Films tarnished by their director's self indulgence.

[EddyWhore]

I've sat through Vincent Gallo's "Brown Bunny", where he films his ex, Chloe Sevigny, sucking him off.

As bad as that was, I reckon Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is far more self indulgent than anything Vincent Gallo could ever create.  Every single shot screams at the viewer, like a toddler demanding attention. The sets are a fucking travesty (in particular the staircase in the Frankenstein mansion) and the script sounds like the scribblings an actor makes in the margin so they can better understand their character's emotional state (characters have a nasty habit of stating their mental condition. "I'm so tired.  We're all so tired.  Why Can't I find her?" SHOW ME, DON'T TELL ME!)

So, has anyone else got any films they'd like to add which are essentially the result of a director's ego?

[BJB]

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. My main problem was all the "in" jokes and pointless cameos.  Not only were they not that funny, but they screamed of smug industry "look how much fun we can poke at ourselves". The "glance at the camera" joke was done FAR too often too.

At the other end of the spectrum, Lisztomania is completely self indulgent, over budget and silly, but that works for me. I guess it can depend on who is getting the ego.

[EddyWhore]

I agree with you on Jay and Silent Bob.  It was made even worse when I rewatched Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy and realised that ALL of the characters essentially talk in the same voice (Kevin Smith's).  That's not to say that I dislike the first 3.  I can still watch them and enjoy them for what they are, I just no longer think they're the masterpieces I thought they were when I was a teenager.

You're right that a film can be enjoyable, even if it is a blatant director's self inflicted reach around, which is why I resisted calling the thread 'Film's ruined by their . . . etc"

[AsparagusTrevor]

Death Proof. When they were doing the Grindhouse thing, Robert Rodriguez made a nice, cheesy, gory flick that harked back to the subgenre. Tarantino used the opportunity to shoe-horn his dragged out 'hip' dialogue scenes into what would've been a decent throwback story if more than the last half had focused on it.

[BJB]

If there was a perfect representation for this kind of thing, surely it would be Heavens Gate. Although personally, I think Cimino could always be like that.  I love The Deer Hunter, but I'd be lying if I said that it wasn't too long. But I guess that's part of its charm.

[non capisco]

Death Proof. When they were doing the Grindhouse thing, Robert Rodriguez made a nice, cheesy, gory flick that harked back to the subgenre. Tarantino used the opportunity to shoe-horn his dragged out 'hip' dialogue scenes into what would've been a decent throwback story if more than the last half had focused on it.

From what I remember of Death Proof there was more screen time devoted to close-ups of feet than anything else. He really can't help himself, can he?

[kidsick5000]

Death Proof. When they were doing the Grindhouse thing, Robert Rodriguez made a nice, cheesy, gory flick that harked back to the subgenre. Tarantino used the opportunity to shoe-horn his dragged out 'hip' dialogue scenes into what would've been a decent throwback story if more than the last half had focused on it.

I believe the problem with Death Proof is that it was too loyal to it's subject. ie, a lot of Grindhouse/drive-in film were more talky and duller than popular memory remembers.
That and he and Rodriguez made their films too long. But Death Proof still has one of the greatest stunt sequences, so simple yet so thrilling, put on film.

[thecuriousorange]

Peter Jackson's King Kong. A film about a giant monkey should never last three hours. This was his first film after Lord of the Rings and I can only assume that he was allowed to do anything and everything he wanted - and was surrounded by yes-men - as a result of those films being so successful. Twice as long as the original. TWICE.

[thugler]

Southland tales

[mobias]

Magnolia. Great film but it is way too long, even PT Anderson had admitted so.

[Neville Chamberlain]

David Lynch's Inland Empire was a step too far for me. Where Mulholland Drive is a genuinely sinister and intriguing film, Inland Empire was just pointlessly impenetrable bollocks from beginning to end and I actually felt anger towards Lynch when the film finally decided to reach whatever conclusion it had decided to reach.

[AsparagusTrevor]

From what I remember of Death Proof there was more screen time devoted to close-ups of feet than anything else. He really can't help himself, can he?

It does get a bit creepy in his films. I'm surprised the car scene in Sin City didn't have the camera at accelerator height.

But Death Proof still has one of the greatest stunt sequences, so simple yet so thrilling, put on film.

Oh yeah, I think it's great once it gets going, just takes far too long to get there and then it's over to quickly.

[boxofslice]

Terence Malik's The Thin Red Line.  Yes, lovely shots but way too long and boring.

[Serge]

Peter Jackson's King Kong. A film about a giant monkey should never last three hours. This was his first film after Lord of the Rings and I can only assume that he was allowed to do anything and everything he wanted - and was surrounded by yes-men - as a result of those films being so successful. Twice as long as the original. TWICE.

As far as I'm concerned, they could lose the whole first hour of that film - I'd be quite happy for it to start with a guy on the boat saying, "Hey! What's that skull-shaped island over there?"

I did read an interview with Adrien Brody where he claimed that the screentime was necessary to show why his character would risk his neck going to save Naomi Watts after so short an acquaintance, though this is rather spoiled by the fact that Jamie Bell's cabin boy makes a far better job of it by saying they should go and save her out of sheer human decency, which takes up about 10 seconds of screentime and doesn't need a complicated backstory.

