Question:
my nominees:
Kevin Smith & David Fincher
both good filmmakers and have made some very good films but IMO, don't quite live up to the hype. Anyone agree/disagree?
I don't think Kevin Smith is all that hyped, to be honest. People seem to be split down the middle regarding him, either loving his films or just not getting them at all.
My nomination is Paul Anderson, who the studios seem to rate far too highly and let make such blasphemies as Resident Evil.
Kevin Smith
Lucio Fulci
Guy Ritchie:zzz:
I'd agree with Lucio Fulci but not with Kevin Smith. What hype?
My nomination would be Cameron Crowe i just haven't connected with any of his films, they just leave me cold.
Steven Spielberg
John Carpenter
Never mind the minnows of the directing world I'd go for Speilberg.
I think the reverence with which he his treated is over the top - despite his having directed some of my favorite films - I think he is overated.
Andrew
I would say Cameron Crowe except for 1 thing-almost famous. Brilliant movie. Guy Ritchie id agree with, his films are crap
Originally posted by Whiggles
Steven Spielberg
Agree to a degree, though you can't fault him for the likes of E.T. and Raiders.
John Carpenter
Sacrilege! :shocker: :D
Nah, he's put out some complete pants, but... The Fog, Halloween :notworthy :D
Thats an easy one.
Stanley Kubrick :D
Kevin Smith isn't really hyped; he's more cult.
David Fincher, definitely. Fight Club is one of the best films ever made IMHO, but Alien 3 and Seven (:eek: ) I just can't get into.
George Lucas. He may be a great filmmaker but he hasn't directed anything I'd consider to be a well-directed film since American Graffiti (and THX1138 was a bit crap too)
brett ratner....so far the man has films which are mildly passable as entertainining and un-challenging. But nothing he has done so far shows why he's got the Superman and Red Dragon jobs
The usual suspects turn up here
David Fincher (ONe decent film does not a great director make)
Spielberg - Far too fond of hitting the sentimentality button with a hammer... although he has improved recently
Lucas - As he goes on he gets further and further away from being an actual director
Guy Ritchie - pointing a camera at a bunch of mockney's and shagging Madonna does not make you a great director
as for the other nominees
Kubrick - pah ... underrated more like :p
Smith - He's not exactly praised as a director so he is hardly overrated
Carpenter - His old stuff is great work and even his more modern pants stuff has some very nice direction work in them.
Originally posted by biggis
Thats an easy one.
Stanley Kubrick :D
Blasphemer! :D
John Carpenter
Stanley Kubrick
Quintin Tarantino
All their movies either bore me or send me to sleep.
James
Originally posted by Fawlty
David Fincher (ONe decent film does not a great director make)
Fans of Charles Laughton's <I>Night of the Hunter</I> and Michael Reeves' <I>Witchfinder General</I> might want to disagree on that score…
Guy Ritchie - pointing a camera at a bunch of mockney's and shagging Madonna does not make you a great director
I think Guy Ritchie is, if anything, underrated - for at least the past three years it's become fashionable to hold him personally responsible for the wave of dire British gangster films that I hope we've finally seen the back of, but his own two entries are genuinely stylish, witty (both verbally and visually) and surprisingly enjoyable to return to.
True, they're totally unrealistic, but then again so were Damon Runyon's stories, and no-one ever complained about the lack of gritty realism in <I>Guys and Dolls</I>!
...diffidently... Orson Welles, not only - but especially - as a Director, but also as an Actor...
. . . :smokin: . . .
Easily Steven Spielberg. Mind numbing sentimental ******** that promises to bore and insult your intelligence from start to finish. Just look at the mess he made of A.I., and I won't even mention the atrocity that was Saving Private Ryan.
David Fincher is massively overrated, too. However, while most people seem to feel Fight Club was his 'one great film', I disagree. I found it pretentious, and the twist was a complete cop-out. Seven, on the other hand, I thought was a shockingly original serial killer film. Very good indeed, it was.
Originally posted by SIMONADEBISI
I would say Cameron Crowe except for 1 thing-<strike>almost famous</strike> Vanilla Sky. Brilliant movie.
Agreed :D
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I think Guy Ritchie is, if anything, underrated - for at least the past three years it's become fashionable to hold him personally responsible for the wave of dire British gangster films that I hope we've finally seen the back of, but his own two entries are genuinely stylish, witty (both verbally and visually) and surprisingly enjoyable to return to.
I am stunned - FINALLY someone who agrees with me on Guy Ritchie :thumbs:
Kif most people here consider Se7en as his masterpiece not fight club.
My nominees are:
Steven Spielberg
Alfred Hitchcock (Ok, Psycho and Vertigo are good ones, but the rest...)
