Jason X

[Jedi Master Carr]

Is there anybody going to see this POC? First off why another one ten years later didn't they send Jason to Hell in the last one? So how in the world did he escape that.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Boycott crap like this. Maybe Hollywood will take a hint

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am not going to watch it I can say that much, now maybe if they did a Jason vs Freddy maybe I might rent it but other than that this is just the same old crap.

[CMJ]

Jason the hockey masked boogey man in outerspace. Sounds like a great DVD rental night of laughing with my brother as we hang out MST3000 style. Should be fun. ;)

[Gurney Devries]

Why is it that, when they run out of ideas for horror movies, they decide to put them in space?

(*cough*Leprechaun 4*cough*)

[Jedi Master Carr]

*cough cough Critters 4 cough cough*

[JonathanLB]

I sometimes joke that so and so film is the worst I have ever seen, but in my limited movie watching (I have mostly avoided the horrid films in my life), I must say that Jason X is absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen.

I mean, to say that it is worse than The Sweetest Thing and Crossroads is like, geez, no DUH!

I cannot believe how horrible this film is, but I guarantee in some really sick way you will probably enjoy it. I'm still giving it zero stars obviously, just because a movie is funny unintentionally doesn't make it a dang masterpiece.

LOL, oh god, where would I start. I'll just post my review later, but audiences were laughing through the entire thing. I was really laughing hard, I've not laughed so hard all year except for in Van Wilder and maybe in Orange County, but... that's more questionable.

Dang, the movie is SO predictable!

At the end of the screening, I said VERY loudy so that everyone could hear, "BEST. MOVIE. EVER." It was absolutely hilarious, everyone started laughing and making comments about the film. Two guys just plain walked out early, one of them was like, "I just can't take this anymore." He didn't say it too loud but was in the row just in front of me (separated by the walking area) so I heard him. It was just dang hilarious.

I think there is no question some people will find this movie so funny they will actually enjoy it on some sick level, but it was seriously the worst movie I personally have ever seen. I must agree with the Seattle Times critic:

"The 10th installment of the Friday the 13th franchise is, hands down, the worst of the worst. Let me put this in perspective for you. If you had footage of your gassy uncle on the toilet, humming "La Marseillaise," looped over and over again for 90 minutes, it would be a more worthy movie than this one."

lol, seriously, amen to that.

[JMK]

What's predictable is that it was going to be a total POS to start off with. Did it ever have a chance????

[JonathanLB]

The trailer was so painful. There were not that many people there at the theater anyway, a pretty sad opening night showing.

[CMJ]

Ebert gave a hysterical review(he awarded it half of a star, but it was among the worst pans I've ever seen him write). Seriously guys, you should check it out. :)

[JonathanLB]

Well it was unquestionably one of the worst films in a long time, lol, I will read his review.

The reviews in many cases are funnier than any film I've seen, haha. I don't understand, though, why does it get 1/2 star? Why did Entertainment Weekly give it a D-?! What the HELL does a film have to do to get an F/no star rating now?! Jesus, Jason X tried as hard as possible to get that F rating and yet they still gave it a D-. That's just BS.

[JMK]

Just gives them incentive to make something even worse. :x

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well it made 2.6 today so it will finish 2nd or 3rd for the weekend, making somewhere between 6-8 million but I am sure it will drop 60% next weekend and not even be in the top 5.

[JMK]

The sooner it drops, the better.

[JonathanLB]

Well I never recommend ZERO STAR films, but you guys really should see this just because it is so funny. See, 3000 Miles to Graceland was just plain bad. I mean, easily one of the worst maybe 25 movies I have ever seen, possibly top 15. It was just totally boring and horrid throughout. But Jason X, actually, while being probably the #1 worst film I've ever seen, would not even be in my bottom 100 "least enjoyable" films category. I mean, it's just like Godzilla 2000, another one of the all-time worst films ever made. Both movies are unquestionably horrid, but because of the manner in which they are horrid (bad and trying to be bad!), they actually are pretty darn funny.

Don't get me wrong, though, Jason X is the biggest waste of time ever, yet I am still laughing about how HORRIBLE some of the lines were. I mean, lol, jesus god!

I just think this is a big taunt from the screenwriter: "nah nah nah, my screenplay sucks and it still got made into a movie, yet you will never succeed! Nah! :mneh "

Seriously anyone here could write a better screenplay than that. The lines were just horrible. I know sometimes people joke around, "Haha, I could have played better than (so and so basketball player) did last night!" Of course, we really couldn't, but it's just a joke. No, this is no joke, though. The screenplay was worse than anything imaginable and I could easily write a script that would be 10 times better.

It's one of those types where you could sit down with it and highlight the cliches and need about six highlighters. It's not a matter of OPINION whether it's bad or not, it IS bad. It's stylistically terrible and the lines are cliched, which is by definition poor writing. Yet it is kind of funny in a sick way, perhaps it is amusing in the same way a car wreck is, where you kind of have to look to the side as you pass it just to see what happened, even though it's none of your business.

The one thing would have made Jason X even better, i.e. even WORSE, would be to have very serious, capable actors delivering the exact same lines in a serious way. That would just be hilarious. Then I would have been laughing the entire way through (and I was close anyway!). Instead, you have probably some of the worst acting ever on a theater screen. I swear my friends and I are better actors in the short films we have made, and we SUCK. I cannot act at all, nor can my friends. We are unquestionably awful. lol. I think some of our camera work and technical skills are quite good for our little experience, but our acting blows chunks. We sit around laughing about it in embarrassment after we finish, yet I still think Jason X has mostly worse acting than what we do.