This is one of the reasons I hate Adrien Brody.

[Ja'moke]

David Lynch's Inland Empire was a step too far for me. Where Mulholland Drive is a genuinely sinister and intriguing film, Inland Empire was just pointlessly impenetrable bollocks from beginning to end and I actually felt anger towards Lynch when the film finally decided to reach whatever conclusion it had decided to reach.

I disagree, it may not be the better film when compared to Mulholland Drive, but I think it has a much more unsettling effect on the viewer. The themes are pretty similar to Mulholland Drive, the mental detrioation of an actress lost in Hollywood, confused with the roles she plays in life and in her movies. I think its brilliantly unnerving, and Laura Dern's performance(s) are something very special.

How do you not love this pure Lynchian strangeness, making something so upbeat so haunting...

http://vimeo.com/12043461

[Ignatius_S]

If there was a perfect representation for this kind of thing, surely it would be Heavens Gate..

Personally I would say no, because it's actually not a bad film – I've seen far more films that were far worse.

The main problem with the production was that so much money was being spent on a film that wasn't going to be a hit.

Cimino was a difficult director, but the behaviour of Friedkin and Coppolla when they were making Sorcerer and Apocalypse Now was much more self-indulgent, in my opinion.

[confettiinmyhair]

Terence Malik's The Thin Red Line.  Yes, lovely shots but way too long and boring.

You wait until they release the full, uncut version.

[Goldentony]

Death Proof. When they were doing the Grindhouse thing, Robert Rodriguez made a nice, cheesy, gory flick that harked back to the subgenre. Tarantino used the opportunity to shoe-horn his dragged out 'hip' dialogue scenes into what would've been a decent throwback story if more than the last half had focused on it.

I remember seeing the standalone version and Grindhouse version of this and thinking that the shortened Grindhouse edit actually wasn't too bad. The regular ol' on it's own version is just a bloated pile of shit that should have been left well alone, rather than have the old Lucas defense of "WELL IT ISNT A COMPLETED MOVIE IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHORT EDIT THEN THATS FINE BY ME"

I'd reccomend the new Grindhouse Blu Ray to anyone whos arsed and was mildly disappointed by DP itself when they saw it.

[Dead kate moss]

Star Wars

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

As far as I'm concerned, they could lose the whole first hour of that film - I'd be quite happy for it to start with a guy on the boat saying, "Hey! What's that skull-shaped island over there?"

And remember that The Simpsons wrapped up their own full version of King Kong in 5 minutes of a Treehouse of Horror episode.

When I heard King Kong was going to be 3 hours I thought 'fuck that', and I still haven't watched it.

[Jumble Cashback]

I was particularly annoyed by the fact that, for all its lengthy 'expansion' on the original, they singularly failed to explain the biggest, most glaringly obvious plot-hole in the original - i.e. how did they get the ape from the island to fucking New York?  Okay, so they had to chuck a lot of stuff overboard during the massive storms they had to get through to get to the island, but aren't those there all the time?  Isn't that why the island is so fucking hard to find in the first place?  Surely your first priority is to get home ALIVE and not to try and haul several tonnes of massive cargo many miles in your already badly weathered ship.

And why take the ape?  Surely he's not even the most significant discovery on the island anyway.  There's fucking dinosaurs there.  Take a little dinosaur or something.  Or, if you're so taken with the notion of a really big version of something that already exists, take one of the giant bugs.  Or even two.  Tell people everything's big there and they're not going to take issue are they?  I'll grant you, a giant slug or whatever, doesn't make so attractive a showpiece, but couldn't they bring back the bugs and then, when their claims have been recognised, head back to the island with more resources?  Like a bigger ship.  Or a really big net.  Even if they could fit it in the battered cargo hold, how would they get it in there?  It's not like they can carry him in a bit at a time - it's all or nothing.  Do they have a crane?  Ar the cargo doors even big enough?  In Conan Doyle's 'The Lost World' (which was, let's face it, a sizeable influence on the original), he at least has the respect for the readers to concede that they'd only be able to bring back a young pterodactyl chick and not a fucking stegosaurus or something.  In the original, it doesn't seem to matter quite as much because things happen quite quickly and there are less pronouncements about how fucked up they get on the way to the island, but here, with all their protracted embellishment, it becomes an unforgiveable omission.  He's just too big.

And while we're on the subject of the size, the fact that the bugs are massive poses another interesting question.  Is everything bigger there?  In the original, King Kong is a one-off, a freak abnormality so you can understand why he's such a significant find on his own.  Apart from some rumoured footage involving giant spiders (which is, regardless of truth, not in the final film) there is nothing to suggest that any other life on the island is massively oversized.  But the big bugs in the remake suggest some kind of microclimate which encourages abnormal growth.  If that's the case, how come the dinosaurs are just the same size are they've always been?  Surely they'd be, like, twenty times the size of King Kong.  Or is supposed to be that the island is so opulent that the dinosaurs have survived and all other life has grown much faster through an abundance of resources?  I can sort of see the logic there but, if so, why are the bugs so relatively few?  Sure, there's loads of them, but in an insect community, there would be millions of them in close, hive-like proximity.  Its a strange opulence that has increased their size, but depleted their numbers.  I'm pretty sure that's not how an eco-system works.  But I'm no expert.

