top 5 most overrated directors

[Guest Lethargic]

Okay, c'mon now, Blade II was not excellent. It was pretty good, but not excellent. I totally agree with Lethargic.

A superhero movie is only as good as it's villain and Blade II didn't even have a villain. As far as being as good as the first, there's no the two even compare. Blade kicked ass. The sequel wasn't even worth watching and I barely stayed awake. And after seeing the CGI Blade, it turned the movie into a comedy.

[Guest massivHEDtrauma]

Not to mention the STALL SUPLEX OF DEATH that Blade pulled off in the sequel. Looked rather stiff, might I add.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Making movies is a joint project. The director is one of the most important members, but even s/he is not absolutely essential.

 

Making movies, as anyone knows, is a collaborative effort. And while a director is not essential, don't make it sound like a monkey could do the job and the movie would come out just as good. Just because a piece of the puzzle isn't necessary doesn't mean that having it added can't make a movie better.

 

Kevin Smith lacks the ability as a director to make his movies any better by having him on the set.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Why is everyone so hard on Fincher for Alien 3? Just because it wasn't as good as the first two (to some people), doesn't make it suck.

 

Since when does "not as good as previous entries = suck"?

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Okay, c'mon now, Blade II was not excellent. It was pretty good, but not excellent. I totally agree with Lethargic.

So Blade II being "pretty good" makes Del Toro and overrated director?

[Guest J*ingus]

I liked Alien 3 a hell of a lot more than the incredibly overrated The Game.

 

But in the end, all this bickering proves is that different people have different tastes in movies. Is that a surprise to anybody?

[Guest massivHEDtrauma]

Yes it makes Del Toro overrated because, as Lethargic said, everyone is treating him as if he's John Woo or something. I mean, he's not even a fucking Michael Bay, and Michael Bay sucks pretty bad as it is.

[Guest massivHEDtrauma]

I just thought of another really overrated director that would probably knock Todd Field off my list: John Carpenter. He made The Thing, which is great, and Escape From New York, which was pretty damned good, and it was all downhill from there until Ghosts of Mars came out, officially destroying this man's credibility. How sad.

 

I did like In the Mouth of Madness more than I'll ever admit, though.

[Guest J*ingus]

See, HED, you're proving my point even more. I personally love Del Toro's work, think he's leagues better than Bay, and damn close to Woo indeed. Meanwhile, I kept enjoying Carpenter well into the 90's, but wrote him off as a complete has-been once I saw Escape From L.A. and Vampire$. Everyone has different opinions. This is art and entertainment, not algebra.

[Guest godthedog]

See, HED, you're proving my point even more. I personally love Del Toro's work, think he's leagues better than Bay, and damn close to Woo indeed. Meanwhile, I kept enjoying Carpenter well into the 90's, but wrote him off as a complete has-been once I saw Escape From L.A. and Vampire$. Everyone has different opinions. This is art and entertainment, not algebra.

beh. copping out of an argument with the "everyone has different taste" card is overrated.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I still love John Carpenter. Sure, some of his stuff hasn't been great, but I pretty much like most of it. I'm glad he has stuck to his guns, and continues to make the kind of movies he likes in the style he likes, unlike some directors who totally abandon their style so they can be accepted by mainstream Hollywood.

[Guest J*ingus]

beh. copping out of an argument with the "everyone has different taste" card is overrated.

It's not a copout, it's the truth. DIFFERENT PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS. I get so pissed when closed-minded people argue otherwise (just visit the Puro folder for many good examples).

[Guest cabbageboy]

I'll go with Michael Cimino. Well, actually everyone knows the guy was a one movie wonder with the Deer Hunter and has done crap since. However I don't see what is really that good about the Deer Hunter. There are moments in it that were really powerful but I also watched and wondered "what kind of moron directed this?" The opening scene takes forever it seems like, and it's about 1 hour till they even get to Vietnam. The Nam scenes are gripping but totally confusing (How did they conveniently get put in the same platoon? How were they even captured?). I'm sorry but the ending of that movie should have been the scene with De Niro trying to hunt but not being able to kill the deer.