Michael Bay (well, he's not overrated but I still think he sucks, whats with that chrome fixation)
Easily the most over rated director on these forums is Daren Afron...arfon...the fella who made 'Requim for a dream' and 'Pi'.
He's all film student camera angles and rather anoying editing that completely distract from the story.
Se7en and Fight Club are both masterpieces. The Game and Alien 3 have some excellent moments. I haven't seen Panic Room (yet).
Requiem for a Dream and Pi are both great. I can't wait to see what Darren what's-his-face does next.
Of Cameron Crowe's films I've only seen Vanilla Sky. It being one of the most mind-bogglingly awful films of recent times, I'm not in a hurry to see the rest of his work.
I can't think of any directors who have never put a foot wrong. David Lynch is probably my favourite and even he's made the occasional not so brilliant film (know many will disagree, but I consider The Straight Story a disappointment).
BTW, I'm just actually wondering who considers Fulci a great director. There's a couple of films of his I like (Zombie Flesh Eaters and Don't Torture a Duckling), but I think that's generally inspite of his directing style (slow, ponderous, never take the camera off a spurting vein until it's run dry!).
Originally posted by Kif
Easily Steven Spielberg. ... Just look at the mess he made of A.I.,
I have to mention though the common mistake people make assuming that the ending is all Spielberg, it is apparently only very slightly altered from Kubrick's version. It's also worth noting that this was to be a Spielberg film even when Kubrick was alive. He'd realised it was a film Spielberg would be better at making and he'd produce it. Sentimentallity was innevitable, and personally I see nothing wrong with it. He's pulled it off twice to good effect (E.T. and A.I.).
ok, well my nominations would be:
Cameron Crowe - sorry, just can't connect to his movies.
Sam Raimi - not really a fan of his Evil Dead series, and Spidey is very much a forgetable cartoon flick.
Alfred Hitchcock - i dont think he's quite the master of suspense everyone raves about. Some of his films are great, some. other not so..
Wes Anderson Thought by many to be witty in an understated and subtle way, i can't see that entertains me in his dire movies.
Sergio Leone Just because a camera is pointed at something for 10 minutes with a theme tune running over the top, doesn't make it intersting to watch.
Easily the most over rated director on these forums is Daren Afron...arfon...the fella who made 'Requim for a dream' and 'Pi'.
dude, his films are profound
before his films i never knew that mathematical geniuses all have shaky eastern european accents and disturbed childhoods, and as for finding deep metaphysical corollories between heroin, coffee and tv....genius stuff.
sam mendes is also overrated. american beauty 'a film that stupid people see to make them feel clever' could never be more apt. john ford is another director whose esteemed status amazes me....i have a personal fondness for some of his films, but i don't think he was as talented as is often thought.
kubrick and leone probably justfiy their standing though. the case for fincher is open for a little while yet i think...
George Lucas it has to be
Complete and utter point and shoot director.Hes not got a clue..........
Great writer though.... Untill EP2 that is
Quentin Tarantino
Stanley Kubrick
Darren Aronofsky
Sam Mendes
Ridley Scott
George Lucas
The problem I have with Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino (and John Waters, come to that) is that they're vastly better as writers than they are as directors - and all too often their concept of direction is little more than pointing the camera at a couple of actors reeling off reams of dialogue.
As for Lucio Fulci, he's overrated largely because there is at least <U>some</U> talent there - which is why his films stand out from dreck by people like Bruno Mattei, Joe D'Amato and so on and why people looking for Italian exploitation auteurs to champion tend to alight upon him.
One of the biggest problems with Spielberg - or at least appreciation of his work on this side of the Atlantic - is that he has an uncanny feel for what the mainstream small-town American audience wants, and on the whole they're a lot more sentimental than us Europeans, which is why we tend to champion much darker mainstream talents like Joe Dante or Paul Verhoeven (both of whom are more underrated than anything else).
I would say that Kevin Smith shouldn't be included as he himself doesn't even rate his directing abilities - though his direction in J+SBSB is far better than anything he's done before that.
I would agree with the Fincher comments - to a degree, Alien 3 isn't really his film, I've yet to see the game but i do enjoy Fight Club and i thought Se7en was brilliantly directed.
I think spielberg is too easy to criticise as no-one has yet to come out with anything other than "Oh he's too sentimental" - He's pure entertainment, not realistic films neccesarily but ones that are supposed to entertain you (Raiders, Jaws, Minority Report, ET) every now and then he stretches it slightly and does something different - Close Encounters, which is totally devoid of sentimentality and is one of his best films IMO. I think he uses sentimentality to please the majority of people TBH, so that they'll enjoy the film rather than come away depressed. I think people forget that his job is to entertain, there are plenty of directors out there who want to depress you - he isn't one of them. And since when did 'being sentimental' affect a persons directing abilities?
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
And since when did 'being sentimental' affect a persons directing abilities?
