Blake Edwards. Humor is such a subjective thing, but I have always found his comedies ham-handed and sophomoric. Couldn’t stand the Pink Panther movies or Victor/Victoria; and only the cast (minus Mickey “Looney”) saved Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
And I felt this way before I had a personal unpleasant run-in with the gentleman . . .
I second Kevin Smith, and throw in Oliver Stone.
I think Allen has been done something of a disservice by many of his proponents. He has said that he never considered himself an intellectual, the people who have labeled him one seem to think that simply mentioning the name Kirkegaard is a deep philosophical statement. IMO, producing comedy with a sense of reality and humanity, as opposed to a series of hit and miss gags, is incredibly difficult. While the quality if his work has been uneven over the years, his feel for timing and abillity to develop plot and real characters within the comedic framework has often been brilliant.
Explain to me why we can blame the director for the storyline? I thought that was the writer’s fault.
I nominate Paul Verhoeven and second (or fifth) Woody Allen.
Oh? What happened?
His stepgrandfather, J. Gordon Edwards, directed most of Theda Bara’s films. When I was wrtiting a book about Theda, and tired and tried and tried to contact Blake Edwards to see if he had any info or papers, and finally his “people” called to say, essentially, that “Mr. Edwards is much too important to waste time with the likes of you.”
Paul Verhoeven. People keep saying he’s a satirist and they manage to keep a straight face while doing it. It’s not satire just because someone says it’s satire.
Steven Spielberg is an extremely talented director who can’t resist sabatoging himself by pouring sugar all over everything he’s done since Jaws.
George Lucas had one good story and a lot of luck. That’s about it.
Agreed. I think too many people tend to gravitate “blame” towards a director. Like George Lucas… I think he’s an excellent (visual) director, so he tends to emphasize the visuals in his movies. He plays to his strengths. And obviously, people that don’t care much for visuals aren’t going to like his movies.
If you’re not a visually-oriented person, then don’t go see movies by a visually-oriented director. Start looking at the WRITER of the movie (which is, admittedly, occasionally the same as the director, at least partly). To go back to Lucas, he’s a LOUSY writer.
Quentin Tarantino. He is all form and no substance. He has apparently seen every movie ever made but can’t recognize the difference between a “cool” movie and a great one.
Martin Scorsese, by a country mile.
Taxi Driver - Robert DeNiro wanders around pointlessly and boringly for two hours, shaves his head, delivers a line that sounds better when a drunk guy in the bar quotes it.
Raging Bull - This movie actually started out pretty good but ran about 30 minutes too long. It ended with Robert Deniro delivering a line that sounds better when a drunk guy in the bar quotes it.
Goodfellas - This is another one that starts out good and runs way too long. Gets very boring towards the end just like Raging Bull.
Gangs of New York - Boring, pointless. Way too long. I went on vacation and when I got back this movie was still on.
Cape Fear - I don’t think anyone liked this bomb.
Casino - I’ll give him this one. Probably my favorite gangster movie.
I guess you don’t like the steam eh?
But seriously, how much of your complaints fall under directing rather than writing?
Good to see Vehervoen, Lucas, Spielberg and Kevin Smith already mentioned.
Former wunderkind John Singleton. The unevenness of BOYZ IN THE HOOD was chalked up to his youth, but because of the raw emotional power of several very unnerving sequences, I thought he might even surpass Spike Lee and Martin Scorcese. But having seen every film he’s done since then, I can only guess that he’s decided to embrace the commercial security of making ghetto pandering two-star movies.
Wes Craven, gore and schlockmeister. Feh.
Mel Brooks since LIFE STINKS stinks.
My formerly beloved James Cameron, on the basis of the indulgent TITANIC and the insult-to-science THE ABYSS. He repeats himself a bit much with the industrial battleground motifs and mechanized backdrops for my taste. Plus, who doesn’t get a little annoyed with his fake ending schtick? Can’t believe I wanted this guy to do SPIDER-MAN.
John Woo’s been downhill since FACE/OFF.
Vehenmenetly disagree with Scorcese, Kurosawa, Allen and Tarantino.
Well, I can’t say for sure but I really think it’s the directing. I mean, the stories are good; Goodfellas had a great story, it’s the way he tells the stories. Long, slow, boring.
I won’t say he’s horrible, even the MS movies I don’t like seem to have redeeming qualities (loved the home-movie/boxing montage in Raging Bull), but I think he’s incredibly, grossly, ridiculously over-rated, which is what the OP asked for.
John Woo! Good call, Askia.
I started to get a little iffy on him with Face/Off. And then there was Mission Impossible II. Oy. But the piece-de-resistance … PayCheck. That was just about the worst movie I’ve ever spent money on. I’d watch Krippendorf’s Tribe twice before watching that piece of shit again.
Woo seems to be stuck. He keeps getting different scripts (and quality of those don’t reall seem to matter), but he keeps shooting the same movie anyway.
The buck stops at the director. If he can’t see the flaws in the material, and get them corrected, then he’s just another Ridley Scott, who couldn’t tell a good script from a bad script if one was titled “Good Script” and the other was titled “Bad Script.” His movies are decent only when he lucks into a good script. Most of his movies suck.
And I forgot to mention a couple, so I’ll add to my list:
Woody Allen is a solipsistic hack: almost all of his movies are about how much wrong the world has done to him. The rest are about how hard life is when you’re rich and white. Many of these are pastiches of stolen styles. The only movie of his that I’ll watch more than once is Bullets Over Broadway, and that mostly for the performances.
Ron Howard is (along with Woody, actually) one of the few directors whose name on the marquee means “Stay Away!” to me.
Oh, and Rob Reiner is another one whose films I studiously avoid.
I’ll second Blake Edwards, though I find the first* Pink Panther pretty funny and I think Victor/Victoria is a pretty good movie. But most of the rest of his movies are among the greatest misfires of all time.
I HATE* Mel Brooks** with a passion. The last good movie he made was THe Producers.
And John Woo, once my hero, has been very disappointing of late.
And a word about** Paul Verhoeven**: just because you can’t see the satire under its layers doesn’t mean it’s not a satire.
And I agree about John Ford: as much as I love his movies, his neglect of his women characters is problematic. I think it’s the one thing that kept him from being truly great. But his treatment of male characters is so worshipful and loving, that I sometimes wonder if he wasn’t hiding something, if you know what I mean and I think you do. Ford’s fantasy world was one in which Men were strong, loving, protective, heroic, and usually pretty good looking, and where women tended to be incidental to the man’s emotional journey. I’m just sayin.
BUt I still say that **Spielberg **is by far the most overrated director of all time. He has some facility with image and with emotional manipulation, but he uses his powers for evil rather than for good. If someone offered me the opportunity to wipe the films of one director out of existence, as if they never happened, I’d have to choose Spielberg. I would miss Jaws, though; the last movie he made where his intentions meshed with his skills.
John Carpenter. Parts of They Live were neat, but that’s about it. I really don’t know how this guy got to be so popular.
I see it just fine, I just think it’s clumsy and poorly done. Most of his “satire” is just a slavish imitation of some genre with the occassional half-assed commentary thrown in, like putting cherry on top of a pile of potting soil and claiming its an ice cream sundae.
Whatever dude. Your description of your understanding of his satire indicates pretty clearly that you don’t see it, but that’s cool with me. At least you have the safety of the pack.
Yeah, that’s it. Anyone who disputes the greatness of your Brave Visionary Auteur is just a mindless sheep afraid of the bold, terrifying insights of Starship Troopers. :rolleyes:
Baa. Baa.