Could've Been Better: 10 recent 'average' films that were potential masterpieces

Passengers (2016)

Why it isn't great? Casting is the main issue here. Charismatic and endearing he is, but Chris Pratt simply doesn't quite have what it takes in the leading role of a man alone in outer space, desperately finding a way to stay sane. He's a talented actor, but very miscast in the role, and his performance presumably clashed against a script that was I assume subsequently revised to fit in more with his screen presence, which makes the direction the script takes problematic. In addition, the production values, including the Oscar-nominated set design and score, aren't terribly original, though they look decent enough.

Why it could've been great? For such a fundamentally flawed film, it actually has quite a few things going for it.  The acting outside of Pratt, who's more miscast than bad, is actually quite strong for the most part, with Laurence Fishburne and Michael Sheen giving intriguing enough performances as characters you want to learn more

What should have been done? It's the concept of being utterly by oneself in space and seeking companionship even by the most drastic means, that really sold me on the film initially, and I still think it could have made a great film. One does not even have to cut Chris Pratt out, have him switch roles with Michael Sheen. Pratt could play the wisecracking handsome robot bartender with ease and become a comedic highlight of the film. Sheen could infuse some of his poignant, powerful performance as Boldwood in Far From the Madding Crowd into a portrayal of a eccentric scientist who initially happy with being alone and free in space, begins to finally feel pangs of loneliness and longing. This could make an equally discomforting but far more thriller-esque, 10 Cloverfield Lane tone when it comes to the film's 'twist', as we wonder what exactly Sheen's scientist is up to, while also slowly building up to a powerful conclusion.

Legend (2015)

Why it isn't great? Too messy, way too messy to be considered anything more than an 'okay' film. It never focuses on one aspect of the Kray twins' life enough, besides the underwhelming romance between Reggie and Frances, and has too many tonally awkward shifts between dark comedy and dark crime tragedy to make it ever completely work.

Why it could've been great? Despite being a complete mess at times, there's a lot to like a lot about Legend. It has a great central performance, and Hardy playing off himself at regular intervals is quite a joy to behold, and are easily the best scenes of the film. There's also so many promising moments that are individually quite great, like the Krays' business enterprises, and Ronnie's strange relationship with Teddy (Taron Egerton). The soundtrack besides the absence of promised Roy Orbison is really good, and on that note look at this first trailer, there's no way a trailer with material like this could produce a truly bad film. It's an okay film with severe problems, but so many hints of a great one.
What should have been done? Bring in someone with a more focused scope than Brian Helgeland, maybe his L.A. Confidential co-worker Curtis Hanson would have been a great choice, to help out on directing duties. Find a better actress than Emily Browning, or reduce her role as a secondary narrator. Black Mass in the same year had an intriguing motif where Whitey Bulger was discussed in retrospect by various criminal associates in interrogation scenes, Legend could have done the same with Egerton, Paul Bettany and Chazz Palimentari's characters, which would've not only given them more meat and screentime, but also a more intimate focus on the Kray brothers' underworld dealings, which is by far the most interesting part of the film.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2013)

Why it isn't great? Too much forced into one film. It's no surprise it was a box-office bomb. Three storylines with so many characters, and they all end up somewhat cancelling the impact of one another.

Why it could've been great? There's so many great performances constricted into this film, and if any one of them had gotten a film to completely shine on their own, Derek Cianfrance could have created a masterpiece, or several masterpieces. Ryan Gosling is particularly great with the little material he has, and really I could have watched a whole film about him and Ben Mendelsohn's character robbing banks. Same goes for Bradley Cooper's rise and fall and rise arc, and Dane DeHaan's portrayal of a troubled teenager.

What shoul have been done? Make it an epic trilogy, with Gosling the star of the first ne in a lighthearted crime caper that gradually becomes a sombre tragedy, Cooper the star of a conspiracy thriller with its protagonist gradually resorting to dirty means himself, and the third film a teenage movie with DeHaan that turns into something more profound. Make Ben Mendelsohn and Eva Mendes the recurring characters in the trilogy.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

Why it isn't great? An underwhelming follow-up to The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford by Andrew Dominik, the terrible title didn't help matters, but on the whole this is just a very straightforward crime thriller that's made competently enough but never quite stands out, and in addition features some very hamfisted attempts at social commentary. When it ended, all I could think was that yes, it was a well made film and moderately entertaining and thrilling, but was left feeling completely empty, which isn't quite what one expects when watching the final frames of an Andrew Dominik film.

Why it could've been great? It was Brad Pitt and Dominik teaming up once again after The Assasination of Jesse James, great things were to be expected, and even though greatness rarely shines through, the source material and characters make it so that you expect it to become so any given moment. The cast full of crooks ranging from Ray Liotta's hapless backstabber to Scoot McNairy's neurotic junkie are all very entertaining and feel so lived-in. One feels like with a more character-based approach and less attempts at being social commentary they could have broken out into truly iconic characters.

What should have been done? Love Dominik, but maybe replace him with Michaël R. Roskam since this material's sensibilities are right in line with his. Place it back in the original 1970s setting. Trim out some of the extraneous characters and plot fat, and make it a more taut and involving thriller.