"Oh my god! We're going to die!"
"I think he's gone now. It's safe."

As one critic put it, PAINFULLY predictable. Not scary at all in any way.

Ok so the Nightmare on Elm Street movies (the other big horror seires) are pretty corny most of them and not one of the sequels is actually a 3 star film (and yes I've seen them all, hehe, Bryan and I thought it would be fun), but a few of them have sort of freaky scenes. I mean, somewhat. They are at least 1.5 to 2.5 star movies, but Jason X, dang, please let this be the last in that sad series.

[JMK]

Is it at least gory, or did they take that away too???

[ReaperFett]

Funniest is the AICN ad. It shows Jason, woman's backside, woman leaning, Same woman leaning...

Sorry, this is a horror, right? :)

[JMK]

You mean a movie ad was being suggestive? In this day in age? Nah, can't be!

[Jedi Master Carr]

They like putting nudity into Jason films its always been that way. Still I would like to see a Jason vs Freddy movie that could be cool if it was done right.

[ReaperFett]

JMK, it didnt suggest a thing, it SHOWED :)

[JMK]

I saw one of the "XXX" banners at AICN. What a shameless product this movie is.

[JonathanLB]

There is a lot of gore, yes, and it's really overdone. I mean, ok it is a trademark, sure, but it was actually hilarious.

I honestly was so surprised at the reaction people had to the first gory death. Instead of screams or gasps or whatever, the audience just absolutely burst out laughing! It was most funny because I have been thinking a lot lately about the "evolution" or more like de-evolution (corruption...) of cinema over the last few decades, and now people are so desensitized to gore that it's actually funny, whereas 4 decades ago if you showed that they would be just totally shocked.

It would be SO EASY to make an impact on cinema if you could go just go back 4 decades ago and show shocking things that they'd never seen before.

I still wonder how we got from people protesting "damn" in GWTW in 1939 to The Sweetest Thing in 2002. I don't think that is a good thing!

I love it when I see an old movie on the AFI list because I know I'm not going to have to put up with masturbation jokes, disgusting nudity in the middle of the film (that never has been, isn't, and NEVER will be artistic!), or constant swearing at the expense of real dialogue (Pulp Fiction is fine, though, of course).

I definitely like the style of the older movies better than ones today in many ways.

The AFI list rules, but still I feel it is so biased against sci-fi and fantasy that it simply cannot capture my feelings about the real top 100 greatest movies. Even after seeing so many of the films and giving most 4 stars, I'd have to say my top 100 list would lean almost entirely 1980's and 1990's. Donnie Darko, Memento, and Lord of the Rings, just from 2001, are better than anything I've seen on the AFI list except for Star Wars so far. Then again, the AFI list is more about influence and importance, and none of those three movies are that important, but LOTR is perhaps a future candidate for a top 100 list. Perhaps it could sneak in at the bottom of some future list. It would be near the top of mine (top half, probably 25 to 30).

[Jedi Master Carr]

Gore has become a joke in horror films I remember watching Thirteen Ghosts and I didn't find it disgusting at all when the lawyer was cut in half or the brain scene in Hannible for that matter. But when I saw SOTL I was grossed out by the cops who were ripped open so it shows how horror films just have too much gore now and people have become desentised too it, and I think that is a bad thing for the horror genre.

[Gurney Devries]

I think the scene from Hannibal was a bit overdone: It could have probably been handled better if they alluded to it, but never really showed it. But after watching the making of the film on the extras DVD, I think it became a challenge to the crew: They just wanted to see if they could do it.

Overall, though, Hannibal wasn't a very gory movie at all. And, despite its kind of slow beginning, I thought it was an excellent movie.

[CMJ]

Sorry guys..I had to post it...too damn funny. :)

This sucks on so many levels.
--Dialogue from "Jason X"

Rare for a movie to so frankly describe itself. "Jason X" sucks on the levels of storytelling, character development, suspense, special effects, originality, punctuation, neatness and aptness of thought. Only its title works. And I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the name "Jason X" is Copyrighted (c)2002, World Wrestling Federation, and that Jason's real name is Dwayne Johnson. No, wait, that was last week's movie.

"Jason X" is technically "Friday the 13th, Part 10." It takes place centuries in the future, when Earth is a wasteland and a spaceship from Earth II has returned to the Camp Crystal Lake Research Facility and discovered two cryogenically frozen bodies, one of them holding a machete and wearing a hockey mask.

The other body belongs to Rowan (Lexa Doig), a researcher who is thawed out and told it is now the year 2455: "That's 455 years in the future!" Assuming that the opening scenes take place now, you do the math and come up with 453 years in the future. The missing two years are easily explained: I learn from the Classic Horror Reviews Web site that the movie was originally scheduled to be released on Halloween 2000, and was then bumped to March 2001, summer 2001 and Halloween 2001 before finally opening on the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl, another famous meltdown.

The movie is a low-rent retread of the "Alien" pictures, with a monster attacking a spaceship crew; one of the characters, Dallas, is even named in homage to the earlier series. The movie's premise: Jason, who has a "unique ability to regenerate lost and damaged tissue," comes back to life and goes on a rampage, killing the ship's plentiful supply of sex-crazed students and staff members. Once you know that the ship contains many dark corners and that the crew members wander off alone as stupidly as the campers as Camp Crystal Lake did summer after summer, you know as much about the plot as the writers do.

With "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" opening in mid-May, there's been a lot of talk lately about how good computer-generated special effects have become. On the basis of the effects in "Jason X" and the (much more entertaining) "Scorpion King," we could also chat about how bad they are getting. Perhaps audiences do not require realistic illusions, but simply the illusion of realistic illusions. Shabby special effects can have their own charm.

