I'm calling all Mobians!

Watching Donald Jackson's ROLLER BLADE and Andy Milligan's THE GHASTLY ONES in one week made me start to think about this. Who is the worst director of all-time? A lot of people list Ed Wood, but his films are graceful compared to the works of the aforementioned directors. For me, guys like Nick Millard, Ulli Lommel and even Michael Bay are much, much worse.

So who gets your vote?

It's easy to say Uwe Boll, but his films are competently assembled and at their worst, they're more funny than anything. Jess Franco with a really low budget is pretty hard to top in worsts (his 1998 TENDER FLESH remains the worst film I've ever seen). Lots of bad directors are inadvertantly entertaining (Boll, Bruno Mattei, many others), and can accidentally surprise you with something decent. I may have to sleep on it, but I can say now that I've never seen an Alfonso Brescia/Al Bradley film that I could finish without fast-forwarding, especially his late 1970s space operas. At the very least, he's the worst of the Italian Eurocult auteurs.

The handful of Francos I've seen are horrible. The cult of Francophiles honestly has me baffled, because I don't see anything there in terms of style, pace, or intelligence. If I was brave enough to watch more of his work, I'd be more sure maybe that he's the worst.

I've only seen a couple of Milligans, but he has to be in the running. If I ever get around to seeing SURGIKILL, that may cinch it.

I have liked one or two Larry Buchanans, and some of his bad films are amazing (such as his cheapjack conspiracy-theory biopics).

My initial answer would be Al Adamson. I've seen a dozen or so Adamsons, and not one is good. Or Jerry Warren. At least Adamson enjoyed filmmaking. Warren quite obviously despised making films, but went through the motions to make money. Which he--somehow--must have done.

Yeah....I'm getting over the flu and my Ny-Quil's kicking in, so I might not have been thinking clearly. I'll retract Alfonso Brescia (terrible as he is) and go with Al Adamson. There's no defending that resume.

I'll at least stand by some Franco films (VENUS IN FURS is as close to a legitimately great Franco film as I've seen), but the bulk of them are horrible, as Marty and I have both expressed in other threads. There's nothing good to be found in the Adamson canon.

BUTTERFLY, FAKE OUT and POP GOES THE WEASEL are enough for me to nominate Matt Cimber. But I'd put Adamson ahead of him.

I can't call Franco the worst because I have seen a few entertaining flicks of his (FACELESS, SADOMANIA, DARK MISSION, TENDER & PERVERSE EMANUELLE). Of course, I'm sure his good-to-bad ratio is pretty low.

I think James Bryan might be up there. His DON'T GO IN THE WOODS, THE EXECUTIONER II and LADY STREET FIGHTER are really bad. Sure, they are entertaining but good lord are they ineptly made.

As I've enjoyed every Al Adamson film I've seen (and am even inclined to argue that Black Samurai is a pretty good movie as far as pacing and action goes), he's not even close to being in the all-time worst director for me. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Uwe Boll. Unlike the other filmmakers we're discussing, he actually has reasonable budgets at his disposal, and still manages to make pretty bad movies. It seems to me that the worst filmmaker should be someone who has access to reasonable resources, and yet still manages to make bad movies. That way, we know they've had a fair chance of turning out something adequate and still managed to blow it. With that criteria in mind, allow me to nominate the following: Walter Lang, a Fox contract director during the classical era who had a pretty successful career. He made the 1940 film The Blue Bird, the wretched Wizard of Oz cash-in that sank Shirley Temple's career. His There's No Business Like Show Business strikes me as possibly the worst musical to come out of a major Hollywood studio, even with a great set of songs by Irving Berlin. The King & I remains watchable only because of the irresistible score and Yul Brynner's performance, and with Desk Set he managed to botch the last comedic pairing of Hepburn and Tracy. And then there's Irwin Winkler, a producer of many great movies whose directorial turns (Guilty by Suspicion, the 1993 version of Night and the City, The Net, At First Sight) have all been inert, even when working with seemingly surefire material as in the case of Night and the City. Another contender: whatever his debatable merits as a writer, I've always found Neil LaBute to be an atrocious director - badly lit scenes, unimaginative grouping of actors, no discernible sense of rhythm. His ineptitude especially shows through when adapting someone else's material, as in Possession and The Wicker Man.

