Directors whose works you will never see?

[Vakanai]

Who are the directors who, when you see their name attached to a product you have to nope out of seeing the movie? For example, I will never watch another movie by Adam Wingard - he basically took my childhood dream of seeing a cool and epic new movie where Godzilla and King Kong would fight and crapped all over it. I could go on about how much I hate it and yada yada yada, but I'll spare you all that, it's not the point. I know there's people who won't watch any Michael Bay movie because of their feelings for how he treated Transformers. I know there's people who won't watch anything by Alfred Hitchcock since it's come to light what a horrid womanizer he was.

Doesn't matter the reason, what director equals a no watch from you?

[Mister Mets]

I can't think of one. Even if it's someone I would hate for moral reasons, there might be value in analyzing their technique, or in looking at their work to be better to explain why it's garbage.

And if someone has a reputation for mediocrity, they might surprise later. Craig Mazin was the writer of Hangover and Scary Movie sequels and then went onto Chernobyl and the Last of us.

[thwhtGuardian]

Roman Polanski is about the only, "That's going to be a 'no' from me dawg." I can think of.

[Jim Kelly]

I know there's people who won't watch anything by Alfred Hitchcock since it's come to light what a horrid womanizer he was.

I don't think Hitch was a "womanizer." At least as I understand that word--it means that a man is constantly hitting on women not his wife and having sex with them. But I don't think he had sex. You could argue that any aggressive attentions to women is womanizing--and I'd agree with that.

From what's in THE DARK SIDE OF GENIUS (1983) by Donald Spoto, which ain't recent, Hitchcock was repressed and rarely even had sex with his wife--and seems to have been controlled by her, at least in that area of his existence. He was probably a voyeur and watched others going at it, but he seems to have been incapable of acting on his urges--which is why he made movies instead.

Certainly by the time he made THE BIRDS (which is his last great work), he had become quite aggressive and did horrible things to Tippi Hedren--but these weren't sexual attacks, they were physical attacks on her by proxy (birds and such) and keeping her in a confined space where she was in fear for her life. These are horrible acts, perhaps fuelled by a deep hatred of women, but I wouldn't say that's womanizing.

And while these urges might have started early in life, with his domineering mother and his wife, it doesn't seem like his aggression rose to quite that level previously.

He did pull a lot of pranks on people and these pranks were often very cruel. But he pranked men and women equally. The attitude seemed to be that he was just having fun. But if you buy a horse for someone--without their knowing about it or wanting a horse--and they then have to feed the horse and find a place to stable the creature and consider what to do with it (sell it, send it to the glue factory)--that seems like an extraordinary burden to put on another man. But there seem to be a lot of people in the movie biz who pull elaborate pranks, which everyone is supposed to just tolerate or else be labelled a poor sport.

However, Hitch told a lot of stories on himself and made himself out to be devilishly cruel--when that was likely not the case. Some of what we know about him might just be people believing all the porkies he used to tell. Even the oft told tale about his father having the police put him in jail might have been a lie that Hitch told so many times that he began to believe it was true himself.

[Jim Kelly]

On the topic, I stopped watching Woody Allen movies a long time ago, when I used to be a big fan. I'll probably never watch another from that guy that directed HEREDITARY or that guy that directed the one about the killing of a sacred deer or that guy that directed THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN. I've about had it with Christopher Nolan--his inability to appreciate that the lives of others are more important than his movies and the stink he made over the release of TENET, when movie theatres were closed because of a pandemic that was hospitalizing and killing millions around the world--just makes my blood boil.

[DrNewGod]

There are probably some directors who never made anything I liked, but I don't think there's one I've got such a gripe over I'd never watch anything they did.

I don't think Hitch was a "womanizer." At least as I understand that word--it means that a man is constantly hitting on women not his wife and having sex with them. But I don't think he had sex. You could argue that any aggressive attentions to women is womanizing--and I'd agree with that.

From what's in THE DARK SIDE OF GENIUS (1983) by Donald Spoto, which ain't recent, Hitchcock was repressed and rarely even had sex with his wife--and seems to have been controlled by her, at least in that area of his existence. He was probably a voyeur and watched others going at it, but he seems to have been incapable of acting on his urges--which is why he made movies instead.

Certainly by the time he made THE BIRDS (which is his last great work), he had become quite aggressive and did horrible things to Tippi Hedren--but these weren't sexual attacks, they were physical attacks on her by proxy (birds and such) and keeping her in a confined space where she was in fear for her life. These are horrible acts, perhaps fuelled by a deep hatred of women, but I wouldn't say that's womanizing.

And while these urges might have started early in life, with his domineering mother and his wife, it doesn't seem like his aggression rose to quite that level previously.

He did pull a lot of pranks on people and these pranks were often very cruel. But he pranked men and women equally. The attitude seemed to be that he was just having fun. But if you buy a horse for someone--without their knowing about it or wanting a horse--and they then have to feed the horse and find a place to stable the creature and consider what to do with it (sell it, send it to the glue factory)--that seems like an extraordinary burden to put on another man. But there seem to be a lot of people in the movie biz who pull elaborate pranks, which everyone is supposed to just tolerate or else be labelled a poor sport.

However, Hitch told a lot of stories on himself and made himself out to be devilishly cruel--when that was likely not the case. Some of what we know about him might just be people believing all the porkies he used to tell. Even the oft told tale about his father having the police put him in jail might have been a lie that Hitch told so many times that he began to believe it was true himself.