Consider a scene where the space ship is about to dock with Solaris, a gigantic mother ship, or a city in space, or whatever. Various controls go haywire because Jason has thrown people through them, and the ship fails to find its landing slot and instead crashes into Solaris, slicing off the top of a geodesic dome and crunching the sides of skyscrapers (why Solaris has a city-style skyline in outer space I do not presume to ask). This sequence is hilariously unconvincing. But never mind. Consider this optimistic dialogue by Professor Lowe (Jonathan Potts), the greedy top scientist who wants to cash in on Jason: "Everyone OK? We just over-shot it. We'll turn around." Uh, huh. We're waiting for the reaction from Solaris Air Traffic Control, when a dull thud echoes through the ship, and the characters realize Solaris has just exploded. Fine, but how could they hear it? Students of "Alien" will know that in space, no one can hear you blow up.

The characters follow the usual rules from Camp Crystal Lake, which require the crew members to split up, go down dark corridors by themselves, and call out each other's names with the sickening certainty that they will not reply. Characters are skewered on giant screws, cut in half, punctured by swords, get their heads torn off, and worse. A veteran pilot remains calm: "You weren't alive during the Microsoft conflict. We were beating each other with our own severed limbs."

There is one good effects shot, in which a scientist's face is held in super-cooled liquid until it freezes and then smashed into smithereens against a wall. There is also an interesting transformation, as the on-board regenerator restores Jason and even supplies him with superhero armor and a new face to replace his hockey mask and ratty Army surplus duds. I left the movie knowing one thing for sure: There will be a "Jason XI"--or, given the IQ level of the series, "Jason X, Part 2."







Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc

[Gurney Devries]

By all reports, it sounds like Jason X succeeded in being an unabashedly bad horror flick. The real question is this: Is it campy?

Jeepers Creepers was just a sucky horror movie. Period, end of story.

A Nightmare on Elm Street part 3 was a campy horror flick with some almost laughable scenes (like a horny nurse using her tongue to tie up a mute kid :lol).

[JonathanLB]

Yeah Ebert's review is absolutely hilarious. I have to write a funny one myself. My no star reviews are always the best, funny how that works. :)

I don't agree at all about Jeepers Creepers. I thought it was very good. Extremely stylish, surprisingly high quality teen horror movie. I loved it. Say what you will, that film rocked. A surprise success.

[Gurney Devries]

It had a few redeeming qualities. I'll even go so far as to say it had potential - albeit a lot of wasted potential. It built up to so many things, only to have a simplistic ending. I mean, the thing could have just caught him in the first half hour of the film and been done with it. I don't mind a movie ending on a down note - but if they just spent the past hour and a half fighting the thing off, he'd better go out with a bang. At the very least, his sister should have tried harder to save him.

[JonathanLB]

I thought it was awesome that it dared to have a non-Hollywood ending.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree I don't think Jeepers Creepers was that good, maybe just average I agree with you about the ending. Also I think I know why I hate it too, I found out later the director is a convicted child molester, he molested a 12 year old about 7 years ago. And since then the whole movie has made me uncomfortable because now watching it, it really makes you wonder if it was all some sicky fantasy by this sicko.
Still I thought Joy Ride was a much better scary film, though the ending was a little odd, but not as simplistic at least.

[JonathanLB]

The ending to Joy Ride was also masterful. That director rocks.

What about Silence of the Lambs did you find scary or what was so shocking about it?

I just saw it for the first time last night and I must admit I was surprised how TAME it is. There is just nothing in there that is that objectionable at all. Oh gee a little blood, how scary, come on. It wasn't very gory at all.

Even the scenes that could have been possibly gory were not at all. Like Hannibal putting on the security guard's face. Other than that, uhh, what?!

It was a great movie, but not at all scary and not very gory either. I've seen more gore in like 100 other movies.

SPR is my definition of incredibly disgusting and disturbing, but SOTL was no big deal whatsoever. Hannibal makes it look like Cinderella.

[Gurney Devries]

I think it's takes a good amount of creaitivity to be able to pull off a film like Silence of the Lambs without an excess of gore. Although, to be honest, I always thought it was a bit overrated. Dr. Hannibal Lector was the only redeeming quality of the movie - the whole murder investigation was kind of silly and contrived. I mean, come on: A crossdressing homicidal maniac who likes to skin his victims and stick butterflies in the back of their throats? That was a bit overdone, IMO.

But the concept of Hannibal: a brilliant man who you'd never guess is really a monster... this I loved. Which is why, despite its shortcomings, I liked Hannibal better.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I must disagree about SOTL it is to me anyway the scariest film every made, realize now that you have to look at it from the time it was made it was scary much like Psycho was scary back in the 50's but it is not scary today. That was my point that Hollywood has gone too far with blood and guts and now nothing is scary because it is so hard to scare people these days, and now it is more of a joke like in Jason X or 13 Ghosts. Actually as far as SOTL not being gross I have to say it is more gross than Hannible, maybe its just because I read both books but the whole thing with Buffalo Bill revolted me more than the brain thing in Hannible. The idea that he was cutting up women and turning himself a woman from their body just was really sick, but they never really showed it and that is what is so good about it, plus you weren't sure until the end. There is also the whole Lectar cutting up those guards that was a tad gross. Finally the end of the film is brilliant with Clarice down in the basement in the dark trying to find Buffalo Bill that was so suspensful and terrifying. Now I need somebody to back me up on this come on CMJ I hope you agree with me ;)

[Gurney Devries]

Well, I'm not judging SOTL from a modern standpoint: It never particularly interested me, even when I saw it in theaters (I believe I caught it in the drive in).