As I explained, I'm generally far less judgmental of people making movies for peanuts, and in fact I'd sincerely argue that Al Adamson, Jess Franco, and Larry Buchanan are all better directors than Neil LaBute (more interesting images, more atmospheric, better pacing, and on occasion better or at least more interesting performances). That said, the two clowns behind Creepshow 3 and Day of the Dead 2, Ana Clavell and James Glenn Dudelson, are surely in the running.

In that case, I'll nominate Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich.

Juan Piquer Simon--PIECES is fun, in part because of his typically inept direction, but in his other credits that I've seen (MYSTERY ON MONSTER ISLAND, SLUGS), you can hear the sound of the barrel being scraped.

Crap though some of it is, I enjoyed parts of Boll's POSTAL. Kick me.

When paired with a good script, Arthur Hiller made good, or at least tolerable, movies. When not--look out (the aytpical NIGHTWING comes roaring to mind, but a lot of his comedies are lousy, too.)

I nominate Ron Howard. Ya, he's a very technically adept director who gets the job done well in that regard, but I can't think of any other director whose films make me so ill. With all that Hollywood sheen and over-produced emotion-wringing manipulation (cue that swelling music!), a Ron Howard film is everything I hate about cinema. Howard is truly the only director (Zemeckis is a close one) that I will simply not watch any more films from, no matter what. End of story.

I have heard FROST-NIXON is quite good, but I fell for that hoopla with APOLLO 13. I won't be fooled again! No way.

Give me Franco and Adamson any day!

I'm almost willing to agree with you on the demerits of How the Grinch Stole Christmas alone, but his early, unpretentious comedies - Grand Theft Auto, Night Shift, Splash - do evince some genuine talent. He reminds me of Robert Zemeckis and Rob Reiner in that he's a director who early on demonstrated a real flair for making low-key, carefully observed comedies of manners about the working lives of misfits and losers, then lost it all when he decided to switch to making grand gestures full of mush and empty business. Still, the director of Grand Theft Auto doesn't belong on a worst directors list in my book.

Yeah, what was that unexpected flop, after which Reiner suddenly never made another good film? NORTH?

Indeed, Reiner went SOUTH after that one. :)

. . . yep, Hiller made a lot of duds, but he'll always have the anti-war classic THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY (1964) firmly on the credit side of his ledger, which I think of as a film by Blake Edwards until I am surprised (every time) when I see it was directed by Hiller - it does have that great script by Paddy Chayefsky, with wonderful parts for James Garner, Julie Andrews, Melvyn Douglas and James Coburn, but Hiller does bring it all together quite nicely (Garner's long "monument" monologue, the expressionist/noir lighting on Douglas' face, the beach landing) - too bad it was so early in his career, I don't think he ever got very close to this level again . . .

. . . to stick with the idea that to be among the worst directors you must sort of be a well financed person, I would have to say Michael Bay is about the only current director I avoid regardless of their subject (and I love science fiction movies) - I thought THE ROCK (1996) was OK until he gave us the most poorly edited car chase sequence I have ever seen, so I will not watch that one again - the next one I tried was THE ISLAND (2005) and realized how much more enjoyable the zero budget CLONUS (1979) was; I watched PEARL HARBOR (2001) and kept thinking about the ease with which those old Hollywood craftsman could pull off a romantic war story like this and what an overblown, overstuffed exercise Bay had created; since then, I have left bad enough alone, passed on his recent efforts (can TRANSFORMERS actually be as bad as it looks in the trailer?), and not bothered to seek out his earlier work (even though Criterion gave him a space for ARMAGEDDON (1998), I would rather spend the time watching WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE [1951]) . . . Bay is, of course, also a terrible producer with a list of useless remakes, reimaginings, updates, of classic horror films to his "credit" . . . oh, I should say I saw a little film of him on the set of TRANSFORMERS 2 and he seemed like a nice fellow who really enjoys his profession . . .

Hiller also directed THE HOSPITAL with Chayefsky at the wheel. And THE IN-LAWS. SILVER STREAK. But everything after THE IN-LAWS, and much that came before, is questionable, including his Oscar-nominated direction of LOVE STORY.

But he seems like a nice guy and at age 85 we're probably in the clear for further harm. :)

Actually, I have a soft spot for THE LONELY GUY. Not a good movie, but an amiable one, with a weird, off-kilter rapport between Steve Martin and Charles Grodin that sticks in the mind.