Hitch also put an icepick in Hedrin's career when she wouldn't let him control every aspect of her future. It's like he was taking out on her Grace Kelly having gotten away from him. Makes the transformation of Kim Novak's character at the insistence of Jimmy Stewart's character in Vertigo a little extra creepy.

[babyblob]

M. Night Shyamalan. A bad twist at the end of a bad movie does not make a good movie.

[Scott Taylor]

There at tons of movies that Harvey Weinstein still makes money from because he as an individual has credit as producer, actor, writer, etc. Mostly produced. Stuff like Good Will Hunting, the Piano, English Patient, Gangs of New York, etc. He has 330 producer credits.

I hate the fact that it happens but still watch some of those, because they are great films and the actors and people who made them who were not gross rapists deserve my support.

Same thing goes for directors. I may hate certain directors for what they believe or have done. But I hold nothing against the hundreds who get residuals from the films.

[FFJamie94]

There at tons of movies that Harvey Weinstein still makes money from because he as an individual has credit as producer, actor, writer, etc. Mostly produced. Stuff like Good Will Hunting, the Piano, English Patient, Gangs of New York, etc. He has 330 producer credits.

I hate the fact that it happens but still watch some of those, because they are great films and the actors and people who made them who were not gross rapists deserve my support.

Same thing goes for directors. I may hate certain directors for what they believe or have done. But I hold nothing against the hundreds who get residuals from the films.

Eh, even if he does make money from those productions, I doubt he can do much with it anyway. Man is rotting in jail, and will most likely die there very soon.

There isn't any director whose works I avoid, I just wish Nolan would stop being so damn pretentious with his films. His Dark Knight Trilogy is great, but everything I hear about him I'm just like "Dude, it's just a Movie, don't be like this... be more like Lynch and trust your actors and allow them to be comfortable"

[DrNewGod]

There at tons of movies that Harvey Weinstein still makes money from because he as an individual has credit as producer, actor, writer, etc. Mostly produced. Stuff like Good Will Hunting, the Piano, English Patient, Gangs of New York, etc. He has 330 producer credits.

I hate the fact that it happens but still watch some of those, because they are great films and the actors and people who made them who were not gross rapists deserve my support.

Same thing goes for directors. I may hate certain directors for what they believe or have done. But I hold nothing against the hundreds who get residuals from the films.

That is a great point.

[Jim Kelly]

Hitch also put an icepick in Hedrin's career when she wouldn't let him control every aspect of her future. It's like he was taking out on her Grace Kelly having gotten away from him. Makes the transformation of Kim Novak's character at the insistence of Jimmy Stewart's character in Vertigo a little extra creepy.

Yes. But the last film Princess Grace did for Hitchcock was in 1954. And THE BIRDS was 1963. In the years between there were other blondes that he used as substitutes for Grace. But they were all established actresses (albeit still young). VERTIGO shows that Hitch was fully aware of his own mania--and maybe trying to deal with it through his art. I tend to think that as he got older (as with all of us) he started to lose his self-control and with Hedrin his worst impulses took over. Maybe, like Scottie in VERTIGO, he felt that he created her and could do with her what he pleased.

[Alan2099]

Anything by Mark Polonia, either by himself or any of the older stuff he did with his brother.

Even by my admittedly low standards, those are some horrible movies (usually some eye catching titles though.)
Still, a good title does NOT mean there's a good movie attached.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me five or six times... that's when I start paying attention to who a low budget horror movie before picking it up.

[Powerboy]

[There are some movies I won't ever watch again like Gone with the Wind and a lot of early movies that had a lot of racism in them, whether intentionally or not. Or some with a lot of sexism. But that's the movie. I wouldn't necessarily refuse to watch some other movie with the same director or actor. Unless most of that person's movies had the same problems.

[Jim Kelly]

[There are some movies I won't ever watch again like Gone with the Wind and a lot of early movies that had a lot of racism in them, whether intentionally or not. Or some with a lot of sexism. But that's the movie. I wouldn't necessarily refuse to watch some other movie with the same director or actor. Unless most of that person's movies had the same problems.

This is an interesting moral dilemma. I get it. If it's just for their commercial entertainment value, maybe it's better to skip the movies that go against your own beliefs. I can understand not wanting to give money to disgusting people. But what about for film studies?

I did film studies many years ago at university--and in some ways, for my own interests, I still feel I'm doing film studies. My courses had me watching movies that were offensive. However, I think it's important to watch these movies and understand them in their context--how did movies like BIRTH OF A NATION and GONE WITH THE WIND support a revisionist outlook on the Confederacy; how did TRIUMPH DES WILLENS (TRIUMPH OF THE WILL) use motion picture propaganda to support Nazi ideology?

If we expurgate these movies from our consciousness, we aren't doing ourselves any favours, because we are creating a film history that isn't authentic. We need to know about all the awful movies, so we don't have this illusion that movies only create a wonderful world where everybody loves everybody.

[Zauriel]

Michael Cimino.

The only film of his I saw was Deer Hunter. It was a little good. A bit overrated, too. When I read reviews about his later works, all of which flopped and most of them are negative, I have decided not to see any of his other works. Not even his films before Deer Hunter.

His reputation never recovered from the box office disaster called Heaven's Gate.