To be honest, like an uncharitable or financially depleted pedestrian, we're avoiding the Big Issue.  Why bother to remake a film that is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time?  What possible function can it serve?  Well, I guess the most obvious reason is to update it for modern audiences.  No matter how you feel about cinema, there is no doubting that certain people will always be put off by the age of a film, particularly if it isn't in colour.  But, if you're really trying to update it, why set it in period?  The exact same period, in fact, in which the original is set.  That's already going to alienate a large percentage of the audience you're seeking to convert, i.e. people who have difficulty getting into the mindset of a different era.

Also, you might update a film to cleanse it of some of the hokey acting from the original and give it more gravitas.  Again, that's understandable.  But then, why cast Jack Black, whose hammy performance throughout is practically some kind of homage to that exact style of acting?  The whole thing has the feeling of being made for people who ALREADY LIKE the original, making it one of the most redundant films at the conception stage ever to be made.

Another reason you might update a film is to improve the special effects and make it stand the test of time better.  Did Peter Jackson honestly think that the CGI in this film would never date?  Unless something looks 100% real, it will always date, particularly if the techniques used are in the height of their pomp and are being poured over every big-budget film at that time.  Instead of eschewing CGI mania after the rampant over-use in Return Of The King, Jackson decided to revel in it, seeing it as an opportunity to be crowned King of the genre.  As a result, he now comes across as an idiotic martyr to the pursuit of artificial visual splendour.  Truly, t'was beauty that killed the beast.

[rudi]

You wait until they release the full, uncut version.

You... you monster...!

[Feralkid]

PJ's King Kong is even more annoying if you've read the script for the version he was set to make right after The Frighteners.  That iteration read like a fun, pulpy adventure.  It may or may not have been any better than the film he finally made and I'm sure it would have been equally redundant on several levels but damn it, I'm pretty sure it would have been less infuriating.  He's also have gotten the late Fay Wray for a cameo, she was due to deliver that line about beauty killing the beast. 

The problem of course is that Jackson, having been given shitloads of Oscaras for LOTR, had changed his whole M.O by the time Kong finally came to be.  Rather than rejoice in the fact that Rings had been recognised by the Academy despite their normal bias against sci-fi fantasy cinema he instead opted to make a movie which would treat the story of a giant ape with the sort of leaden seriousness favoured by Oscar baiting prestige pictures. 

[EddyWhore]

Agree about death proof, but the pay off for having to sit through the hipster shite was worth it. Admittedly I did watch the original grindhouse edit, so there was less exposition.
Couldn't be fucked sitting through king kong- liked the original too much.
Loved Inland Empire, but I watched it at a cinema, which made the experience all the more immersive. I think Lynch was deliberately trying to alienate tge audience, so even though bits of it pissed me off I got the impression that's what David was aiming for: "HaHa - now I have a digital camera. YOU WILL WATCH EVERYTHING I FILM!"

[El Unicornio, mang]

Richard Lester spoiled two films (Superman II and III) with really unfunny, inappropriate "comedy" bits that don't work at all.

[Phil_A]

I disagree, it may not be the better film when compared to Mulholland Drive, but I think it has a much more unsettling effect on the viewer. The themes are pretty similar to Mulholland Drive, the mental detrioation of an actress lost in Hollywood, confused with the roles she plays in life and in her movies. I think its brilliantly unnerving, and Laura Dern's performance(s) are something very special.

How do you not love this pure Lynchian strangeness, making something so upbeat so haunting...

http://vimeo.com/12043461

Likewise, the end credits. Best use of "Sinner Man" I've heard in a film.

Inland Empire Ending Credits

[Harpo Speaks]

Another reason you might update a film is to improve the special effects and make it stand the test of time better.  Did Peter Jackson honestly think that the CGI in this film would never date?  Unless something looks 100% real, it will always date, particularly if the techniques used are in the height of their pomp and are being poured over every big-budget film at that time.  Instead of eschewing CGI mania after the rampant over-use in Return Of The King, Jackson decided to revel in it, seeing it as an opportunity to be crowned King of the genre.  As a result, he now comes across as an idiotic martyr to the pursuit of artificial visual splendour.  Truly, t'was beauty that killed the beast.

Indeed, and some of the CGI in KK is absolutely terrible, even for the time it was released. Good point about the setting almost making the setting redundant. As you say, there are plenty of people who will not even entertain the notion of watching a black and white film, as to them b&w automatically means 'old and boring'. See also people refusing to watch anything that is subtitled, missing some incredible films in the process.

[Barberism]

Michael Bay. The Transformers movies are 2 hours of Michael Bay shoving his balls in your face. I think you can trace everything bad about those movies directly to him.

Also the guy is a shit action director. You know the first thing you need to be able to do in an action movie is actually see what is going on.

[Famous Mortimer]

Everything Kevin Smith did apart from Clerks.

[Cerys]

I protest!  Mallrats was a fun film.