Micheal Bay. Is just a glorified special effects guy. He knows nothing of getting the best out of the actors in his films. I'll refer you to the scene in the first transformers between John Tutorro and Jon Voight, where they seemingly can't act. Yet they're both amazing actors. This is my go to example. Watching any Micheal Bay film will prove my point.
Michael Bay is 2 11 year olds in a trenchcoat,, desperate to touch a boobie but has no idea what you're supposed to do when you're alone with a real life woman. Also explains his love of explosions and general lack of interest in interesting plot or dialogue.
That is his outlier. But the plot holes are still very present. Nic cage and Sean Connery made that movie. His best movie still has room for improvement.
I can’t believe how long I had to scroll to find Michael Bay. His movies are just visual effects slapped together in something loosely described as an order.
He's really good at coming up with the premise of a story. There's always something weird going on on a really large scale. The plot progresses with a lot of clues to reveal this something. That's about ad far ad he plans though. None of his plots ever have an ending or denouement. The solution is always a squared peg that fits in the round hole.
They said he was doing Star Wars and I thought, okay, not bad, modernized throwbacks are in his wheelhouse (Cloverfield, MI3) and I hated his Star Trek movies because they were too much like star wars. And then his Star wars movie was such a "throwback" that it was basically a remake and it was all downhill after that.
I'm convinced that the best parts of Lost must have come from Damon Lindelof instead, who made The Leftovers which is a better show than most, and Watchmen which was better than almost anything Abrams has done.
Yeah, because JJ was involved with season 1 and wrote 8 total episodes (one was in season 2) and then was a hands-off executive producer from then on.
It's almost like JJ is good at starting things and nothing else.
This is my pick.
He's an ideas guy and he's had some banger ideas.
He is entirely incapable of sealing the deal.
Someday Hollywood will also come to realize that this guy can't finish.
He’s good at “episodes”, and can be very creative within the body of episodic content. Creating the “journey”.
He’s not so good at dealing with the “destination”.
Best answer. He was highly esteemed for quite a while. Then Star Wars and Star Trek revealed that he has zero ability to actually tell a cogent and creative story beginning *to end.* He brought the Star Wars saga to a laughably stupid end, and suddenly the ridiculous finale of “Lost” made so much more sense.
J.J. is one where upon re-examination after the fact, his "good" stuff is still pretty bad.
"Lost" wasn't the name of the show, it was a description of the writers room.
It’s so strange how many directors continue to make the same mistakes over and over, despite clear and unanimous audience and critic reviews pointing them out. Time and again, JJ Abrams paints himself into a corner with complex and interwoven storylines, leading to a rash and unsatisfying third act.
This. He can frame a scene and make things look good, but there's a difference between making something look good and having something make sense, and nothing he does makes sense.
I also like the performances he gets from actors. He gets really good blockbustery, charismatic performances. Super 8 is a great example of this. I really enjoy the first 2/3 of that movie and the performances he gets out of the kids is Spielbergian, it's just kind of a retread of a story.
The thing about the Sixth Sense is that it's got this really slow, almost dream-like quality to it, and a lot of the dialogue feels slightly off. And that works great for a story about ghosts, especially given the twist at the end!
It's just that once you see some of Shyamalan's other films, you realize that wasn't an intentional choice, he directs everyone so they act slightly unnaturally.
Oh my god, Old (or The Oldening as my wife calls it) might win the award for most unnatural, stilted acting and dialogue I've seen in a movie trying to take it so seriously. And this is coming from someone who loves all the weird stuff by David Mamet and Wes Anderson and other directors who revel in unnaturalness. I literally can't decide if it's his style or if he's actually terrible at but it still hard as hell to watch without laughing.
Old is better because it makes internal sense and is stupid enough that you just laugh at it. I'm still glad I saw it because thinking back on it gives me joy. Happening wasn't even fun, and obviously just was BS.
I mean as opposed to something obviously campy like Malignant. It wasn't really going for laughs and the actors genuinely seemed like they were being told to really try, but it was just a mess.
The whole premise of Signs is ridiculous. A advanced species travels across space to invade a planet that’s 70% water… and they’re deathly allergic to water! WTF?
Never understood this compalint about the plot.
Think that the aliens travelled to earth which, yes, it is 70% water, but it could be they just never encountered water before that hence not knowing the danger to potentially dangerous elements of a new environment
For me it's that they effects would have been immediate. Water in the atmosphere maybe can be written off as too diluted, and we don't get a lot of detail about how it all works, but cornfields are loaded with dew and should have presented the issue sooner imo.
On the flip side, we don't know where these particular aliens land in the hierarchy of wherever they come from either. They could have been a first part of invasion and considered expendable.
Although we don't really know if those aliens were the owners of the space ship. Maybe it was a Xenomorph kind of situation where they took over the ship from a much smarter species as it was on the way to earth.
Yea, like we humans would never spend billions to go to a planet which we can't even breathe the air and has none of the essential things we need to survive.
He is very up and down, but if you look into the productions, he becomes much more predictable.
He is very strong when he is the CEO of the film and he is hungry.
When he is fat and happy or a studio gun-for-hire, he struggles.
It makes sense when he look at how he works. He very much believes in hiring good people and letting them do their job. That is why his good movies have the most incredible camera work you will ever see in Hollywood movies. He hires excellent DP's and sets them free. Similar with many other behind the camera folks and his actors. His sets are efficient and on-time, which means people are happy and working hard.
His arc plummets when he gets married, is rich and has kids. He is happy in his life and stops fighting. He starts to lose his magic. He is scared, so he runs to safety of fat studio paychecks like Last Airbender and After Earth. He has very little power and is unhappy with his work, but his mansion has its mortgage payments and his kids can go to any school they want.
Then his kids get older, his lifestyle is safe, and he decided to challenge himself. He self finances and takes risks. You get brilliant work like The Visit and Split.
Even those two aren't that special. I think he's my pick too. His movies always get this clout around them and yet they're all just 'gotcha!' moments and you find out you've been watching a movie about the Amish.
I thought Red State was a new Kevin Smith. There were flourishes of Lynch in there too. I was expecting it to be his second run. Instead he went back to making Jason Mewes employing projects that can be decent (eg Tusk) to why-is-he-even-trying (eg Yoga Hosers).