I completely agree - rather too many people confuse their own personal dislike of certain aspects of Spielberg's films with an objective assessment of whether or not he has any talent at all!
There's a very prescient review by Pauline Kael from 1974 that captures him uncannily perfectly:
"The director, Steven Spielberg, is twenty-six. I can't tell if he has any mind, or even a strong personality, but a lot of good moviemakers have got by without being profound. He isn't saying anything special in <I>The Sugarland Express</I>, but he has a knack for bringing out young actors, and a sense of composition and movement that almost any director might envy. Composition seems to come naturally to him, as it does to some of the young Italians; Spielberg uses his gift in a very free and easy, American way, for humour, and for a physical response to action. He could be that rarity among directors, a born entertainer - perhaps a new generation's Howard Hawks. In terms of the pleasure that technical assurance gives an audience, this film is one of the most phenomenal debut films in the history of movies. If there is such a thing as a movie sense - and I think there is (I know fruit vendors and cabdrivers who have it and some movie critics who don't) - Spielberg really has it. But he may be so full of it that he doesn't have much else. There's no sign of the emergence of a new film artist (such as Martin Scorsese) in <I>The Sugarland Express</I>, but it marks the debut of a new-style, new-generation Hollywood hand."
Kael doesn't actually like many of Spielberg's films, but she's honest about his gifts - which seem to me to be so obvious as to be undeniable by anyone with even an ounce of film awareness. And one thing I really admire about Spielberg is that for the most part he seems aware of the limitations that Kael identified.
Lucio Fulci may be better than Bruno Mattei and Joe Tomato, but that really isn't saying much!!
I'd say Ridley Scott is overrated too. Alien and Bladerunner are great films, but the rest of his career?? I thought Gladiator was one of the dullest blockbusters I've ever sat through. How anyone could make a film about gladiatorial combat so boring is beyond me!
:zzz:
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Lucio Fulci may be better than Bruno Mattei and Joe Tomato, but that really isn't saying much!!
Rats Night of Terror (Rats - Notte di terrore) pretty much says it all :oh-hum:
Ridley Scott
David Fincher
Sam Raimi
Anybody who said Martin Scorsese wound up gettin' whacked. ;)
All of 'em :|
One day the writer will be first in the credits ;)
Originally posted by Steffe79
My nominees are:
Alfred Hitchcock (Ok, Psycho and Vertigo are good ones, but the rest...)
I know what you mean - <I>North By Northwest, Rear Window, Strangers On A Train, Rebecca, Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, The Birds</I>? Five minutes of any Adam Sandler or Tom Green flick ****** all over them!
M Night Shymalan ( liked Unbreakable, but didn't like Signs)
David Fincher (thought Fight Club and Alien 3 were tripe, but I enjoyed Panic Room and Seven)
Kevin Smith (never got into his films)
John Woo (Some of his films are great, most aren't)
The main nomination which springs to mind is Kubrick. A gifted technician who made a couple of excellent films - "The Killing" and "Paths of Glory" - and then forgot how to pace his movies and how to direct actors. "A Clockwork Orange" in particular strikes me as an abysmal failure on an intellectual and narrative level while not being all that interesting on a technical level, with good actors encouraged to go wildly over the top and no controlling intelligence behind what is essentially a much too familiar storyline.
David Lean is the other one. How could a man who made one of the best literary adaptations ever in "Great Expectations" and one of the finest love stories in "Brief Encounter" bear to be known for the endless banality of "Doctor Zhivago" or the abysmal but unintentionally hilarious "Ryan's Daughter" ?
David Lean is the other one. How could a man who made one of the best literary adaptations ever in "Great Expectations" and one of the finest love stories in "Brief Encounter" bear to be known for the endless banality of "Doctor Zhivago" or the abysmal but unintentionally hilarious "Ryan's Daughter" ?
irrespective of my opinion of dickens, lean's great expectation is pretty mediocre. and how can you assess his achievements without mentioning lawrence of arabia?
Originally posted by xtrmntr
irrespective of my opinion of dickens, lean's great expectation is pretty mediocre.
Not from where I'm sitting - I watched it only the other week at work, charged with selecting no more than twelve minutes of representative extracts, and I was frankly spoiled for choice. I'd forgotten how good it was!
Incidentally, I don't think that the fact that a director has made one or two bad films should devalue their reputation as a whole - and this is particularly true of directors who don't exactly go along conventional artistic pathways.
By any sensible yardstick, Tim Burton and Guy Maddin rank amongst my favourite directors, but they've both made unwatchably dire rubbish in <I>Planet of the Apes</I> and <I>Twilight of the Ice Nymphs</I> respectively. But I'll still be first in the queue for their next films - and in Maddin's case his new film (the first silent <I>Dracula</I> since <I>Nosferatu</I> eighty years ago) is a terrific return to form.
