Make Your Picks

Does The Director Of A Movie Influence How Much You Like It?

Tools    





This is a pretty honest question actually, but does the director of a movie sometimes help influence how much you like it or how much of a rating you give it?

I see this done all the time, like if you see a movie and totally love it, then see the director's other movies and then love them too. You can be totally honest. I know I did once, because I think I overrated Death Proof a little too much just because of Tarantino directing it.

Who knows, though, maybe you just truthfully love the other movies the director as done. You might be doing it and not even noticing it.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
It probably does for many people, but it's a double-edged sword. Your initial inclination to like/dislike something before you see it can turn to disappointment/pleasant surprise if you end up getting something different than you expected from the director or if it seems weaker/stronger than the director's other films. The main reason to follow certain (or all) directors is to see how they evolve yet develop and maintain their personal themes and visual aesthetics. And I'm not talking about explosions or eviscerations here.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I don't think the name influences how much I like a film, but obviously the director influences how much I like a film.

Running with the Tarantino theme, I like all of Tarantino's films, but there's quite a gap between my least favourite of his, Kill Bill: Vol 1&2 probably around
and my favourite Reservoir Dogs.
.

Now, having Tarantino as the director does mean that I'm anticipating liking the film and I want to see it, however it's not a guarentee that I'll like it. Does it mean that I'll like it more than I 'should'? I don't know, but I don't think so. I'll see Inglorious Basterds, but I can tell you that at the moment, I'm not sure that I'll like it too much. I'm certainly not as psyched for it as I was Grindhouse (which I loved BTW, especially Death Proof, which I thought would've been the lesser of the two films but was easily my favourite.)



Great directors have made terrible films , I can't say I've ever thought a movie was better because of who directed it - but I am influenced to watch more of the director's work when I see an awesome film by them.
__________________



If a director is doing his job probably and honestly, you wouldn't need to favor a director for his names sake but for work itself.



The Elected Movie Eliminator
No. I just watch a movie on enjoyment and perhaps popularity or recommendation. Though when the movie comes from a Tarantino or Kubrick then my hopes are raised higher.
__________________
A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.
Stanley Kubrick




I have favorite directors and I do tend to give them more leeway if the movie's bad. I give them brownie points for past greatness.



John Ford rocks!!!
Yes but Wes Anderson has a good track record and I like his movies. Kubrick allways suprised me but I knew I was in for something brilliant. I might not like ALL of Woody Allen's output but I know I'm at least in the hands of a good storyteller. DePalma made Carrie yet he also made Bonfire Of The Vanities. Keep that in mind.



No. I go by plot and trailer.
__________________
Arnie Cunningham - All of this because some drunk ran over that sh*tter Welch?


Arnie Cunningham- Right up the little tramps @ss!



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Now wait a sec. I'm sure you go by who's in it too. If it's got a Martian, a killer puppet or Officer Jim Reed, LAPD, you know it gets bonus points. Double bonus points if a Puppet directs!



Whether or not I'm influenced by a particular film director into either liking or disliking a specific film depends on the film itself, if one gets the drift.
__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)



The Elected Movie Eliminator
A movie could have excellent cinematography and effects, yet it's story and performances let it down. So the director could do a terrific job but the actors don't.



i think it DOES mean a lot in my case.for example,Woody Allen is really a great director,but i think at least half of what we like in his movies,is because of his own personality.I mean,it may sound strange,but i like his movies even more when he is in them himself. so u can guess what i mean.



I kinda take the American approach, particularly that of the pioneers who moved West--it's not who you are that's important but what you can accomplish. That's particularly true of directors because most have made films I didn't like (and some I do), including Scorsese, Hitchcock, Ford, you name 'em. There's at least one director I avoid like the plague--I won't enter a theater that has Oliver Stone on the marquee.

There's only two people I can think of that I would go see all of the films they directed--Billy Wilder and Preston Stuges. They're both dead so I definitely know what all of their movies are like. Wilder's The Major and the Minor was minor but fun. And his The Emperor Waltz is not a favorite of mine. The Fortune Cookie wasn't up to his greatest films and his last five after that are pretty forgetable. But the rest of his films were some of the greatest ever made. Sturges simply wrote the funniest dialogue and directed the best comedies ever.



I don't think the name influences how much I like a film, but obviously the director influences how much I like a film.

Running with the Tarantino theme, I like all of Tarantino's films, but there's quite a gap between my least favourite of his, Kill Bill: Vol 1&2 probably around
and my favourite Reservoir Dogs.
.

Now, having Tarantino as the director does mean that I'm anticipating liking the film and I want to see it, however it's not a guarentee that I'll like it. Does it mean that I'll like it more than I 'should'? I don't know, but I don't think so. I'll see Inglorious Basterds, but I can tell you that at the moment, I'm not sure that I'll like it too much. I'm certainly not as psyched for it as I was Grindhouse (which I loved BTW, especially Death Proof, which I thought would've been the lesser of the two films but was easily my favourite.)
I like Taratino better as an actor than a director--the guy sure can portray goofy, mad, and violent characters. Which unfortunately pretty much describes his films, too. I'd be more impressed if he ever directed something in which no one is killed or maimed. But for now he seems to me to be a one-trick pony--and I've already seen the trick.



I like Taratino better as an actor than a director--the guy sure can portray goofy, mad, and violent characters. Which unfortunately pretty much describes his films, too. I'd be more impressed if he ever directed something in which no one is killed or maimed. But for now he seems to me to be a one-trick pony--and I've already seen the trick.
I couldn't disagree that Tarantino is (so far) a one-trick pony, but I like the trick, ergo, I like his films.

As I said, I'm not sure about Inglorious Basterds, the trailers I've seen so far really haven't done it for me at all. Because of his track record, I'll see it but, if I do end up liking it, it won't be because it's a Tarantino film and so I have to like it, it'll be because it works for me as a film.



I think i'll always give Cronenberg and Lynch the benefit of the doubt and try to love all their films but both have bad films, that i can recognise.
__________________




A great movie is a great movie -be it because of, or in spite of the director. ONTH - a piece of junk is also a piece of junk be it because of, or despite of who the director is. A prime example for me is M. Night - I think the sixth sense was a wonderful film, and not just because of him, but I also think The Happening was a dissapointment, but also not because of him. However, the director is the guy/gal holding the reins.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
In general, the director is responsible for the finished product. Back in the "olden days", scripts were often so good that almost anybody could have directed a solid one and made a good movie. I just believe that there are far fewer excellent scripts being written nowadays. I don't really think it's arguable either; just look at all the roman numerals in the titles and the recognizable titles being palmed off as "new". On the other hand, I don't believe that Welles or Hitchcock can make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but they can still maybe make something more interesting than a sow director can! When the director also writes the scripts, he's generally going to get more credit and take more blame. That is unless the producer has a cast-iron contract and doesn't trust the guy he gave all that money to to make his movie.



I think it must influence my enjoyment, but more than that, I think its main influence is in whether or not I see the film to begin with, and how much of an effort I make to see it in the theater, rather than on video.

The one big exception I can think of is young/new directors. I think I'm more easily impressed by them, and give them a longer leash, given how potentially difficult directing a film presumably is. I'm probably a lot more forgiving on relative newcomers thsn I am with old hands who I've come to expect excellence from (Marty, the Coens, etc).