Name your 3 TOP film directors

I have to say I agree with john H about Soderbergh but I did like bubble and sex lies and videotape. (and parts of the limey) now, I think Michael Mann is overrated. He hasn’t made a good movie in a while and heat was very good but not great. (People will hate me for sayin it) collateral was absolutely horrible.

I keep saying to myself this is a best 3 directors list. I don’t know how Sofia Coppola could even be mentioned. She has one good movie from what I know.

By the way depalma is great, not in my top 3 but he is great.
 
deedive said:
I keep saying to myself this is a best 3 directors list. I don’t know how Sofia Coppola could even be mentioned. She has one good movie from what I know.

By the way depalma is great, not in my top 3 but he is great.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess there's something to be said for consistency. De Palma's batting well below .500 (with nothing worth mentioning since the '90s, and very spotty even then). Coppola didn't make my list because she needs a few more movies behind her, but her average of great movies to shameful movies is very high so far.

As I mentioned in my now-edited post, Michael Mann was on my list less because of his actual work (which is not very consistent, true) but more because of his dedication and the depth of knowledge he develops about his worlds and characters. His movies have a certain raw quality and I think this is a large part of why.

I don't think I have to like all of a director's work to consider them one of the best. But I can't really give a top 3 spot to a director who's done a bunch of work I consider really embarrassing and uninventive. And so we have Spielberg relegated to the also-rans... too bad.

I'm sure there will be plenty more lively debate here.
 
dougspice said:
Out of all the complaints you could take with the man, this is by far the last thing I'd expect to hear. I don't seen how you can watch Full Frontal, Solaris, Gray's Anatomy, Traffic... and say these movies aren't at least more interesting than whatever sources they're borrowing from. And that's not even counting Schizopolis. Hell, he even manages to make big-budget empty schlock like Ocean's Twelve at least feel mostly interesting.

On the other hand, I think De Palma is possibly the most overrated director I can think of. So I guess it's no surprise we're not going to agree here.

My memory kicked in and I think I'm replacing Michael Mann on my list with Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
Click to expand...

De Palma is truly a major influence in my directing life; and this makes a ton of sense on our tastes; and that's okay

Traffic defines what is wrong with the langauge of cinema today. Filmmakers think quick cutting and rapid hand held camera work substitues for Mis-en-scene

This style of filmmaking is everything that is wrong with the art of filmmaking today.

Ocean's 11 is crap
Ocean's 12 is worse
I cannot even believe they're making Ocean's 13

I did not see Solaris.

-

Blaine summed it up nicely; I look at his body of work and am left scratching my head. What's all the hub bub about ?

When one speaks of great filmmakers; I think of great films, great influences, movements ...

I cannot think of a single element where Soderbergh emulates this idea.

--

De Palma is a god. He overdoes it at times; his technique, his method ... but De Palma may be one of the most underrated filmmakers still working

How many directors have lasted 30 years in Hollywood ?

-

It is great too disagree; this is what makes our conversatoins interesting
 
i think depalma has a style that people love or hate. It easy for people to depate his movies and still have valid points on both sides. His movies have to hit you.
 
deedive said:
i think depalma has a style that people love or hate.
Click to expand...
can't I just be indifferent about him? because i am. he had a very strong visual signature and was reknowned for his virtuosic set pieces. but once he ran out of hitchcock films to remake, it seems he's floundered. like he got bored with it all. i don't know. and don't really care. thus, the indifference.
shrug.gif


deedive said:
It easy for people to depate his movies and still have valid points on both sides. His movies have to hit you.
Click to expand...
yes. they have to hit you. come to think of it, i've been hit. by mission to mars. it was like a cinder block to the groin.
 
Last edited:
cygnet74 said:
can't I just be indifferent about him? because i am. he had a very strong visual signature and was reknowned for his virtuosic set pieces. but once he ran out of hitchcock films to remake, it seems he's floundered. like he got bored with it all. i don't know. and don't really care. thus, the indifference.
shrug.gif


yes. they have to hit you. come to think of it, i've been hit. by mission to mars. it was like a cinder block to the groin.
Click to expand...

