Discussion in 'Movies & The Cinema' started by roymunsen, Jan 17, 2012.
And most are masterpieces imo
As someone who is not a fan of the director, that's actually the only film of his which I really like.
I am surprised no one has mentioned M Night Shyamalan. As a director, his first four films were beautifully directed, as he brought out the best performances from his stars. But something went drastically wrong since then, the performances of his actors took a nose dive since then which can only be caused by bad direction and his handling of dramatic scenes became laughably abysmal. He is an extraordinary talent but he has lost his way somehow. I suspect he lost his basics and needs to return to that. It so sad because from Unbreakable onwards, he was the highest on my anticipation radar. I still have hope that one day he will bounce back.
it just shows how varied peoples opinions are!
Some would say blade runner and alien are crap movies believe it or not.
Stanley Kubrick never dropped the ball and produced great films throughout almost his entire career; from his third film onwards they were either great or masterpieces. Unfortunately his last film was only good.
I would have agreed with you until I watched his film "Rampage" which was surprisingly not terrible.
His name does carry that effect though. As soon as I saw his name in the opening credits I thought "this has 10 minutes to engage me, it did"
I'd disagree. Even a cinema-master like Kubrick, still produced some average films. "Full Metal Jacket" is definitely one of his weakest films - a jaw-droppingly great first hour, and a tepid, weak second hour, that just dies a horribly naff death. Even "Eyes Wide Shut" and "The Shining" were better, but both of them are not perfect either.
I don't honestly believe there is or has been any director who has consistently made almost-perfect films throughout their entire career. Likewise, I don't feel that there are actors who have been consistently superb. Even some of the greats, like Marilyn Monroe, or Al Pacino, have worked on clunkers or acted badly in a film, at some point.
With that all said, i think that Hollywood as a whole, has to shoulder a lot of the blame, rather than the director's themselves. Their demands are becoming ever more, well, demanding! The requirement to do more for less money; to make do with less time; to make sequels, prequels, spin-off's, off-shoot's, etc, etc. The need to have a film in cinemas on a specific date, that ties in with when it is likely to be most financially lucrative, rather then when it may be best released.
Director's are rarely left alone to make a film in the way they want: there's always compromises they have to work with, be it financial, time-related, the cast, the location, the crew. Something will end-up giving sooner or later, and you can almost guarantee that a director will have worked their backsides off trying to accommodate the "Money Men", having to deal with all of their "requests", let alone the demands of the stars! Which is probably why directors like Ridley Scott who have made a sizeable chunk of great work, have recently come to pot, with some less than stellar releases.
A director is now less of an auteur, and more of just an overall guide, leading everyone else in the best way they can, within all of the restrictions that the studio imposes upon them.
100% agree on all of those. That doesn't happen very often.
Got this far in the thread without mentioning Tarantino?
I've never seen 4 Rooms, so can't comment on that... but there hasn't been (m)any turkeys with him in the director's chair.
I find even his lesser films watchable and interesting. The only film of his that I found a real disappointment was Kill Bill 2.
As in - a REAL disappointment?
The burial? Pei-Mei in general? Elle's fight? Budd's death?
Well, sue me. I found KB2 overlong, lacking in action after the first 30 minutes and the film suddenly asked my to emotionally invest in characters that were paper thin. That last one was not a problem in the first film, which was full of spectacular action.
Tarantino has no place in his thread, as his films are consistent.
I think I have found one director whose every film is an utter masterpiece and has never, ever made a bad film, not even an average one :
Ha ha ha... That's like saying Paddy Considine is consistent. Only directed one film....
This thread was always going to turn into a personal preference subject!
Love him or not, Tarantino's PULP FICTION is a genius crime drama, and a deserved winner of all the praise it received. However, a lot of his other films have only been reasonably good, but not excellent.
GRINDHOUSE was an interesting, but flawed experiment, and I know a lot of people rate TRUE ROMANCE highly, but the majority of the rest of his films have been so-so. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS was average, and really had little to do with the original, other than the misspelling and hijacking of the title.
KILL BILL, VOLUME 1 is great, but VOLUME 2 is too slow, meandering, and it feels like it was made-up of material excised from VOLUME 1, which technically it was.
Having said that, I think KILL BILL: THE WHOLE BLOODY AFFAIR could rectify that, if or when Tarantino ever gets around to releasing it to the general public.
I don't see why Tarantino should be judged as a director for True Romance, a film he didn't direct. Not that it's terrible by any means, but it would probably have been a better film without the typically heavy handed approach of Tony Scott.
Why not instead mention his best film as a director, Jackie Brown ?
Agree with you on Kill Bill though. I wished he trimmed the first film a little and severely cut the second film down and stuck them together. It would make one superior 2.5 hours film..
I'm a Reservoir Dogs man myself
A strange thread as always going to divide opinion. Probably why I never get excited about a directors or actors latest release. O could easily watch any of Bill Murrays comedy Movies at the drop of a hat, but as for some of his dramatic roles, just don't engage me.
But Ridley Scott Helming an sci fi movie based more less around the Alien universe. It's gonna be great.
GOD DAMN That was an excellent film! One of my all time favourites. Cast, acting, script, story, directing.. The whole lot came together perfectly.
Personally preferred it over Pulp Fiction myself, only just though...
Edit..Darn... Forgot the simply awesome soundtrack too... Unforgettable!
George Lucas anyone? American Graffiti, THX1138, Star Wars Ep4 all good and critically acclaimed.....Star Wars prequels all not-so good !
Let's hope he retires from fiddling with his old movies too.
He directed three decent films (first three) and after a long break he directed three bad films (last three). That's two consistent stretches of film making.
In a career spanning over 40 years he hasn't done much apart from Star Wars (movies/games/tv series), he didn't even direct the best star wars film.
That being Irvin Kershner..
...as if there was any doubt.
I haven't seen every one of his movies, but
Duel, Jaws, Raiders, Close Encounters, Schindlers List, Ryan, Minority Report, AI, War of the Worlds = Superb
ET, Colour Purple, Empire of the Sun, Jurassic Park, Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, The Terminal = Meh
Hook, 1941, Lost World, Crystal Skull = B******s
More hits than misses but far from consistent.
I like the way "Film I don't like, for whatever reason" turns into "Poor directional misstep from someone who's supposed to be revered" in these sorts of threads.
I doubt whoever is the butt of such rebuke they'll lose any sleep over it.
There's no other way for these sorts of threads to go, since all opinion is subjective. Somewhere out there, for example, somebody believes that Transformers 2 is the best film ever made
I certainly wont base my assessment of a director's output on anyone's authority but my own.
Been there, done that.
Separate names with a comma.