# Flawless filmmakers
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [May 9, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000 "2005-05-09T02:28:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/1 "2005-05-09T02:28:36Z")
There have been many incredible, legendary filmmakers- Hitchcock, Scorcese, Kurosawa- the list is long. But even Scorcese can’t be said to be ‘flawless’- when a director makes so many films, they may not all be 100% masterpieces, correct? As great as George Lucas’s films have been, he made ‘Howard the Duck,’ a mediocre film. I haven’t even begun to study film yet, and this will elicit groans, but I think Quentin Tarantino may be one of a few filmmakers whom I see as ‘flawless.’ Maybe Kurosawa? Let’s make a list!
I feel like Tarantino is one of the most logical, sensible, energetic, and creative filmmakers so far. In terms of planning, I can think of no other filmmaker who planned his career so well.
It seems as if all his movies are 100% perfect in concept, energy, and execution, and his trademarks- the surprises, the drawing from other films, the incredibly skilled use of music, the non-linear storytelling, the pop-cultural references- they all seem perfect. It seems like it was absolutely necessary for a Tarantino to exist in the film world; someone had to do things the way he does. [/admiration]
---
### Author:  [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/2 "2005-05-09T02:30:56Z")
Oh, but I’m limiting myself to his four movie filmography (the ones he wrote/directed). I know ‘Four Rooms’ is bad, but I heard his segment is, well, over the top on his trademarks but one of the better two of the four. His other scripts he did not direct I am not including.
---
### Author:  [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/3 "2005-05-09T10:48:08Z")
I don’t think Tarantino is a flawless director. Firstly, his output is rather tiny, four films is not exactly an impressive number. Secondly, while I enjoy his movies I do not leave the cinema thinking “wow, awesome characterization” or “wow, what a beautiful picture” or “wow, an incredible story with a brilliantly delivered message” etc. I leave feeling hugely entertained (which is more than I can say for 99% of films) and reminding myself to pick up the soundtrack. That’s good, but it doesn’t equal flawless.
Kubrick fits the bill better, in my opinion. From satirical comedy to epic sci-fi to period drama to horror, everything he did was, if not perhaps flawless, definitely worthy of viewing.
---
### Author:  [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/4 "2005-05-09T10:59:37Z")
Sure, there are lots of flawless directors - competent hacks like Zemekis or Chis Columbus who never take any chances. They’re flawless because they walk a well-beaten path.
_Great_ directors take risks, push their limits, and sometimes fail. I’d still rather see their films.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/5 "2005-05-09T12:27:23Z")
Only three major films so far, but url="[http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000517/](http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000517/)"Terrence Malick has a better claim to this than Tarentino, who has made nothing close to “ **Days of Heaven**.”
---
### Author:  [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/6 "2005-05-09T13:56:14Z")
Yeah, let’s hear more like Malick.
---
### Author:  [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/7 "2005-05-09T17:56:52Z")
Though he’s not my favorite director, Jean Renoir, at his worst, made interesting and immaculately-crafted films, and at his best made some of the greatest masterpieces the medium has ever known.
---
### Author:  [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/8 "2005-05-09T18:08:47Z")
All of David Fincher’s films have blown me away, to varying degrees – _Alien³_, _The Game_, _Seven_, _Fight Club_ and _Panic Room_.
Hopefully he stays on the ball with his next film about the Zodiac Killer.
---
### Author:  [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/9 "2005-05-19T03:23:04Z")
This is my free bump 😉
Anyone else have a name to add to this list?:
[ul]
[li]David Fincher[/li][li]Jean Renoir[/li][li]Terence Malick[/li][li]Quentin Tarantino[/li][li]Stanley Kubrick[/li][/ul]
---
### Author:  [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/10 "2005-05-19T06:46:25Z")
I don’t have a name to add, but I’m such a huge fan of Fincher and Tarantino, and have really liked much of what I’ve seen from Kubrick, that I now must make it a point to see some of Malick’s and Renior’s work.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/11 "2005-05-19T07:17:09Z")
My possible, too-early-to-tell future nominees:
**CHRISTOPHER NOLAN** : _Memento_, _Insomnia_. Definite promise. _Insomnia_ wasn’t _amazing_, but I thought it was well directed. Pacino was good and didn’t become Cartoon Pacino, and the atmosphere was right. He used the ice fields and all the sunlight very nicely. I think _Memento_ was terrific, 'nuff said. He’s doing the new Batman movie this summer, and I think the buzz is good.