<b>irrespective of my opinion of dickens, lean's great expectation is pretty mediocre. and how can you assess his achievements without mentioning lawrence of arabia?</b>
I disagree strongly with your estimation of "Great Expectations". Not only the best cinematic vision of Dickens, but among the most purely cinematic of literary adaptations. Every single shot is worth lingering over, not a moment in the script is wasted, the actors bring the characters to life and give them a credibility independent of the text, and the script edits the original without gutting it. What's 'mediocre' about it ?
As for "Lawrence Of Arabia", it's badly paced and pretty without being atmospheric or evocative. It totally fails to address the character of Lawrence, simplifies the conflict between the Turks and the Arabs into comic-book terms and hammy sadism, and relies on Omar Sharif's non-performance to give the audience someone nice to identify with. The music is mediocre, the editing is lax and the supporting actors - Kennedy, Hawkins, Rains, Quinn &c - do the same party pieces that they performed in most of the films they made. If it's an achievement of any sort, it's in physical terms, but that's more sad than inspiring - all that work for such paltry results. Robert Aldrich could have knocked this off in a month and added genuine psychological depth to the characters and an awareness of the situation that isn't limited to the Turks being more homo-erotically perverse than the Arabs.
Not from where I'm sitting - I watched it only the other week at work, charged with selecting no more than twelve minutes of representative extracts, and I was frankly spoiled for choice. I'd forgotten how good it was!
well it seems to be universally acclaimed as a classic, but i thought it had dated very badly.
As for "Lawrence Of Arabia", it's badly paced and pretty without being atmospheric or evocative. It totally fails to address the character of Lawrence, simplifies the conflict between the Turks and the Arabs into comic-book terms and hammy sadism, and relies on Omar Sharif's non-performance to give the audience someone nice to identify with. The music is mediocre, the editing is lax and the supporting actors - Kennedy, Hawkins, Rains, Quinn &c - do the same party pieces that they performed in most of the films they made. If it's an achievement of any sort, it's in physical terms, but that's more sad than inspiring - all that work for such paltry results. Robert Aldrich could have knocked this off in a month and added genuine psychological depth to the characters and an awareness of the situation that isn't limited to the Turks being more homo-erotically perverse than the Arabs.
you argued your case well there. rather perversely, i can approach lawrence without a great deal of cynicism but i couldn't help but cringe at great expectations.
Spielberg makes too many ropey movies to be a good director, for every ET there is A.I.
Always detested John Hughes especially for the Home Alone films.
Kevin Smith is a director that really does nothing to make me sing his praises.
George Lucas made 3 of the finest movies ever, then screwed up with the prequels, they are OK but just not great.
James Cameron,I hated Aliens, Terminator etc just nothing to make me say this is a good movie, they are too much like action movies, and lets be honest how many really good action movies are there to have come out of Hollywood in the last few decades.
Originally posted by profondorossoargento
Spielberg makes too many ropey movies to be a good director...
He makes an awful lot of ropey films, but he still has his place. He certainly isn't to be trusted though - and with all the money spent on most of his scripts, it's bewildering how many huge errors and misjudgements slip through the net.
Originally posted by profondorossoargento
... for every ET there is A.I.
Two of his best, imho. For every Jurassic Park, there is a Lost World. For every Raiders, there is a Hook. For every Schindler's List, there is an Amistad.
Over rated directors?
Tsui Hark for a start
oh, and Brett Ratner (someone must rate him highly - or is it just the Jewish connection that gets him the jobs?)
Originally posted by Kif
David Fincher is massively overrated, too. However, while most people seem to feel Fight Club was his 'one great film', I disagree. I found it pretentious, and the twist was a complete cop-out. Seven, on the other hand, I thought was a shockingly original serial killer film. Very good indeed, it was.
perhaps you should read the book first, and then lay the blame for "the twist" elsewhere if you think it was a cop out.
---Palahniuk was the author by the way if u want to read it.... quite good but also too short and overrated.
M Night Shymalan - Everyone who i talked to told me that Sixth Sense was superb and i thougt it was arse and then i had the misfortune to watch Unbreakable, and it was terrible. I want to see signs but his track record really puts me off.
Bill Paxton - great actor terrible director, so Frailty may be his directorial debut but it was a really poor film
David Fincher - Se7en and Fight Club are cool, but the rest of his films suck, he relies to heavily on the "One Long Shot" that seems to feature so heaavily in his films.
Kevin Smith & David Fincher
both good filmmakers and have made some very good films but IMO, don't quite live up to the hype. Anyone agree/disagree?
Answers:
I don't think Kevin Smith is all that hyped, to be honest. People seem to be split down the middle regarding him, either loving his films or just not getting them at all.
