Worst Director

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

And why on earth is Gilbert listed there?

Double-taking pigeon; Jaws flapping his arms like a wounded bird; Jaws making funny faces as he goes over waterfall; Jaws walking away from tram car crash hand-in-hand with mute girl he just met; Bond enjoying romantical boat ride in the canals of Venice...all by himself....I could go on. The film, while magnificent in many ways, is much like SUPERMAN III: always looking for the joke rather than trying to convince us of the fantasy by playing it a bit more straight.

Still, Kershner's effort in NSNA wins the prize because the other films, while having huge faults, never commit the sin of being totally boring. Once Fatima Blush is killed off all of the energy in the film dissipates with her.

Truth to the MR critique although I don't think any of those items really harm the film in a big way. The grand scope of the effort makes up for the annoyances, but yes MR could have been a better film if it wasn't "always looking for the joke". MR lacked the Sean touch. One needs a more grounded Bond to ground such escapist flights of fantasy. Mind you, most of the offending scenes did not involve Rog, however I think Sean's edgier presence might have dissuaded the filmmakers from indulging such silliness. Connery's presence might have tempered the tone of the film somewhat.
NSNA has grown on me. I think a more energetic soundtrack might have got back some of that lost energy but otherwise I find the film, very nice to look at, and then there is Connery's formidable presence. That for me is enough to carry the film to conclusion.

Apted, no doubt. TWINE is so uneven and poorly directed it's astonishing. It feels like three or four people directed it (half-heatedly) and that the crew hand absolutely no idea what was going on at the same time.

While DAD is a terrible film and one of the worst in the franchise, at least Tahahori's vision is consistent and deliberate. The film knows what it is and isn't afraid to be that.

On Forster...yes, QoS definitely has it's problems, but Forster certainly isn't one of them. QoS essentially didn't have a script, and he managed to make a film out of it and into something interesting and watchable. The thought of that film in the hands of a "lunch-pail director" like Campbell, Glen or some other EON lapdog is downright terrifying, IMO.

I personally didn't like Hamilton's direction in DAF, just because it's such a huge regression from OHMSS (IMO, the series goes from absolute best in OHMSS, to absolute worst in DAF), but I wouldn't say it's a poorly directed film. I think Hamilton was just a poor choice to direct after OHMSS. They should have stuck with Hunt, or went back to the over-the-top escapism like YOLT.

dr. strangelove wrote:

personally didn't like Hamilton's direction in DAF, just because it's such a huge regression from OHMSS (IMO, the series goes from absolute best in OHMSS, to absolute worst in DAF), but I wouldn't say it's a poorly directed film. I think Hamilton was just a poor choice to direct after OHMSS. They should have stuck with Hunt, or went back to the over-the-top escapism like YOLT.

I do feel it is a shame we didn't get more Bond's out of Hunt, but when you look at the box office grosses its easy to see why the producers really got worried. Sometimes we moan that OHMSS doesn't get its due sequel, but if it had the Bond series may well have died on the spot, audiences of that time didn't apparently want it.....DaF did return Bond to the successes it was used to and jumpstarted the series over again - Hamilton isn't my cup of tea during this particualr period (I believe he was hampered by the directive to 'Americanise' Bond) but I think he is due some credit for giving the audience what they were expecting and the deevl;opment of that bond feature 'stunt' that charaterises the Bonds from here on out.

Looking at the criticism of Lewis Gilbert it does seem to be we are assigning issues of script and production to the director when I think they can only partially have say over - it was admitted somewhere that from some time in the Roger Moore era, the films developed as part of a commitee throwing in ideas, locations and stunts that somehow the director and screenwriter then had to fashion into a coherent story. Moonraker has some incredible shots and scene some real lush beauty in its framing but sadly too often its all sold out for some pratfall at the end. I think behind the smokescreen of excess is potentially Roger's Best film by miles, certainly one of the richest and most polished looking Bonds in history, Gilbert put every penny in front of his audience.

lachesis wrote:

I think behind the smokescreen of excess is potentially Roger's Best film by miles, certainly one of the richest and most polished looking Bonds in history, Gilbert put every penny in front of his audience.

Very well said.

John Glen's an easy pick, from a visual POV - his style deficit is kinda unforgivable. I mean, a movie's picture is half the battle, right? I hold AVTAK as his worst. I will say, though, that Hamilton's 70s Bonds are right behind Glen's in their lack of imagination.

My choice is Michael Apted. He made a clumsy film filled with bland sets and sterile photography. Not to mention the worst action in the series (and that's saying something).

lachesis wrote:

Hamilton isn't my cup of tea during this particualr period (I believe he was hampered by the directive to 'Americanise' Bond) but I think he is due some credit for giving the audience what they were expecting and the deevl;opment of that bond feature 'stunt' that charaterises the Bonds from here on out.

Hamilton's films have always struck me as somehow more American than the rest. Even Goldfinger. I suppose their focus on American locations and characters (sans Golden Gun) might be the reason.

lachesis wrote:

Looking at the criticism of Lewis Gilbert it does seem to be we are assigning issues of script and production to the director when I think they can only partially have say over - it was admitted somewhere that from some time in the Roger Moore era, the films developed as part of a commitee throwing in ideas, locations and stunts that somehow the director and screenwriter then had to fashion into a coherent story.