Public Enemies (2009)

Why it isn't great? Two words: digital cinematography. It makes every given scene look a bit artificial and messes with the tone, which is clearly trying to go for that old-school sort of gangster epic. Michael Mann's direction though solid for the most part in terms of storytelling and performances, seems constrained by the clash between the visuals and tone, and also though the film is certainly long enough, it feels like it doesn't quite cover every aspect of the period it wanted to.

Why it could've been great? Marion Cotillard gives one of her best performances here. Even though her accent might be just a little bit suspect, she breathes such magnetic life into Billie Frechette. Her chemistry with Johnny Depp's Dillinger is amazing, and deserving of more intimate focus. And though that particular aspect of the film is its strongest asset, there's a lot to like elsewhere too. All the criminal associates of Dillinger are well-acted, and Billy Crudup's J. Edgar Hoover is a rather compelling adversary who I'd have liked to see more of.

What should have been done? Cut out Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, or at least diminish his role and make the focus on the investigation more of a ensemble thing. Play all the cards into the epic gangster romance angle between Dillinger and Billie, and trade the glossy digital cinemaotgraphy for anything else.

Watchmen (2009)

Why it isn't great? Zack Snyder clearly had a great deal of passion for the source material, but perhaps not the best understanding of it. This extends to the somewhat cheesy fight scenes with excessive slo-mo and poorly conceived sound effects, a dragging pace, some very poor casting choices and a fundamental misunderstanding of Ozymandias as a character.

Why it could've been great? There's so much that is excellently done here, it's excruciating that it all doesn't add up together. The Comedian and Rorschach are perfectly portrayed and written. The opening credits scene is amazing. There's some truly haunting and poignant sequences focusing on the horrors of becoming a hero in such a messed up world, and some visual flourishes that recreate the graphic novel's visuals perfectly.

What should have been done? Re-cast Silk Spectre and Ozymandias with Michelle Monaghan and Michael Fassbender. Have someone who's good with the emotional core of films so Snyder can focus on the cool visuals, maybe Alfonso Cuaron?

The Black Dahlia (2006)

Why isn't it great? For such a chilling source material and a strong director in Brian de Palma, this feels like a surprisingly safe and unexceptional venture into the noir genre. It can't even have a bit of pulpy fun with its script and ends up veering between serviceable crime procedural to problematic sexual thriller, hampered by a truly atrocious performance by Hilary Swank, who I'm usually a big fan of.

Why it could've been great? For all its flaws, the film has one magnificent shining spot in Mia Kirshner's heartbreaking turn as the primary victim. In her limited screentime she gives one of the most haunting portrayals of repressed tragedy and sadness. And the cinematography, set design etc. is all pretty amazing as well. Really this is a film that's quite shaky on the screenplay and most of the acting, but it looks amazing, feels amazing, and in some scenes is actually quite amazing.

What should have been done? This had potential to be an L.A. Confidential masterpiece, so maybe bring Curtis Hanson on, although with the right sort of motivation and direction de Palma could've been great too. Re-cast Swank with Kirshner playing double.

I, Robot (2004)

Why it isn't great? It takes Asimov's material and, like all adaptions of his work I've seen, diminishes intelligent science-fiction into a standard action thriller starring Will Smith. In the end, it just feels like Yet Another Sci-Fi Thriller, with a few cool action set pieces that nevertheless feel extremely unoriginal, a visual style that's kind of cool but also feels extremely unoriginal, and plenty of human ciphers as characters you don't really care much about.

Why it could've been great? When the film actually bothers to use its brain, it proves itself to be surprisingly intelligent. The A.I. side of things is the strongest part of the film, aided by its compelling depiction of Sonny, played by Alan Tudyk through mo-cap; it's an extremely interesting character I wish we'd gotten to learn more about.

What should have been done? Make Sonny the main character, and throw him into a Winter Soldier/Three Days of Condor-esque conspiracy thriller where he is the 'robot on the run'.

Troy (2004)

Why it isn't great? Lines and acting like this.

Why it could've been great? Scenes like these.

What should have been done? The film doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be an extremely grand, over-the-top epic in the old-fashioned 'sword and sandals' tradition, or a revisionist take which presents Paris as a little whiny bitch. My advice would be to pick one and go all in on that approach. Don't hold back, milk everything there is to milk for all its worth. Also, replacing Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom, with Viggo Mortensen and Jude Law would've probably helped matters a bit too.

Gangs of New York (2002)

Why it isn't great? Far too messy in terms of focus and with two very underwhelming young leads, this is one of those films that opens so strongly, that when it begins to let you down you feel every bit as betrayed as Bill the Butcher. There's so many sequences that are undercut by poor acting or paper-thin characters, and the final climax of the film is more than underwhelming.

Why it could've been great? Daniel Day-Lewis is on top form here, and the set design is absolutely beautiful, all-time great in fact. Its visual recreation of olden times New York is really quite amazing, and it also has such a rich and intriguing part of history to draw upon. Scorsese had a lot on his plate and he does serve some of it well enough, it just feels a bit of a waste that it seems like he had more to give.

What should have been done? Remove the whole Amsterdam subplot, and make it simply a movie about warring gangs in New York rather than inserting a pointless love triangle and revenge story. It could have been a very intriguing 'slice of life' story in the great Scorsese tradition of recreating what everyday life would have been like in his own cinematic fashion.