Best Directors

I was curious who everyones favorite directors and for the matter who the worse directors or directors who lost their stuff, my picks are:

BEST
1. Martin Scorcese 2. Akira Kurosawa 3. Coen Bros. 4. Wes Anderson 5. Steven Spielberg 6. Paul Thomas Anderson 7. Ridley Scott 8. David Fincher 9. David Cronenberg 10. Steven Soderbergh

WORSE
1. Paul Anderson 2. McG 3. Guy Ritchie

Of the great directors who have lost their touch I believe them to be William Friedkin and Francis Ford Coppola. Friedkin in my opinion has only made two good movies: The French Connection and To Live and Die In LA. I'm one of the few who hates the Exorcist. He's excellent with good material, but seems to only be doing it for the money now and I think he's too arrogant to realize when he's making crap.
Of course, Coppola is one the most talented filmmakers ever, but I think he's too in love with filmmaking to know when a project is not worth his time (ie Jack). As for the last twenty years, I can only think of two projects that were worthwhile: Dracula and the Rainmaker. Anyway, I always feel is just warming with something to blow us all away just like he was in the 70s.

My fave direcotrs are on my profile, but I also love M. Night Shymalan, Christopher Nolan, Michael Mann, Sam Raimi, James Cameron, Bill Paxton (he only directed the one movie Frailty but it rocked), etc.

Milos Forman ;)

Sean, I would agree that Jackson and Raimi are at least noteworthy.

It will be interesting to see where their careers go after the likes of SM and LOTR.

Sorry, I just like to make fun of "Jack" whenever I can. Speaking of Kaos, are there any good one-named directors? Sean, good take on Cameron, couldnt have said it better. Peter Weir has made what I consider the most underrated movie of all time: "Fearless."

Tony

John,

I was going to mention Curtiz as well, but refrained. Great call! Gotta love Preston Sturges, too.

For me, it's difficult to say who my favorites are. I really don't sway one way or another, very much the same way I feel about actors. Sometimes directors and actors are on, and other times they're not. It's rare to find an artist who never takes a misstep in trying to make his/her art, so I tend to judge more on the piece itself than the artist.

For example: I like James Cameron movies, but I don't much care for Cameron himself or his technique. More than anything he is efficient, but certainly not groundbreaking artistically. He's directed and/or written some of my favorite movies, but his style isn't anything that pushes the artform beyond the technical aspects. Decent narrative, marginal dialogue, but no real twist on storytelling itself or the medium in general.

Some directors I find more consistently satisfying than others:
Steven Spielberg
M. Night Shyamalan
Tim Burton
Robert Zemeckis
Peter Weir
Ron Howard
Peter Jackson
Sam Raimi

I tend to look for these directors and seek out their films. Directors like Jackson and Raimi who have had a cult following for some time are now making their marks on Hollywood, so we'll have to see how that will affect their future endeavors. These are all current directors, but the pantheon of those that came before could fill volumes; the Billy Wilders, John Hustons, Elia Kazans, etc., etc.

As for those I avoid, well most of them don't stay around too long I guess, so I hadn't really thought about it. Not too big on "fad" directors that tend to rip off others' concepts. I can definitely say I detest Kaos. Man, that Ballistic was ballistically bad. Not too big on Rob Cohen. Again, the list of bad directors is miles long.

Sean (...forgot to mention another good one...skspence...man, that guy rocks!...) 8)

TWill,

Well, I'm not excusing Coppola, lol. I'm just saying, the guy owed a lot of people money, and he had to find a way to pay off his debts.

Personally, I think that he deserved it for making "One From the Heart", which was really bad. He sunk his entire personal fortune into it and couldn't make a decent flick. Oops.

Eddie

Good point, Eddie, I didn't really think about that, but isn't there a line? Someone has to answer for "Jack."

John, Good point with Curtiz, also I think Powell and Pressburger are underrated as well. As for Fincher, he's only made a few films, but by Seven and Fight Club the movies have a lasting effect on me, and I think Fincher is the most visually exciting director to come out in the last ten years.