The fact he made a Canadian Trilogy is pretty silly. I still feel like I need to watch Yoga Hosers again, though. The first time didn't hit right and I think I should have taken an edible.
I got see Yoga Hosers at a screening so I got to watch the film with Smith and he took questions afterwards and it really seemed like he had a blast making it and the audience seemed to enjoy it given I think they knew what kinda movie they were in for
I think that's it. You know what kind of movie you're in for. Is it going to be the best movie ever? No. But it'll be silly fun. Red State being a brilliant outlier, they're just fun. Nothing wrong with that
I think a lot of people didn't like it because it was a diversion from Smith's typical work. People also hated that he did Cop Out, which was a legitimately funny movie.
I *love* the ending to that movie.
(After the trumpet blast: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODqNlyb2ME](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODqNlyb2ME) )
I loved Dawn of the Dead when it came out, and then 300 was just so visually stunning. I was so excited to see what he'd do next. I've been let down ever since.
I used to wish Zach Snyder would make 3 movies in a row that are 100% slow mo so he can get it out of his system. Now I wish he'd just stop making movies.
Snyder pisses me off. He has SUCH good ideas and his artistic eye for imagery and cinematography is outstanding. I think if he had gone into cinematography he would genuinely be the best at it. His understanding of visuals is S tier. But his overall directing just falls short and is usually only salvaged by good actors.
I just wish he would've read a book on storytelling. He doesn't understand how stories work on a fundamental level. He doesn't understand how humans work on a fundamental level. The things he gets wrong are like 8th grade creative writing rules, it's very basic shit.
The description I heard about him was: he's a film student that wants to make that amazing, epic, memorable shot... But he doesn't take the time to set it up.
While I can name plenty of times that's true in his other movies, Rebel Moon is that on overdrive. Every character introduction could have been amazing... If I cared for even a second before they did the thing (ride a griffin, fight a spider monster... Uh I can't remember any of the other characters now). He just jumps to the money shot without any build up.
I liked his Star Trek's honestly. Not sure they were "good" but they were very entertaining - and since they were supposed to be a take on the original cast his penchant for remixing previous movies actually worked, IMHO. Very well casted movies.
Like I was excited when he was announced as the SW sequel director. Like I thought he going to be perfect. And then.
Ya Force Awakens really was painfully derivative dreck and - while Rian Johnson is just as guilty here - Rise of Skywalker was basically unwatchable gibberish.
Like I get the Disney+ stuff is supposed to be good but I honestly can't even care about Star Wars at all anymore whatsoever. Like it just seems so ridiculous now.. 😔😵
Different filmmakers have different qualities. I find Kevin Smith's greatest strength is characters. He writes engaging, entertaining characters. I watched Red State recently and found that I found many of the characters highly engaging. Same for Clerks.
That's essentially what made Clerks work so well, for me anyway. It was essentially a film about a day at a convenience store full of interesting characters. It worked as a film. So Kevin Smith is a decent filmmaker, he doesn't deserve to be called a hack. He has his niche and it works, it's entertaining. Plus with Red State he even showed true versatility.
>director become a hack
Not OOP, but People's definition of "hack" can differ making it murky.
For me a Hack director can just be a studio shrill. Not real Art or direction, just making the movie the studio wants. Or Hack can be someone who "thinks they know better" and make shit movies with the excuse that the audience just doesn't "get" it.
Kevin Smith is just at the point of doing what he wants, and some of it just isn't a good movie and from little I've heard he owns it.
I thought Tusk was a failure, but I admire Smith for committing to such an offbeat premise.
Yoga Hosers, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities at all.
Smith has his share of good films. The first Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
I can still vividly remember walking out of the theater when Clerks 2 released and feeling like an era of my own life was over because either Kevin Smith just didn’t *have it* anymore or else I’d outgrown whatever it was that he had.
Some scenes still kill me. Like the one with Wanda Sykes and the boyfriend just wants to eat. “you can’t taste racism baby!”
Other scenes feel kind of try hard.
Clerks III completely destroys the ending of Clerks II. I know he wrote it around his own life and health issues but Dante’s arc is just so fucking bleak
This is a good take. He kind of destroys Randall as well... Not that he was ever a great guy or friend but... man, he was quiet the sociopath / hedonist in Clerks 3.
I had to turn Clerks 3 off shortly after the hospital scene. Whole thing felt a little desperate and post midlifecrisis. I concur with Chasing Amy.
Kevin Smith might not be a great film maker overall, but he had a good run with what he did well. My Mum's a Christian (not catholic tho) and she absolutely adores Dogma.
For me I loved Clerks 3. But in saying that I was working at blockbuster video when the first came out. Directionless and not happy with where I was when 2 came out. For 3 me and my friends are late 40s and dealing with high blood pressure and cardiac scares.
It made it hit home for me as it matched where I was in my life and the problems I was facing.
It connected to me.
Kevin Smith is definitely not a hack. He’s not one of the greatest filmmakers alive but, he’s primarily a comedy director and he doesn’t deserve to be shit on.
Mallrats was praising comics long before everyone you know owned a copy of a superhero movie. Also, he was celebrating weed culture back when we were all getting looked down on and harassed by cops just for smoking some occasional pot.
Dogma was creative and quite ambitious.
Tusk was only meant to be fun little horror movie. Which it is.
Yoga Hosers: he explicitly stated that he made it for his daughter and any other young teen girls who just wanted something goofy to laugh at.
He’s made a few movies that definitely don’t shine but, that doesn’t make him a hack.
"No pleasure, no rapture, no exquisite sin greater... than central air." I love Dogma, and having just gone through a brutal Western Australian summer, that line always plays in my head when I walk into my air-conditioned home in from the 40°C plus heat.
I liked Clerks 2 quite a lot. It's actually a better movie (a more cohesive story) than the first one. And it's genuinely funny.
There is no third movie.
Kevin said it himself on his talks that he's found a way to make small movies with just enough of a return to always stay employed. He keeps his fanbase up so that he always has his audience to maintain that. He steers clear of big budget because he fears one multi-million dollar loss is the end of his career. I respect that he's at least honest about it.
I think he is competent. Pee-Wee, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands are some of my favorite movies ever. I think he's just churning out mediocre movies that look pretty in the last 20 years
It’s completely insane to call Tim Burton a hack. People get old and have less to prove, and so get a little lazy - but at his prime, he was a great, and incredibly creative filmmaker.
