Most Overrated and underrated Directors

Tools    





Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Firstly, what makes you say films of these directors have no point? Maybe you just can't get and feel them. Besides even if there's no point in these pictures I can't understand why some people abhor style over substance films so much.
Secondly, how ignorant is it to say what certain directors should do. You don't know their intentions and they won't change their art only because some people dislike it. Art is art and movies are art. Films are not only about a linear storytelling, but also mood, pace, cinematography, music, directing and many other things.
Thirdly, what "not normal" movies do you like, may I ask?
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Let it out, TONGO! You're on a roll! There must be some more auteurs who chap your ass. They want a reaction and you're giving 'em one. Don't stop now.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Finished here. It's been fun.
Tongo please stop. Your obviously not a fan of Lynch, but to say his films are "pointless" is a travesty. You sound like the type of guy who would hate a film like 2001, but love something like Transformers.



Firstly, what makes you say films of these directors have no point? Because Lynch himself has said that he lets the viewer decide what its about. Im sorry but that equates to drivel. He starts out like theres a story, which is his great failing since there isnt one, and then lets the viewer watch a bunch of creepy aimless scenes, and dont you dare say its drivel lest be labeled an idiot! Thats because its "art"

Maybe you just can't get and feel them. Besides even if there's no point in these pictures I can't understand why some people abhor style over substance films so much. Secondly, how ignorant is it to say what certain directors should do. You don't know their intentions and they won't change their art only because some people dislike it. Art is art and movies are art. So why are their art critics and movie critics?! Mm so sorry but Im not falling into that "because its art" excuse. Just because someone says its art doesnt mean it is. Just because someone makes a bulk of work which is overhyped shlock doesnt mean its good because he made a few good films.

Films are not only about a linear storytelling, but also mood, pace, cinematography, music, directing and many other things. Thats a cop out. Why have mood? To set a mood or a pace for what goal? To tell a story!!!!! He should direct music videos!

Thirdly, what "not normal" movies do you like, may I ask?
Good question. Let me see.....

Well my favorite movie of all time is The World According To Garp. As I said in a thread it was the film that awakened me to film i.e. love movies. The Shining was ok, but couldve been better. Jacob's Ladder was as different as it gets, BUT HAD A POINT!!! The Fly was awesome. Loved Being John Malkovich, and Where The Wild Things Are. Adaptation was crap though (Sorry Spike)

Gummo. I cant say I liked Gummo, but Ill never forget it. I openly yelled at the screen alot of WTFisms, and I bet thats what the director wanted. I wasnt bored, unlike a Lynch, Gilliam, M Night, Mallick, etc... where I was disappointed because theyre capable of more. Oh and Gregg Araki sucks too. He sucks a bunch.



Tongo please stop. Your obviously not a fan of Lynch, but to say his films are "pointless" is a travesty. You sound like the type of guy who would hate a film like 2001, but love something like Transformers.
I liked the first Transformers, but thats probably because I never followed the cartoon. It was Michael Bays finest film. It was though. I saw the second one, once, and it was nothing but big loud racket. Bays a shallow filmmaker.



Why should a film give all the answers to you on your plate, like Sedai's sig, why do you want film's spoon fed for you. Personally I'd rather a film leave lots of room for thoughts and discussion rather than the film end when the video stops.

Just because films are open to interpretation doesn't mean they are pointless, I am sure Lynch has a meaning/story behind them all, he just doesn't want to betray his films and tell us straight up what they are, what would be the fun in that?

And okay, I can understand your criticism to a point, but Lynch films... boring? What?!



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
So you call a possibility to self-interpret the whole picture a drivel?

Definition of art is very variable, but if you say Lynch films aren't art, then films in your top ten are not, too. You may dislike them or even hate it, but to deny their 'membership' to the film art is highly inappropriate and inane.

Set a mood to tell a story? That's a very narrow-minded way of thinking. Films aren't books and even some books have this 'style over substance' syndrome, but people still enjoy them. You set the mood to make the viewer sink into the film, not the story specifically. And there's a story in every movie. Mulholland Drive has a very complex story, if fragmented, confusing, nonlinear, reverie but still. If you make a movie about a guy sitting still for an hour it still has a story and it can be very complex, because he may be doing so many things while still sitting.

