Most Overrated and underrated Directors

Tools    





Wanna Date? Got Any Money?
See what happens is people in my general age group (17-18) are more concerned with girls,cars and getting laid... I therfore have very little choice in the way of friends....I do have a few friends who like some decent movies but wouldn't know the directors if they were thrown in a big pit with them and with a shirt saying I directed(Insert film/s here).. This thread is all matter of opinion.
__________________
Buy a bag, go home in a box.



A system of cells interlinked
I was just under the impression underrated meant the director had a bad rap, yet was talented and did good work for the most part, and had no bearing on popularity....
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



I don't know if anyone mentioned this but I think George Lucas is overrated and George Romero is underrated, especially by hollywood.
__________________
"You need people like me..."



Moviez&Dvdz4life's Avatar
#1 Canadian Haylie Duff Fan
I think the most overrated directors would be Peter Jackson, Stephen Speilberg and George Lucas. And the most underrated directors would be Jerry Bruckheimer, The Wachowski Brothers and many more. that's all from me!



I am having a nervous breakdance
Overrated: Peter Jackson

Underrated: Spike Lee
__________________
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.



Urban Cowboy's Avatar
Bad Morther****er
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Overrated: Peter Jackson

Underrated: Spike Lee
I guess you already saw that I had Spike as overrated. I was just wondering why you think it is just the opposite.
__________________
Justice will be served/ And the battle will rage/ This big dog will fight/ When you rattle his cage/ And you’ll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A./ Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass/ It`s the American way.
Courtesy Of The Red, White & Blue - Toby Keith



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Urban Cowboy
I guess you already saw that I had Spike as overrated. I was just wondering why you think it is just the opposite.
Actually, no, I didn't see that you had him as overrated. But I guess you are the living example of why I think he is underrated: too many people think he is overrated. I thought about a couple of directors before Spike that I wanted to name here. Terrence Malick came to mind, but he is not really underrated, he just doesn't put out enough movies to be one of the biggest names. Then I thought about Larry Clark. Controversial and hated and I love a few of his films but he's made a few that's made me hesitate about his greatness. Michael Mann was another one but I think he do get quite a big amount of appreciation.

Spike Lee has a vision though and you can spot a movie by him from a mile away. He's a true auteur, has a personal style and I believe that no one else in Hollywood is doing what he is doing. It's all a question of personal taste and it's all very subjective of course and I can also understand why people have issues with him as a director. But I think he should be recognized for being a great director, not just The African American Director. 25th Hour is a sign of that maybe in the future he will gain some well deserved credibility.

It's really hard for me to explain why I think he is good because obviously you think he is pretty bad anyway. But I like when a director wants his movies to make a difference in society and at the same time is able to tell a good story. I wouldn't say he is my favourite director, but he is one of the ones whose films I find the most interesting. And he is underrated.



Urban Cowboy's Avatar
Bad Morther****er
I can get with that. I was just wondering. BTW I don't dislike him as a director, it's just that I feel that his entire body of work doesn't merit the praise that is heaped upon him, at least among my friends.



Perhaps my response is a tad belated, I don't know, but it concerns Tarantino. Pulp Fiction is sharply scripted, with a great cast and innovative spin on storytelling (however eclectic he is, even here), Jackie Brown minor but entertaining, Reservoir dogs off-putting and Kill Bill (Vol1&2) a gawky collage, an excessive album of film homages, a dazzlingly nerdy fantasia in Quentin's turnip head. What that guy lacks is the moral depth, the grandeur of themes and the command of mood that made, say, Kurosawa great. C'mon! He's like, my mother's age and he still bounces 'round giggling like some teenage nerdy buff. Sure, Leone 'borrowed', but he also helped redefine not just a genre, but the moviemaking craft. But then, Leone is no Kurosawa. I'll tell you a terrific director though: Peckinpah. Most people know the Wild Bunch, but perhaps don't appreciate the significance of his greatest achievements (this and, Ride the High Country). They are grand, potent, sometimes warm, literate and superbly performed films. Nothing he did after these was ever quite as good, I suppose, and since the Western is a preference of genre, it wouldn't be to all tastes (especially not modern tastes). As for the other thing that was said of Tarantino, sure, he may be trying to introduce the great filmmakers into the mainstream, but if that's what you want, give him his own slot with that Weirdy Beardy Leonard Maltin, for **** sake.



By the way...

OVERRATED

Spielberg
De Palma
Peter Jackson
Spike Lee
Tarantino (surprise surprise)
Shyamalan (not him, but his films so far. They show talent, but he's yet to refine his craft)
Richard Kelly (As in Donnie Darko. What the **** was that? Same as above)

UNDERRATED (OR IGNORED THESE DAYS)

John Ford
Kurosawa (True, amongst discerning film people, he is recognised, but as for the others...tut tut tut.)
Michael Mann (probably the best director of our times)



Urban Cowboy's Avatar
Bad Morther****er
Originally Posted by Moviez&Dvdz4life
I think the most overrated directors would be Peter Jackson, Stephen Speilberg and George Lucas. And the most underrated directors would be Jerry Bruckheimer, The Wachowski Brothers and many more. that's all from me!
Sorry I don't mean to be rude but the closest Jerry Bruckeimer has come to directing a movie is filming his kid's birthday party.