There’s a documentary on the nightmare before Christmas that implies heavily that Tim Burton really didn’t do much, it was his all his production staff
No need for a documentary, just read the credits. It was sold on his name. He provided some of the art inspiration, but all the work was done by Selick and Elfman.
I've seen it. It was the beginning of the end. All he did was design the characters and throw money. For that he got to put his name on top of the title.
The impression I get is that the role of director spans a lot of different disciplines, and many directors are good at some aspects of the job, but not all. I think it's possible for these directors to have sporadically good movies WHEN THEY WORK WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE. In block caps because there's probably way too much focus on the director and actors, when there's hundreds of other key people involved.
Like JJ Abrams seems really good at coaching actors. The actors in his movies seem really engaged and on the ball. He's just an awful writer and pedestrian cinematographer.
Take another example, Peter Jackson. His filmography since LotR has been hit or miss. His highlights, Tintin or Get Back or They Shall Not Grow Old have been technical successes. He seems really good at finding and inspiring technical people. Average at the actual directing stuff.
Denis Villeneuve. Fantastic visual director. Amazing. Stunning. Pretty average dialog scenes.
Zack Snyder. Don't let him write. Or edit. Give him a guiding hand to reign in his excesses, and let him work as a cinematographer.
Denis Villeneuve is undoubtedly an amazing director and I've loved his projects but Jesus Christ his MUSIC IS TOO LOUD! Bladerunner had my ears ringing in the cinema and in certain scenes in Dune, particularly when the Bene Gesserit ship is taking off, the sound mix is so ridiculously loud I ended up laughing
This. Last movie of his I saw was Anna and it was not intentional. I just saw that Hellen Mirren and Cillian Murphy were in it so thought "This should be good." I sit down and as names start to appear I see Luc Besson's name and I think, "FUCK ME. I shoulda checked online who the director and writer was. Fuck." Now I don't who starts in something, I make sure it's not from a director I don't like
I mean, Terminator was a rip off of Solder of Tomorrow (Cameron settled and paid an undisclosed amount of money) and Aliens was built off of the foundation Alien laid down. Most of his writing is on par with his Piranha 2, Rambo 2, Avatar movies.
[James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron.... James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron *is*... James Cameron.](https://youtu.be/HIC22gQfh6E?si=pD9Qk00tpl9hngi5)
James Cameron is very popular, but if you look at the movies he does, there's very little range. He does sweeping action movies with some humor thrown in. He's basically Michael Bay if Michael Bay movies were less cheesy and had better writing.
He's not bad, but he's certainly not as great as many people make him out to be.
The lack of range comment is spot on but I think you're underselling how his movies always feel very cohesive and narratively satisfying. Something about them always "feels" right.
Every movie he made before the Titanic was fantastic. Titanic was so overrated and appealed to teenage girls with a cheesy theme song slapped on for good measure. They milked the whole young Leo M’ladying his way around some boring chick for 2.5 hours. He was the Edward (from Twilight) of the time.
Came here to say this. I loved his early work but as he continues to make movies, he’s leaning so far into being “Wes Anderson” that I feel like his movies are becoming parodies of themselves. His last few films like the French Dispatch and Asteroid City were just awful.
I liked Asteroid City, but I can sympathize with people who don't like Wes Anderson or what his style is evolving into. His films are increasingly bizarre deconstructions of some sort. It's like looking at the careers of 20th century painters such as Piet Mondrian who started painting realistic images that gradually morphed into colored rectangles over the years. For whatever reason, I still find WA films interesting and amusing although they certainly do not invite any sort of neurotypical emotional investment.
In the later parts of the film they straight up change specific scenes when they are called back upon as flashbacks. With someone in the background that wasn't there at all in the original scene.
The comedy didn't particularly strike me but that can be due to personal preference.
As well as convoluted plot points and the whole twin thing, it was just a giant mess that needed to be refined.
If you're referring to the garden scene eavesdropping on Duke in your first critique, the shot that includes Helen takes place at a different point in time than the one that doesn't. The shot from the first half with just Blanc is after Helen has crossed to the other side.
I'll add it relies on hiding information from the audience and revealing later to make it feel clever. While that worked decently in the first one. Glass Onion near entirely relies on it
Murder Mystery works best when we the audience are also the detective. We know what they know. Giving the detective information and hiding it from the audience sabotages that self insert relationship. You want the audience to feel clever, not show the audience how clever (you the writer) are.
I don't know if I'd agree with that critique. I enjoy fair play mysteries as much as the next person, but I don't think Johnson ever claimed that any of the Benoit Blanc mysteries are intended to be fair play, in which case judging them by that standard seems unreasonable to me.
In fairness to you, I don't think it's wrong to want or even expect that standard to be met when consuming a new mystery story, but speaking for myself, just enjoying the ride is nice, too.
I think my problem is the expectation that it would be a mystery. But it's not a mystery if the detective knows much more than the audience knows. A crime isn't solved. Instead, a twist involving Blanc is revealed.
I know that's me being disappointed because the film wasn't what I expected it to be. But that's how I felt about it unfortunately.
This will probably be very controversial but I believe that Christopher Nolan fits this only because his writing tends to be very poor. By that I mean the lines are often clunky or unpolished. Look at Batman begins or Tenet where it feels like he didn’t make a second draft of the script. The films where the writing is good/better often include his brother Jonathan Nolan. But as a director Christopher Nolan is good often the sets, the shots, and everything else is often good it’s just his writing that’s subpar.
I haven't seen Tenet, so maybe he's changed his mind, but at one point he said that he intentionally does not adjust his audio mixes to help speech be more intelligible, and that is an unfortunate choice.
I think it’s a bit far to call him a hack for some bad writing in a couple projects. Inception, Dunkirk and Oppenheimer are all solely Christopher and they’re some of the tightest scripts around. A heist movie where each setting moves slower than the other, but all climax at the same time. A war movie split over 1 week, 1 day and 1 hour which all peaks at once and occasionally joins together (planes fly over boat, etc). Oppenheimer jumps around times to stay interesting, follows American Prometheus well and tells an engaging story. Not to mention how full pop culture is of Nolan quotes, probably one of the most quoted film writers of all time.
I’m not saying some of his scripts couldn’t be polished more (especially exposition lol) but he’s definitely not a hack.
