Greatest Filmmaker of all times

Alfred Hitchcock IMO, but I can certainly see why people are choosing Clint Eastwood, Charlie Chaplin, etc. I'm kinda surprised nobody has mentioned Orson Welles.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

as a number of movies filmed and success gained, looks like Stanley Kubrick!

Its early days but I'm gonna say Christopher Nolan.

I too will have to throw my vote to Hitchcock. His films are so well done and I think any attempts to emulate him ultimately come up short.

__________________
"I know, honey. Look at the map. We go your way, that's about four inches. We go my way, it's an inch and a half. You wanna pay for the extra gas?"

Stanley Kubrick, with Scorsese not to far off.

Kubrick. The man is a legend. Opinions differ, but he paid attention to the most minor details. He was a perfectionist, he wanted every detail to be perfect and he never failed to impress. In my opinion, all Kubrick films are masterpieces except his earlier ones.

Sidney Lumet. The underdog.

Kubrick.

Hitchcock is up there though. Depends on the day as to which one I pick.

overall? - Howard Hawks then probably Orson Welles.

Alfred Hitchcock is great but I think he was too defined by style which limited him quite a bit. He largely made the same type of film over and over again, and yes most of them were great, but he had his duds.

I cannot see him working out of his comfort zone however or making a movie that is straightforward and doesn't call attention to itself.

Overall, I think Howard Hawks is the greatest filmmaker.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Orson Welles, Buster Keaton, Akira Kurosawa, Leni Riefenstahl.

Agreed. Hitchcock was great, but not diverse in his films. Simply his films were too repetitive.

Have you seen The Wrong Man?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Yes I have once, around 2002ish I think. I haven't watched it since then and it's a haze floating around with other hazes of films I've only seen once that didn't leave a big impact on me.

I may have liked it, but just had no desire to watch it again. For me Hitchcock's most restrained film and his best or second best is Rebecca.

I'd say Akira Kurosawa overall.

Jerry bruckheimer
Francis Ford Coppola
Steven Spielberg
James Cameron
Stanley Kubrick
Not In That Order.

__________________
Movie Database of 57000+ All Movies With Previews Of Each Movie Selected filmknight.com

Gotta be Kubrick. Followed by Hitchcock. Depends on the day though.

Not a director

Why do *most* name the same people? I'm sure I can answer that but isn't it conspicuous to anyone else?

I also wonder if I would question it given most people mentioned a different set of names...

Yeah, you would. That's how you roll

__________________
letterboxd

Likely two reasons:

1. A number of filmmakers are simply head and shoulders above the rest. Their influence on those who came after is undeniable and they are considered the best of the best.

2. They are the most famous names and people know them, so those are the names they give. If they're famous, they must be the best, right? (I figure that's how Michael Bay's name pops up in "great director" lists.)

Yes, you would question it if everyone named different names, because if no one can agree on any names, how could they be considered "the best?"

__________________
Family DVD Collection | My Top 100 | My Movie Thoughts | Frank Capra

Francis Ford Coppola made 3 masterpieces, the rest were duds. Spielberg is good, but he has too many duds also (Focuses too much on quantity). Cameron is overrated - most of his movies are also duds. Props to him for Terminator, Aliens, and Titanic. Avatar was visually-appealing, but otherwise abysmal in every other aspect.