Who is the most overrated director?

Why would that be?


I agree about The Trial. It's one of the most impressing films I've ever seen in terms of visuals.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Nicolas Winding Refn

The Magnificent Ambersons and The Trial especially highlight the reason why I think Welles is a great director. The lighting! Welles was the master of intricate, gorgeous, and indicative lighting. The Trial is one of the most unnerving films I have seen because of its constantly suspenseful and intricate visual detail. The contrasts work perfectly on black and white photography. It's not nearly as effective in color films.

__________________
Mubi

Kubrick? Eastwood?

No! Come on, guys...

__________________

I'd go with Eastwood,I've seen his 7 films and none of them stood out for me.

I'd say that while Kubrick is a great director, he's reached the status of a god in most internet film circles. I think this is perfectly exemplified in the documentary about The Shining this year, Room 237. It basically follows conspiracy theorists who try to interpret not just the film, but every one of Kubrick's intentions. This kind of criticism isn't really criticism, but guess work, and it could only have been done with someone like Kubrick. And it reaches the levels with Kubrick where continuity errors become strokes of genius. With Ozu, we recognize his continuity errors as his disregard for continuity, but with Kubrick, where there are errors, it's actually 100% intentional and absolute genius filmmaking.







Woah! Look! Someone accidentally nudged the chair between takes! Even if this thing really is intentional, it really isn't that clever of a tactic. We have no way of knowing if continuity error are intentional while watching, and therefore we really have no reason to be frightened by them. It's only when someone like Kubrick with god-like status comes along do we attribute greatness to weakness. He is a great director, and I regard Barry Lyndon with the highest esteem, but c'mon guys!

Don't lump us with that fringe group please.

I'm not referencing this site at all, just saying that among many circles, he's god.

Tim Burton. I like Big Fish and Edward Scissorhands but Burton is still a definition of an overrated director. He always overuses the same gothic art-style and frankly it's gotten pretty stale. Not to mention he has made some terrible films like charlie and the chocolate factory,dark shadows and Abraham Lincoln:vampire hunter.

kubrick is legitimately god-tier. what is going on

__________________
~ I am tired of ze same old faces! Ze same old things!

He started out as a highly original filmmaker; now, he's a hack.

__________________
"Yes, citizen, there is no cause for alarm -- you may return to your harpsichord."

Tarantino for me, Do not get me wrong. I Really am a fan of his and enjoyed nearly all of his films thoroughly. But in what I believe was How To Make Friends And Alienate People Simon Peggs character is putting down another character because He thinks that cinema began with Tarantino. So Its not really Quentin's fault He is a really great Film Maker....But not the best not by a long shot.

Blast me if you wish....But i just don't care

Kubrick is overrated according to my tastes, in internet film circles Kubrick is regarded as the Number 1 director of all time but my own list of favorite directors place him in the 5th place (he was 1st place, though, 2 years ago). Though, of course, for someone like me to say that I have like 10 movies of his in my top 200 including 2 in my top 30, to say that he is overrated is a bit hypocritical.

However, with Hitchcock, although he has 3 movies in my top 200, I still think he is slightly overrated since he usually has more than this number of films in any list of top 200 greatest films (usually around 5-8 films).

Goddard is one that I find particularly overrated. His modern art films are quite interesting but to say that he is the 3rd greatest director of all time is way off the charts (he ranked 3rd on the last Sign and Sound poll).

How technical...

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

My top two are David Cronenberg and Christopher Nolan.

Hitchcock, like Charlie Chaplin, has been victim of a great deal of poor aging with many of his films. What was suspenseful and riveting in his time according to standards he consistently set, now come off as campy and dated. Without Hitchcock (and Godard), film would be different today, but it still remains that his films have a greatly diminished effect nowadays.

As Sight and Sound and many other polls show, film, and people who like film are very nostalgic. Someone like Godard is usually ranked so highly because of his contributions to cinema (funny that Griffith is never mentioned) throughout history. When Godard was hot, he was really great, but he's been making films for too long and to put him among the greatest while his new releases pass by ignored is a bit foolish. Godard's New Wave films have an energy to them that I think is missing in modern day cinema, and for that reason I think they have aged better than a lot of films, but yes, Godard is a critic's filmmaker, and I don't think he can be considered among the best in lieu of only his 60s work.

Can't believe people are saying Kubrick is overrated lol. Nolan is a bit overrated, but it is true that he has yet to make a poor film.It's arguable that David Lynch is slightly overrated. Although Mulholland Dr. and Blue Velvet are bonafide masterpieces.Twin Peaks was cool too.

I think Nolan has made several poor films, I've yet to seem him make a very good one. Memento wasn't very bad, and I believe it's the most interesting and human he's ever been, but it ran into gimmick and repetition eventually, constrained by the very concept that originally invigorated it.

Due to the unexpected though (as proven by the mid second season dip in viewership) misunderstanding public love for Twin Peaks, he's become a household name of quality filmmaking. Mulholland Drive's puzzling narrative appeals to the same group whose mouths water at one of Nolan's puzzle box films (there's a big distinction between what they're doing, and it's seen in how little love the less cohesive Inland Empire gets in comparison) while the film's more evocative and emotional aesthetic raise the level of artistry. Lynch suits the kind of narrative audiences are looking for right now, and I think as a result he's been given a universal seal of approval. But Lynch has made some pretty bad stuff as well. Who has Dune in their top ten? Who thought Wild at Heart deserved the Palme D'or? When Lynch is great, it's sublime, when he's bad, it's unwatchable, but he's always Lynch.

When watching a Nolan film I don't go in expecting some artistic, thoughtful masterpiece, but what I do respect is that although his films are fairly mainstream and have the usual blockbuster feel when it comes to effects and look, his plots are still pretty inventive and ambitious, and require intelligence from the viewers more so than other 'easier' films. What I am talking about is a film like Avatar that played it safe in terms of plot, which is understandable when you consider its target audience, but with Inception Nolan didn't keep it simple and I respect his audacity in giving such a popular film such a potentially confusing plot. Unlike some though I am not much of a fan of The Prestige.

And with Lynch I will honestly say I love Inland Empire and like Wild At Heart a lot too, I have yet to see Dune, Lost Highway, or The Elephant Man, but so far I have pretty much enjoyed everything and would certainly not say that any of his work has been 'unwatchable'.

__________________

The problem with Nolan's plots though, is that they are very Hollywood in that they are puzzles meant to be solved. When you understand what happened in a Nolan film, there's nothing left that's interesting and the film ties itself up into a neat little bow. Maybe you think about the film after if you didn't understand it, but if you do, it's still a "within the theater" kind of movie. His decision to leave the ending "open" in Inception was kind of silly as well. It's admitting that he didn't explain the rules of the game well enough for us to understand what happened, basically poking fun at how his own Hollywoodness interfered with the story originally being told.

The other issue is that Nolan is not a cinematic director. He writes A LOT of dialogue, and relies entirely on his words to tell his story. I thought the use of Bane in his newest film was very tongue in cheek in the sense that he made his villain the most anti-Nolan character, he had no mouth to stare at while he talked. He has distilled his color palette down to variations of grays that reduce the visual range of his films greatly. He (like most modern directors) has no idea how to direct a coherent action scene (see: ). His approach to shooting is very conventional, the camera just kinda hangs out and cuts enough to give the film a kineticism throughout. The issue is that Nolan's work is not uniquely cinematic at all, it could be just as easily any other form of media. When I think of a good director, I think of someone who is fluent in the language of cinema and uses the language to aid (or even compose in its entirety) the story, which I don't think Nolan does.