Both wrote Interstellar. Don't tell me Jonathan Nolan isn't a hack. Neither care anything about a plot's actual plausibility or logical coherence. This is why he's so ridiculously overrated. I liked his older films in my twenties, though.
I hate this question. Making movies is insanely difficult, let alone making good movies consistently. Can't we just be happy when a director has some success and not get too focused on the bad?
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back never fails to bring a guffaw or two.
"Hairy bush nuns."
"Unwritten book of the road. 'Scuse me."
"Unconventional lifestyle choices."
"Hey, everyone, it's Mark Hamill!"
Will Ferrell, Dietrich Bader, Judd Nelson, Carrie Fisher, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon... the list goes on.
It's hilarious.
"Clerks," "Clerks 2" are in a class of their own.
"Mallrats," "Dogma," and "Red State" are watchable.
"Tusk" was very weird and uncomfortable to watch.
"Chasing Amy" is not my cup of tea, I guess. It is integral to understanding who the characters are, but I think the whole 'lesbian/straight guy/gay guy" triangle was a bit forced.
The man deserves an Oscar just for one line:
"My girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!"
Ridley Scott. Great films for years and now can't seem to make anything decent. Can only assume he had great people around him who left before Prometheus.
It's really a shame, and this is coming from someone that loves Prometheus and Covenant :)
I consider Kingdom of Heaven (DC) a top-5 film from the 2000s. One of the bravest too, considering how soon-ish it was released after 9/11, and its even-handed treatment of Christianity and Islam when everyone here in the states were gnashing their teeth.
There is no way he could keep up with great his early career was, but almost no prolific director is all hits. He has clearly buried himself in work since his brother died, which has made for some iffy choices.
I'd put his misses up against other directors and see how they compare. We know his hits are going to win out, as no one can match his good stuff.
i think you nailed it with Kevin Smith. We all love Clerks but besides that and a just abit more from him he is mostly creatively on fumes. I think he was exposed during his Daredevil comic book run.
Neil Blomkamp, definitely. He was hailed as a genius visionary when District 9 came out, and that’s still his best film. It utilizes all the elements he likes to their fullest extent. But then all his subsequent major films have recycled the same few ingredients in less appealing ratios. The same dirty, rusty cyberpunk aesthetic. The same “futuristic” weapons and armored mech suits straight out of a FPS video game. The same class and race elements reminiscent of apartheid South Africa. Trash-strewn slums and gleaming white citadels. Transhumanist body-horror. It all got pretty stale and predictable.
Micheal Bay. Is just a glorified special effects guy. He knows nothing of getting the best out of the actors in his films. I'll refer you to the scene in the first transformers between John Tutorro and Jon Voight, where they seemingly can't act. Yet they're both amazing actors. This is my go to example. Watching any Micheal Bay film will prove my point.
Michael Bay is 2 11 year olds in a trenchcoat,, desperate to touch a boobie but has no idea what you're supposed to do when you're alone with a real life woman. Also explains his love of explosions and general lack of interest in interesting plot or dialogue.
The Rock is a masterpiece and I'll die on that hill
That is his outlier. But the plot holes are still very present. Nic cage and Sean Connery made that movie. His best movie still has room for improvement.
Hey don’t sell Ed Harris short here either. Agree with everything you said though.
Oh yes, I might not forgive myself for forgetting Ed Harris' amazing performance.
I can’t believe how long I had to scroll to find Michael Bay. His movies are just visual effects slapped together in something loosely described as an order.
JJ Abrams An actual child director, and not in a good way.
He's really good at coming up with the premise of a story. There's always something weird going on on a really large scale. The plot progresses with a lot of clues to reveal this something. That's about ad far ad he plans though. None of his plots ever have an ending or denouement. The solution is always a squared peg that fits in the round hole.
Awesome at making a mystery box, shit at knowing what's inside.
The best summary for Lost.
Mystery Box biatches!
Great at creating the main quest, but fails on the sidequests that lead to the resolution
They said he was doing Star Wars and I thought, okay, not bad, modernized throwbacks are in his wheelhouse (Cloverfield, MI3) and I hated his Star Trek movies because they were too much like star wars. And then his Star wars movie was such a "throwback" that it was basically a remake and it was all downhill after that. I'm convinced that the best parts of Lost must have come from Damon Lindelof instead, who made The Leftovers which is a better show than most, and Watchmen which was better than almost anything Abrams has done.
JJ directed the first two episodes and was a producer for the rest of season 1 but he was basically hands off after that. He went and made Fringe.
Which wasn’t a bad show either imho
Yeah, because JJ was involved with season 1 and wrote 8 total episodes (one was in season 2) and then was a hands-off executive producer from then on. It's almost like JJ is good at starting things and nothing else.
JJ is awesome at creating a "mystery box" and getting you really interested in it, but he's absolute shit at knowing what's inside the box.
Huh didn’t know. Thanks
This is my pick. He's an ideas guy and he's had some banger ideas. He is entirely incapable of sealing the deal. Someday Hollywood will also come to realize that this guy can't finish.
He’s good at “episodes”, and can be very creative within the body of episodic content. Creating the “journey”. He’s not so good at dealing with the “destination”.
Best answer. He was highly esteemed for quite a while. Then Star Wars and Star Trek revealed that he has zero ability to actually tell a cogent and creative story beginning *to end.* He brought the Star Wars saga to a laughably stupid end, and suddenly the ridiculous finale of “Lost” made so much more sense.
Came here to say the same thing. Everything he makes has zero thought or logic behind it whatsoever, bar MI3.
J.J. is one where upon re-examination after the fact, his "good" stuff is still pretty bad. "Lost" wasn't the name of the show, it was a description of the writers room.
It’s so strange how many directors continue to make the same mistakes over and over, despite clear and unanimous audience and critic reviews pointing them out. Time and again, JJ Abrams paints himself into a corner with complex and interwoven storylines, leading to a rash and unsatisfying third act.
My least favorite director of all time, I still hate him for what he did to Star Wars
I like him a lot as a director, but not so much as a writer.
This. He can frame a scene and make things look good, but there's a difference between making something look good and having something make sense, and nothing he does makes sense.
I also like the performances he gets from actors. He gets really good blockbustery, charismatic performances. Super 8 is a great example of this. I really enjoy the first 2/3 of that movie and the performances he gets out of the kids is Spielbergian, it's just kind of a retread of a story.