When I was in a film school, we watched "The Searchers," and I know some purists will hate this, but ever since then I've hated John Ford and John Wayne. I dont know, there is something about his films that turn me off.

James Cameron makes extremely entertaining, but ultimately dont leave much of a lasting impression. As for Question, hes probably #11! Haha...

Oh, of the old school directors, dont forget John Huston!

Awww, c'mon now Tony!! I'm glad you've got good 'ol Ridley Scott in there, but what about James Cameron? Or Quentin Tarantino? Or M. Night Shyamalan? Good pick with Kurosawa! ;):D

- Josh

I certainly wouldn’t disagree with any of the directors already mentioned, to which I would add Griffith, Eisenstein, Sennett, Welles, and Murnau for their historical influence on film, plus John Ford, of course, and Charlie Chaplin and Jacque Tati and Frank Capra and, and....

And Michael Curtiz for being the single most-overlooked director today. Curtiz is the fellow who gave us "Casablanca," "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Angels With Dirty Faces," "Cabin in the Sky," "Captain Blood," "The Charge of the Light Brigade," "The Comancheros," "Dodge City," "Flamingo Road," "The Jazz Singer," "Jim Thorpe--All American," "Life With Father," "Mildred Pierce," "The Mystery of the Wax Museum," "Night and Day," "Passage to Marseilles," "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex," "Santa Fe Trail," "The Sea Hawk," "The Sea Wolf," "Trouble Along the Way," "Virginia City," "We’re No Angels," "White Christmas," "Young Man With a Horn," and "Yankee Doodle Dandy," among many more. Whew! He never created high art, but he directed some of the most popular films of all time and some of my favorites.

By contrast Fincher has done, what, maybe two or three really good films? I'm not arguing, only suggesting that consistency and frequency of output are important, too.

John

TWill,

While I agree with your general comments about Coppola, you should know that he made a lot of crap movies during the 1980s and 1990s because he bankrupted himself when he made "One From the Heart" (1982). Therefore, he became a director-for-hire, making whatever movie was being offered to him so that he could get back on sound financial grounds. It's actually even fair to say that he didn't care how his movies turned out, as long as he was getting a paycheck (he was considered box-office poison and difficult for a long time, and most people still have reservations about working with him).

Eddie

The king of comedy... how could I have forgotten Chaplin?!!

Guy Ritchie made some decent films in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch. Dunno how his other films turned out though.

Other notable directors:

- Roman Polanski
- Krzysztof Kieslowski
- David Lean

Tony,

Definitely with you on Fearless. Great, underrated flick that deserves a REAL DVD release, not the junky fullscreen 2.0 version we have now.

The movie itself is definitely worth the price of admission, though!

Sean (admission that the DVD stinks if nothing else!...)

1. Alfred Hitchcock.
2. Akira Kurosawa
3. Martin Scorcese
4. David Lean
5. Steven Spielberg
6. N Night Shyamalan and Tim Burton

No one mentioned Hitchcock?:)

Loved "Red Rock West." Liked the noir aspect of "The Last Seduction." Not sure if that would be enough to put Dahl on my own list of "best" directors, though. Now, how about Roth?

John

Two excellent early John Dahl movies= Red Rock West and The Last Seduction

Contraband,

Most of your choices are self-evident, but you might want to help us understand your inclusion of Eli Roth and John Dahl. "Cabin Fever"? "Rounders"?

John

I think the best directors at the moment are:

Eli Roth
John Dahl
Steven Spielberg
M. Night Shyamalan
Tim Burton
Robert Zemeckis
Peter Jackson
Sam Raimi
Steven Soderbergh
Ridley Scott
Quentin Tarantino

Josh,

If by "unique" you mean making the same clever, cynical, violent movies over and over, then Tarnantino is certainly unique; and I love him for it. But when I think of unique, I think of someone who experiments with different things, yet puts his personal stamp on all of them. Spielberg is unique in that regard; my aforementioned Curtiz was unique; and above all, Kubrick was unique. Kubrick never made the same kind of movie twice, and all his films were truly "unique."