My nomination is Paul Anderson, who the studios seem to rate far too highly and let make such blasphemies as Resident Evil.
Answers:
Kevin Smith
Lucio Fulci
Guy Ritchie:zzz:
Answers:
I'd agree with Lucio Fulci but not with Kevin Smith. What hype?
My nomination would be Cameron Crowe i just haven't connected with any of his films, they just leave me cold.
Answers:
Steven Spielberg
John Carpenter
Answers:
Never mind the minnows of the directing world I'd go for Speilberg.
I think the reverence with which he his treated is over the top - despite his having directed some of my favorite films - I think he is overated.
Andrew
Answers:
I would say Cameron Crowe except for 1 thing-almost famous. Brilliant movie. Guy Ritchie id agree with, his films are crap
Answers:
Originally posted by Whiggles
Steven Spielberg
Agree to a degree, though you can't fault him for the likes of E.T. and Raiders.
John Carpenter
Sacrilege! :shocker: :D
Nah, he's put out some complete pants, but... The Fog, Halloween :notworthy :D
Answers:
Thats an easy one.
Stanley Kubrick :D
Answers:
Kevin Smith isn't really hyped; he's more cult.
David Fincher, definitely. Fight Club is one of the best films ever made IMHO, but Alien 3 and Seven (:eek: ) I just can't get into.
George Lucas. He may be a great filmmaker but he hasn't directed anything I'd consider to be a well-directed film since American Graffiti (and THX1138 was a bit crap too)
Answers:
brett ratner....so far the man has films which are mildly passable as entertainining and un-challenging. But nothing he has done so far shows why he's got the Superman and Red Dragon jobs
Answers:
The usual suspects turn up here
David Fincher (ONe decent film does not a great director make)
Spielberg - Far too fond of hitting the sentimentality button with a hammer... although he has improved recently
Lucas - As he goes on he gets further and further away from being an actual director
Guy Ritchie - pointing a camera at a bunch of mockney's and shagging Madonna does not make you a great director
as for the other nominees
Kubrick - pah ... underrated more like :p
Smith - He's not exactly praised as a director so he is hardly overrated
Carpenter - His old stuff is great work and even his more modern pants stuff has some very nice direction work in them.
Answers:
Originally posted by biggis
Thats an easy one.
Stanley Kubrick :D
Blasphemer! :D
Answers:
John Carpenter
Stanley Kubrick
Quintin Tarantino
All their movies either bore me or send me to sleep.
James
Answers:
Originally posted by Fawlty
David Fincher (ONe decent film does not a great director make)
Fans of Charles Laughton's <I>Night of the Hunter</I> and Michael Reeves' <I>Witchfinder General</I> might want to disagree on that score…
Guy Ritchie - pointing a camera at a bunch of mockney's and shagging Madonna does not make you a great director
I think Guy Ritchie is, if anything, underrated - for at least the past three years it's become fashionable to hold him personally responsible for the wave of dire British gangster films that I hope we've finally seen the back of, but his own two entries are genuinely stylish, witty (both verbally and visually) and surprisingly enjoyable to return to.
True, they're totally unrealistic, but then again so were Damon Runyon's stories, and no-one ever complained about the lack of gritty realism in <I>Guys and Dolls</I>!
Answers:
...diffidently... Orson Welles, not only - but especially - as a Director, but also as an Actor...
. . . :smokin: . . .
Answers:
Easily Steven Spielberg. Mind numbing sentimental ******** that promises to bore and insult your intelligence from start to finish. Just look at the mess he made of A.I., and I won't even mention the atrocity that was Saving Private Ryan.
David Fincher is massively overrated, too. However, while most people seem to feel Fight Club was his 'one great film', I disagree. I found it pretentious, and the twist was a complete cop-out. Seven, on the other hand, I thought was a shockingly original serial killer film. Very good indeed, it was.
Answers:
Originally posted by SIMONADEBISI
I would say Cameron Crowe except for 1 thing-<strike>almost famous</strike> Vanilla Sky. Brilliant movie.
Agreed :D
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I think Guy Ritchie is, if anything, underrated - for at least the past three years it's become fashionable to hold him personally responsible for the wave of dire British gangster films that I hope we've finally seen the back of, but his own two entries are genuinely stylish, witty (both verbally and visually) and surprisingly enjoyable to return to.
I am stunned - FINALLY someone who agrees with me on Guy Ritchie :thumbs:
Answers:
Kif most people here consider Se7en as his masterpiece not fight club.
Answers:
My nominees are:
Steven Spielberg
Alfred Hitchcock (Ok, Psycho and Vertigo are good ones, but the rest...)
Michael Bay (well, he's not overrated but I still think he sucks, whats with that chrome fixation)
Answers:
Easily the most over rated director on these forums is Daren Afron...arfon...the fella who made 'Requim for a dream' and 'Pi'.