I watched the making of it when I got the DVD, and I remember the director saying something about how they tried to incorporate all these different elements into the Buffalo Bill character - Like how Ted Bundy would pretend to be crippled in order to trap young women. I think they just tried to fit too many strange quirks into one character.

Also, I may be biased because I actually read the novel Hannibal, whereas I never read SOTL.

[Jedi Master Carr]

You need to the book is incredible, and even more gory, to me the best horror book ever written.

[CMJ]

I don't really consider "Silence" a horror film...but it's a hell of a thriller. Granted there were a few times it made me jump(typical of a horror film) but it more easily fits in the thriller genre to me.

Nonetheless the film is incredible. The performances are outstanding, and the film notches up the suspense time after time. When I saw the end the first time(just over a year ago actually) my girlfriend at the time literally had her hand around my wrist so tight I couldn't feel my hand. The funny thing I hardly noticed because I was so involved. Quite simply a modern classic in the thriller genre....

I find it amusing remembering Jon's comments from last year when "Hannibal" came out(he said something along the lines of "I haven't seen SOTL but it sounds just plain gross...how can it be less gory than "Hannibal")...and now that he's actually seen it, he's come around.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Some of the gorier scenes are left out of the book not going to mention them. I don't think SOTL is gorier just more disturbing of a film, and it is probably the scariest film I have ever seen.

[CMJ]

Well yeah..."Silence" has alot of demented stuff that is implied but not shown. Often I find when things are implied it's more effective than when we're shown the "event".

[JonathanLB]

From what you guys described to me, absolutely! I thought SOTL sounded "just plain gross," that does sound like something I'd say. Only I feel you guys described it very poorly because the film is not at all that gross.

I never called it a bad movie before I had seen it, though, in fact I would have assumed any film that wins ALL FIVE major Oscars must be pretty frickin' awesome, and it was pretty frickin' awesome. It was weird, but I really liked it.

Hannibal is a great character, so I agree, without him, screw it. The movie would blow. lol.

"I must disagree about SOTL it is to me anyway the scariest film every made, realize now that you have to look at it from the time it was made it was scary much like Psycho was scary back in the 50's but it is not scary today."

Uhh, speak for yourself. I JUST rewatched Psycho two days before I saw SOTL last night and I think Psycho is still scary! It's just really freaky in a weird way, very disturbing I think. It's supposedly based on true events too, from what I got from the documentary feature, which makes it even weirder. Psycho is a better film than SOTL I think. Hitchcock is just the man. I've always said Spielberg is the best director ever because he has made the highest number of very good to great films, but actually I reserve my judgment until I finish seeing all of Hitchcock's movies because he definitely may very well be the best ever.

I saw some idiot on IMDB.com calling Martin Scorsese the greatest ever! LOL, I really like him, Casino is an absolute favorite of mine, Goodfellas rocks, just saw Raging Bull yesterday too and it's fantastic, all four star movies, but come on! The greatest director ever? He'd probably make my top 15, but he would not make my top 10. There are too many other great directors. I feel that David Fincher is much more skilled. John Woo, James Cameron, I personally think George Lucas is one of the best directors but the volume of his work would put him lower on my list, probably like 5 to 10. It's unfortunate because if he had as many films as Spielberg I think he could be right near the top, but ANH, THX1138 (I liked it...), American Graffiti, and TPM just do not make a truly "great" director because that is too few movies. With the entire prequel trilogy I'd feel better about putting him right near my top, though, and hopefully he does some other weird/cool stuff. Just by virtue of the fact he oversaw the entire Star Wars Saga, the best movies ever, is reason enough for him to be in the top ten though. :)

Hitchcock seriously is awesome, though, I don't see how anyone could not like him. His style is so evident and you just know with his movies you get quality. I felt North By Northwest was overrated, but that doesn't mean it wasn't very good, and plus Rear Window and Psycho are both masterpieces. I've not seen at all enough of his films, though, and I'm still miffed that The Birds isn't on the AFI list, but I'm more angry that my stupid video store doesn't appear to have Vertigo...

I do not think SOTL is horror either, CMJ, but it was a great film. It was one of the more influential films of the 1990's I would say.

I would list T2, SOTL, Jurassic Park, Pulp Fiction, Titanic, and TPM as the most influential of the decade. Not the best films of the decade, just the most influential. Otherwise I'd put Shawshank Redemption and probably L.A. Confidential on that list, not to mention The Game, The Truman Show, The Matrix, and Fight Club, but those movies were not particularly influential I don't believe. Somewhat for The Matrix, I guess.

[CMJ]

Jon...I never descrided it poorly..I was arguing with you on the "grossness" factor. ;)

Good luck seeing all of Hitch's films. I consider myself a pretty big fan of his, but I haven't even seen them all. Some of the stuff he did in the 30's is really hard to find for instance. I'm not sure on the exact number...but I think he directed at least 30 feature films.

[JonathanLB]

I do not expect to see them all, but hopefully I will be able to get to a ton, most of them at least.

I got this great DVD on Tuesday, when I was out for the AOTC merchandise, and it is 4 of his films from the 1930's. I understand he did a remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much," but this DVD has the original version. It also has Thirty-Nine Steps, The Lady Vanishes, and Sabotage.

I am not sure, I don't really expect these would be as good as his later work, but I have no idea. It'll be cool when I get a chance to see them, but for now I want to stick to just AFI films until I complete that goal. If I keep going off track and seeing random movies, my site will have no focus.

