Least favorite director?

Cheap shot, I know, but Nancy flippin' Meyers...

__________________
"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

In regards to Moore I dont think his documentaries belong in this catagory, yes Canadian Bacon was a piece of steaming cow dung. But, being a documentary filmmaker is way more involved than simply directing. You cannot deny the cultural effect of his Docs, the factual nature of his premises (if not his conclusions) and the zeal with which he attacks them. In my mind, anyone who raises the ire of those on both sides of the political fence is doing something right.

Now Doris Wishman, theres a bad filmmaker, so bad her films are almost good. But I love a good train wreck.

NOOOOOOO! boo


Phantom of the Opera was whooparse and Bad Company was definately watcheable, but not great.

__________________
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
I'm afraid I must bid you adieu.
He woke up one night with a terrible fright
And found he was eating his shoe.

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

Sorry man but its very true. He has contributed one of cinemas greatest most watchable films in Pulp Fiction, but beyond that he's a hack. I guess achieving success so early in ones career can set the bar higher and raise expectations beyond belief but instead of expanding his stylized approach and disjointed storytelling he has fallen into the same ol same ol rut.

Personally, I found Kill Bill in its entirety a waste of 4 hours of my life. Uma Thurman, although godly in her appearance, gives the most uninteresting, banal, bloodless, performance recently committed to film. She is totally unbelievable as the angel of vengeance, her swordplay is sloppy and unconvincing and her delivery to the camera is hackneyed and laughable. This film is so bad it doesn't even work as a satirization of itself, which I think it was meant to be, and thats part of the problem.

As a Creative Bloodletting 101 project it only gets a B-, watch some of the Lone Wolf and Cub films, or some of the cheezy but creative Chinese martial arts films that came out in the late 70's (The Master of the Flying Guillotine comes to mind) and you will see that the creation of devices both literal and filmic is usually achieved with far more creativity on a less "ambitious" scale and budget.

Don't get me wrong, I love Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, they are great films made by a talented director, but I think ol Quentin has begun to believe his own press, and it shows. The man has talent oozing from his pores, but I think it will take him being knocked off the "critics darling" pedestals before he is able to truly make another great film.

I thought both were terrible jumbled messes, and again thats sad because he could be a great filmmaker. One of the problems associated with his films is the horrible use of kitsch and camp in inappropriate places. Nipples on the Batsuit? Cmon man!? And that horrible choice of set design on Flatliners, the Gothic Dr. Frankenstein location used for the "experiments" was way too literal, a garage would have served better, or a basement a la the Re-Animator perhaps.

A lot of folks hold his supposed “gay sensibilities” against him, that pisses me off. It is used as both a means to discretely “out” him and to just be downright homophobic, sometimes I think the homoerotic elements of his work are the most interesting (sans batsuit nipples), Imaging if the prevailing theme of an “unnatural” relationship between Batman and his ward were explored, now that would be a film worth noting. Personally I Don't think there is such a thing as a “gay sensibility” but openly gay directors who have used genre films to explore issues of marginalization (Bryan Singer comes to mind here with the X films) have done so with style enough to make some digging possible and make it a exercise in self-examination to the culture at large.

And don't get me started on The Lost Boys, Near Dark ....enough said!

I think there have been two times in his career when he came very close to touching greatness, Falling Down and The Client.

Both were meaty gritty subject matter with amazing casts and in places deft direction, but both suffered from an almost preachy feel. I guess I would have to amend my previous statement by saying both these films are watchable, once. I especially think the “gay panic” scene with the racist survivalist gun shop owner was approaching a real touchstone, my problem with it is that its so stereotypical and the outcome is telegraphed from the moment Michael Douglas enters his shop. American Beauty handled this subject matter much better and with greater impact. Yes it was telegraphed as well, but due to the writing and excellent direction it was actually shocking when it culminated. As a matter of fact it is a testament to the greatness of that film that the narrator says he's dead in the beginning of the film, you have a clue about how and by whom but you still find yourself riveted when the inevitable comes to pass.

Schumacher needs to get brave, he tried with 8mm but fell on his face in the process, what was supposed to be a film that was shocking and relevant (Nic Cage's reaction shots TOLD us so) ended up not even being a good exploitation film. What was supposed to be a Faustian bargain wrapped up in a Dante's Inferno descent into hell turned into a snorefest.

Truth is, I think both men are extremely talented and would love to see something great from both of them. Quentin needs to stop feeling so damn sure of himself and Joel needs a dose of the opposite.

My two cents...

I'll give you the other three, but exactly how much of Polanski's filmography have you seen?

Almost everything. I loved Frantic, which most people hated. I liked Death and the Maiden, Repulsion, cul-de-sac, Rosemary's Baby etc etc. I have seen most of his Foreign Language films (mostly at film festivals) but I just don't get the hype. I agree he is very talented but wildly uneven, and I don't blame that on his subject matter or his style. I just think that people tend to praise him un-accordingly, hes good, just not THAT good.

Of course the same could be said for a lot of my favorite directors, thats why I put him in the overrated category and not in my least favorite category. Notice that what makes my list of least favorite aren't directors without talent, they are talented directors who either rehash the same ol crap, or those who for whatever reason cannot seem to find their voice. I give all due praise to hacks who try, and none to talent that does not.