And strange thing you yelled at the screen while watching Gummo (haven't seen it, but I know it's pretty weird), but not while watching Lynch, especially given your "lack of point" and "weird pointless scenes" accusations. And you say you were bored while watching those films, so maybe that's the case, not the alleged pointlessness?



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
They're both, but not always at the same time. EOT. Let's focus on this thread..



Gangster Rap is Shakespeare for the Future
I like good movies and many arent "normal". Yes the tone was there in Lost Highway & Mulholland Drive, but no point! If someone wants to put beautiful images to film like Malick, or dark images like Lynch but have no sound reasoning to it they shouldnt make movies, they should make music videos. Now that would work.
They're not just images though. They're moving images in an audio-visual medium. Let me once again quote Mr. Scorsese on this: "Cinema is a matter of what's inside the frame and what's out" If you think that Malick is just taking pictures, you're missing the whole point of cinema.
__________________
Mubi



So you call a possibility to self-interpret the whole picture a drivel?

Definition of art is very variable, but if you say Lynch films aren't art, then films in your top ten are not, too. You may dislike them or even hate it, but to deny their 'membership' to the film art is highly inappropriate and inane.

Set a mood to tell a story? That's a very narrow-minded way of thinking. Films aren't books and even some books have this 'style over substance' syndrome, but people still enjoy them. I used to read alot of Stephen King & Anne Rice. I stopped because they needed an editor due to Kings repetitiveness, and Rices' total lack of storytelling focus. She definitely arrived to [i]style over substance[i] quickly in her career. No publishing house would edit their stuff because they commanded so much money. So their earliest works remain their best. You set the mood to make the viewer sink into the film, not the story specifically. And there's a story in every movie. Mulholland Drive has a very complex story, if fragmented, confusing, nonlinear, reverie but still. If you make a movie about a guy sitting still for an hour it still has a story and it can be very complex, because he may be doing so many things while still sitting.

And strange thing you yelled at the screen while watching Gummo (haven't seen it, but I know it's pretty weird), but not while watching Lynch, especially given your "lack of point" and "weird pointless scenes" accusations. And you say you were bored while watching those films, so maybe that's the case, not the alleged pointlessness?
If someone wants to tell a story, not do cut scenes, background music, or have good acting, etc..., then no matter how good the story is it becomes a crappy bore of a film.

If someone is making a film for the sake of making a film, with no story or point to lead to, it is shallow crap. Just mental masturbation and self indulgence as a filmmaker able to command money and a crew. You see, thats the definition of pointless (Exact definition - Lacking meaning; senseless) Lynch is an overrated artist.

Tom Clancy said "Truth is stranger than fiction; fiction has to make sense". He's right. We make that right by being critical as a reader, viewer, or listener.

I have a feeling that David Lynchs bulk of work in his lifetime were like the last 3 season of the tv series LOST, alot of build up to no point whatsoever. Just putting crap out there to get people to wonder, keep people tuning in, or keep coming back. His films have an artsy looking style with no substance. Pointless. Thats why I say he's overrated.

What was Mulholland Drive about Minio? Do you think it was about anything or just an exercise to get people to think & ask?



They're not just images though. They're moving images in an audio-visual medium. Let me once again quote Mr. Scorsese on this: "Cinema is a matter of what's inside the frame and what's out" If you think that Malick is just taking pictures, you're missing the whole point of cinema.
I understand Malick was showing the wonders of life with the nature shots, showed the joy of living with the tribe of islanders. The fact Malick didnt have the confidence in his own chops as a storyteller to move on from that point, and had to hammer the point home over and over again with his narration like a philosopher on crank made it one of the worst movies I have ever seen.



Mulholland Drive is in my honest opinion one of Lynch's easiest films to understand in terms of plot. It might be confusing on first viewing, but I think there's a pretty much universally accepted plot to it which shouldn't be too hard to find. In fact here it is from IMDB.