[Guest godthedog]

beh.  copping out of an argument with the "everyone has different taste" card is overrated.

It's not a copout, it's the truth. DIFFERENT PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS. I get so pissed when closed-minded people argue otherwise (just visit the Puro folder for many good examples).

of course it's the truth, but everybody already knows it. i don't think anyone on this board is pretentious enough to believe that their personal taste is what is truly GOOD, and those who disagree are truly WRONG. i know that david lynch isn't god and that there is no such thing as a 'good' or 'bad' movie. i've had countless arguments with friends over who's overrated & who's better, and they're fun. if you pull out the 'subjective taste' point, it takes all the fun out of the argument. the fun lies in trying to beat other people at their own game & getting them to agree with you, by making points the people hadn't thought about and agree with. a lot of us (probably even most of us) are in the movie forum to debate, not just say "i like" and "i don't like," cause those discussions just aren't very interesting. they don't really make you think about WHY you like what you like. a thread like this is a lot more liable to produce some kind of thought or feeling than, say, the 'top 5 favorite movies' thread. and the 'subjective taste' point just stops the argument.

[Guest Lethargic]

Yes it makes Del Toro overrated because, as Lethargic said, everyone is treating him as if he's John Woo or something. I mean, he's not even a fucking Michael Bay, and Michael Bay sucks pretty bad as it is.

Now that's just plain wrong. I don't think he's anything special but there is no way Del Toro is as friggin horrible as John Woo. That's just mean to say that.

[Guest massivHEDtrauma]

Heh, that's funny, I like John Woo a lot. C'mon, The Killer was pretty damned good.

 

But fine, I'll rephrase...you can't call him the next Ang Lee. There, better?

[Guest spiny norman]

"of course it's the truth, but everybody already knows it. i don't think anyone on this board is pretentious enough to believe that their personal taste is what is truly GOOD, and those who disagree are truly WRONG"

 

Speak for yourself.

[Guest J*ingus]

i don't think anyone on this board is pretentious enough to believe that their personal taste is what is truly GOOD, and those who disagree are truly WRONG.

You'd be amazed. In the Current Events and Puro folders, you can't browse around without tripping over people like that.

[Guest red_file]

I will also stand in solid defense of David Fincher. He is anything but an overrated director. Except Alien 3, every movie he has made has, if nothing else, been directed the right way. Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room all looked great and the characters were portrayed well.

 

Script problems in both the Game and Panic Room do not discredit Fincher as a director. Visually, he may be, at current, unmatched.

 

I also wouldn't say that a great movie can't be made with a bad director. A good one can. But film IS a visual medium, and to ignore that and say that a movie can be made on performances and script alone is taking away from the purpose of movies in the first place.

Not to quibble with you on this too much, but if you're praising the visuals of a movie you should really be praising the cinematographer and/or the Director of Photography. So, for some of Fincher's movies you should probably be praising Darius Khondji, Harris Savides, Jeff Cronenweth, and Conrad W. Hall. While it is typically (though not always) the director's job to choose an overall aesthetic for a film, it is the Cinematrographer and DP's job to make that visual aesthetic appear on film. To praise the director for achieving that goal would be faulty.

 

As to the original question, the only directors that immediately spring to mind are Robert Altman and Orson Welles. Altman because even the movies of his that I've enjoyed (like The Player and M.A.S.H.) have seemed entirely stripped of joy; I cannot, for some reason, watch an Altman movie and have any type of genuine emotional response. Welles, because he really did nothing of note beyond Citizen Kane and yet still is praised as one of the greatest directors of all time.

[Guest J*ingus]

You're very right about the DP. But as for Welles, what about Touch of Evil and Lady from Shanghai? Hell, even Macbeth and The Stranger weren't too terrible.