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by Duck Aisez
By the way...

OVERRATED

Spielberg
De Palma
Peter Jackson
Spike Lee
Tarantino (surprise surprise)
Shyamalan (not him, but his films so far. They show talent, but he's yet to refine his craft)
Richard Kelly (As in Donnie Darko. What the **** was that? Same as above)

UNDERRATED (OR IGNORED THESE DAYS)

John Ford
Kurosawa (True, amongst discerning film people, he is recognised, but as for the others...tut tut tut.)
Michael Mann (probably the best director of our times)
Really, it is quite simple.

For a body to rate something, they must have been exposed to it. One can neither over, nor under-rate a director if they haven't even heard of him/her. Kurosawa is recognized by many top directors of today as a leading influence on cinema, and his fillms are responsible for inspiring many landmark films in the history of cinema. Eastwood, Lucas, Scorcese, and Coppola are a few directors that attribute much of the inspiration of their masterworks to Kurosawa. He is rated highly by people who have heard of him (again, the only people who CAN rate him), and his being rated highly is justified and relevent. Clearly, not underrated in any way.

A director being under or overrated has nothing to do with how renowned they are. Any person who attempts to attribute a rating to a subject which they do not have a referent for, is basically talking out their ass, being assumptive (It's in black and white, it must blow), or as Holden put it, is just a twit.



Good point. There is a definite audience out there for them, it's true, and kind of obvious to any discerning film-goer who KNOWS them themselves. I never meant to imply that Kurosawa was underrated, that's a slightly ridiculous idea, He is established as one of the GREAT filmmakers, the elite, so to speak. I used the word ignored, because he is obviously overlooked. Many people today make preconceptions, (as you say, because it's black and white, because it's Japanese etc), they don't want to make the 'effort' (and know we cross the gulf in cinema between film as mainstream entertainment and film as art). But perhaps this doesn't really matter either. Perhaps what's important is that he is a recognizable influence on those who DO regard cinema as something more than a mere diversion.



...So I guess UNDERRATED was never the appropriate word, but still...I am still a little rattled from that beatin' I took earlier...



David Lynch is overrated, M Night is overrated, Terry Gilliam is overrated, and all for the same reason - they can't tell a story. To be more specific if a story is handed to them, and they stay with the story, then theyre fine. This doesnt happen though. Their "style" becomes the focus, and any character development and story pacing is flushed down the hopper.

Ill start with Lynch as Ive heard people laud his drivel for years. I can dissect alot of his stuff, but will talk about Peaks. Twin Peaks had a total of 30 episodes, and had a movie "Fire Walk With Me" to boot. The tv show started strong, the style was awesome, and then the story and style became redundant. Repetitive, quirkiness for quirks sake, and that equals idiocy. After all that they had to make a movie too?! Twin Peaks would have been a masterpiece if they kept it to 12 episodes, and no movie would have been necessary. Lynch is rarely capable of that. I say rarely because of his total bulk of work there is some good. Most is drivel.

M Night has become all style and no substance also. Though he is able to maintain a mood better than Lynch. His stories have been way way worse. That fairy living in an apartment complex swimming pool, WTF?! What the hell were the people with the millions to produce this thinking?!

Kevin Smith and Spike Lee are very similar. As long as they dont get in over their head with the production, then theyre fine. Try and do anything epic in scale and they fall flat on their face. Which brings me to the most overrated director of all...........

Terrence Malick. Oh what a horror of beautiful scenery, constant mewling whiny assed shallow poetry, and overdirecting this man is. He was way over his head in The Thin Red Line. It was obvious! Are you telling me young soldiers in WW II thought like that? Talked like that?! It was a hippies liberal wet dream and hollywood adored it because they still are under a belief that what is different must be deep.

Ill finish with Terry Gilliam as he was the first director I try an avoid. All his Monty Python stuff is awesome, and Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas was awesome. The rest of his works is just over directed flash.

Yknow, we all are critical of Michael Bay. All sorts of flash for flashs' sake, cant pace a story worth a damn, and has the same cinematic tendencies in all his films. All these filmmakers I mentioned are guilty of the same thing. Theyre just darker so I guess that means their stuffs deeper, right? Bullcrap!



Finished here. It's been fun.
^ I respect your opinions but I disagree about David Lynch. He is an amazing director that truly thinks outside the box, not every film has to have a straight-forward Point A to Point B story.Terrance Malick is disputable. I thought The Thin Red Line was okay, and I sadly couldn't stand Tree of Life. I think Christopher Nolan is a good but heavily overrated director.



David Lynch is overrated ... To be more specific if a story is handed to them, and they stay with the story, then theyre fine. This doesnt happen though. Their "style" becomes the focus, and any character development and story pacing is flushed down the hopper.

