I’m quite surprised no one has mentioned Brian De Palma – a man who will throw (quite literally) anything and everything at a scene, regardless of whether or not it was needed.
Bolo said, "There’s plenty of room for “excess” in cinema. Not everything has to be “necessary.”
I’m interested in hearing some examples of films that you liked that qualify.
Drew said, “…and Antonioni should learn how to edit.”
Can you elaborate (i.e. mention specific films or scenes)? I don’t think of Antonioni as excessive or undisciplined.
Laika re: LOTR
I recently watched the extended versions, and I think that he used too much cgi, particularly in the battle sequences. To me, too much use of cgi makes the film look fake. A director has to balance out “real” fx with cgi to make the characters/creatures look real. I think Spielberg did a good of this in Jurassic Park, a film I didn’t care for.
As for lack excess in the scenes, I think the Return of the King could have ended a lot earlier; actually, there were several times I thought the film could have ended but it kept going. I guess these extensions didn’t ruin the film, but they could have been taken out without hurting the film.
Bolo said, "There’s plenty of room for “excess” in cinema. Not everything has to be “necessary.”
I’m interested in hearing some examples of films that you liked that qualify.
Drew said, “…and Antonioni should learn how to edit.”
Can you elaborate (i.e. mention specific films or scenes)? I don’t think of Antonioni as excessive or undisciplined.
Laika re: LOTR
I recently watched the extended versions, and I think that he used too much cgi, particularly in the battle sequences. To me, too much use of cgi makes the film look fake. A director has to balance out “real” fx with cgi to make the characters/creatures look real. I think Spielberg did a good of this in Jurassic Park, a film I didn’t care for.
As for lack excess in the scenes, I think the Return of the King could have ended a lot earlier; actually, there were several times I thought the film could have ended but it kept going. I guess these extensions didn’t ruin the film, but they could have been taken out without hurting the film.
No T-Hanks: The directors that have been mentioned here have made mediocre films but they’ve also made some great ones.
Jackson, Burton, and DePalma all have some acclaimed films to their names, and even Lucas has the old Star Wars, THX, and American Graffiti, all of which are looked upon pretty positively.
It’s not like we’re naming directors like uwe boll and michael bay, which are made of nothing but mediocrity.
Jazz, Haha I was being facetious. I love Antonioni and his style sucks me in every time.
Oh, OK. I agree with the “sucking in” comment, which is somewhat surprising given that his films seem more about certain themes and ideas rather than more conventional narrative and character development.
PTA..Frogs and Milkshakes.
One thing is to ask of a director to not overdo what his intentions are, and another to change those intentions altogether.
Anyway, Terry Gilliam is my answer, even if the movies of his I’ve seen are not bad.
Roman Polanski.
He deserves Draconian punishment.
Even Chris Rock agrees with me!
Roman Polanski.
He deserves Draconian punishment.
Even Chris Rock agrees with me!
I second Peter Jackson. King Kong was an hour longer than it needed to be, and ROTK had about 5 false endings. If you want to know how to end an epic saga, watch the last couple minutes of ROTJ.
I think I’d add Michael Bay into the mix here, mainly because I just watched Transformers 2 last night. He covers up crappy dialogue and acting with nauseating, never-ending camera motion (specifically referencing the goodbye scene between Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox at the beginning). Does he avoid static shots because he thinks it’s artistic, or does he just not know how to frame anything? And while the action and special effects are exciting and cool, all they do is cover up the lack of a compelling story and real characters.
I liked King Kong. I don’t think it’s one of the greatest films ever made, but I thought it was consistently entertaining. Lord of the Rings I have mixed feelings about. I think it is a great accomplishment in cinema, but I don’t think a film like Return of the King matches up to a film like Lawrence of Arabia, which I saw mentioned in some of the ads on TV when it was being shown in the theatres. The special effects, the sets, some of the acting, the music and how they marketed those films I like, but that’s about it. They are entertaining but they are not great films. King Kong was a more relatable film, perhaps because it was in the context of actual history, allthough there are films I like that are not grounded in actual reality. Of the films I saw in 2005, I thought King Kong was one of the best. Richard Roeper had it on his ten best films for that year.
Pretty much any director who is considered an “Auteur”.
Charlie Kaufman in SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK.
Since we are talking no self-control, how is it we can come this far and no one has mentioned these two names:
Erich von Stroheim.
Michael Cimino.
Stroheim’s legendary perfection, his battles with producers, his fall from grace when his films were cut to shreds….classic tragedy.
Cimino…..need I say more? “Heaven’s Gate” anyone?
Much as I love them, Herzog (‘Fitzcarraldo’) and Coppola (‘Apocalypse Now’) do deserve at least a special mention, just for going close to the edge with these two films.
Jackson’s “Kong” for me is sacriledge. He had the chance and the money to do a beautiful re-telling of the story (that finally would wipe that abomination done by Dino de Laurentiis off the map) and not only is the film a mess, it is waaaaay too long. Waste, waste.
Herzog has amazing self-control, look at him deal with Kinski in Burden of Dreams, he never seems to me to speak in terms that are not from a place of no self control…..But you didn’t say that he doesn’t, I just wanted to defend…sorry!
I like out of control, maybe, but how can self control be relevant to film making? No self control would not be showing up to set, or being incompetent like who…all directors who made a film has something special, love the shit bags out there if for only they are also keeping an important door open for you..(shit bags is a term of endearment to me, why not?)
You can probably find plenty of people on tv though that are…
It looks as though Peter Jackson is going to win the award for director with no self-control, seeing as he’s mentioned the most. I still think Lucas is the worst so I’m going to give him an honorable mention :D
I think it is important to distinguish between Jackson and someone like Cimino.
Jackson sold his idea of what the film should be, and was carried away from the beginning, so to speak. His overindulgence was ‘in the script’ from the start.
Cimino kept adding bigger and bigger scenes as “Heaven’s Gate” progressed and the studio kept throwing money at him because they were otherwise faced with uncountable numbers of feet of film that would be put on the shelf unfinished.
The second scenario is what “no self-contol” really means.
Claus: That’s actually a really good point. And as far as Jackson goes, I honestly think that King Kong is the only time he got carried away (or the script got carried away).
The Stroheim issue; well it depends if we’re talking film length without proper consideration for studio requirements, or stylistic overload and lack of self-control which are more irritating to me. Hollywood intensified continuity these days, yuck! It’s a great pity Stroheim and Welles were cut up given their talent. I can understand the mention of Bela Tarr, cos i think he is in danger of overdoing his signature style to the point of needless mannerism. Jackson’s King Kong was horrendous, but even Fellowship of the Ring which i generally admired at the time, and for me the best of the trilogy, was relentless.
I agree about Terry Gilliam’s lack of restraint. It’s as though he were pure id.
Ruins most of his work.
Next up is Michael Moore, whose disingenuous polemics and passive aggressive,
intellectually dishonest approach could probably undermine an argument against animal cruelty.
…disingenuous polemics and passive aggressive,intellectually dishonest…
wish I’d said that and yes, it is excessive
You mentioned Gilliam’s id, but with Moore it’s the ego that gets in the way, if he had more restraint amd kept himself out of the picture a bit more he would surely carry more weight (no pun intended); for everyone who enjoys his approach there’s someone who’s alienated. I agree with a lot of what he says but his how can be counter-productive and when he’s onto a winner sometimes he goes off at a tangent
“I’m quite surprised no one has mentioned Brian De Palma – a man who will throw (quite literally) anything and everything at a scene, regardless of whether or not it was needed”
I couldn’t disagree with you more
Irvin Contreras
I happen to think “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is a very good film and better than “Willy Wonka”.