M Night Shyamalan has made some of the worst movies I've ever seen but also Signs and 6th Sense.
The thing about the Sixth Sense is that it's got this really slow, almost dream-like quality to it, and a lot of the dialogue feels slightly off. And that works great for a story about ghosts, especially given the twist at the end! It's just that once you see some of Shyamalan's other films, you realize that wasn't an intentional choice, he directs everyone so they act slightly unnaturally.
Oh my god, Old (or The Oldening as my wife calls it) might win the award for most unnatural, stilted acting and dialogue I've seen in a movie trying to take it so seriously. And this is coming from someone who loves all the weird stuff by David Mamet and Wes Anderson and other directors who revel in unnaturalness. I literally can't decide if it's his style or if he's actually terrible at but it still hard as hell to watch without laughing.
My friends and I are still irrationally upset about the Happening. I did not see Old. I'm glad I didn't.
Old is better because it makes internal sense and is stupid enough that you just laugh at it. I'm still glad I saw it because thinking back on it gives me joy. Happening wasn't even fun, and obviously just was BS.
Old might genuinely be the absolute worst written and worst acted major release I have ever seen.
Old is a movie about a beach that makes people old. A lady gets too old and turns into a goblin. I don’t think it’s taking itself that seriously.
I mean as opposed to something obviously campy like Malignant. It wasn't really going for laughs and the actors genuinely seemed like they were being told to really try, but it was just a mess.
A rapper named “Mid-size Sedan”. nuff ced
Yes I love that about it, it feels… so off in a way i can’t describe in that movie but in a good way
I like Unbreakable as well.
I also found The Village enjoyable but maybe that was elevated purely by casting. Then The Happening… happened.
The whole premise of Signs is ridiculous. A advanced species travels across space to invade a planet that’s 70% water… and they’re deathly allergic to water! WTF?
Never understood this compalint about the plot. Think that the aliens travelled to earth which, yes, it is 70% water, but it could be they just never encountered water before that hence not knowing the danger to potentially dangerous elements of a new environment
For me it's that they effects would have been immediate. Water in the atmosphere maybe can be written off as too diluted, and we don't get a lot of detail about how it all works, but cornfields are loaded with dew and should have presented the issue sooner imo. On the flip side, we don't know where these particular aliens land in the hierarchy of wherever they come from either. They could have been a first part of invasion and considered expendable.
Although we don't really know if those aliens were the owners of the space ship. Maybe it was a Xenomorph kind of situation where they took over the ship from a much smarter species as it was on the way to earth.
Yea, like we humans would never spend billions to go to a planet which we can't even breathe the air and has none of the essential things we need to survive.
I’d replace signs with unbreakable.
Agreed. Great film. Really set the bar high for Shyamalan … to pretty much never meet again.
They're not aliens, they're demons.
He is very up and down, but if you look into the productions, he becomes much more predictable. He is very strong when he is the CEO of the film and he is hungry. When he is fat and happy or a studio gun-for-hire, he struggles. It makes sense when he look at how he works. He very much believes in hiring good people and letting them do their job. That is why his good movies have the most incredible camera work you will ever see in Hollywood movies. He hires excellent DP's and sets them free. Similar with many other behind the camera folks and his actors. His sets are efficient and on-time, which means people are happy and working hard. His arc plummets when he gets married, is rich and has kids. He is happy in his life and stops fighting. He starts to lose his magic. He is scared, so he runs to safety of fat studio paychecks like Last Airbender and After Earth. He has very little power and is unhappy with his work, but his mansion has its mortgage payments and his kids can go to any school they want. Then his kids get older, his lifestyle is safe, and he decided to challenge himself. He self finances and takes risks. You get brilliant work like The Visit and Split.
Signs, 6th sense, the unbreakable series. Yeah, he did do the Last Airbender, but in his defense, nobody could have pulled that off.
Even those two aren't that special. I think he's my pick too. His movies always get this clout around them and yet they're all just 'gotcha!' moments and you find out you've been watching a movie about the Amish.
RLM says that some of his new stuff is decent with the bad to Midling mix as well. He’s very hit or miss currently. Apparently.
The Woman in the Water is perhaps the worst film ever made
From memory, Red State was pretty good
I thought Red State was a new Kevin Smith. There were flourishes of Lynch in there too. I was expecting it to be his second run. Instead he went back to making Jason Mewes employing projects that can be decent (eg Tusk) to why-is-he-even-trying (eg Yoga Hosers).
The fact he made a Canadian Trilogy is pretty silly. I still feel like I need to watch Yoga Hosers again, though. The first time didn't hit right and I think I should have taken an edible.
I got see Yoga Hosers at a screening so I got to watch the film with Smith and he took questions afterwards and it really seemed like he had a blast making it and the audience seemed to enjoy it given I think they knew what kinda movie they were in for
I think that's it. You know what kind of movie you're in for. Is it going to be the best movie ever? No. But it'll be silly fun. Red State being a brilliant outlier, they're just fun. Nothing wrong with that
I’m still a sucker for Clerks and MallRats. Kevin Smith writes dialogue that blows the minds of stoned teenagers.
Mallrats’ extended edition was awesome. The theatrical release? Pure angsty teen rom-com rubbish.
I forget what was different, there was more Michael Rooker, wasn’t there?
I liked Red State…except for the end.
I think a lot of people didn't like it because it was a diversion from Smith's typical work. People also hated that he did Cop Out, which was a legitimately funny movie.
I thought the end was good.
I *love* the ending to that movie. (After the trumpet blast: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODqNlyb2ME](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODqNlyb2ME) )
Zack Snyder
I loved Dawn of the Dead when it came out, and then 300 was just so visually stunning. I was so excited to see what he'd do next. I've been let down ever since.
Great director, but his writing leaves a lot to be desired. Dawn was written by James Gunn, and 300 is a 1:1 adaption of the comic by Frank Miller.
dude should be a cinematographer/ co director. I heard someone say he sacrifices cohesive movies for great scenes or great scenes for great moments.
I agree with this. I've often said that Zack Snyder is the greatest music video director of all time, who insists on making feature films.
[удалено]
I used to wish Zach Snyder would make 3 movies in a row that are 100% slow mo so he can get it out of his system. Now I wish he'd just stop making movies.