You gotta back that up with something of value because it sounds like you're throwing out the usual soundbites we hear from critics and generalizing
 
John_Hudson said:
You gotta back that up with something of value because it sounds like you're throwing out the usual soundbites we hear from critics and generalizing
Click to expand...
i just re-read my post to be sure because you'd think I posted "he sucks" or "he's so awesome" and stopped right there. or did you mean how I likened mission to mars to taking a shot in the balls? need i remind you of the weeping alien? the truth is, i could take him or leave him. for me, he's never been able to rise above the material set before him. given a good story, he will tell it masterfully. but the other half of his filmography suggests he lacks the acumen to recognize a bad screenplay.

hey, you want to talk about generalizing? how about the notion that quick cuts and handheld camerawork are what's wrong with contemporary cinema? why don't you back that up!!!!! :)

ps - it's good to see you around again and i hope you found whatever it was you were looking for in your time away.
 
Last edited:
De Palma's career has been very disappointing in the last fifteen years. I think he's overrated. One of my complaints with De Palma is that he's a master of technique but that doesn't always pay off in his storytelling. I watch a De Palma film and I'm impressed as a filmmaker, I watch a Hitchcock film and I forget about technique and am seduced by story. People always mention Scarface when talking about De Palma, but what would that film be without Pacino?

Just looked at De Palma's upcoming projects on IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425602/ The Untouchables: Al Capone Rising. What a load of crap. What's next? Scarface 2?

I have the same complaint about Scorsese, except Scorsese is a great storyteller and a master of technique when the right material is in his hands. And I can't see Scorsese making a sequel to Raging Bull...
 
De Palma certainly has a style his own. He's had several movies I really like:
Carrie, Scarface, Body Double, Casualties of War and Carlito's Way.
I will grant that he can be rather spotty but he's been able to make movies for over 40 years so he must have something going for him. He'll never be a favorite of the art house crowd, but so what...
 
hey look, another declaration that patrons of the "art house" are elitist film snobs!!! what tired bullsh*t. i'm in that "crowd" because i like the films i find there. i don't feel superior. i have just grown more and more understanding of and sensitive to a specific kind of filmmaking and this is where i find it. truthfully, i see much more "mainstream elitism" around here than anything else. and hey, who else but the art house crowd has celebrated De Palma as a virtuoso? does the mainstream recognize him as a master? do they even know his name?

only listing the ones i've seen... why? for my own amusement, i guess... and i like lists.

Brian De Palma
DIG IT
Carlito's Way (1993)
Casualties of War (1989)
The Untouchables (1987)
Scarface (1983)
Blow Out (1981)
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Obsession (1976)
Sisters (1973)

DON'T DIG IT
The Black Dahlia (2006)
Femme Fatale (2002)
Mission to Mars (2000)
Snake Eyes (1998)
Mission: Impossible (1996)
Raising Cain (1992)
The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
Wise Guys (1986)
Body Double (1984)
Home Movies (1980)
The Fury (1978)
Carrie (1976)
Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

Steven Soderbergh
DIG IT
Bubble (2005)
Unscripted: Pilot (2005)
Solaris (2002)
The Limey (1999)
Schizopolis (1996)
Gray's Anatomy (1996)
King of the Hill (1993)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)

DON'T DIG IT
The Good German (2006)
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Full Frontal (2002)
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Traffic (2000)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Out of Sight (1998)
Kafka (1991)
 
Last edited:
Haha. I wouldn't call myself arthouse. I wouldn't call De Palma a god either. He's pretty prolific, been churning out the stinkers lately, has borrowed a ton of style and shots from Hitchcock and Eisenstein, but he isn't god.

I have to agree that there's a bit of mainstream elitism here. Basically if you don't think Tarantino, Spielberg, De Palma, or Zemeckis are gods then you must have something wrong with you. Blaine and Hudson may worship the ground De Palma and Spielberg walk on, but we all have different tastes. We don't have to agree, but I think people are tired of being singled out for having different opinions.
 
Take it easy Cyg !

No one is proclaiming what you are (declarations that patrons of the "art house" are elitist film snobs). Those are your words.

I love defending De Palma and you're right; most mainstream filmgoers haven't
a clue about his body of work

I agree more or less with the list; except I love Body Double, Carrie and Snake Eyes. The rest I have either not seen or just do not dig.

hey, you want to talk about generalizing? how about the notion that quick cuts and handheld camerawork are what's wrong with contemporary cinema? why don't you back that up!!!!!
Click to expand...

I already have backed it up. The complete lack of Mis-En-Scene ? The MTV style presenation ? Must I elaborate for you ? Doesn't that say enough ?

-

Soderbergh ?

He hasn't made single film I'd throw into any 'Best of Cateogry' so I'll never get the love for him. He seems more like a 'just a director' director. He knows how to make a movie; doesn't mean he makes real good movies. His movies I liken to White Bread; bland. No big deal stylistically.