He's all film student camera angles and rather anoying editing that completely distract from the story.
Answers:
Se7en and Fight Club are both masterpieces. The Game and Alien 3 have some excellent moments. I haven't seen Panic Room (yet).
Requiem for a Dream and Pi are both great. I can't wait to see what Darren what's-his-face does next.
Of Cameron Crowe's films I've only seen Vanilla Sky. It being one of the most mind-bogglingly awful films of recent times, I'm not in a hurry to see the rest of his work.
I can't think of any directors who have never put a foot wrong. David Lynch is probably my favourite and even he's made the occasional not so brilliant film (know many will disagree, but I consider The Straight Story a disappointment).
BTW, I'm just actually wondering who considers Fulci a great director. There's a couple of films of his I like (Zombie Flesh Eaters and Don't Torture a Duckling), but I think that's generally inspite of his directing style (slow, ponderous, never take the camera off a spurting vein until it's run dry!).
Answers:
Originally posted by Kif
Easily Steven Spielberg. ... Just look at the mess he made of A.I.,
I have to mention though the common mistake people make assuming that the ending is all Spielberg, it is apparently only very slightly altered from Kubrick's version. It's also worth noting that this was to be a Spielberg film even when Kubrick was alive. He'd realised it was a film Spielberg would be better at making and he'd produce it. Sentimentallity was innevitable, and personally I see nothing wrong with it. He's pulled it off twice to good effect (E.T. and A.I.).
Answers:
ok, well my nominations would be:
Cameron Crowe - sorry, just can't connect to his movies.
Sam Raimi - not really a fan of his Evil Dead series, and Spidey is very much a forgetable cartoon flick.
Alfred Hitchcock - i dont think he's quite the master of suspense everyone raves about. Some of his films are great, some. other not so..
Wes Anderson Thought by many to be witty in an understated and subtle way, i can't see that entertains me in his dire movies.
Sergio Leone Just because a camera is pointed at something for 10 minutes with a theme tune running over the top, doesn't make it intersting to watch.
Answers:
Easily the most over rated director on these forums is Daren Afron...arfon...the fella who made 'Requim for a dream' and 'Pi'.
dude, his films are profound
before his films i never knew that mathematical geniuses all have shaky eastern european accents and disturbed childhoods, and as for finding deep metaphysical corollories between heroin, coffee and tv....genius stuff.
sam mendes is also overrated. american beauty 'a film that stupid people see to make them feel clever' could never be more apt. john ford is another director whose esteemed status amazes me....i have a personal fondness for some of his films, but i don't think he was as talented as is often thought.
kubrick and leone probably justfiy their standing though. the case for fincher is open for a little while yet i think...
Answers:
George Lucas it has to be
Complete and utter point and shoot director.Hes not got a clue..........
Great writer though.... Untill EP2 that is
Answers:
Quentin Tarantino
Stanley Kubrick
Darren Aronofsky
Sam Mendes
Ridley Scott
George Lucas
Answers:
The problem I have with Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino (and John Waters, come to that) is that they're vastly better as writers than they are as directors - and all too often their concept of direction is little more than pointing the camera at a couple of actors reeling off reams of dialogue.
As for Lucio Fulci, he's overrated largely because there is at least <U>some</U> talent there - which is why his films stand out from dreck by people like Bruno Mattei, Joe D'Amato and so on and why people looking for Italian exploitation auteurs to champion tend to alight upon him.
One of the biggest problems with Spielberg - or at least appreciation of his work on this side of the Atlantic - is that he has an uncanny feel for what the mainstream small-town American audience wants, and on the whole they're a lot more sentimental than us Europeans, which is why we tend to champion much darker mainstream talents like Joe Dante or Paul Verhoeven (both of whom are more underrated than anything else).
Answers:
I would say that Kevin Smith shouldn't be included as he himself doesn't even rate his directing abilities - though his direction in J+SBSB is far better than anything he's done before that.
I would agree with the Fincher comments - to a degree, Alien 3 isn't really his film, I've yet to see the game but i do enjoy Fight Club and i thought Se7en was brilliantly directed.
I think spielberg is too easy to criticise as no-one has yet to come out with anything other than "Oh he's too sentimental" - He's pure entertainment, not realistic films neccesarily but ones that are supposed to entertain you (Raiders, Jaws, Minority Report, ET) every now and then he stretches it slightly and does something different - Close Encounters, which is totally devoid of sentimentality and is one of his best films IMO. I think he uses sentimentality to please the majority of people TBH, so that they'll enjoy the film rather than come away depressed. I think people forget that his job is to entertain, there are plenty of directors out there who want to depress you - he isn't one of them. And since when did 'being sentimental' affect a persons directing abilities?
