Geez, what utter, contemptible crap. Ever heard of a little movie called "Patton"? It was written by this young guy just out of film school. He even won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. What was that guy's name again....

Oh yeah...FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA.

And to the nitwit who dissed his S.E. Hinton adaptations, I'd suggest you pound the books a bit more and develop some real taste before you start yammering at masters. And don't give me that "everybody's opinion differs" crap. Some people have informed opinions, and then there's everybody else.

I know you're trolling, and I resisted, but screw that edgily counter-intuitive tossed-off remark.

Lord...I'm having a memory lapse here.....but I believe this past month's "Vanity" Fair" carried a rather long, but interesting, article on this topic.

----david terry

You go Francis! And fu*k the studios!

Having no internal or external editor is never a good thing. As we have observed.

You can listen at npr.org as you well know.

Let's talk about directors then, it's easier. You have the likes of Ozu or Rohmer who could make wonderful movies with bare bones scripts (close to soap operas), or the likes of Fellini or Godard who would use a vague script as a starting point and improvise a great deal during the shooting (and still make wonderful movies).

As for american movies, Casablanca is well known for its terrible script. Also, Kubrick's 2001 was a terrible idea on paper. But I'm sure we could fill a book with better examples.

Can you name some great movies with bad scripts? Besides "Citizen Kane"? I'm willing to accept your theory, but some examples would help me.

And FWIW, I thought Scorsese's "The Departed" was pretty damn good. I think the first 15 minutes before the title card are brilliant.

I just saw "Young Adam." Now there's a good movie! Tight script, well directed, well edited. That's what I like. And it was actually about something.

I hate movie mush.

Scorsese's last masterpiece was 'Kundun'. And great movies are great entirely because of the way they're directed, just as books are great because of the way they're written. Narrative is always incidental.

To Details, Details:

- If you think Robert Evans is living in the reality-based universe you've been fooled.

- Great movies are made by great directors. They can even make great movies from bad scripts.

- The "auteur theory" is a fact and it's doing well around the globe.

I guess you don't know much about what you're talking about.

FFC also had the gall to release the atrocious "Apocalypse Now Redux" which had to be the most disappointing thing to happen to a great film in years. (My wife had never seen the first film and I was embarrassed when we put it on so that she could see one of my favorite films of all time). An hour of movie destroying footage made me realize that FFC is a rambling, imprecise artist who doesn't have the discipline to make good films when he is totally in charge. When he was young he had Peter Zinner as editor working on the two Godfather films, and rightly credited him for the success of those two films. Zinner had to take 12 hours of mush for each one and turn it into the story that we love. The first version of Apocalypse Now had good editors who took the drug-induced mess (see the documentary "Heart of Darkness" to see how it was made) and turn it into movie gold.

Now that FFC is a "god," no one is going to tell him what is and is not good film making. I am sure that he had good ideas for this film, and probably has more, but I doubt that we will see him have the humility to let other people tell him what to do. Maybe he should take some advice from his daughter.

I still think it sounds better the David Lynch's 'Inland FREAKIN' Empire'.

The Fall 2007 issue of FFC's literary mag, All Story, was dedicated to Youth w/o Youth, to an excessive degree, I thought. Mircea Eliade's novella appeared in its entirety. I slogged through the whole thing and was left completely confused and underwhelmed - I'm no Cynthia Ozick or Michael Korda, but I've been around the block a time or two in reading short fiction, and I couldn't for the life of me see what FFC saw in this muddled work. I actually was embarrassed that maybe I'm, somehow, just not "worthy" in the way FFC seems to be (he's a bit of an icon, no?). So I'm relieved to have my impressions (of the novella, anyway) validated here in this review. Thanks for that.

If anyone is interested in reading the novella or taking a peek and the numerous self-important interviews and essays on the making of this movie, just go to FFC's All Story web site. Back issues are available there. (I have no affiliation with All STory other than being a subscriber. I'm just offering this info up as a PSA.)

And listen to Robert Evans explain how FFC's "genius" became largely the stuff of legend, i.e., not part of the reality-based universe.

Great movies are not made by directors. They come from great writing. That Coppola both wrote and directed his current failure tells you most of what you need to know.

For the many born yesterday, memorize this: A great script can be badly directed and still make a decent film. A crap script can be brilliantly directed and still always result in a crap film.

The "auteur theory" was DOA in the '60s and yet somehow (gullible movie critics, anyone?) it persists.

I'm going to agree with the letter directly above, and to Anonymous above that no, "quarter-century" is about right. Have you ever seen Coppola's offering as one of the three "New York Stories"? That was what, 1989?

There are lots more I could cite and the previous letter named a few of them.

Sorry, "spotty" is being kind. Some great films, and then some of the worst.