He isn't exactly making an impact on cinematic history.

=

Scorsese

I have loved Gangs, Aviator and The Departed (His best film since Goodfellas) !

=

ps - it's good to see you around again and i hope you found whatever it was you were looking for in your time away.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. I hope too take some gains in 2007 artistically.
 
Too further add

De Palma is so steeped in technique and understanding it almost hinders him at times. Too much Cinema Right Brain and not enough Left perhaps ? (too sort the **** out)
 
Don't get me wrong. I certainly don't feel De Palma is a god. But I don't consider him a complete hack, either. And my statement that De Palma would never be a favorite of the art house crowd carried no implication of elitism. If that is what was taken from that statement it comes from the reader, not the writer. I do believe that Spielberg is a great director. Yes, he has had his failures, too, but he's had more hits than misses. And he has had several movies that can only be described as great. Soderbergh, on the other hand has given me nothing to excite me. I find him a boring storyteller.
 
Last edited:
sorry. i overreacted, blaine. my sincere apologies.

when soderbergh is not wasting our time with a studio picture, he loves to experiment. and that is why his films have failed to connect with me in any meaningful way. because i'm either not interested in the more classical approach to his studio pictures, or i'm watching a guy experimenting (and thus making mistakes) on-screen. neither has proven all that fruitful as far as i'm concerned. my Soderbergh "Dig It" list is a relative one.
 
I think that may be part of my gripe

when De Palma is likended to hack status. It just screams 'You haven't a clue what yuu're talking about'

When someone says Tarantino is nothing but a rip off (stealer); man it just show a complete lack of knowledge in my opinion

-

There is a certain langauge that is spoken in cinema. Most don't get it.
 
Cygnet, you've got a fairly different taste in movies as is evidenced by both our lists posted over time. I respect that fact that you like what you like. It touches you in a way that is not accessible to me. I think the same could be said about the movies I like. Amazingly we do occasionally cross paths and it probably surprises you as much as it does me.

I have to say that I'm surprised, though, about your statement regarding Soderbergh. It was unexpected.
 
Blaine said:
Cygnet, you've got a fairly different taste in movies as is evidenced by both our lists posted over time. I respect that fact that you like what you like. It touches you in a way that is not accessible to me. I think the same could be said about the movies I like. Amazingly we do occasionally cross paths and it probably surprises you as much as it does me.

I have to say that I'm surprised, though, about your statement regarding Soderbergh. It was unexpected.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with this take

I thin Cyg would be completely surprised by the similiarities.

I think at times; that one persons (Not necasarrily you Cyg) idea of mainstream and others vary greatly. I think some often confuse financial success with automatic mainstream acceptance
 
i'm a firm believer in using film to explore. but you have to know what your looking for. exploring a subject or even filmmaking techniques is not the same as experimenting with them. the experimenting (at the level that soderbergh does it) should be done well before cameras roll. yes, you will end up with some valuable surprises, but also the unavoidable missteps and failures.
John_Hudson said:
I couldn't agree more with this take

I thin Cyg would be completely surprised by the similiarities.

I think at times; that one persons (Not necasarrily you Cyg) idea of mainstream and others vary greatly. I think some often confuse financial success with automatic mainstream acceptance
Click to expand...
you know, it's funny but maybe it's my addictive personality. my father was an alcoholic. and i was a cokehead for many years (some friends stepped in and rescued me from myself). but if you apply that paradigm to my love for cinema, there was a time when spielberg and depalma and tarantino and ridley scott and tony scott and scorsese were the filmmakers i admired for one reason or another. but maybe my addictive personality has long since devoured what they had to offer and i quickly moved on to the next, new filmmaker that would provoke or stimulate my appreciations for cinema in different ways.

this is the evolution of my favorite filmmaker through the years starting around 1981 with Raiders...

Spielberg (early 80's) > Tony Scott (late 80's/early 90's) > Martin Scorsese (90's) > Kieslowski (2000+) > the present

Coppola, Tarantino, David Lynch, the Coen bros, Carpenter, Bergman and others were all big influences along the way. and since leaving Kieslowski behind, I find myself getting into filmmakers that i find more and more difficult to penetrate. like Hou Hsiao Hsien for example. watching a film is a challenge again! or maybe i'm looking too hard. because i also get off on a cinema of pure poetry -- where i'm weeping in my living room because some guy in a hungarian bar has just choreographed a solar eclipse using the local drunks as stand-ins for the earth, moon and sun. [link]

ps - don't do drugs. i don't care how lonely you feel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top