Top 50 Directors of All Time (Total Film magazine

J.R. Hudson said:
I am surprised that Tarkovsky is not on the list. :shocked:

Tarantino belongs on there and in fact, I'd rank him higher than he is. Quentin speaks the same visual langauge as Scorsese, De Palma (The extreme end of the curve), Spielberg and Copolla. (Not saying his work has reached the level of these guys (although Pulp Fiction is close) but he is one of the very few filmmakers working today that is keeping the Auteur style alive in cinema.

He clearly understands films visual langauge.
.
Click to expand...

The only reason I would disagree with you is that, in my eyes, QT really has only done ONE brilliant film: Pulp Fiction (And that was 15 years ago, which is worth mentioning). Jackie Brown, while I love it, is simply a very competent movie that showed he had room to grow as he gets older and matures. But nothing else he's done has really been that amazing.

I would actually lower Welles on the list for the same reason. He really only did one thing truly notable. The rest of his career was a disaster. To me a list like this should take consistency into account, a body of work. Spielberg, Cop, Marty, Hitch, etc all have had their ups and downs, but over all have produced great bodies of work.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
He clearly understands films visual langauge.

Edit

I should add; Welles introduced many of todays modern techniques (Mis-en- scene) and I think Hitchcock more or less set the standard. Marty, Steve, Brian and Quentin all shoot from that manual.
Click to expand...


I think he proves on his films that he's a film lover, no doubt. He pays tributes to many directors and merges them in his own films. But does this makes him a top 10 above directors like Wong Kar Wai? Wong Kar Wai is an example I like to use, because he's someone that actually developed his own language. Tarantino's language is the "tribute" language. Wong Kar Wai is his own, for example.

Another director that has a language that's very much inspired by another director is Brian De Palma. I love De Palma, but he borrows too much from Hitchcock. In my view, he's far from achieving Hitch's Genious- But he's a very, very good director- that "Snake Eyes" intro steadicam shot, for example, or Black Dhalia's fantastic framing and portrait of women are examples of exceptional filmmaking.

As for Mise-En Scene, John, I would disagree. For me, we shouldn't forget Eisenstein, Fritz Lang or even Melies. These are the true pioneers of Mise-en-Scene. Their use of "expressionism" is what inspired the likes of Welles for the stilistic and dinamic use of lighting and decors, for example.

Don't get me wrong, though. Welles, Tarantino and De Palma are great directors, and I agree with them being on the list.

Jean Renoir, however, is someone I don't particularly like. Its like putting Bill Viola and Peter Greenaway on the List. Great Artists? Maybe. Great filmmakers? Not, in my book. I'm a storyteller. And great filmmakers are, above all, IMO, great storytellers.
 
Last edited:
Mark Harris said:
The only reason I would disagree with you is that, in my eyes, QT really has only done ONE brilliant film: Pulp Fiction (And that was 15 years ago, which is worth mentioning). Jackie Brown, while I love it, is simply a very competent movie that showed he had room to grow as he gets older and matures. But nothing else he's done has really been that amazing.

I would actually lower Welles on the list for the same reason. He really only did one thing truly notable. The rest of his career was a disaster. To me a list like this should take consistency into account, a body of work. Spielberg, Cop, Marty, Hitch, etc all have had their ups and downs, but over all have produced great bodies of work.
Click to expand...

I see your point. I do think Reservoir Dogs was a refreshing intro into film even if a throwback to the 70's style cinema. I cannot fault QT for his lack of body of work, since Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown he's done one film; Death Proof. I found that to be very satisfying.

I am eagerly awaiting Inglorious Bastards and hope it exceeds my expectations. I am not completely familiar with Orson's entuire body, but after viewing Citizen Kane, it felt like I was watching modern cinema visually speaking !


SPZ said:
I think he proves on his films that he's a film lover, no doubt. He pays tributes to many directors and merges them in his own films. But does this makes him a top 10 above directors like Wong Kar Wai? Wong Kar Wai is an example I like to use, because he's someone that actually developed his own language. Tarantino's language is the "tribute" language. Wong Kar Wai is his own, for example.

Another director that has a language that's very much inspired by another director is Brian De Palma. I love De Palma, but he borrows too much from Hitchcock. In my view, he's far from achieving Hitch's Genious- But he's a very, very good director- that "Snake Eyes" intro steadicam shot, for example, or Black Dhalia's fantastic framing and portrait of women are examples of exceptional filmmaking.