WARNING: "Mulholland Drive" spoilers below

1 - Diane on the set of Adam Kesher's film - While the movie timeline starts with Camilla/Rita's Mulholland Drive sequence, the actual reality timeline starts with Diane's visit to the movie set where Adam is directing a scene with Camilla, her girlfriend (even though it's seen as a flashback). Adam's very hands-on technique of showing Camilla's co-star how to properly perform a screen kiss leads Diane to suspect that the two are having an affair behind her back. Later, when Camilla visits Diane, she tells the other girl "we shouldn't do this anymore." Realizing her suspicions regarding Adam are likely true, she angrily throws Camilla out of her apartment.

2 - Diane at the dinner - The characters there will later be incorporated into the paranoid fantasy of her 'romanticized Hollywood' dream: The director talking about the pool man becomes the director in her dream, also with Diane's idea of the pool man. The fat man watching her as she drinks her coffee becomes the gangster who doesn't like his espresso. Coco, the director's mother, becomes her landlady. The cowboy-hat guy becomes the cowboy-hat Hollywood power figure. The girl who kisses Camilla becomes the "Camilla Rhodes" in the dream part. And of course, Camilla, her ex-lover, becomes the dependent, loving person Diane wants her to be: "Rita".

3 - Diane at Winkie's - After the humiliation at dinner, Diane decides to kill Camilla. At Winkie's, we meet the hitman she hires. He remains the hitman (and becomes a pimp) in her dream, although an amusingly incompetent one, possible because Diane fears he may not have been discreet in his actions, since she's been told that a pair of detectives have been asking after her. The scary man in the background of this scene becomes the man with scary dreams in the dream-Winkie's scene. Diane's fear (acknowledging the reality of the murder) is projected into her dream as the man's fear, the scary bum's face. We later see the connection, as it is this dream-bum who holds the box. The single stack of dirty money is dreamed as clean, neat multiple stacks. The plain blue key, that opens nothing but represents the murder, becomes futuristic looking, and now represents the 'key' to opening the repressed reality of the murder she is responsible for, hidden in the blue box. The waitress at the diner becomes "Diane." (She is often mistaken as the prostitute seen hanging out with the hitman later, although it is not the same actress in both scenes. They do have very similar hairstyles, however.) The waitress's real name, Betty, is the name Diane takes in her dream persona.

4 - Diane at home - The first scene of the movie (after the opening dance sequence) is filmed as Diane's head landing on a pillow, following the montage of the jitterbug contest she had won. We later learn that she already has the blue key, and knows the murder has taken place. At some point after that is the unseen moment when she begins her downward spiral into fantasy, falls asleep, and dreams.

5 - Diane's dream/fantasy - The first 4/5 of the movie- It begins with Camilla/Rita escaping the hit Diane had just, in reality, taken out on her. "From there, Diane, a product of Hollywood, imagines the story in cinematic fashion: She sees herself as the naive wannabe starlet Betty, who succeeds on sheer talent and solves whatever problems are thrown her way. She even gets the girl!...she reimagines her ruined career and failed relationship with the woman she loves." - Salon.com. Her fantasy also punishes the director for getting the girl in the real world; he loses control of the film he's directing, his wife cheats on him with the pool man, and they throw him out of his house.

6 - The box - In the "Silencio" club scene, because of all the "illusion" comments and depictions, such as the singer, Diane realizes she is dreaming and shudders. On the edge of reality/waking, the box appears in her dream, as her subconscious could no longer repress her memories of murdering her friend. The box is the symbol of Camilla's death and inside it Diane's guilt, which she kept locked up by her fears (the bum/monster). Once Rita/Camilla unlocks it, the dream-cowboy says, "It's time to wake up."