I liked Dahl's "Rounders" and "Red Rock West," and I can understand his being some people's personal favorite director. But I didn't like Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" a bit--bloody, gruesome, deriviative of "Night of the Living Dead," right unto the ending, and filled totally with idiot characters, from the idiot kids to the idiot local folk to the idiot police. Was it supposed to be a black comedy? The ending with the old man and the rifle was cute. Otherwise, "Morons in the Woods" would be my title for it.

John

I have a question for y'all... since we're talking about "best" here. How 'bout the question why? Why are your choices "the best"? Or how about, which director (of your picks) is the most unique director?

For me that question is simple. Tarantino. He's got to be the most uniqe director this century in my opinion.

As for my other picks, Cameron for Aliens, Terminator II, The Abyss etc. Ridley Scott because of Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator... Chaplin... man... that guy has got to be the king of comedy. I can (to this day) watch "Modern Times" (as well as his other films) and LAUGH MY BUTT OFF!! Most of the other directors listed here I like as well for their obvious contributions.

- J8)sh

mine would have to be

david fincher
peter jackson
speilberg
zemeckis
m. night shaymalan
tarantino

Havent seen Cabin Fever, but heard it was either sucky or good. Ill wait for it on cable. John Dahl started well, but has since not been too good. John, you didnt like Rounders??? SPOILER HERE: It has a great ending. His friend just leaves him out to try and he chooses poker over th girl. Gotta love it!!

I was actually shocked the first time I watched Kane of how exciting it was. I think the story is pretty engrossing. It looks like The Aviator might have the same story arc. Of course, we know what happened to Howard Hughes.

I'm going to check out Citizen Kane next time I'm at the video store. I thought 2001 was excellent!!... weird... but excellent!

- Josh

(open the pod bay doors HAL)

Josh,

Never seen "Citizen Kane"? Never seen it? It's the cornerstone of all movie history. It's like saying you've never seen, uh, uh, uh, "Star Wars"!

Actually, don't feel bad. I never had a student in any of my film classes who had ever seen it before, either. Old movies (like old directors) don't get a lot of play on TV anymore or much space in the video store. But may I urge you to see it? You don't have to like it; many people think it's about as boring as "2001." (Obviously, not me because I love "Kane" and "2001.") But it's hard not to watch "Kane" and respect it. In fact, watch it three times; once for your own pleasure and then again with Roger Ebert's commentary and then with Peter Bogdanovich's commentary. I think you'll find the movie jaw-droppingly awesome in its technical achievement, even if you don't care for the story.

What do you mean, do I like the movie?

John

This is why DVD Town is such a great place. So many different views, opinions, and experiences.

John,

I've of course heard of "Citizen Kane", but I don't think I've ever seen it. It sounds VERY cool though. So many movies, so little time. Soderbergh is another favorite. I was thoroughly impressed with "Solaris". I loved "Erin Brockavich" for more than Julia Roberts cleavage. "Oceans 11" was incredible!

- Josh

Agreed, Twill; I loved "Mulholland Drive." But, again, without Welles, we wouldn't have a David Lynch as we know him today. What we consider so innovative today, Welles was doing in one way or another in 1941.

John

I have to give the prize of unique filmmaker to Soderbergh. No other director goes from genre to genre as much. Every film he makes is different. Also he's played with structure just like Tarantino. The key point in the argument is "Schizopolis," a movie of his that really no one has seen. It's incredibly original, similar to "Full Frontal" in style, but much weirder. Anyway, not a lot of directors would follow up two serious oscar pictures like
"Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic" with a crowd pleaser like "Ocean's 11," then do two challening films like "Full Frontal" and "Solaris." Plus, the guy's style changes from film to film to fit the story. Don't forget he shoots his own films too.

John, speaking of "Mulholland Drive," David Lynch is sure as hell unique as well.