When I finish the AFI list, I am free to make whatever project I want next, like for instance I'd like to pick a few great directors and see all of their films I can get so that I have that area kind of completed. Then I was hoping to build an entire Oscar section with a complete list of nominees and winners from every single year, then I will gradually see the nominated films. Starting with just films that WON best picture (that were not already reviewed as part of the AFI list), then I would go to nominated best picture films. Then later to screenplay, director, etc.

Of course there are thousands of very good movies, no doubt, but I have to figure out where my time is spent best right now. I thought the AFI top 100 would be a great start and I've been really happy with the quality of that list. I mean, hehe, of course it should be great, but I just was hoping it wasn't like "here are the movies that only critics like" or something. It's really more like the films that audiences and critics have loved.

It has kind of made me want to go through their "Top 100 Thrillers" and "Top 100 Comedies" lists. That would be cool.

CMJ, who are the three best directors of all time would you say?

[Gurney Devries]

I've seen most of Hitchcock's stuff. And I used to compulsively watch the show, when I was younger. :D

(plays Funeral March of the Marionnette)

Dum da da da dum, dum da dum...

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think SOTL is scarier but that is from a modern prespective do realize, I have seen Psycho plenty of times and it really has never scared me maybe because I knew what was coming from knowing the movie who knows its hard to say, which is better I don't know it depends on your prespective I guess. And Jon I don't know if I ever described it as a gross maybe I used the wrong words or mislead you there but I was just saying how it was more dementive, though read the book there are a couple of scenes that will make you sick, and they changed it in the movie to be more implied like CMJ said which did make it more thrilling.

[CMJ]

You have the original "Man Who Knew Too Much"?!?!?!

Oh my God, I have seen his remake with Jimmy Stewart like a gazillion times(it's terrific), but I've NEVER seen the original. The remake has one of the best endings ever...I'm talking the very last thing on screen here, not the climax. It's so hilarious, because you go back to what was going on at about the mid point in the film...but I don't wanna ruin it for you. It's so funny(to me at least though)! I am in shock that you have the original....I now despise you! ;)

Man, Jonathan...top directors ever. That is sooooo hard. Let me get back to you on that, okay? I could probably list 10 or so...but I guess I'm gonna have to narrow it down for ya. ;)

[JonathanLB]

I understand the remake is totally awesome, I really want to see it. But I suppose I may as well see the first and then see the second a bit later. I'm not sure it would be good to see them both like back to back, it may not be as... entertaining. I could wait a week or so.

You should get this DVD, CMJ, it is really good. My friend Ben got it too. I actually have not reviewed the DVD yet, but I paid $15 for 4 feature length movies on 2 DVDs, my friend Ben paid only $10. You can hardly go wrong with that, lol.

The more documentary stuff I see on Hitchcock, the more I like him.

There are so many good directors it would be tough naming a few top ones. Also, I am not sure how to rank them sometimes because I'd say Ridley Scott would be my 2nd favorite director, but the volume of quality films he has made does not compare to Hitchcock, for instance, yet those few great movies that Scott has are absolutely the top of my list. Whereas I might give a film like Rear Window a 95 or 96 out of 100, I give Alien, Gladiator, and Blade Runner all perfect 100's (and I only see a 100 film every few years at the least). So to me, if a director can give me like 3 absolutely breathtaking movies, that is just as good as perhaps 10 "great" movies. At least, that is how I feel now mostly.

[CMJ]

Speaking of the AFI list Jonathan...have you seen "Amadeus" or Lawrence of Arabia" yet? Those are 2 of my VERY favorite films.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Hey do you all know they are making another Hannible film due out later this year or next not sure which yet, it is the Red Dragon the first book (they made one low budget film that is okay) but this one will have Hopkins as Lectar (I wonder how they will make him look younger?) Edward Norton as the FBI Agent and Ralph Fiennes as the serial killer Francis Dolarhyde. Its got a great cast I wonder how good the movie will be.

[CMJ]

I heard about it as well Carr...I'm cautiously optimistic. How they will make Hopkins "younger" is beyond me.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know I think there is at least a ten year gap maybe more between Red Dragon and Hannible, still it has a great cast especially Fiennes as the killer he is called the Tooth Fairy (not sure why I need to read that book its the only one in the series I haven't read) I also saw that Kietel is playing Crawford (the part played by Glenn in SOTL) and the Dr. from SOTL is back to Anthony Hearld, the only thing I wonder is the director of the two Rush Hour films is doing it so I have no idea if he can do a supensful drama.

[Gurney Devries]

I thought it was supposed to be another sequel?

Anyway... I'd be hard-pressed to make a list of Top 10 directors... I can't think of enough good ones that would deserve to be on the list.

And no - George Lucas would not make the cut. Yes, the OT is a masterpiece. But the direction in the films is nothing out of this world, IMHO. He's not one of those people whom you can watch a film they did and go "This was directed by Lucas, I just know it". You see a Burton flick, you know it's his. I don't see that in Lucas' work - it gets the job done, but it doesn't stand out. And TPM proves that he is not flawless.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Lucas also hasn't directed too many films ANH, American Graffeti, TPM and soon to be AOTC and Ep3, I guess he could make some great independent type films at the end of his career but can't really tell what he might do yet.

[CMJ]

Really Gurney....without hesitation I have....

Orson Welles
Alfred Hitchcock
Steven Spielberg
Terrence Malick
David Lean
Frank Capra
Milos Foreman
Akira Kurosoawa
James Cameron
Joel Coen

That was off the top of my head. I'm sure I left off like 100 directors I'd like to put on there. I can almost guarantee the 10 I mentioned would not all make my 10 greatest list. But those were the 1st 10 that came to mind..in like 35 seconds of thought.