[Guest red_file]

Heh, Touch of Evil, yes. I'd forgotten that one, though I do believe I have a defense. While the film is populated with very good actors, it seems, to me, to merely be an exercise in device; Welles appears to have been experimenting with the conventions of what could be done with a noir film and how the cinematography could best be used to enhance the...er...noir-ness (?) of the film. Perhaps the film is a successful exercise. To me, it seems like there is little to the film beyond the exercise. Perhaps I need to view it again (seeing how easily it slipped from my mind).

 

Lady From Shanghai is a disjointed film. Few could deny that the film starts out interestingly enough, but once we get to the courtroom things take a turn. The tone of the film vascilates between comedic and dramatic, the score is infuriating, and then there's the ending. The ending is one of those things where I can listen to people rave about it, smile and nod, and yet never completely understand where they're coming from. I can look at the hall of mirrors objectively and understand how that was daring and how I've never actually seen something like that before or since, but I can't really say it does anything for me. It seems most people praise this film on the strength of the ending; seeing as I don't "get" the ending, I suppose it's no shock I'm not a big fan of the picture.

 

The Stranger is a decent movie, but I don't think I could really praise it. I think it aims too low. Welles was trying to make a thriller and that's exactly what he made. Were it not Welles that made it, I doubt it would be remember today.

 

Macbeth. I've seen it once and I hope I never see it again. Mel Gibson made a better Macbeth imo. The Orson Welles/Jeanette Nolan scenes? The horror, the horror.

 

Perhaps I'm a bit harsh on Welles. He's not a bad director by any stretch, but I hardly think he deserves the praise he gets.

[Guest J*ingus]

Well, damned if you don't know what you're talking about. You can count me in as a member of the herd, I loved the ending of Shanghai; one reason I liked the flick so much was that it was one of the few times that you got to see Welles without pounds of makeup or fake beards on his face. And you're right, Stranger would've been forgotten by now if Welles hadn't done it, it was just... ordinary. Just wondering, what's your take on The Magnificent Ambersons? I always thought it was terribly disjointed and overrated, probably due to the studio's recutting of it, but have never really gotten a second opinion on it.

[Guest godthedog]

muahaha...oh how uneducated we are in the ways of welles, who only remember the films he made with major studio funding. luckily, i am here to guide you. here's some more good-to-great stuff either forgotten about or not known:

 

'othello'--very good, very dark. won the grand prize at cannes.

 

'the trial'--brilliant, surreal kafka adaptation, with some mind-blowing visuals. welles himself said it was the best movie he ever made.

 

'chimes at midnight'--an original film assembled from bits & pieces of shakespeare plays, with falstaff as the main character. probably the second-best shakespeare adaptation ever (only 'ran' is better, i think).

 

'f for fake'--his last finished feature, documentary about hoaxes. francois truffaut said it was the best film of the 70s.

 

go to obscure video stores. check these out. revel in all that is welles.

 

there's a couple others by him i haven't seen (like 'mr. arkadin'), & some attempts by other people to salvage unfinished films of his together (like 'it's all true' & 'don quixote'), but i haven't seen any of them. and i thought 'ambersons' was a great movie with a really shitty ending.

[Guest Lethargic]

The Trial is my favorite Welles movie. That movie rules. It might not be as polished as Citizen Kane is but it's friggin awesome. It's sorta like the 60's version of Dark City.

 

I'd like to see Chimes at Midnight cause Welles said it was the best thing he ever made, but can't find it anywhere.

 

Do NOT watch Mr Arkadin! That movie is HORRIBLE. There are two versions out. The one called "Confidential Report" is the version Welles made and how it's supposed to be. The Arkadin version is the version that got taken away from him and butchered way more than Ambersons or Touch of Evil did. It's the only Welles film I was never able to finish because it's so screwed up.

 

Has anybody seen the new Touch of Evil on DVD? The original Touch of Evil is another one the studio meddled in and re-edited it and took it away from Welles original vision. They released it onto DVD last year with Welles original edit. I haven't gotten around to watching it yet to see if it's better or not.