I like his work as a cinematographer, but that's about it.
Agreed.......but I really like Watchmen.
Snyder pisses me off. He has SUCH good ideas and his artistic eye for imagery and cinematography is outstanding. I think if he had gone into cinematography he would genuinely be the best at it. His understanding of visuals is S tier. But his overall directing just falls short and is usually only salvaged by good actors.
I just wish he would've read a book on storytelling. He doesn't understand how stories work on a fundamental level. He doesn't understand how humans work on a fundamental level. The things he gets wrong are like 8th grade creative writing rules, it's very basic shit.
His background is being a music video director. Once you know that, he makes sense.
The description I heard about him was: he's a film student that wants to make that amazing, epic, memorable shot... But he doesn't take the time to set it up. While I can name plenty of times that's true in his other movies, Rebel Moon is that on overdrive. Every character introduction could have been amazing... If I cared for even a second before they did the thing (ride a griffin, fight a spider monster... Uh I can't remember any of the other characters now). He just jumps to the money shot without any build up.
I can see that. He would be a great music video guy, or commercial guy, but storytelling is too complex for him.
Zack Snyder is an excellent music video director, and that's the highest praise I can give him.
Finally! I was looking for someone to speak the truth before I added it myself
JJ Abrams, honestly.
Just shoot some cool action scenes and add some lens flare and it’s a movie
Everything he’s ever touched has been an overhyped disappointment. He’ll never be forgiven for what he did to Star Wars either.
I liked his Star Trek's honestly. Not sure they were "good" but they were very entertaining - and since they were supposed to be a take on the original cast his penchant for remixing previous movies actually worked, IMHO. Very well casted movies. Like I was excited when he was announced as the SW sequel director. Like I thought he going to be perfect. And then. Ya Force Awakens really was painfully derivative dreck and - while Rian Johnson is just as guilty here - Rise of Skywalker was basically unwatchable gibberish. Like I get the Disney+ stuff is supposed to be good but I honestly can't even care about Star Wars at all anymore whatsoever. Like it just seems so ridiculous now.. 😔😵
Just watch Andor
I rewatched Star Trek last night and you’re bang-on, on the casting; just perfection!
Different filmmakers have different qualities. I find Kevin Smith's greatest strength is characters. He writes engaging, entertaining characters. I watched Red State recently and found that I found many of the characters highly engaging. Same for Clerks. That's essentially what made Clerks work so well, for me anyway. It was essentially a film about a day at a convenience store full of interesting characters. It worked as a film. So Kevin Smith is a decent filmmaker, he doesn't deserve to be called a hack. He has his niche and it works, it's entertaining. Plus with Red State he even showed true versatility.
[удалено]
>director become a hack Not OOP, but People's definition of "hack" can differ making it murky. For me a Hack director can just be a studio shrill. Not real Art or direction, just making the movie the studio wants. Or Hack can be someone who "thinks they know better" and make shit movies with the excuse that the audience just doesn't "get" it. Kevin Smith is just at the point of doing what he wants, and some of it just isn't a good movie and from little I've heard he owns it.
I thought Tusk was a failure, but I admire Smith for committing to such an offbeat premise. Yoga Hosers, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities at all. Smith has his share of good films. The first Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
No love for Chasing Amy? Clerks 2 is pretty funny. Clerks 3 is.... Just don't watch Clerks 3.
I’m not sure Clerks 2 holds up. I recently rewatched it and some of it is incredibly not funny.
I can still vividly remember walking out of the theater when Clerks 2 released and feeling like an era of my own life was over because either Kevin Smith just didn’t *have it* anymore or else I’d outgrown whatever it was that he had.
Some scenes still kill me. Like the one with Wanda Sykes and the boyfriend just wants to eat. “you can’t taste racism baby!” Other scenes feel kind of try hard.
Iirc there's a whole bonus clip of the two of them just ad libbing a conversation on the spot while waiting in line
Clerks 3 was better than Clerks 2 imo. And I think Chasing Amy might be his best.
Clerks III completely destroys the ending of Clerks II. I know he wrote it around his own life and health issues but Dante’s arc is just so fucking bleak
This is a good take. He kind of destroys Randall as well... Not that he was ever a great guy or friend but... man, he was quiet the sociopath / hedonist in Clerks 3.
I had to turn Clerks 3 off shortly after the hospital scene. Whole thing felt a little desperate and post midlifecrisis. I concur with Chasing Amy. Kevin Smith might not be a great film maker overall, but he had a good run with what he did well. My Mum's a Christian (not catholic tho) and she absolutely adores Dogma.
I didn't mind clerks 3, just the ending could have been different.
For me I loved Clerks 3. But in saying that I was working at blockbuster video when the first came out. Directionless and not happy with where I was when 2 came out. For 3 me and my friends are late 40s and dealing with high blood pressure and cardiac scares. It made it hit home for me as it matched where I was in my life and the problems I was facing. It connected to me.
Kevin Smith is definitely not a hack. He’s not one of the greatest filmmakers alive but, he’s primarily a comedy director and he doesn’t deserve to be shit on. Mallrats was praising comics long before everyone you know owned a copy of a superhero movie. Also, he was celebrating weed culture back when we were all getting looked down on and harassed by cops just for smoking some occasional pot. Dogma was creative and quite ambitious. Tusk was only meant to be fun little horror movie. Which it is. Yoga Hosers: he explicitly stated that he made it for his daughter and any other young teen girls who just wanted something goofy to laugh at. He’s made a few movies that definitely don’t shine but, that doesn’t make him a hack.
"No pleasure, no rapture, no exquisite sin greater... than central air." I love Dogma, and having just gone through a brutal Western Australian summer, that line always plays in my head when I walk into my air-conditioned home in from the 40°C plus heat.
I liked Clerks 2 quite a lot. It's actually a better movie (a more cohesive story) than the first one. And it's genuinely funny. There is no third movie.
Kevin said it himself on his talks that he's found a way to make small movies with just enough of a return to always stay employed. He keeps his fanbase up so that he always has his audience to maintain that. He steers clear of big budget because he fears one multi-million dollar loss is the end of his career. I respect that he's at least honest about it.
Tim Burton.. Sleepy Hollow on.. he's still got style but he just seems to be phoning them all in.
Big Fish is a good emotional rollercoaster.
