K.Y.-I love The Godfather films-at least the first two. I find Woody Allen hit or miss but he’s done a lot of good work throughout his career.
David F’n Lynch
I hate this thread!
I agree with Kevin :-(
But I really really don’t like M. Night’s work at all
A few people mentioned Max Ophuls early in the thread. I found The Earrings of Madame de… to be a very good movie, but I saw Lola Montes last night and really just suffered through it. I haven’t seen a more tedious and boring film since Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad. Maybe someone could convince me of the merits of those films, but on my own I’m just not getting it.
Yeah I’ve often been bummed out by this thread myself. It’s really hard to see through other people’s eyes sometimes.
tarantino, spielberg, altman
I don’t really like V’iaa Klisowiij
I don’t like the threads that don’t make you supply a why and/or the people that ignore the need to supply a why.
I’m surprised that James Cameron wasn’t mentioned more than two or three times. I think he’s by far the most overrated director in the history of overrated directors, (only inching Robert Zemeckis out by an inch.) Cameron though, has reached such stature in Hollywood that he can do anything he wants to, and has for a very long time. Thus, there is no one to tell him that maybe all of his decisions aren’t the right ones. Aliens clocking in at well over two hours, (and the director’s cut even longer)? Come on now, it’s an action flick, not a David Lean film. This is just my personal opinion, but I find Cameron the most overrated which has lead me to coin the term “Cameroning” in speaking about someone who no longer has any restrictions on what they do and loses the ability to refine their creativity, i.e. Judd Apatow & Gang and Christopher Nolan are in jeopardy of Cameroning if they continue down the path they’re on.
I’m going to be an all around jackass and say Akira Kurosawa, I love the man but people often seem to blindly label the man as great without really understanding his importance in both a cinematic and historical context.
Its a bad comparison, but I almost find him to be like the Miles Davis or John Coltrane of film. Hipsters and casual film-goers through his name around almost in an attempt to come off as versed in the medium.
I guess the same could be said of most of the canon, but I find for example someone like Eisenstein, Bergman or Welles could only be mentioned by largely those who have at least studied them to a small degree. Hence, hold at least a small but good enough understanding of their merit.
@Brandon D.,
what I would say on behalf of Lola Montez is that it is a wonderfully artificial film. Each of the extended flashbacks to a different lover is meant to be part of Lola’s circus act. It’s a different way of viewing the classic femme fatale — she is as much a prisoner and victim of her past as the men. Plus, the look of the film, the colors, the wide angles, the tracking shots, the final dolly out as the men line up to kiss Lola’s hands through the bars of her cage — it’s all deliriously beautiful. It’s like a Viennese torte; if you’re in the mood for steak then you will probably be disappointed.
Minority Report is underrated Spielberg. Bergman is overrated, Baz Lurmann [sp?] and Tarantino, though I am getting excited for Inglorious Basterds.
And Wes Anderson hasn’t really gotten any acclaim since Tenenbaums, so I think he’s sliding towards underappreciated at this point.
I would say Ingmar Bergman, even though he’s one of my favorites. I love his movies, but often times I find that his movies significance on Cinematic art is a bit overrstated. Many of them feel like theatrical works converted to film, complete with the scripts and the theater-calibur actors and actresses such as Max Von Sydox and Ingrid Thulin. Compare him to say with Tarkovsky, Bresson, or even a figure like Alfred Hitchcock, when you really become aware of the director’s sense of rhythm and relationship with time. Of course this can be attributed to Bergman’s root in the theater, which he claims to be his wife. Also many bad journalists claim that he was one of the first director’s to make his art a personal vision. All of the written stuff about him is so overrstated. Not that he’s a bad film director, but a bit overhyped.
He’s not the most overrated director by the way, i just wanted to clear up a few opinions i have on him.
Alfred Hitchcock and Jean Luc Godard…sorry..
WES ANDERSON cause he’s got too many followers that it’s just stupid, and SOFIA COPPOLA cause she’s just a lie. she should be directing music videos like his brother and friends, she just writes regular screenplays that are shoot beautifully by Lance Accord with the Coppola Brand in it’s poster and eeeveryone goes crazy!
Ang Lee. He makes very solid and professional films, and that in itself sums him up. His direction is very flat and bland and leaves me cold. I thought that he completely wasted the talents of Tony Leung in “Lust, Caution”.
Baz Luhrmann, definitely.
Baz Luhrmann, definitely.
Ron Howard
fuck that noise i love my long cut aliens it has more backstory than the theatrical cut, who’s to say it can’t be long, it’s way better for it.
these threads are redundant and self absorbed and tear down genuine creativity and useful discussions for what?
I agree with Robert Altman. I think he has a few good films, but most are pretty terrible. I thought the much-ballyhooed Gosford Park was interminable. I also think Ridley Scott gets far too much credit. I mostly dislike many of his directorial choices, but he does have him moments.
In response to an earlier post – I actually liked Minority Report quite a bit – I think Spielberg did a pretty nice job with it.
well since no one is going to step up and say it… i think Scorsese is slightly overrated… Taxi Driver was a masterpiece, but i didn’t particularly care for Raging Bull or Goodfellas.
steven spielberg
any one who says tarantino is overated should be kicked off the forum
Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, & Francis Ford Coppola
OMG … Steven Spielberg
Damola – Thanks for spelling “Scorsese” correctly.
I’ve said it before, but Scorsese hasn’t really made a really challenging film since the mid-1980s (yes, including GOODFELLAS). He probably has a half-dozen “masterpieces” to his credit (RAGING BULL not being one of them), almost all of which were made in the 1970s. I blame the Reagan-era cultural climate more than anything, a period when all the great postclassical auteurs fell on their faces (or were knocked on their asses) to varying degrees.
The visceral effectiveness of MEAN STREETS and TAXI DRIVER and the bitter observational humor of THE KING OF COMEDY and AFTER HOURS have dried up in favor of a very Hollywood-friendly grandiosity. And the love affair with Leonardo DiCaprio has got to stop.
That said, some films have been interesting “failures,” like KUNDUN and LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. He has gradually become more of an exceptional craftsman who makes Academy-pleasing films. He’s cashed in his chips.
And for once I’d like to see Scorsese accept an award somewhere where Spielberg isn’t waiting in the wings for the perfect “on-camera moment” to throw his arms around him! Scorsese’s worst films are better than Speilberg’s best!
K Y Temple-of-Film
Agreeing with Steve about F F Coppola – good early work, but most of his films leave me cold. What did people see in the Godfather movies anyway? Same story with Woody Allen – love those early comedies, for what they are, but he got so pretentious and full of himself in the end… such a bore!