**SPIKE JONZE** : _Adaptation_, _Being John Malkovich_. Same issue. Only directed two major movies, one good and one excellent. And he does very unusual stuff. As long as he keeps working with Charlie Kaufman now and then, I expect his stuff will be at worst interesting and thought-provoking, and at best really great and unique.
Other comments:
If you look at anybody with a large body of work, like Hitchcock, you’re going to find some duds. I like Kubrick and I’ve seen all of his major movies - there are only 10 - except _Barry Lyndon_. I’m not sure that output is flawless. _Spartacus_ is bloated and he’s not the kind of director for that material. Peter Sellers in _Lolita_ did something you’d never expect an actor in a Kubrick film to do: he took the movie and just ran away it. So he result is uneven. _Full Metal Jacket_ feels like two movies. If any of his works are flawless, I’d say _Dr. Strangelove_ is and _2001_ and _A Clockwork Orange_ might be. I’m not sure I can say that about the others. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen his stuff, but that’s my assessment for now.
George Lucas also directed _Phantom Menace_, _Attack of the Clones_, and if you’re a more discriminating Star Wars fan, you could hold part of _Return of the Jedi_ against him. No way is he on this list. Maybe I’m just the wrong age, but I didn’t even like _American Graffiti_ that much.
> [@Alessan](#):
>
> Sure, there are lots of flawless directors - competent hacks like Zemekis or Chis Columbus who never take any chances. They’re flawless because they walk a well-beaten path.
I agree in principle. But Columbus - who I really hate - has made some serious clunkers. The two Harry Potter movies he did were incredibly stiff, and while I didn’t see _Bicentennial Man_, I know it got panned. Zemeckis’s _Polar Express_ got the same treatment, I think.
---
### Author:  [@Rainbowthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rainbowthief)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/12 "2005-05-19T07:46:51Z")
Flawless is a collossal stretch, so I’ll bend the criteria to consistent and under that description I’d list:
1. **David Cronenberg** –More often than not, his movies have been in the interesting to brillian range (_Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch, Videodrome, The Brood, Crash, Spider_). The only true clunker he’s done was _M. Butterfly_.
2. **Lars Von Trier** –I don’t expect much support for him here because I once made a thread about him and the only responses I got were a handful of snide remarks, but there’s probably no other director that I get more excited to hear is making a new movie. _Breaking the Waves, Zentropa, The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark_ and _Dogville_ are films many directors would kill to have on their filmography.
3. **Krzysztof Kieslowski** –Possibly the one truly flawless filmmaker. _The Decalogue, The Double Life of Veronique, A Short Film About Killing_ and the _Three Colors_ trilogy are just highlights in a career with no bad movies.
4. **Chan-wook Park** –I know that with only three full length features released so far he’s a stretch, but when those movies are _Joint Security Area, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance_ and _Oldboy_, an exception can be made.
Joel Coen would’ve made the cut a few years ago, but I cannot overlook _Intolerable Cruelty_ and _The Ladykillers_.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/13 "2005-05-19T08:16:13Z")
Panic Room was fairly unimpressive, but otherwise **David Fincher** is doing well.
For a while, **Tim Burton** was batting 100, but post Ed Wood I’m not sure that he’s made anything great.
**Kubrick** definitely was good and experimental–but whether I actually like the output is rather hit and miss.
**Ridley Scott** has always been good and solid–not necessarily the most experimental, but still just a bit off from mainstream.
I’ll wait for **Tarantino** to make a second film before voicing an opinion–certainly he’s done interesting things with all the versions of his one.
---
### Author:  [@mamboman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mamboman)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/14 "2005-05-19T09:26:42Z")
What do people see in David Fincher? Talk about ALL style and NO substance 🙂 And “Panic Room” shows he hasn’t learned any new tricks as he went along.