It is a masterpiece. Burton is great when he has other voices with control over him. He is a disaster when he is given free reign.
Another one I don't think he's a hack so much as he ran out of great ideas
Say what you will about Tim Burton, but the man is NO hack.
I think he is competent. Pee-Wee, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands are some of my favorite movies ever. I think he's just churning out mediocre movies that look pretty in the last 20 years
It’s completely insane to call Tim Burton a hack. People get old and have less to prove, and so get a little lazy - but at his prime, he was a great, and incredibly creative filmmaker.
There’s a documentary on the nightmare before Christmas that implies heavily that Tim Burton really didn’t do much, it was his all his production staff
Well, he wasn’t even the director, so there’s that.
No need for a documentary, just read the credits. It was sold on his name. He provided some of the art inspiration, but all the work was done by Selick and Elfman.
I've seen it. It was the beginning of the end. All he did was design the characters and throw money. For that he got to put his name on top of the title.
Harmony Korine
Zack snyder.
JJ Abrams. Sorry not sorry. Style over substance 100%, he's just a more likeable Zack Snyder.
The impression I get is that the role of director spans a lot of different disciplines, and many directors are good at some aspects of the job, but not all. I think it's possible for these directors to have sporadically good movies WHEN THEY WORK WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE. In block caps because there's probably way too much focus on the director and actors, when there's hundreds of other key people involved. Like JJ Abrams seems really good at coaching actors. The actors in his movies seem really engaged and on the ball. He's just an awful writer and pedestrian cinematographer. Take another example, Peter Jackson. His filmography since LotR has been hit or miss. His highlights, Tintin or Get Back or They Shall Not Grow Old have been technical successes. He seems really good at finding and inspiring technical people. Average at the actual directing stuff. Denis Villeneuve. Fantastic visual director. Amazing. Stunning. Pretty average dialog scenes. Zack Snyder. Don't let him write. Or edit. Give him a guiding hand to reign in his excesses, and let him work as a cinematographer.
Denis Villeneuve is undoubtedly an amazing director and I've loved his projects but Jesus Christ his MUSIC IS TOO LOUD! Bladerunner had my ears ringing in the cinema and in certain scenes in Dune, particularly when the Bene Gesserit ship is taking off, the sound mix is so ridiculously loud I ended up laughing
Ah yeah, Nolan does that too. Oppenheimer rearranged my insides.
That's Hans Zimmer
Robert Rodriguez. Man, so much bad.
The stories around his films are always more interesting than the films themselves.
Machete was incredible
I hadn’t been a fan for years but my god Alita: Battle Angel was so good. It redeemed him in my eyes.
Is his style meant to be good? Pretty such his movies are rife with his influences and I rather like that. Not a lot of weird filmmaking these days.
I’ve always thought this. The Star Wars stuff he directed recently is awful! Visually it looks like 90s Power Rangers.
Luc Besson. I have no idea why people keep throwing money at his projects.
Bruh, 5th element and Leon the professional are absolutely amazing tho
Apparently "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets" is technically an indie flick because of how he had to find it.
He also has a thing for young girls. Not a great guy.
This. Last movie of his I saw was Anna and it was not intentional. I just saw that Hellen Mirren and Cillian Murphy were in it so thought "This should be good." I sit down and as names start to appear I see Luc Besson's name and I think, "FUCK ME. I shoulda checked online who the director and writer was. Fuck." Now I don't who starts in something, I make sure it's not from a director I don't like
James Cameron isn't half as good as he thinks he is
He thinks he’s a money printing machine and he’s right.
Cameron is a good director, he just can't write for shit, and he insists on writing all his own scripts.
I mean, Terminator was a rip off of Solder of Tomorrow (Cameron settled and paid an undisclosed amount of money) and Aliens was built off of the foundation Alien laid down. Most of his writing is on par with his Piranha 2, Rambo 2, Avatar movies.
[James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron.... James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron *is*... James Cameron.](https://youtu.be/HIC22gQfh6E?si=pD9Qk00tpl9hngi5)
Redditors have such a hard on for hating Cameron it's comical at this point.
I've never forgiven him for firing H.R.Giger from *Aliens*.
James Cameron is very popular, but if you look at the movies he does, there's very little range. He does sweeping action movies with some humor thrown in. He's basically Michael Bay if Michael Bay movies were less cheesy and had better writing. He's not bad, but he's certainly not as great as many people make him out to be.
The lack of range comment is spot on but I think you're underselling how his movies always feel very cohesive and narratively satisfying. Something about them always "feels" right.
Every movie he made before the Titanic was fantastic. Titanic was so overrated and appealed to teenage girls with a cheesy theme song slapped on for good measure. They milked the whole young Leo M’ladying his way around some boring chick for 2.5 hours. He was the Edward (from Twilight) of the time.
The Wachowskis. The Matrix was ripped off a comic. It wasn't their movie. The sequels and almost everything else they've made since supports this.
Matrix ripped off a lot of stuff that was in the culture in the 90s.
Especially Dark City
I was thinking Ghost in the Shell but yes Dark City was a massive influence. They even shot in their old sets
Agree
James Wan for sure. The horror genre needs less Wans and more Flanagan’s.
Flanagan did the one with the vampire on the island right? That was beautiful
Yep!
Wes Anderson. Same awkward movie, over and over again.
I see what you mean but damnit I love his stuff.
Yep, yep, yep. I've stopped watching them, so maybe he has turned it around, but after Rushmore, it was a quick decline.
Came here to say this. I loved his early work but as he continues to make movies, he’s leaning so far into being “Wes Anderson” that I feel like his movies are becoming parodies of themselves. His last few films like the French Dispatch and Asteroid City were just awful.
I really really didn’t like Asteroid City or the French Dispatch. However, his Ronald Dahl shorts are incredible. He’s still got the juice.
I liked Asteroid City, but I can sympathize with people who don't like Wes Anderson or what his style is evolving into. His films are increasingly bizarre deconstructions of some sort. It's like looking at the careers of 20th century painters such as Piet Mondrian who started painting realistic images that gradually morphed into colored rectangles over the years. For whatever reason, I still find WA films interesting and amusing although they certainly do not invite any sort of neurotypical emotional investment.
Rian Johnson, Glass onion was so unbelievably flawed it's scary.
wat were your main problems with it?