The Straight Story is fantastic, I've only heard great things about The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet is a very straightforward and simplistic story, and Twin Peaks is too and the characters are very developed, I don't get this.

Ill start with Lynch as Ive heard people laud his drivel for years. I can dissect alot of his stuff, but will talk about Peaks. Twin Peaks had a total of 30 episodes, and had a movie "Fire Walk With Me" to boot. The tv show started strong, the style was awesome, and then the story and style became redundant. Repetitive, quirkiness for quirks sake, and that equals idiocy.

I will agree that it slightly declines in quality in the middle of the second season where it had to introduce a lot of new stuff following the revelation of the killer, but you can't blame Lynch for this. They forced him to reveal the killer early and it ruined the show in a way. Plus Lynch was actually absent for most of the following episodes and terms of control, which a lot of the actors noticed, so blame the script writers. And all Lynch things are quirky, his characters are always over the top, Twin Peaks is not just a murder mystery but a fantastic, interesting and very amusing Soap Opera kind of parody.

After all that they had to make a movie too?!

The movie, although very different from the show (this is why people hate it, I feel), is in my opinion a masterpiece. It is more Lynchian style but the point of it is to capture the horror and madness in the life of Laura Palmer, and it does this perfectly with its hyper active and sometimes grotesque (often visual) style (which I guess you enjoyed in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas).

Twin Peaks would have been a masterpiece if they kept it to 12 episodes, and no movie would have been necessary.

Twin Peaks would have been a masterpiece if the studio didn't force him to reveal the killer earlier, and suspense could have been kept and they could have expanded the storyline there. Plus the Black Lodge stuff is integral to Bob and the whole show, so it couldn't have just ended there. Season 3 would have been interesting and expanded more on the Lodge too, as would have the films if he had the backing.

Lynch is rarely capable of that. I say rarely because of his total bulk of work there is some good. Most is drivel.

Well I obviously disagree.
There



Straight Story, Elephant Man, and the first half of Twin Peaks was awesome. Blue Velvet was different, and was his most sound "artistic" movie. Thats why I said rarely because everything else watches like an untested film student made it.

Ok you say the studio was to blame for Peaks decline, but I cant because Ive seen too many of his movies not have any point or decline in quality as Im viewing it. Thats just a 2 hour window compared to the 275ish hours of Peaks. He wasnt going to reveal the killer yet?! 275 hours just wasnt enough time I guess Sorry, thats not storytelling, but just indulgence in strange images to fool those that cant see thru the b.s. due to no content.

Mullholland Drive is pointless nonsense. Lost Highway was pointless nonsense. I say pointless nonsense because he's just throwing stuff on film then saying its up to viewer interpretation. Bullcrap! Its just smoke and mirrors! All sizzle and no steak.

Wild At Heart started good, and then, I dont know, Lynch did some acid and it all went to hell. Diane Ladd ends up covering her face in lipstick. Why?! Cause it looks different, its unexpected, and that falls under the tree of idiocy. Theres no point to the bulk of his work, and he didnt "sell it" for me.

Lynch isnt the only director to get carried away with themselves and screw a story/script. Oliver Stone went thru a phase where every movie he made was a flashback to The Doors. Stone ruined Tarantinos screenplay of Natural Born Killers. Tony Scott did a better adaptation of a Tarantino screenplay with True Romance. As for NBK that was just an overrated belch colors and gore! If Stone didnt go on some indulgent cinematography rollercoaster that movie couldve been truly awesome. In fact Tarantino should remake it.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Mullholland Drive is pointless nonsense. Lost Highway was pointless nonsense. I say pointless nonsense because he's just throwing stuff on film then saying its up to viewer interpretation. Bullcrap! Its just smoke and mirrors! All sizzle and no steak.
I never could understand people complaining about surreal/experiment/open-ending movies. Mulholland Drive nor Lost Highway aren't pointless. Mulholland Drive has an incredible mood, visuals and great performances. Lost Highway I didn't love as much, but the mysterious man was really scary and haunting and the whole tape thing kept me interested. If you criticise Lynch and Malick (seriously?) you'd probably die watching some Brakhage, obscure arthouse or works of dada directors. You know, not every movie is supposed to be your usual A to B flick. Art is very vast so everybody can find something he likes. If you choose your ordinary straightforward films it's cool, though.
__________________
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.



I never could understand people complaining about surreal/experiment/open-ending movies. Mulholland Drive nor Lost Highway aren't pointless. Mulholland Drive has an incredible mood, visuals and great performances. Lost Highway I didn't love as much, but the mysterious man was really scary and haunting and the whole tape thing kept me interested. If you criticise Lynch and Malick (seriously?) you'd probably die watching some Brakhage, obscure arthouse or works of dada directors. You know, not every movie is supposed to be your usual A to B flick. Art is very vast so everybody can find something he likes. If you choose your ordinary straightforward films it's cool, though.
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.