7 - Diane's awakening - As shown on her face when she wakes, Diane is forced to face the fact that it was all a dream, the sadness of her own life, and the guilt brought on by having her ex-girlfriend murdered. Diane's neighbor knocks on her door, which is what actually woke her up, to tell her there have been detectives looking for her, additional confirmation that there has been a murder. From Salon.com- "She starts reflecting on how she came to be in this position, from Camilla's coolness to her flirtations with Adam to the unforgivable humiliations at the party. Diane sees that she's been reduced to an object of pity and contempt by even someone like Coco." In her kitchen, Diane says excitedly, "You've come back", to "Camilla" before quickly realizing it was just another hallucination/fantasy. This is when Diane goes into a flashback of: 2 - Diane at dinner, 3 - Diane at Winkie's, leading into:

8 - Diane's breakdown - This hallucination starts with the bum dropping the open blue box (the murder realization), and then comes the crushing guilt. The escaping little old people (the ones who are possibly her parents or grandparents) remind her of how far she's come and how much she's changed and also how she couldn't possibly face those people again, knowing what she's done. (When we first meet Betty, she is saying good-bye to this old couple, on to a better, brighter future in Hollywood.) As her guilt and the reality of what she's done overwhelm her (and with the hallucinatory breakdown of the old couple attacking), she shoots herself in the mouth.

from http://www.themoviegoer.com/mulholland_drive.htm


Like bluedeed says, director's make conscious decisions to deliberately put stuff on screen, and use the medium of film to represent their ideas because it's the only way possible. Like Mulholland Drive and films like that may be able to be told in a straightforward way, but it would be a poor, not suspenseful experience which would fail to capture the true emotion involved in the story, wouldn't evoke feelings, wouldn't come across as the beautiful visual representation of a nightmare that it is etc.

And the last three seasons of LOST aren't pointless either, but that's another discussion.



Well Im glad someone could make sense out of it.

Hm. Guess I wont make the "MoFo Post HALL OF FAME!"



Gangster Rap is Shakespeare for the Future
I understand Malick was showing the wonders of life with the nature shots, showed the joy of living with the tribe of islanders. The fact Malick didnt have the confidence in his own chops as a storyteller to move on from that point, and had to hammer the point home over and over again with his narration like a philosopher on crank made it one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
I don't think that's what the film is about at all, and Malick is not covering for an inability to tell a story. He has little interest in that, and the reason for the voiceovers is much less expository than you imply. The voiceovers are all subjective depictions of people searching, and the most likely reason for the voiceovers isn't because Malick doesn't think he can tell a story (he proved that with his earlier films) but because Malick, too, is searching. Everyone's heard stories of actors that got completely or almost completely cut from Malick films in post production. Malick looks for meaning in his films after they've been shot. He discovers what they're about once he sees the images, and the voiceover comes from this discovery.



Gangster Rap is Shakespeare for the Future
Mulholland Drive is in my honest opinion one of Lynch's easiest films to understand in terms of plot. It might be confusing on first viewing, but I think there's a pretty much universally accepted plot to it which shouldn't be too hard to find.
If I may add, I think Mulholland Drive is Lynch's most straightforward and clear film thematically. The great thing about Mulholland Drive (and what makes Inland Empire better film, and Tropical Malady greater still) is that it shows us that plot is usually just the means to an end, and it's an artificial way to do it. By pulling the rug out for the last 30 minutes it reveals plot as farce and theme as king.



I don't know about overrated, but for me, a director who is definitely underrated is Ron Howard (SPLASH, NIGHT SHIFT, GUNG-HO, THE GRINCH, PARENTHOOD, WILLOW, APOLLO 13, RANSOM, THE PAPER, A BEAUTIFUL MIND). He's not up there with Bergman, Allen, Spielberg, or Scorcese, but he has put together a solid resume that deserves props.



Finished here. It's been fun.
Christopher Nolan is the most overrated director working today. He is considered the golden boy of modern cinema, and while I can't say he's a talentless hack. He definitely has miles to go before I'd consider him a good director.

His films are all bells and whistles, but no substance. Inception is great the first time you see it, but then you realize the film is little more than exposition and thinly drawn characters. His Batman film trilogy is mediocre overall. The Dark Knight is obviously the best, but the other two are clunky and highly convoluted. He has somehow brainwashed people into thinking his cinema is intelligent and profound.

Memento is his best film, as it is challenging and doesn't spoonfeed the viewer.

I'm not detracting from him and saying he's awful. But he's not the next effing Kubrick'. Maybe I'm being a contrarian, but i'm tired of hearing about this great Nolan. He needs to get out of his pretentious blockbuster mentality and make something like Memento again.