Answers:
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
And since when did 'being sentimental' affect a persons directing abilities?
I completely agree - rather too many people confuse their own personal dislike of certain aspects of Spielberg's films with an objective assessment of whether or not he has any talent at all!
There's a very prescient review by Pauline Kael from 1974 that captures him uncannily perfectly:
"The director, Steven Spielberg, is twenty-six. I can't tell if he has any mind, or even a strong personality, but a lot of good moviemakers have got by without being profound. He isn't saying anything special in <I>The Sugarland Express</I>, but he has a knack for bringing out young actors, and a sense of composition and movement that almost any director might envy. Composition seems to come naturally to him, as it does to some of the young Italians; Spielberg uses his gift in a very free and easy, American way, for humour, and for a physical response to action. He could be that rarity among directors, a born entertainer - perhaps a new generation's Howard Hawks. In terms of the pleasure that technical assurance gives an audience, this film is one of the most phenomenal debut films in the history of movies. If there is such a thing as a movie sense - and I think there is (I know fruit vendors and cabdrivers who have it and some movie critics who don't) - Spielberg really has it. But he may be so full of it that he doesn't have much else. There's no sign of the emergence of a new film artist (such as Martin Scorsese) in <I>The Sugarland Express</I>, but it marks the debut of a new-style, new-generation Hollywood hand."
Kael doesn't actually like many of Spielberg's films, but she's honest about his gifts - which seem to me to be so obvious as to be undeniable by anyone with even an ounce of film awareness. And one thing I really admire about Spielberg is that for the most part he seems aware of the limitations that Kael identified.
Answers:
Lucio Fulci may be better than Bruno Mattei and Joe Tomato, but that really isn't saying much!!
I'd say Ridley Scott is overrated too. Alien and Bladerunner are great films, but the rest of his career?? I thought Gladiator was one of the dullest blockbusters I've ever sat through. How anyone could make a film about gladiatorial combat so boring is beyond me!
:zzz:
Answers:
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Lucio Fulci may be better than Bruno Mattei and Joe Tomato, but that really isn't saying much!!
Rats Night of Terror (Rats - Notte di terrore) pretty much says it all :oh-hum:
Answers:
Ridley Scott
David Fincher
Sam Raimi
Anybody who said Martin Scorsese wound up gettin' whacked. ;)
Answers:
All of 'em :|
One day the writer will be first in the credits ;)
Answers:
Originally posted by Steffe79
My nominees are:
Alfred Hitchcock (Ok, Psycho and Vertigo are good ones, but the rest...)
I know what you mean - <I>North By Northwest, Rear Window, Strangers On A Train, Rebecca, Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, The Birds</I>? Five minutes of any Adam Sandler or Tom Green flick ****** all over them!
Answers:
M Night Shymalan ( liked Unbreakable, but didn't like Signs)
David Fincher (thought Fight Club and Alien 3 were tripe, but I enjoyed Panic Room and Seven)
Kevin Smith (never got into his films)
John Woo (Some of his films are great, most aren't)
Answers:
The main nomination which springs to mind is Kubrick. A gifted technician who made a couple of excellent films - "The Killing" and "Paths of Glory" - and then forgot how to pace his movies and how to direct actors. "A Clockwork Orange" in particular strikes me as an abysmal failure on an intellectual and narrative level while not being all that interesting on a technical level, with good actors encouraged to go wildly over the top and no controlling intelligence behind what is essentially a much too familiar storyline.
David Lean is the other one. How could a man who made one of the best literary adaptations ever in "Great Expectations" and one of the finest love stories in "Brief Encounter" bear to be known for the endless banality of "Doctor Zhivago" or the abysmal but unintentionally hilarious "Ryan's Daughter" ?
Answers:
David Lean is the other one. How could a man who made one of the best literary adaptations ever in "Great Expectations" and one of the finest love stories in "Brief Encounter" bear to be known for the endless banality of "Doctor Zhivago" or the abysmal but unintentionally hilarious "Ryan's Daughter" ?
irrespective of my opinion of dickens, lean's great expectation is pretty mediocre. and how can you assess his achievements without mentioning lawrence of arabia?
Answers:
Originally posted by xtrmntr
irrespective of my opinion of dickens, lean's great expectation is pretty mediocre.
Not from where I'm sitting - I watched it only the other week at work, charged with selecting no more than twelve minutes of representative extracts, and I was frankly spoiled for choice. I'd forgotten how good it was!
Answers:
Incidentally, I don't think that the fact that a director has made one or two bad films should devalue their reputation as a whole - and this is particularly true of directors who don't exactly go along conventional artistic pathways.