[Guest godthedog]

if you're talking about the 1998 re-release, i saw it on video. the only differences i really noticed were the lack of music in the opening shot & the closing shot (and of course the cleaned-up picture). i read that most of the changes were tiny, but they do make a big difference, cause it seems a lot more dark & claustrophobic than i remember. awesome experience, check it out as soon as possible.

 

EDIT: boo yeah, seven straight posts about orson welles! we takin' over!

[Guest red_file]

As said, I might be overly harsh on Welles, but I am equally harsh on everything he did. Both his studio and "independent" films fail to impress me. Again, this might be a merely a matter where I just can't, for whatever reason, click with Welles' vision for a piece (much like I can never quite "get it" in regards to Mya Angelou). As for the films mentioned:

 

The Magnificent Ambersons, while I hestitate to really bash something that was hacked to pieces for the sake of studio pressure, I very much agree that the film is an incredibly disjointed one. More than that, it also seems like the film is far more melodramatic than it needs to be. The performances are good, but they strike me as disingenuine; I catch myself not being drawn in to the plight of Eugene and Isabel because it seems too over the top. Surely I can't be the only one who cringes at any scene with Fanny in them. Would the film be better in the original version that Welles had wanted? Perhaps. I tend to think that I just would've been a darker piece with more melodrama tacked on at the end.

 

Othello I've only scene once and that was a few years ago as a freshman at college. From what I remember it was a decent portrayal of the play, though Desdemona did grate on me with her shouting. Two things stick out in my mind from that viewing, though. One, was my prof telling us that we were not hearing that the original score as that score was horribly unsynched and didn't quite work for the film (can't comment really as I've only heard the new score). And two, I felt that Iago deserved the win. I'd never felt that in any other version of Othello that I've seen and tend to think that that might be a failing of the film (or it might not be; perhaps I just like rooting against any character played by Welles). At any rate, I've had to desire to see the film since. I might have to do so.

 

I think my problem with The Trial has little to do with the direction and more to do with the actual story. Kafka had great premises, but he was completely unable to do anything with them. We're given this amazing set-up with The Trial and nothing really becomes of it (either in the movie or the book); perhaps that's the point, that existential meaning is to be derived from it. It doesn't work for me. On the other hand, I liked No Exit. Go figure.

 

I've never seen Chimes at Midnight nor F for Fake, though I do admit the premise of F for Fake sounds interesting. But then, virtually all of the movies by Welles that I've seen and been disappointed with have had interesting premises. Perhaps I'm expecting to something that couldn't possibly be there in his work.

 

probably the second-best shakespeare adaptation ever (only 'ran' is better, i think).

 

Better than Stange Brew? I think not.

[Guest godthedog]

let us agree to disagree on the shakespeare adaptations, since i haven't seen 'strange brew' and you haven't seen 'chimes at midnight'.

[Guest J*ingus]

Chimes at Midnight (aka Falstaff) is damn hard to find. I've scouted every video store within a 50-mile radius looking for rare stuff, and have yet to come upon a copy of it. Same thing with F For Fake.

 

And no, godthedog, I'm not "undeducated" when it comes to Welles, I own no less than six of his movies, including Mr. Arkadin and The Trial. I just didn't find them as interesting as some of the others.

[Guest godthedog]

gotcha. i just made that assumption, since only the major studio welles movies were mentioned, & most people either don't know about or forget all the movies he made after the 40s (minus 'touch of evil').

 

i watched 'chimes at midnight' at my campus library, so...i guess if you're ever near athens, georgia, you can see it there.

[Guest J*ingus]

Yeah, I had the chance to watch Chimes (amongst other rare classics) at my campus library in Murfreesboro TN, but I didn't. Reason why was that they had the absolute worst viewing setups I've EVER seen in my life. It was a bunch of desks, outfitted with an ancient boat-anchor VCR, inadqeuate headphones, an uncomfortable hardwood chair, and a tiny 10-inch TV. And the way they were set up, the sun was always shining directly onto the screens. Needless to say, I didn't get a helluva lot of movie watching done there, even if they did have Throne of Blood or The Sacrifice.