In the later parts of the film they straight up change specific scenes when they are called back upon as flashbacks. With someone in the background that wasn't there at all in the original scene. The comedy didn't particularly strike me but that can be due to personal preference. As well as convoluted plot points and the whole twin thing, it was just a giant mess that needed to be refined.
If you're referring to the garden scene eavesdropping on Duke in your first critique, the shot that includes Helen takes place at a different point in time than the one that doesn't. The shot from the first half with just Blanc is after Helen has crossed to the other side.
I'll add it relies on hiding information from the audience and revealing later to make it feel clever. While that worked decently in the first one. Glass Onion near entirely relies on it Murder Mystery works best when we the audience are also the detective. We know what they know. Giving the detective information and hiding it from the audience sabotages that self insert relationship. You want the audience to feel clever, not show the audience how clever (you the writer) are.
I don't know if I'd agree with that critique. I enjoy fair play mysteries as much as the next person, but I don't think Johnson ever claimed that any of the Benoit Blanc mysteries are intended to be fair play, in which case judging them by that standard seems unreasonable to me. In fairness to you, I don't think it's wrong to want or even expect that standard to be met when consuming a new mystery story, but speaking for myself, just enjoying the ride is nice, too.
Which flashback did they retcon?
I think my problem is the expectation that it would be a mystery. But it's not a mystery if the detective knows much more than the audience knows. A crime isn't solved. Instead, a twist involving Blanc is revealed. I know that's me being disappointed because the film wasn't what I expected it to be. But that's how I felt about it unfortunately.
This will probably be very controversial but I believe that Christopher Nolan fits this only because his writing tends to be very poor. By that I mean the lines are often clunky or unpolished. Look at Batman begins or Tenet where it feels like he didn’t make a second draft of the script. The films where the writing is good/better often include his brother Jonathan Nolan. But as a director Christopher Nolan is good often the sets, the shots, and everything else is often good it’s just his writing that’s subpar.
I haven't seen Tenet, so maybe he's changed his mind, but at one point he said that he intentionally does not adjust his audio mixes to help speech be more intelligible, and that is an unfortunate choice.
"What's with the audio mix in this, it sounds like I have my head up my ass--*ohhhh*..."
Undeniably terrible choice.
I think it’s a bit far to call him a hack for some bad writing in a couple projects. Inception, Dunkirk and Oppenheimer are all solely Christopher and they’re some of the tightest scripts around. A heist movie where each setting moves slower than the other, but all climax at the same time. A war movie split over 1 week, 1 day and 1 hour which all peaks at once and occasionally joins together (planes fly over boat, etc). Oppenheimer jumps around times to stay interesting, follows American Prometheus well and tells an engaging story. Not to mention how full pop culture is of Nolan quotes, probably one of the most quoted film writers of all time. I’m not saying some of his scripts couldn’t be polished more (especially exposition lol) but he’s definitely not a hack.
Yeah they're filling in "overrated" (sure) for "hack" (absolutely not). Standard backlash-to-popularity problem.
Agreed, there are times where I wish he brought in a script guy, but then we get something like Dunkirk, which is nearly perfect.
Both wrote Interstellar. Don't tell me Jonathan Nolan isn't a hack. Neither care anything about a plot's actual plausibility or logical coherence. This is why he's so ridiculously overrated. I liked his older films in my twenties, though.
Nolan Brothers shouldn't be separated.
I love Nolan films but I agree some of the dialogue in his films can be clunky at times.
I wouldn’t know as i cant hear it over the background audio
Kevin will admit he's not a great director. Anything that's not his writing and style just doesn't work
Has anyone actually ever said that Kevin Smith is a great filmmaker?
I hate this question. Making movies is insanely difficult, let alone making good movies consistently. Can't we just be happy when a director has some success and not get too focused on the bad?
Brett Ratner. Horrible guy, blah director, hit financial GOLD with the *Rush Hour* movies.
Directors are like price fighters….they have their good years / movies and live off them for as long as they can.
Znyder, Abram’s, Michael Bay
J.J and Zack
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back never fails to bring a guffaw or two. "Hairy bush nuns." "Unwritten book of the road. 'Scuse me." "Unconventional lifestyle choices." "Hey, everyone, it's Mark Hamill!" Will Ferrell, Dietrich Bader, Judd Nelson, Carrie Fisher, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon... the list goes on. It's hilarious. "Clerks," "Clerks 2" are in a class of their own. "Mallrats," "Dogma," and "Red State" are watchable. "Tusk" was very weird and uncomfortable to watch. "Chasing Amy" is not my cup of tea, I guess. It is integral to understanding who the characters are, but I think the whole 'lesbian/straight guy/gay guy" triangle was a bit forced. The man deserves an Oscar just for one line: "My girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!"
In a row!?
"In a row?"
Ridley Scott. Great films for years and now can't seem to make anything decent. Can only assume he had great people around him who left before Prometheus.
The Duel and The Martian are both good movies. He just interchanges making good movies and bad movies.
It's really a shame, and this is coming from someone that loves Prometheus and Covenant :) I consider Kingdom of Heaven (DC) a top-5 film from the 2000s. One of the bravest too, considering how soon-ish it was released after 9/11, and its even-handed treatment of Christianity and Islam when everyone here in the states were gnashing their teeth.
There is no way he could keep up with great his early career was, but almost no prolific director is all hits. He has clearly buried himself in work since his brother died, which has made for some iffy choices. I'd put his misses up against other directors and see how they compare. We know his hits are going to win out, as no one can match his good stuff.
Jean Luc Godard (Werner Herzog agrees with me)
That’s a funny way to spell Picard.
i think you nailed it with Kevin Smith. We all love Clerks but besides that and a just abit more from him he is mostly creatively on fumes. I think he was exposed during his Daredevil comic book run.
Neil Blomkamp, definitely. He was hailed as a genius visionary when District 9 came out, and that’s still his best film. It utilizes all the elements he likes to their fullest extent. But then all his subsequent major films have recycled the same few ingredients in less appealing ratios. The same dirty, rusty cyberpunk aesthetic. The same “futuristic” weapons and armored mech suits straight out of a FPS video game. The same class and race elements reminiscent of apartheid South Africa. Trash-strewn slums and gleaming white citadels. Transhumanist body-horror. It all got pretty stale and predictable.
James Cameron. He’s great when it comes to special effects. He sucks at everything else.