By any sensible yardstick, Tim Burton and Guy Maddin rank amongst my favourite directors, but they've both made unwatchably dire rubbish in <I>Planet of the Apes</I> and <I>Twilight of the Ice Nymphs</I> respectively. But I'll still be first in the queue for their next films - and in Maddin's case his new film (the first silent <I>Dracula</I> since <I>Nosferatu</I> eighty years ago) is a terrific return to form.
Answers:
<b>irrespective of my opinion of dickens, lean's great expectation is pretty mediocre. and how can you assess his achievements without mentioning lawrence of arabia?</b>
I disagree strongly with your estimation of "Great Expectations". Not only the best cinematic vision of Dickens, but among the most purely cinematic of literary adaptations. Every single shot is worth lingering over, not a moment in the script is wasted, the actors bring the characters to life and give them a credibility independent of the text, and the script edits the original without gutting it. What's 'mediocre' about it ?
As for "Lawrence Of Arabia", it's badly paced and pretty without being atmospheric or evocative. It totally fails to address the character of Lawrence, simplifies the conflict between the Turks and the Arabs into comic-book terms and hammy sadism, and relies on Omar Sharif's non-performance to give the audience someone nice to identify with. The music is mediocre, the editing is lax and the supporting actors - Kennedy, Hawkins, Rains, Quinn &c - do the same party pieces that they performed in most of the films they made. If it's an achievement of any sort, it's in physical terms, but that's more sad than inspiring - all that work for such paltry results. Robert Aldrich could have knocked this off in a month and added genuine psychological depth to the characters and an awareness of the situation that isn't limited to the Turks being more homo-erotically perverse than the Arabs.
Answers:
Not from where I'm sitting - I watched it only the other week at work, charged with selecting no more than twelve minutes of representative extracts, and I was frankly spoiled for choice. I'd forgotten how good it was!
well it seems to be universally acclaimed as a classic, but i thought it had dated very badly.
Answers:
As for "Lawrence Of Arabia", it's badly paced and pretty without being atmospheric or evocative. It totally fails to address the character of Lawrence, simplifies the conflict between the Turks and the Arabs into comic-book terms and hammy sadism, and relies on Omar Sharif's non-performance to give the audience someone nice to identify with. The music is mediocre, the editing is lax and the supporting actors - Kennedy, Hawkins, Rains, Quinn &c - do the same party pieces that they performed in most of the films they made. If it's an achievement of any sort, it's in physical terms, but that's more sad than inspiring - all that work for such paltry results. Robert Aldrich could have knocked this off in a month and added genuine psychological depth to the characters and an awareness of the situation that isn't limited to the Turks being more homo-erotically perverse than the Arabs.
you argued your case well there. rather perversely, i can approach lawrence without a great deal of cynicism but i couldn't help but cringe at great expectations.
Answers:
Spielberg makes too many ropey movies to be a good director, for every ET there is A.I.
Always detested John Hughes especially for the Home Alone films.
Kevin Smith is a director that really does nothing to make me sing his praises.
George Lucas made 3 of the finest movies ever, then screwed up with the prequels, they are OK but just not great.
James Cameron,I hated Aliens, Terminator etc just nothing to make me say this is a good movie, they are too much like action movies, and lets be honest how many really good action movies are there to have come out of Hollywood in the last few decades.
Answers:
Originally posted by profondorossoargento
Spielberg makes too many ropey movies to be a good director...
He makes an awful lot of ropey films, but he still has his place. He certainly isn't to be trusted though - and with all the money spent on most of his scripts, it's bewildering how many huge errors and misjudgements slip through the net.
Originally posted by profondorossoargento
... for every ET there is A.I.
Two of his best, imho. For every Jurassic Park, there is a Lost World. For every Raiders, there is a Hook. For every Schindler's List, there is an Amistad.
Answers:
Over rated directors?
Tsui Hark for a start
oh, and Brett Ratner (someone must rate him highly - or is it just the Jewish connection that gets him the jobs?)
Answers:
Originally posted by Kif
David Fincher is massively overrated, too. However, while most people seem to feel Fight Club was his 'one great film', I disagree. I found it pretentious, and the twist was a complete cop-out. Seven, on the other hand, I thought was a shockingly original serial killer film. Very good indeed, it was.
perhaps you should read the book first, and then lay the blame for "the twist" elsewhere if you think it was a cop out.
---Palahniuk was the author by the way if u want to read it.... quite good but also too short and overrated.
Answers:
M Night Shymalan - Everyone who i talked to told me that Sixth Sense was superb and i thougt it was arse and then i had the misfortune to watch Unbreakable, and it was terrible. I want to see signs but his track record really puts me off.
Bill Paxton - great actor terrible director, so Frailty may be his directorial debut but it was a really poor film
David Fincher - Se7en and Fight Club are cool, but the rest of his films suck, he relies to heavily on the "One Long Shot" that seems to feature so heaavily in his films.
1 2