As for Mise-En Scene, John, I would disagree. For me, we shouldn't forget Eisenstein, Fritz Lang or even Melies. These are the true pioneers of Mise-en-Scene. Their use of "expressionism" is what inspired the likes of Welles for the stilistic and dinamic use of lighting and decors, for example.

Don't get me wrong, though. Welles, Tarantino and De Palma are great directors, and I agree with them being on the list.

Jean Renoir, however, is someone I don't particularly like. Its like putting Bill Viola and Peter Greenaway on the List. Great Artists? Maybe. Great filmmakers? Not, in my book. I'm a storyteller. And great filmmakers are, above all, IMO, great storytellers.
Click to expand...

I am also not familiar with the work of the above mentioned (barely). confess, Tarantino is brilliant in my eyes. I wish it was as easy as 'taking from' other directors (As De Palma is accused of regarding Hitch). Shot's are one thing, telling a full story and compsoing sequences are another.


My Top ?

1. Spielberg
2. Scorsese (Close to taking over Steve in my eyes with his barrage of Gangs, Aviator and Departed)
3. De Palma
4. Tarantino
5. Copolla

My problem with Steve is his body consists of too many family/children/fantasy films. When I was 14, it was great. As a man, I crave more maturity. Films like Munich and Schindler's are much more to my liking than Raiders and E.T. for example.

Although JAWS is singlulary my favortie film ever. (Not really a family film, is it?.
 
Krzysztof Kieslowski is 47?!, Fritz Lang is 48?! Werner Herzogis 45?! François Truffaut is 44?! Wow, this is way way off to me.

Peter Jackson is 9! laughable
King Kong and the frighteners were great! not

Where the h3ll is:
Fassbinder
Tarkovsky
Antonioni
Roeg
Dreyer
Hsiao-Hsien Hou aka HHH

people i would put ahead of Jackson that arent on the list
Bertolucci
spike lee
Jarmusch
Gilliam
Forman
Mamet

Krzysztof Kieslowski would be in my top 5
 
Last edited:
For me Kubrick is the top director of all-time. Everyone of his films is a masterpiece.

Here is my top 10:

1 Stanley Kubrick

2 Orson Welles

3 Steven Spielberg

4 Alfred Hitchcock

5 George Lucas

6 Sergio Leone

7 Martin Scorsese

8 Akira Kurosawa

9 Francis Ford Coppola

10 Quentin Tarantino
 
Terrence Malick should be far higher on the list....and Fincher is too high.

I'm not saying this is how the alltime list should go...but my favorites would be...

1. Steven Spielberg
2. Terrence Malick
3. M. Night Shyamalan (yeah, I'm young and I have no taste.....I get it)
4. Alfred Hitchcock
5. Peter Jackson
6. Quentin Tarantino
7. James Cameron
8. Francis Coppola
9. John Ford
10. George Lucas (Episode IV, THX-1138, and American Graffiti are pretty great)
 
Why is it these Tarantino hata's can't ever back up what they're acusing him of ?

Kill Bill = Asian Rip off ! Asian Rip off !

It'd seem every Asian Hong Kon filmmaker is ripping off each other then, doesn't it ? Guy makes a film from the genre he is most passionate about and is accused of thievery ?

If it was as simple as 'stealing' from other works, we'd all be filmmakers.

Number 1 - Pulp Fiction alone earned Tarantino credibility.

Number 2 - Reservoir Dogs blew the indiependent scene off it's ass. Before that we had Sex, Lies and Videotape and this lil' gem

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098528/

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(Rolling eyes).

-

Jackie Brown was a fantastic film. He took his love of blaxploitation and kept it under control the whole time and paid a true service to Elmore Leonard's most honorable adaptation to date.

-
 
DeSica said:
What? Everybody knows he is far more talented and gifted than say....Truffaut, or De Sica, or Tarkovsky...just ask any 17 year old.
Click to expand...
Sigged
:D

Tarantino essentially created the neo-pop film format-- a useless, turgid, destructive force that generally ruins the educated/artistic values of modern film. Currently, filmmaking is the laughing stock of the educational/intellectual community. Why? Because two-bit, brainless, uneducated hacks like "Tarantino" exist. Who needs education and knowledge when you have "STREET SMARTS" (TM) and POP KNOWLEDGE (c).