And I think I'm the only person on the planet who kinda sorta likes NIGHTWING.

Hiller doesn't belong anywhere near a "worst director" nomination.

Ron Howard's more recent work, I'll admit, the manipulation (i.e. making Baer such a bad guy to boo and hiss at in CINDERELLA MAN) is almost as bad as post-shark jump HAPPY DAYS at times, but I have a soft spot for EDtv, which a decade later looks a lot better than the manipulative THE TRUMAN SHOW to me. Also, NIGHT SHIFT is terrific, and underrated.

HCH

Howard's utterly conventional, and Zemeckis peaked about 20 years ago (what a good run, though, before that)--neither fits my definition of worst. Awards and accolades tend to lead to flab and self-importance. I detect a pulse there, whereas with Hiller I see a time clock, getting everyone home for dinner. And, in the case of bellyflops like PENELOPE, PROMISE HER ANYTHING, MAN OF LA MANCHA, W.C. FIELDS AND ME, AUTHOR! AUTHOR!, TEACHERS, SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, and I'd imagine the credits that followed, he may have provided personal tuck-in service and a chocolate under the pillow. :) Enviable hair, though.

My vote goes to Harmony Korine.

I'd suggest a few of today's Arthur Hillers--Howard Deutsch, Chris Columbus, Ken Kwapis (mitigated by his more inspired TV work)--but they're really just insipid. I'm willing to upgrade Hiller from worst to insipid, as in "lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge."

But, really, these threads just sort of depress me after a while. I imagine Piquer Simon's AUTHOR! AUTHOR! might have been more interesting than Hiller's, though.

I feel compelled to defend Ron Howard as a director. I don't like all of his films, but I did like three very much. APOLLO 13 and A BEAUTIFUL MIND are among the rare films that treat science and the solving of scientific/technical problems with some degree of cinematic imagination. To give one example, there's that scene in MIND where Nash (Russell Crowe) explains the strategy guys should use when they go in a group to a bar and find a group of girls to approach. I think the way it's illustrated as Nash outlines it is very clever. (Although I'm not enough of a mathematician--or a ladies' man--to know if that strategy would actually work in practice.)

And CINDERELLA MAN offered one of the most unflinching portrayals of poverty and hunger I've ever seen in a mainstream Hollywood film. It's set during the Depression, but I don't know that any actual Depression-era film made in Hollywood ever depicted poverty so explicitly.

Granted, I don't endorse the melodramatic distortions Howard brings to his treatment of true stories like those of Nash and Braddock. If I ever bring myself to read Nash's book, I'm sure I'd be as outraged at the film as those who have. But that doesn't make Howard a bad or "worst" director. It only makes him guilty of the kind of practice long associated with Hollywood treatments of fact. Just look at John Ford's fantasy about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (1946). Yet that's still considered one of the great westerns. By me as well. I'm not saying Howard shouldn't be scorned for it, only that his ability behind the camera and with actors should not be negated by it.

Cimber made the outstanding CANDY TANGERINE MAN and THE WITCH WHO CAME FROM THE SEA. The rest of his filmography is not a pretty sight, but he made two legitimately great films.

Brian, I haven't seen CINDERELLA MAN. The last Howard film I watched was A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Actually, APOLLO 13 and A BEAUTIFUL MIND are the two Howard films I despise most of the ones I've seen, and it has nothing to do with the treatment of facts (I'm not so polished in that area on either of the subjects), but moreso on just the overblown melodramatic style. Sure, Howard may be good with actors and creating technically polished films, but he is also the only filmmaker who makes me physically sick as he pushes his supposedly meaningful-emotional films down my throat with the subltety of a sledgehammer.

Worst director of all time? Maybe not, but I never even cared much for NIGHT SHIFT or SPLASH when they first came out. I worked at the theater playing SPLASH and couldn't understand why it was so popular at the time. Just another innocuous comedy, more low-key than his later stuff, but still pretty broad comedy stuff. Same goes for NIGHT SHIFT. I didn't hate either film, but didn't really care much about either one, either. Just never been a fan. I've seen GRAND THEFT AUTO, but it was many years ago. Maybe that's his CITIZEN KANE.

