The Last Airbender is the worst piece of crap I have seen in years, and I was an avid follower of the animated series (which rocked, by the way). I didn't think it was possible to take a series canon and mess up every possible thing about it, but Shyamalan successfully did it. Even the character names in the movie were not pronounced correctly. I am officially boycotting that guy's movies from now on.
So what? Does it HAVE to be canon to be a good movie?
I think we have very different tastes. Lady in the Water was all over the place. The plot had so many holes in it, it should have been called the Lady in the Perrier. Signs was another Shyawigwambam abortion of a film. Bad enough to have the always awful Gibson, but the aliens were ludicrous and it just petered out into idiocy.
I think you're right, you seem to have an almost...film critic professor view of movies; you dont like them because they're pedestrian or because they dont strictly fall under the standards of the auteur theory of film.
This is not meant as an insult, but this is the way you're coming across.
If that is the case, then yes we have radically different views on film because I tend to take film for what it is. I dont try to classify or quantify it. I try to read subtext if I can find it, wonder if it was intentional, consider concepts presented in the movie, and toy with new ideas film presents, but beyond that I think you get into over-analyzing something that really shouldnt be.
I like to think I can find something enjoyable in ANY film, even the worst films on earth. I was even able to find aspects of Apocalypto (one of the worst films on earth) enjoyable.
The other three movies you mentioned I haven't seen. I hadn't even heard of the two you said were awful. Push, I can't comment.
I highly recommend Push, it's quite good. And again, Camille Belle, cant go wrong with her.
I do go with directors, as I go with authors. A good director can always make a bad movie, but a bad director USUALLY makes bad movies. I'll always try something by someone new, but once bitten twice shy. I won't go to see stuff by Shyawotsit again, nor Baz Luhrmann, nor McG, nor Michael Bay... life's just too short. I will go see anything by Paul Greengrass, Paul Haggis, Michael Haneke, Ang Lee, Pedro Almodóvar, Alfonso Cuarón, the Coens or Peter Weir. None of them have made a bad movie.
You seem to be missing some key points of some of these people's career. I cant comment on the more exotic names on the roll sheet, but Paul Haggis I know worked on movies like the last 2 James Bond movies (which were atrociously bad) and Terminator Salvation, very Michael Bay territory. Paul Greengrass worked on two or three of the Bourne movies and I wouldnt have nominated them for screen glory and you're toeing the Michael Bay-style line right there anyways.
Aeon Flux was horrible
Ultraviolet bad but not as bad, if only because of Milla
Both had very good potential. Aeon was somewhat redeemed by Theron's performance, she was quite good in her role and the portrayal of the society and technologies involved were very interesting.