Least favorite director?

Another bad director would have to be McG.

Four words: Charlie's Angesl Full Throttle.

Nuff said.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I generally dislike directors who add a whole bunch of guns and explosions to their movies to hide their mediocre film making skills

__________________

UWE BOLL

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

id say Michael Bay

__________________
If i could laugh, I´d love you; If I could smile at anything you said, We could be laughing lovers; I think you prefer to be miserable instead...("Im your villain", Franz Fedinand)

I'd have to agree with those who said Joel Schumacher. Not only did he put the dreaded nipples on the batsuit, but i don't think he ever saw a frame of the batman comic before designing the sets for either film. It was like a circus playhouse and too brightly colored. He destroyed the image of Gotham that every comic book fan had ever imagined

At last!

I've been struggling with a title for my memoirs.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Better use it before Blib tries to poach it!!!

Michael Bay is a gimmie when it comes to bad directors, Joel Schumaker has made some very bad films, but I really enjoyed " Tigerland " with Colin Farrell.
Anything directed by Alan Smithee is also a bad choice, there is no Alan Smithee, but the name is frequently used by directors who realised they have made a bad movie!
It's easy to critisize directors, but there is so much collabaration involved in making a movie, plus a lot of times the director doesn't have final say on the cut of the movie that is released. Directors of Spielberg and Scorsesse's calibre have final say, but it is a limited and unique club that can over-rule the producers.
As a trainee director, I try to learn something from every movie I watch, there are very few movies that I've watched that I don't find something to like about, a camera angle, a special effect, the way the film unfolds, etc. It is a very hard job, but with the right editor, you can make decent films out of crappy movies.
My personal opinion is that a lot of directors have become lazy, and the constant use of CGI and special effects for the wow factor, and to cover up plot holes or a weak story, annoys me. I'm not saying don't use the technology if it's available to you, but it's more the over-use of such things that indicates a director struggling to me.
Again, personally for me, Tarantino is very over-rated, yes " Reservoir Dogs " and " Pulp Fiction " are brilliant movies, but I'm still waiting for him to follow up these films with a decent movie.
I guess I'll just have to show him how it's done!!!

__________________
Hey Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of presents?


Toga, toga, toga......


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

Wow, first time seeing this thread, and there is a wide spectrum of tastes and opinions here.

With that said, I totally agree with Misirlou. No need for megatons of explosions, shattered glass, millions of dollars of destruction ... just means that they don't have a good story to tell, and need to make up for it by blasting our neural senses (kinda like what anime does to us).

Michael Bay is definitely the worst. Honorable mention goes to Renny Harlin and Tony Scott.

I don't like Tim Burton, he's too wierd and his movies are wierd.

Michael Bay is great, yeah maybe the dialouge is corny sometimes and the story isn't great, but they're a heck of a lot of fun to watch, doesn't that mean anything to you guys? Look at The Rock, thats one of my favorite movies of all time. And Bad Boys 1 and 2 are great too, entertaining as hell.

Coen brothers.

Fargo and Big Lebowski are heavily overrated.

I liked them both

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I wouldn't go as far as calling the Coens overrated but they're definitely not as flawless as many people argue. Or perhaps it's more a question of personal taste. I think their films are a bit too much of metafilms for me regarding them as among my top filmmakers. But their scripts rule.

Anyway, the two films you mentioned are probably my favourite Coens films and the ones that I absolutely not think are overrated.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Ummmm, no. Depends on the director. Auteur directors are somewhat concerned with story, some of the time. Many believe (and I tend to agree) that there is a language of cinema, that trancends words and therefore doesn't need them. Movies are clearly not just about the screenplay, or we would just read them. It comes down to whether or not you feel a film should always be about something, which I don't. I think a good director makes you think and feel with visual images. Take Eraserhead for instance, what is that about? Could be about many things, but the director leaves it up to us to interpret, so it can actually mean more than if it was just a story with a plot and a bad, tied up with a bow ending... If a film has a cute little twist and a nice little explaination, it will linger in your mind for about 10 minutes, then it's gone, interest lost, for me anyway...

Now, a film you can keep going back to, and discovering more and more about it's meanings, that is good cinema.

__________________

Kevin Smith. I just don't see what is so good about him. He can't direct and his dialogue is just fart jokes and little else. Plus, I hate those "comic nerd" fans that seem to be so into him talking about him like he is Orson Welles or something.

Kevin Smith? No thanks.

I guess you are fine with stereotyping, though. I do agree, also, that Kevin Smith is a shabby director. I like some of his writing, but his directing skills leave something to be desired.

The fact that he calls himself "McG" should be enough.

Michael Bay
Tony Scott
Steven Spielberg (I have my reasons)
James Cameron

I agree I think that he is totally overrated and a little bit of a one trick pony

Batman Forever was classy (IMO), Falling Down was a good film, his remake of Phantom of the Opera is the best since the silent.

He makes some misses (batman and robin, veronica guerrin) but he makes up for it in ample new releases.

Tigerland was easily his best effort. The dialogue left much to be desired but the tremendous cinematography and acting performances made it a great movie in my mind.

Just my opinion that this guy gets undeserved criticism for his "camping" of batman and his failure with phone booth.

You could really go back to St. Elmo's Fire if you wanted too, but this guy has got some talent.

Now, for my opinion on the worst director of all time.

It would have to be Tony Scott.

I really hate it how Tony Scott choosed self righteous and boring scripts, respectively, in Man on Fire and Domino.

I also hate how he did his rapid cut editing and cheap motel grain color in order to "be different". It only confused things and made them stupid and hard to follow. I believe this ruins cinemtography as we know it and I hope he never makes movies again.

But wait a second, he is, he is remaking the warriors. And if I know the fake auteur T. Scott, it will be rapid cut, historically inaccurate and politically correct (like his brother) in a gang war in which noone was at fault but the pope.

"Kingdom of heaven like battles in the warriors", Walter Hill is churning in his absence from movies grave.

Also, the novelist Sol Yurick who accurately depicted the complexity of gang life in New York around that time is now going to be offended that the cliches he sought hard to eradicate in favor of understading of youths are now being resurrected for a Tony Scott ass kissing fest.

Die, Tony, Die. (last boy scout sucked too).


Edit: Silly me, I forgot about the pervert, "Uwe Boll."

This man is being touted as the next Ed Wood. I say to those people that they are teetering on dangerous territory. Not only do you have to be drug induced and drunk to the point of intoxication, but you must also be a real ******* to like the movies. This is because, unlike the actually funny Ed Wood, Uwe Boll takes from videogames (things with a fan base) and then perverts him.

So, fans of the videogame expecting justice to be done are left with a steaming pile of crap while pretentious nimwits who have never seen an Ed Wood comment on how UWE Boll is the future of "sticking it to the man"

I would just hope that those who support Uwe Boll would realize that he isn't funny, he is stupid, he uses cliches, and he hurts fan bases. He needs to leave the industry, and that is a fact, not an opinion.

*Goes retarded*

__________________

Sofia Coppola- Lost in Translation & The Virgin Suicides were very overrated in my opinion.

I'll second this.


Also, I strongly urge people to reconsider their stance on Schumaker. He is a good filmmaker who makes misses, but makes very rewarding hits. The hits being such fare as St. Elmo's Fire, Falling Down, Tigerland, and Phantom of the Opera.

I would say that 2 of those are on my top 100 and all 4 would make my top 250.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say he only screwed up on Batman and Robin.

But, I digress, if people would rather have satan (boll) directing films opposed to someone with real talent, I have to respect that.