Hell, even Michael Bay has an extreme amount of talent (the upcoming The Island just may bump him of my list if it delivers what the trailer promises) he just wastes it on mindless explosions and weak ass plots.

You say he's 'wildly uneven' but fail to mention the troughs, or why people over-praise him. Chinatown? Knife In The Water? The Tenant?

Polanski's been making movies for 50 years and like everyone who's been working that long, he had a 'peak' period. He's also been producing Studio style pictures outside the confines of Hollywood (self-inflicted, of course) for going on 30.

To describe a body of work like that as overrated is, at best, harsh. Oh well.

It may be harsh but I do believe it to be true. At his best he is damn good at his worst he's mediocre. A Great director does not have to be consistant, but he or she does have to reach, try and take "projects" and not "jobs." Kubrick made half as many films and 98% of them were GREAT, works of art, compared to Kubrick and others like him, he is definately overrated.

Yeah thats setting the bar high, but when people mention Polanski just a breath away from God I just have to laugh. Thats what I mean by overrated, It isn't a slight as much as it is an observation.

So a director is overrated if they have talent but sometimes take jobs because they have to and not because they necessarily want to?

Or are they overrated because they aren't always brilliant?

Thanks for answering my query anyway, just out of interest who else do you consider to be wrongly deified? (apart from QT because I actually agree with a lot of what you say about him)

No, they are overrated if they do the above and people continually praise them even in the light of an uneven body of work. I never said he wasn't good, and in some cases great all I said was that he was (by fans and critics) overrated. It isn't a value judgment to say this, I am not critiquing the man's talent, I guess I'm just saying that as a director he receives too much praise ...whew!

Who else would I say is overrated, Sam Peckinpah. The Wild Bunch is in my mind the best example of the Western genre, Straw Dogs too was an amazing film, the rest of his features were merely ok. Not saying his films are bad by any means but The Ostermann Weekend was a good film as was Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia and Cross of Iron but none of them, what I would consider masterpieces.

Fair enough, but I'd put Major Dundee, Ride The High Country, Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia and Cross Of Iron all above Straw Dogs.

Now does that make me think that Peckinpah is great, or that Straw Dogs is overrated?

LOL If any of his films falls into that catagory its "The Wild Bunch" but you will never catch me saying that in public

Isn't most of being a talented director being a talented storyteller? Isn't that basically what the director is there for? To tell the story of the screenplay. If you don't think Spielberg is a good director i have no clue who you think is.

I think it's hilarious when people say Spielberg isn't talented.

Ya' may not like his sensitive, and often overly manipulative, type of storytelling...but not talented? Gimme a break.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I'm with Slay here. I always say that I have a love/hate relationship to Spielberg. I have lots and lots of objections against many things in his films. But I also respect him as a craftsman and he is loaded with talent.

__________________
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.

Agreed, I just don't care for the formulaic approach. Tugging on the heartstrings is ok and I don't have an issue with that, but you can't force blood from a stone, or in his case you can't force wonder out of the same storyline again and again.

I do give him credit though because I find his "worst" films the most challenging and maddening, AI for example. Having originally been a Kubrick project already (in my book) being a strike against him, I found what he did with it intriguing, I think it would have been very interesting to see what a collaborative effort would have brought forth from the combination of the two. Minority Report left me with the same feeling, some brilliant ideas there, almost too many for one film.

Personally I think he's at his best when he leaves the Kiddie fare behind, Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List being two of the most brilliant films of the past several years. He misstepped on Amistad, though I have difficulty putting my finger on why. And I like that.

I didn't like AI. At all. I think Spielberg "spielberged it up" far too much. It's not cold enough. It's not cold at all. Only overly melodramatic but at the same time technically well crafted as usual of course.

The famous Normandy invasion scene in Saving Private Ryan is Spielberg at his best as well as the flashback parts of Amistad showing the awful transportation of the slaves from Africa. I think he succeeds in depicting really horrible things in an honest and realistic way when he tries to. It just seems like that doesn't appeal to him very often, to work like that. Perhaps he's a little bit too much of a pleaser, a softy for feel-good movies. Shindler's List I like very much as well, but here and there, and especially when Schindler breaks down towards the end, it falls for Hollywood sentimentality.

I have my complaints about AI, the sentimentality being one, the second choosing Haley Joel Osment for the main role. As far as his films go though It was, or should I say, felt very cold and clinical. The melodrama is a given in a Spielberg film so I expected that. I wish he could have reached a happy medium with it though. I don't know though, theres something there, something ellusive... the ghost of Kubrick maybe?

You hit the nail on the head as far as Amistad was concerned, that is the exact reason I hated that film, the rest of it was so bloodless (figuratively speaking).

His habitual descent into sentimentality drives me nuts and in my mind negates much of the good stuff.

This is what scares me about War of the Worlds, yes it has a kind of happy ending, actually more melancholy than happy, and I fear he is going to make it "feel good" negating any "message" that may be there.

Schindler's List 's material was so dark that the "happy ending" (very reminiscent of Titanic, AND of many a Spike Lee film) was disposable IMO, and didn't have the same draining effect that AI had.

Another new idea...

McG. See: Charlie's Angels.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0