May I suggest Orson Welles's "Citizen Kane" as a "unique" film. There is a reason why most critics consider it the best film ever made. It takes the same story and retells it seven times, in seven different ways. It starts at the end and works its way back to the beginning and eventually fills in everything in between. Sound like any "Pulp Fictions" or "Mementos" or Muholland Drives" you know?

And "Kane" was made sixty years ago. Every director today owes something to Welles, in narrative style, in cinematography, in editing, in camera angles, in characterization, in sound recording, in montage, in overlapping dialogue. Welles and cameraman Gregg Toland didn't invent this stuff; but they refined it and experiemented with it as nobody had before.

John

John,

I suppose it depends upon which context you take "unique" to be in. What I meant is unique in relation to the standard movie format of A + B = C. I don't think I've ever seen anyone else make a movie like Tarantino does, where you start out somewhere after "B", then move to part of "C", then come back to "A", then a different part of "B" then go to the end of the film, only to find out you're at the beginning. I really love his informal presentation. It's very refreshing, and FAR different from anything else out there. Where you can take a Spielberg, or Kubrick flick and say it's similar to this style, or that movie, I can't think of anything that's like Tarantino's films.

You are correct. While Tarantino's style doesn't seem to resemble anything out there, he does appear to be stuck in his own style. While each of his movies are "unique" in their own ways, they do have that central violent, and to one degree or another, gory theme. Although, both "Kill Bill's" were decidedly different than anything he's done to date. The upcoming "Hero" looks like it will be a very interesting film. It's got the dramatic type draw that we've come to expect from movies like "Braveheart", or "Saving Private Ryan", but since the setting is in (China?) and with some "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" stylizing, we'll have to see how it meshes.

- Josh

I find that Ridley's films are very shallow. M. Night has now sorta become a gimmick, his only saving quality are his more and more predictable endings. Spielberg makes a lot of escapist films, I commend him for that. But lately he hasn't yet hooked me (His latest films were Lost World, A.I. and Minority Report- not a bad film and the delightful 'Terminal', and Catch Me if You Can, then there was him producing the semi-okay 'Taken' and the spectacular 'Band of Brothers') back onto his band wagon, still hoping though! James Cameron is truly a great screen writer and director, he gives us exactly what we want to see. But still makes it cinematic! I certianly think he's a true marvel. One of the worst directors ever, who has only made it by becusae he has trashy style, is Micheal Bay (Bad Boys 2, Pearl Harbour). David Ficher is a true gem. It's not often that 2 of his only four films became instant classics, especially in todays cinema, even the other two were good. Quentin is a director who knows how to direct nothing. And that's good. It's wonderful to see semi-true to life experiences (maybe not kill bill) portrayed on film in an interesting way. His movies feel very natural. I liked all 5 (or 4 if kill bill Vol. 1 and 2 is considered as one film?) of his films. Who else? Um.. oh ya! Another bad director (he started off good) is Robert Rodrigues. His films are so low budget, and the acting and editing are so silly, I find his films unbearable (yes, I have seen El Mariachi, and the remaining two in the trilogy). Scorses never really got to me. And the rest of them... well, I havn't seen everything, and I certainly don't know evrything.
P.S. what about Goerge Lucas?

My favourite director of all time has GOT to be Scorsese... Such versatility and individuality. His films are what I percieve to be unique.

:p Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, New York New York, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino, Gangs Of New York, and now the Aviator... I love 'em all! :D

I'ld have to say I have enjoyed every movie Fincher ever made (yes, even the Game, and even Alien 3-Extended cut only).
But still, Spielberg is my inspiration, and will always continue to be, although I will say I'm somewhat disappointed with CMIYC and Terminal, and can't wait for War of the Worlds, or even for the Talisman (?)

Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese, Stone, Spielberg, Shyamalan and Frank Darabont becasue he directed the greatest movie of all time The Shawshank Redemption!:D

Jan Svankmajer, G.W. Pabst, The Brothers Quay