[JonathanLB]

What has Terrence Malik done besides that insanely boring movie, The Thin Red Line? I heard from like everyone that it was one of the most boring films in history. Even the critical reviews I saw were very average...

"And TPM proves that he is not flawless."

Well, not in my opinion. TPM proves he is truly one of the greats, but that he has not chosen to be primarily a great director, instead he has affected the film industry through his work with effects and pushing the envelope in every way.

Anyone who has been nominated for Best Director even one time is pretty darn skilled.

Anyway, I have no idea what you are talking about. The guy had directed 3 movies when the AFI Top 100 was published in June 1998 and TWO of them made the list, Star Wars very high at #15 and also AG. Having 2 of the top 100 easily makes you one of the greats. It's just too bad he didn't choose to direct more movies, but it must have been so stressful and frustrating for him with ANH.

I think Episode II will further prove what an awesome director he is, and yes I can tell his style! Of course you can tell Lucas's style. His films, even the ones that he didn't direct but thought up, are all about "faster, more intense," and they are the best of their genres. I actually am one of the few who SW fans who is not totally gaga over the Indy movies, but I still love them. I think Raiders of the Lost Ark (another AFI top 100 movie that HE thought up!) is without question the greatest adventure film ever made. It's just so awesome. It would probably not be in my top 25, more like just past it, but it is such a great movie.

Star Wars = best fantasy/sci-fi film ever. Lucas has a great touch with fast paced action movies. The SW films are his signature films basically and all have that super intense, fast sequence in them.

When he does even more movies, it'll be much easier to say, "Ok this director has these traits." You are making a huge assumption, though. You are basically saying that to be a great director, one has to have a certain unquestionable quality that is in every single film, which I disagree with adamantly. If I become a director, who is to say I cannot make two totally unlike films that are both great?

You don't need to have a protagonist who beats his wife all of the time (Scorsese) or a director who appears in every one of his movies (Hitchcock) just to show the guy is great. Spielberg's movies are not clearly identifiable in my opinion except that they are generally high quality and most, but not all, have a sense of "wonder" or "awe" in them. JP, E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and A.I. all fit the profile, but SPR doesn't, nor does Raiders of the Lost Ark because it's Lucas's movie! Amistad is wonderful, but doesn't fit the profile either. He makes a wide selection of films and you cannot say his movies are all crowd-pleasers, nor all Oscar films, nor all action, or adventure, they are all distinct. It's not like his remaking the same film over and over.

As much as I love Scorsese, let's be realistic here, Raging Bull, Casino, and Goodfellas are all pretty darn similar. Casino is a great movie, but it's almost a copy of Goodfellas in many ways. You cannot just deny the the fact that both movies have the same actors, same director, are both about the maffia, are both told similarly, both protagonists have major relationship problems, etc. But that doesn't mean only one is a great movie. I think they are both great and different enough so I don't feel like I'm watching the same film over again, but similar enough so that you can say, "Uhh, yes, these two movies practically could not be more similar without being the same film." But if it worked once, why not try it again with a slightly different plot? Casino rocks...

You cannot tell me that if you saw Hannibal you would KNOW it was Ridley Scott, yet Scott is unquestionably a GREAT director! Blade Runner is widely considered one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, and it is in my book too. Critics loved Black Hawk Down, the directing made the film, Gladiator won best picture, Alien is one of the most classic sci-fi films ever. Really all they have in common is that all of his work is visually stunning and he is a very stylish, visual director who shows his skill through absolute technical excellent. To say that he's the ONLY director in history or even today who does that is just the most idiotic statement ever. Spielberg has a very similar style in that his obsession with visuals has made him a wonderful director for action/blockbuster type films. You could even say that Michael Bay is meticulous about his visuals, but you can spot the bad dialogue and probably say, "Hmm, I doubt that is Ridley Scott!!!" lol.

The point is only that while no two directors are exactly alike, there are many of them that are similar enough so that you would not be able to tell their work apart no matter how great it is.

[CMJ]

LOL...well Jonathan...alot of people did enjoy "that insanely boring" war film. It was one of the most philisophical films ever made. But let's avoid debating that one...we could fill pages and pages I'm sure :) Let me just say the night after I saw it the 1st time I discussed it at length for 3 hours with a friend of mine.

As for other films he's directed. He directed the supurb "Badlands" and the epic "Days of Heaven". Noen of his films I would consider "easy" films to get. They are all definitely unusual I'd say. But without a doubt you can tell a Malick film is a Malick film.

I'd say there are other director's that have an almost instantaneous style...when I see a film...I'm sure it's their's. But Malick and Stanley Kubrick(I forgot about him) are probably the 2 most obvious.

[JonathanLB]

What would be Kubrick's style, then? Really twisted movies or what?

My mom and dad both walked out of Clockwork Orange it was so horrid. My mom actually stood up in the theater and said that the movie was f**ked up, the director is a f**k up, and anyone who stays is a f**k up too. Then she left and like 25 people followed her after they were applauding.

From what I hear it is a total steaming pile of crap. I will see it myself, but I've not heard any normal person who actually likes it.

Same goes for The Thin Red Line. I have heard from at least 8 people that it is the most boring movie ever made. Nobody I know liked it and that's coming from mostly adults, then a few people my age (Sean's parents said it was insanely boring, my dad nearly fell asleep and said the guy behind him WAS sleeping!). From what I read, it sounds absolutely stupid. Philosophical, LOL!!! We'll see. I'm a philosophy major next year, but if what I hear about that movie is true it does really suck.

I would feel bad about wasting my time seeing a film like that when such higher acclaimed films exist, so I'll wait a while.