Give me a break.

In 50 years, no one will have any idea who he even is. He's just a fad, a flavor of the month.

That said, however, his Kill Bill films, while awful, are still fun to watch while intoxicated. That's about the best compliment you'll see me say.
 
Last edited:
I have.

They're about as brilliant and original as Sisters. <----- Ad Hominem

I think the more dominant query is, "have you seen any films beyond the 'pop films' column at your local Blockbuster?"
 
On a liner note: (Tarantino's monologue from SLEEP WITH ME)

What's a film about, what's it really about? What genre does it take?

[Duane: What, like the spine? Like one sentence?]

No, I don't, ****ing boy meets girl, I don't give a **** about that. **** boy meets girl, **** motorcycle movie. No, what is really being said? What's really being said, that's what you're talking about. 'Cause the whole idea, man, is subversion. You want subversion on a massive level. You know what one of the greatest ****ing scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is? Top Gun.

[Duane: Oh, come on.]

Top Gun is ****ing great. What is Top Gun? You think it's a story about a bunch of fighter pilots. [Duane: It's about a bunch of guys waving their dicks around.] It is a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality. It is! That is what Top Gun is about, man.

You've got Maverick, all right? He's on the edge, man. He's right on the ****ing line, all right? And you've got Iceman, and all his crew. They're gay, they represent the gay man, all right? And they're saying, go, go the gay way, go the gay way. He could go both ways.

[Duane: What about Kelly McGillis?]

Kelly McGillis, she's heterosexuality. She's saying: no, no, no, no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way. They're saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way, all right? That is what's going on throughout that whole movie...

He goes to her house, all right? It looks like they're going to have sex, you know, they're just kind of sitting back, he's takin' a shower and everything. They don't have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives away. She's like,
"What the ****, what the **** is going on here?" Next scene, next scene you see her, she's in the elevator, she is dressed like a guy. She's got the cap on, she's got the aviator glasses, she's wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is, okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy's going towards the gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay way, so I'm do that through subterfuge, I'm gonna dress like a man. All right? That is how she approaches it.

Okay, now let me just ask you--I'm gonna digress for two seconds here. I met this girl Amy here, she's like floating around here and everything. Now, she just got divorced, right?...

All right, but the REAL ending of the movie is when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting ****ing force, all right? And they're beating the Russians, the gays are beating the Russians. And it's over, and they ****ing land, and Iceman's been trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he's got him, all right? And what is the last ****ing line that they have together? They're all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and he says, "Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!" And what does Maverick say? "You can ride mine!" Swordfight! Swordfight! ****in' A, man!
 
Nevermind he wrote

True Romance and Natural Born Killers.

Shiiieetttt, True Romance's Walken / Hopper monologue alone is worth the accolades.
 
StefanHaynes said:
...Currently, filmmaking is the laughing stock of the educational/intellectual community...
Click to expand...
wtf.gif
wtf.gif
wtf.gif
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Riggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttt. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Nooooo...if you ignore the Ennio Morricone music from Spaghetti Westerns, the Samurai stuff, the distinctive kung-fu elements that hearken back to the days of Chan Cheh (Five Deadly Venoms), and the heavy influence of latter day Hong Kong cinema, you are left with something refreshingly new and not seen before.

Just like if you ignore enough of Reservoir Dogs (which I enjoyed), you won't notice any similarity to Ringo Lam's City on Fire.

It's not like the guy stood around a video store all day watching that stuff for a few years.
I happen to be a fan of Quentin Tarantino, and have been since I saw Reservoir Dogs when it came out in the theaters. I own a copy on DVD. Pulp Fiction was great. I bought the script. I enjoyed Jackie Brown alot. I think I've seen it 3 or 4 times.

I just don't pretend film begins with him, that everything he does is soooo original, or that I haven't seen so many of the films that he "pays homage" to and that I have no idea how heavily he is "sampling".

There isn't enough head trauma in the world that I coud suffer for me to be that deluded.
 
He is a decent director, but he is one of the best poo pooing writers of the the last twenty-five, thirty years.
Dialogue, baby...it's all in his crackling dialogue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top