I would've liked to see Gilbert take on a serious Bond. He definitely made good-looking films. (I do find his sense of pomp a bit tiring at times... TSWLM seems a tad impressed with itself, though that might be the script. And YOLT is horribly paced, though that might be the editing - the original cut of the film was 3 or 4 hours! Who knows what they lost in lieu of what they kept). The idea of Bond by committee kinda disgusts me, but that is apparently what they did to whip TSWLM into shape. They went back to this for TND and (to a lesser extent) TWINE & DAD. (Babs & MGW have quite a bit of say in the brainstorming... While it's very obvious that the action in TWINE was shoehorned in, there's an interview on the DAD DVD where someone admits outright that they were more interested in dreaming up stunts than writing a story.)

Sharky wrote:

lachesis wrote:

I think behind the smokescreen of excess is potentially Roger's Best film by miles, certainly one of the richest and most polished looking Bonds in history, Gilbert put every penny in front of his audience.

Very well said.

Precisely.

MOONRAKER is also one of the most entertaining Bond films, which counts for a lot.

Moonraker's PTS is what sets the tone of the flick, you either go along with it or not. I think it's a fun absurd ride. It's not the kind of Bond film but for what it is it's pretty damn entertaining. Heck, I actually find the often slammed Bondola sequence amusing, the addition of "Tritsch-Tratsch-Polka" is also genius. Moonraker never fails to put a big smile on my face.

So to say it's one of the five worst directed films in the series, as the legendary Scashy would say, is poppycock.

Makeshift Python wrote:

So to say it's one of the five worst directed films in the series, as the legendary Scashy would say, is poppycock.

Yep, MR is one of the more monumental achievements of the series actually, IMO, and easily Gilbert's most watchable and best-acted Bond film.

I think it's long overdue for this poll to have a "Cancel Vote" option added, along with the inclusion of Michael Apted in the nominations, so that practically everybody in the thread can change their vote to Apted, who's probably won this thing in everything but votes.

Spotted Wood for me. Also Michael InEpted and Tamawhore. A truckload of shit all of them.

Lazenby. wrote:

I think it's long overdue for this poll to have a "Cancel Vote" option added, along with the inclusion of Michael Apted in the nominations, so that practically everybody in the thread can change their vote to Apted, who's probably won this thing in everything but votes.

I tried messing with Gravity's polls before. Didn't go down too well.

Worst director? Marc Forster, followed by Michael Apted.

Sharky wrote:

I tried messing with Gravity's polls before. Didn't go down too well.

Last time I saw that many polls abused was World War II.

I always say Spottiswoode, who I voted for, but after seeing TWINE last week, I'm really feeling Apted more and more. Putting Brosnan in glasses (TWICE!) was just a grotesque choice, and that's on top of all the wrongheaded direction of PB for the running/shouting HarrisonFord stuff before the guy blows up at mi6 and then the sensitive touch-the-monitor PB stuff shortly thereafter.

I love the UP movies and really am impressed by THUNDERHEART (one death is so disheartening that, like SALVADOR, I will never own the movie) and enjoy GORK PARK, but Apted did not have the 'apte-tude' for Bond.

Spottiswoode had a turd of a movie to make and he did the usual mediocre-to-crap job, but TWINE had some measure of potential, so the fact it was squandered has to rest heavily on Apted (as well as the usual suspects.)

Putting glasses on Brosnan is the least of TWINE's problems.

Marc Forster.

I'm not interested in a poll where I don't get to choose.

I've added the most frequently mentioned names not already listed on the poll. Hope that helps.

This election has been rigged, but thanks for your efforts, oh great white one.

Voted Apted

Harmsway wrote:

Putting glasses on Brosnan is the least of TWINE's problems.

It's a major problem, because it represents precisely the kind of wrongheadedness that says you've got the wrong people doing this. It makes him look like somebody in a parody film, because it so undercuts his look.

Parameters for Bond are probably tighter than for other stock types ... I mean, Eastwood as Dirty Harry can put on a ballcap and go into a massageparlor while passing himself off as LARRY DICKMAN and it works ... but not for Bond, not even with the current pretender.

They're just glasses. They don't suit the Bond look all that well, sure, but they're better than a plaid jacket or safari suit or a short pink tie or whatever else this series has had Bond endure in the past. I'm much more concerned with the dreary direction, the hilariously melodramatic performances, and the listless action sequences. Those things do much more damage.

Sharky wrote:

I've added the most frequently mentioned names not already listed on the poll. Hope that helps.

Thanks, I've now cast my Forster vote.

Voted Apted. Forster I think would do better if he had a second chance. I don't think Apted would.

This always rolls my eyes.



Yeah, nobody is gonna see you crouching behind the invisible car.

Thanks Tamahori.

Of course, if someone saw him and shot at him, he wouldn't be hit.

I always rolled my eyes too, until I thought of that.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Of course, if someone saw him and shot at him, he wouldn't be hit.

I always rolled my eyes too, until I thought of that.

I hate prety much the entire sequence with the car (along with other bits I hate) but an additional consideration is how the vehicle becomes 'invisible'...because invisible is not by any means the same thing as transparent.

All in all my vote remained with Spottiswood mainly for attempting NOTHING fresh or new, I have some respect for people who try and fail or better yet who try and succeed, or who just do great things with the ordinary but Spottiswood just didn't do any of that, its the directorial equivalent of a phoned in performance.