The Thin Red Line just bombed too, it's just not a good film according to basically everyone. A few die-hard fans of this director apparently like it and everyone else says it is utter crap. I will decide myself later... I hope you are right!

One guy said: "This movie is so boring that I give it the category of: unwatchable. No matter if it's good or bad. It has some good points. But it's extremly boring!! It's one of those movies in which you feel you're being tortured. I can't really understand how did I manage to sit through the whole film."

Wow what does this remind me of? A few of the worst movies of all time: In the Bedroom, Gosford Park (most boring movie in the history of the world), Amelie, and the other critically acclaimed nonsense. I comb through the schlock of independent and foreign film to find the few gems, like Donnie Darko, Memento, and Brotherhood of the Wolf. The rest is just utter crap.

Does not sound like Malick has done much useful to me, haven't heard of any of those films.

[CMJ]

Well Kubrick has a somewhat twisted style I guess...but I was meaning more how his films "looked". A Kubrick film LOOKS like a Kubrick film...same with Malick.

Yeah...Jon you're right I'd say the majority of people out there despised "Red Line"...by a 75-25% margin. Of course, the majority of people despised "A.I" too, I long ago quit caring what "the people" like and decide to make up my own mind.

I worked at a video store when "Line" first came out, and I remember hearing the reactions, believe me. Fans of the film are extremely hardcore and it did get alot of critical acclaim(though there were critics who didn't care for it) as it appeared on numerous end of year lists from critics(not to mention garnernering 7 oscar nominations).

[JonathanLB]

This is the best yet (Thin Red Line):

"This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I remember the theater was packed going into the movie. By the time it ended 2/3 of the audience walked out... it was that bad. I felt like an idiot for sitting through the whole thing.

"Would someone explain to me the following quote... "A bird dies in the woods... (2 minute silent pause) Some sees it pain... (3 minute silent pause) others feel it's glory!"............AGHHHHHHH!!! 3 hours of this crap!

"I expected Kate Moss to come out from behind a tree and strike a pose. A little too artsy fartsy for me. Was there a point to this movie? or a plot? I know that war is ugly... but this was lame."

OH MY GOD! This sounds like the worst torture ever. Maybe worse than Glitter.

Here's another:

"I have never seen a worse film than this. Most bad films have a so-bad-they're-good quality. This film can't even achieve that status because of its utter tedium and pretentiousness. Never have I waited for the end to arrive with such desperation and increasing disbelief in the sheer stupidity of the film I was watching"

Here's a good word:

"Summary: The Worst Movie Of All Time"

Then another person entirely:

"The worst movie I ever tried to sleep through."

"The worst movie I ever tried to sleep through! I just couldn't seem to fall asleep, it was just so boring! To compare this movie to Saving Private Ryan is a joke. The only thing they have in common is that they are set in WWII."

Another:

"A genuinely poor film that wasted the obviuos talented cast who I can only imagine were duped by there unscrupulous agents."

Yet another:

"One of the worst movies ever made"

"...the whole movie comes to a seemingly endless cavalcade of pretentious nothingness. Beautiful images float by in front of us for no reason, while junior high-level poetry emanates from actors who should know better. I don't get it. I don't want to get it. What a waste."

More:

"There was just artsy-fartsy dream sequences that go on and on and bore you to tears."

Hehe:

"The Long Boring Movie"

SAVE yourself:

"This is just a friendly reminder to SAVE YOURSELF if you haven't seen this movie. It's too late for me, but maybe my suffering can help others."

Great accomplishment:

"The worst movie ever nominated for an Oscar"

"This has got to be the worst movie ever nominated for an Oscar. It is impossible to imagine that a more boring movie could ever be made. There is no plot, no tension, all the movie is is a confused mishmash of images drawn loosely around what could have been an interesting war movie. And it's not even original! Why did they bother with this collosal waste?"

Sounds great:

"painful..... long and painful.... boring... long and painful and boring..."

Pretty much it seems split between the saps who think it's the "BEST MOVIE EVER MADE!" (guess they never heard of Star Wars, lol, losers) and the people who think it is without a doubt the most boring film in history. I doubt it could beat Gosford Park, though, just doesn't seem possible. But it is longer.

[CMJ]

Two can play that game Jonathan....:)

"Malick, like Spielberg, has created an impressive visceral look at WW II combat, albeit with a much more impressionistic touch."
-- Darren D'Addario, CITYSEARCH

"A subtler, stronger, deeper film than Steven Spielberg's D-Day epic."
-- David Elliott, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE

"Although Malick hasn't made a movie in two decades, he hasn't lost his touch for eye-catching vistas and the poetics of conflict."
-- Bob Fenster, ARIZONA REPUBLIC
"A film of brilliant pieces and dazzling shots!"
-- David Ansen, NEWSWEEK

"A highly original piece of motion picture artistry!"
-- James Berardinelli, JAMES BERARDINELLI'S REELVIEWS

"Malick hasn't lost his knack for impressive visuals!"
-- Jay Carr, BOSTON GLOBE

"Fascinating!"
-- Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

"The Thin Red Line is an epic aestheticization of World War II, a movie at once bold and baffling, immediate and abstract."
-- Owen Gleiberman, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

"It wrestles with complexity, speaks to us in poetry, weaves multiple narrative strands into a tapestry, opens the festering wounds of war and gazes inside without blinking."
-- Norman Green, FILM.COM

"A highly original vision!"
-- Jack Garner, ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE

"A powerful work!"
-- Harvey S. Karten, COMPUSERVE

"The Thin Red Lineasks more questions than it answers and violates more rules than it obeys, ultimately prodding audiences to engage in a far greater level of intellectual participation than any film since 2001: A Space Odyssey."
-- Wade Major, BOXOFFICE MAGAZINE

"An intensely internalized portrait of external pandemonium, a slippery, insidiously haunting work of poetry!"
-- Maitland McDonagh, TV GUIDE'S MOVIE GUIDE

"One of the best war movies ever made!"
-- Alex Sandell, JUICY CEREBELLUM

"A painterly, probing and poetic picture of war."
-- Jane Sumner, DALLAS MORNING NEWS

"The greatest war movie ever made!"
-- Graham Verdon, TNT'S ROUGH CUT

"A beautifully lyrical cinematic epic."
-- Glenn Whipp, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS

[JonathanLB]

No, that really doesn't work. The best one there is like "Fascinating!" because it is so vague.