As for Fincher being flawless, “Se7en” has one of the most appalling errors of judgement I have ever seen in a film (or _heard_ in a film) - why try to hide the identity of the killer right through the film when from the moment you hear his voice on the phone taunting the detectives, the whole cinema _knows_ it’s Kevin Spacey…
Errors you can forgive if the director is aiming for something, Fincher’s films just seem like slick time wasters.
Stanley Kubrick on the other hand, one can forgive most any sin (even casting the egregious Nicole Kidman) because he is taking you somewhere. Not flawless, but magnifcently flawed.
> [@Sage Rat](#):
>
> I’ll wait for **Tarantino** to make a second film before voicing an opinion–certainly he’s done interesting things with all the versions of his one.
And that the film he pinched from… Stanley Kubrick (vis _The Killers_) 🙂
mm
---
### Author:  [@Dusty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dusty)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/15 "2005-05-19T09:35:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> I like Kubrick and I’ve seen all of his major movies - there are only 10
Thirteen, actually, although that’s counting _Fear and Desire_ (his suppressed to near nonexistence “student” film) and _Killer’s Kiss_ (his first real film, which is okay, but nothing spectacular). You left out another from your total, _The Killing_ maybe? Its his first film that you’d recognize as being Kubrickan, and is one of the few non-linear movies that actually works. Could’ve done without the narrator, although I suppose it was included in the fear people wouldn’t be able to follow it otherwise.
Do see _Barry Lyndon_, it’s my absolute favorite Kubrick movie.
> [@](#):
>
> Spartacus is bloated and he’s not the kind of director for that material.
_Spartacus_ isn’t generally considered to be a Kubrick’s–he certainly didn’t consider it to be. His name is on it, yes, but he had very little input into its creation; the project was Kurk Douglas’s through and through.
---
### Author:  [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/16 "2005-05-19T12:52:44Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#):
>
> For a while, Tim Burton was batting 100…
Mars Attacks? 😕
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/17 "2005-05-19T13:05:23Z")
> [@Alessan](#):
>
> Sure, there are lots of flawless directors - competent hacks like Zemekis or Chis Columbus who never take any chances. They’re flawless because they walk a well-beaten path.
Zemeckis? Never take any chances? The man who went to bat for a new animation style in _Polar Express_, which used a completely different process than his other animated effort _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_? And, like it or not, _Forrest Gump_ could be hardly considered a “well-beatn path” film that took _no_ chances in both subject matter and F/X technology, while _Contact_ is one of the few literate sci-fi movies in the history of American cinema (even if they did f-up the ending). Surely you’re thinking of somebody else…
Otoh, Columbus _is_ a hack.
---
### Author:  [@Scoundrel\_Swanswater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scoundrel_Swanswater)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/18 "2005-05-19T14:09:49Z")
What about Darren Aronovsky (hope I spelled it right).
I think both _Pi_ and _Requiem for a Dream_ are absolute masterpieces and do bring something new to the table.
---
### Author:  [@randwill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randwill)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/19 "2005-05-19T14:58:36Z")
Did Francois Truffaut make a bad film? The Bride Wore Black maybe?
---
### Author:  [@Lisa-go-Blind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lisa-go-Blind)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000/20 "2005-05-19T15:21:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> My possible, too-early-to-tell future nominees:
> **CHRISTOPHER NOLAN** : _Memento_, _Insomnia_. Definite promise. _Insomnia_ wasn’t _amazing_, but I thought it was well directed. Pacino was good and didn’t become Cartoon Pacino, and the atmosphere was right. He used the ice fields and all the sunlight very nicely. I think _Memento_ was terrific, 'nuff said. He’s doing the new Batman movie this summer, and I think the buzz is good.
You left off his first feature, [Following](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/), an excellent, creepy little film. Nolan’s a good choice, but like you said, it’s too soon to tell.
Also in the “too-early-to-tell” category, I nominate [Wes Anderson](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0027572/). Many critics panned _The Life Aquatic_, but they’re the same crirics that also panned _Rushmore_ and _The Royal Tenenbaums_ (I don’t know much about the critical reception of _Bottle Rocket_). I think he has one of the most fully realized styles of any director currently working, but manages to make his films have genuine emotion behind them.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flawless-filmmakers/303000.md?page=2)