I would think "worst director" would have to encompass some kind of combination of incompetence and dullness. I am no fan of Ron Howard or Rob Reiner, for instance (especially Rob Reiner), but while I find their movies dull it is professionally put-together product. They're probably best considered more blah and mediocre, which is even more depressing, actually, in some ways. I mean, to be really very bad is at least some kind of achievement.

Similarily, Michael Bay is far too slick to be a "worst director". Again, I'm no fan, although I do like ARMAGEDDON, the one everyone hates, a lot. (In fact it's easily my favorite Bay movie, mainly because it takes it's essential stupidity and just runs hard with it, man. ) A movie like THE ROCK is pretty incompetent, I think, in a lot of ways, but it's hard to call it "dull".

I suspect if a "worst director" exists he's floating around the exploitation bottom of the barrel market, where you can find movies that are both badly made and boring. I haven't seen as many as most of you guys have, and so aren't in a position to judge, although I did actually sit through ALONE IN THE DARK in the theater and can attest that it is both boring and badly made, and so wouldn't complain if old Uwe Boll gets the nod.

Another imsipid-if-not-worst director: Jon Turtletaub (PHENOMENON, the NATIONAL TREASURE pictures).

. . . another current director who seems to get way more work that he should based on the quality of his output is Brett Ratner - I will never forgive him for bringing the X-MEN movies crashing down to earth with his third chapter . . .

Alan Smithee...no one comes close... ;)

Spielberg.

No director has made more movies that:

I don't want to watch again.

Haven't been able to finish when trying to watch them again.

Have left me dissatisfied when I have finished watching them again.

Grr.

This says it way better than I could

He makes the kind of movies I enjoy and love to watch. Except the total opposite.

Well, let's see....presumably I still like JAWS even though I haven't watched it in years. Liked RAIDERS last time I watched it. I must be one of the few people who like A.I. Couldn't make it through 1941 last time but I haven't written it off yet.

So this is where my list of reasons given previously more or less begins.

Yeah, not liking Spielberg or any other untouchable, sacred cow is a perfectly valid argument (for example, I generally dislike Robert Altman films and find him maddeningly overrated), but the topic is worst of ALL-TIME. Worst ever? Really? You can't really cite 1941, since that's generally regarded as his worst movie anyway. And how can you like not one, not two, but THREE films by someone you claim is the "worst director of all-time"? Look, I'm far from a Spielberg apologist and he's made his fair share of weak-to-bad films, but even if his career consisted of NOTHING but 1941, ALWAYS, HOOK, THE TERMINAL, and CRYSTAL SKULL, he'd still be completely unworthy of that classification. But there's CE3K, JURASSIC PARK, SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, MUNICH...you hated all of those? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just amazed to see him seriously turn up as a potential "worst of all-time."

Even as much as I dislike most Altman, I know he's not even remotely worthy of me calling him the worst of all-time.

I don't have time for a long reply but I never said I hated Spielberg's movies. I said he's made more movies than any other director that I either don't want to revisit or have a hard time gettiing through again. There must be a reason. It can't be subject matter because the subject matter is all over the map. His approach, style, methodology, whatever it is, doesn't wear well with me, apparently. It also seems that the reasons given for the other contenders for worst director has more to do with people just not enjoying the movies these directors have made than anything else. If skill or talent were the issue, someone like Ed Wood would be champ but we know he isn't because people enjoy his movies and that's what it boils down to. No, I didn't enjoy RYAN or SCHINDLER and I haven't seen MUNICH. And when I say "enjoy" I don't mean in the sense of having a good time. I mean it in the sense of becoming engaged by the movie; of it's holding my interest. and letting it work on me and walking away feeling....something. And in that sense, Spielberg has a long list of failures for me, longer than some of the other directors mentioned.

We started with Milligan and ended with Spielberg???

Weirdly, It was just a matter of time.

My pet theory is that young RAIDERS fans resented Spielberg going after their tears with E.T. in '82, and they continue to hold it against him. It's a deep-rooted trauma, like divorce. ;)

It's called regression to the mean. ;)

I love RAIDERS and E.T., and I was in my teens then. I still love them in my not-teens. Through thick and thin I'm still a Spielberg fan, and look forward to whatever he's got cooking. So there. :)

George Lucas for the prequels. Horrible pacing and a poor understanding of the audience that he created.

Except for one film, I've pretty much hated every Otto Preminger movie.