The rest make me groan and think, "Not another stupid critic movie." It just sounds horrible.

I mean, CMJ, when you tell me you liked a movie like this and you also liked a few other movies where absolutely nothing happens, i.e. In the Bedroom and Gosford Park, then I start to think, hmm... I'll look for other opinions here. Sure enough, most people admit that nothing happens in the movie whatsoever.

It being "philosophical" or "lyrical" is a big excuse for not one damn thing happening in three hours of film it sounds like to me. I am curious just how awful this movie is, though, so I would like to see it.

It sounds like 2001, another acclaimed film that probably is the most overrated movie of all time. HAL9000 totally saves that movie. Without him, it would be perhaps the most boring film ever, but I'd actually give it probably 2 stars because HAL is awesome. I'd say if you did a little editing yourself, i.e. cut the first 20 minutes of the movie out and burn it, then cut the useless ending and replace it with the space battle from ANH, you got a 3.5 star movie. :)

[CMJ]

Well...Jon...I didn't like "Gosford Park". ;) Nonetheless my point was you could find bad reviews and I could find good ones just as easily. I doubt you'd like "Red Line"...of course I was literally shocked you liked "A.I" because that's more of an art film than a commercial one...which is why it crashed and burned at the boxoffice.

[JonathanLB]

It is not like I am just into commercial movies, or at least I do not think that's true. I do like the normal qualities of great filmmaking that define a great movie, though. I want to see plot, pacing, great acting, dialogue, an engaging plot, etc.

I loved A.I., was definitely my 2nd favorite film of the year. Donnie Darko was third, Memento fourth. LOTR was first. So in my top 4, I would say 3 are basically art films. Both Memento and Donnie Darko are low budget independent movies, A.I. was a high budget Spielberg film and I thought it was quite awesome, but yes I would agree it is more artistic than commercial. It's not an action film that will keep you at the edge of your seat for two hours. But I was not bored by it at all, I thought it was quite powerful and a wonderful masterpiece.

I don't mind slow pacing. I thought Shane and Dancing With Wolves are both pretty slow paced, but I gave Shane 3.5 and actually Dances With Wolves is a very solid four star film, I love it. It's not a very fast moving film, but it's beautiful and well done. Apocalypse Now rules too, it's not an especially fast paced war movie, but it's still awesome.

The Man Who Wasn't There was simply too slow for me, though, as one critic said, "glacial pacing." That is how I felt about many of last year's critically acclaimed films. Life As A House and Ghost World were not like that, but they weren't good either. Irwin Winkler is a great producer, but he cannot direct at all as he proved in Life As A House. I think I honestly could have done a way better job because it would be pretty darn obvious what to do with the last half of the film and he royally screwed it up after a promising start. At least if I were the film editor, it would have turned out better. He needs to stick with producing and leave directing to real filmmakers.

[CMJ]

You mean "The Man Who Wasn't There" I assume. ;) Hey...I sent you a PM read it. :P

[JonathanLB]

Yes that is what I meant. There are too many "Man Who..." movies.

The Man Whose Movie Sucked, that is what I really meant.

[CMJ]

"There are too many "Man Who..." movies"....I would agree with that. I can thing of 4 off the top of my head without even trying.

I can't say I agree with "The Man Whose Movie Sucked" though...as I really enjoyed the Coen's film. ;)

[Gurney Devries]

Anyone who has been nominated for Best Director even one time is pretty darn skilledDavid Lynch was nominated for Best Director, for "Mulholland Drive". :)

[CMJ]

So was Terrence Malick for "Thin Red Line"... ;)

[Gurney Devries]

My Top 10 list of Directors:

Darren Aronofsky
Steven Spielburg
Ridley Scott
Stanley Kubrick
Tim Burton
Kevin Smith
David Fincher
James Cameron
Quentin Tarantino
Alfred Hitchcock

Honorable mention goes to Peter Jackson. While "Frighteners" is hardly memorable, he deserves a mention just for his work on the LOTR trilogy.

[ReaperFett]

Tarantino
Woo
Rodriguez(For fun)
Scorsese

There it for me ;)

[CMJ]

Arronofsky is a cool choice...I can't wait to see what he does next. Like I said ealier I could rattle off dozens of director's with little thought(there are alot of great ones).

[JonathanLB]

"David Lynch was nominated for Best Director, for "Mulholland Drive"."

Yes, and he is quite good, but Mulholland Drive sucked unfortunately. The director is apparently quite talented and if that "movie" would have been the TV series of like 6 to 12 hours it was supposed to be, then it could have been really good. Unfortunately the last hour and the entire ending was EXTREMELY contrived and forced.

[JMK]

Let's take a look at the evolution of this thread. It started as a thread to slander and laugh at one of the worst movies ever made. Now were talking about the best men to ever sit in the director's chair. How does that happen? :lol

[CMJ]

Yeah...it's interesting to say the least. ;) But don't we often totally change the original subject of these threads...it sure seems that way.