Your favorite "failure" in filmmaking history?

Brian de Palma's The Black Dahlia should, by rights, have been a classic. The source novel is one of the best true-crime books ever written, the production design is top-notch, the score is one of the best of the decade, the cinematography is staggeringly good and my favourite of any noir, and Mia Kirshner's performance as the titular character is an all-timer supporting turn. Everything was in place for this movie to challenge L.A. Confidential for the throne of the best Ellroy adaptation.

But.

De Palma makes some key errors that undercut the film hard. Primarily, he casts Hilary Swank as the femme fatale (for which she has the wrong energy), but there is also this ridiculous notion that she resembles Kirshner's Dahlia to the point that it becomes a running theme of the movie that fuels Hartnett's character's obsession, and it's nonsensical. What's worse is that de Palma had Kirshner on tap who was gifted at playing femme fatales and who could've easily just doubled up and played the Madeleine character as well, just distinct enough from the doomed Elizabeth Short so we know they are two different characters but also blur the lines a bit to put the audience in Bucky's shoes. He also makes some odd editing choices throughout the film which do feel like studio cuts; the entire back third feels particularly sliced-and-diced in this manner. I like Hartnett, Eckhart and Johansson in their respective roles, but each one gets saddled with some rickety line-delivery that plays to the cheap seats at times, and I feel if de Palma had scaled back a bit on his, well, de Palma-ness, it would've improved everything that much more.

Fiona Shaw, though, no notes. A 10/10 psychotic ham feast I will quote endlessly till the day I die.

I've argued before that Brian de Palma was never that guy. He has talent but he can never get out of his own way, and he makes some ridiculous choices sometimes for no reason other than him suddenly remembering "oh wait, I'm Brian de Palma, I need to do this."

Carrie's the only film of his where I feel his natural sensibilities actually managed to marry almost perfectly with the material. He's made other good movies, but I do feel those movies would've been equally as good or better in other filmmakers' hands.

NS The Black Dahlia but it sounds like something 2006-Chris Nolan would've crushed.

Well Memento, Insomnia and The Prestige all have noirish elements... the latter has that older period setting starring Johansson and looks sharp and beautiful too, but what you pointed out there is the closure definitely   

The one that comes to mind immediately is Public Enemies from Michael Mann. The director of Heat bringing the story of John Dillinger to the screen had all the makings of another classic. A huge cast of big names including Johnny Depp as the titular character. A funny thing happened, it didn't light the world on fire and most people seemed to be indifferent to it.

I certainly see why people feel like it didn't live up to expectations. Maybe the story doesn't delve deep enough into the minds of the characters, maybe the digital photography clashes with the time period the story is set in, whatever it was there's no doubt people had issues with the film.

Now, I loved it then and still do and believe it's the last great film that Mann has made.

ok, I'll finally admit that Asteroid City is a bit up-it's-own-ass with the theater framing and the B&W scenes tend to muddle what the story (or I guess the "play") is about with its grief/trauma metaphors. It's a film within a play within a documentary. I get why people were turned off by it, but I love every single minute of it.

for a more classic example, I'll go with Tony Richardson's Tom Jones (1963) which is an interesting case. I think even at the time its BP win was surprising and its reputation has only soured since. It's sunk into relative obscurity and most of those who have seen it don't seem to care for it. Controversial for its editing gimmicks and gags but I saw Richardson's French New Wave-inspired playfulness as embodying Tom's freewheeling hedonism. Finney's Jones is one of the most charming bastards ever put to film and the movie around him serves as as tribute to his freedom. It's silly and doesn't take itself seriously, it's gloriously-acted by a game ensemble of Brits having a good time, and it embodies cinematically the adventurous spirit of picaresque novels.

It's a masterpiece and the real failure was society for not embracing it.

OK. One I can think of that I really liked in spite of big flaws was James L. Brooks' 1994 film, I'll Do Everything. It was definitely a troubled production, as it was originally filmed as a musical (with songs written by Prince, Carole King, and Sinead O'Connor), but all the songs were eliminated after test audiences winced at the numbers. Its release was yanked from Christmas 1993 to February 1994, it flopped at the box office, the reviews were mixed at best, it has a low rating at Letterboxd (below 3), its almost completely forgotten, and, well, it does have the most terrifying non-homicidal portrayals of a child you'll ever see.


But what is left is still endlessly intriguing to me with a typically fascinating Nick Nolte performance and a terrific supporting turn by Julie Kavner popping against a very precisely written satire of Hollywood that is filled with great dialogue scenes. It's just one of the smartest big studio comedies of its era. It's definitely a rough journey due to that alarming little girl, and I don't think most will care for it, but I really do think its severely underrated.

Nah, Flower Moon doesn't belong here.
Wildly disagree.

Anyway, my favorite failure is 1941 by Steven Spielberg.
It's still really enjoyable.