywood in the 90s, THE FUGITIVE... and then... Well, look him up...

Oh and for what it's worth - Neil Jordan is one of the most overrated directors EVER.

Davis last two films have been very good. The Guardian was excellent with Kevin Costner on top form and even Aston Kutchner turning in a decent performance. The stroy was a little forumalic but when all things are considered it was an entertaining film which I would watch again.

Holes is an excellent film, one of the best kids films in years. It was funny, charming, sweet and managed to appeal to both kid and adults. I've watched it a number of times and will ocntinue to revisit it in the future.

The original edit of Collateral Damage is supposed to be a hard hitting action film which was drastically redited and reshot after the Twin Tower attacks. Davis has repeatedly said he wasn't happy with the final film but understood why it was done.

Jamesk87

Renn wrote: »

Maybe Clint Eastwood and Mystic River, but then again I don't even think it's that good.

Personally I would have to disagree with mentioning Clint Eastwood of all people as a "fluke" director. I agree with you that Mystic River wasn't actually that good though. But what about the likes of Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, Changeling, Gran Torino and even to a lesser extent Invictus.
_________________________________________________________________

http://filmsireland.blogspot.com/

Hank_Jones

Thought of another fluke director, Mathieu Kassovitz.
He wrote and directed La Haine in 95, but since then hasn't directed anything of any great or even good quality.
It's a shame really, La Haine is one of my favourite films.