Of all the directors that you have seen the works of, which ones have you found the most critically overrated, and why did you find them that way?
For me, Paul Thomas Anderson has to get consideration due to * Punch Drunk Love*, which I didn’t like at all, and his other masterpiece (Magnolia) has its good points, but I’m not sure it’s as good as the impression it originally left.
But I’d probably go with Spielberg, because I just don’t like most of his stuff and his style.
Wow! Me too! Some of my favorite movies of all time are directed (or involved in) by Spielberg, But most of his movies are the smarmiest fluff ever!
I find Spielburg to be highly overrated. James Cameron did some phenomenal stuff, like The Abyss, and then made that hack job Titanic. He hasn’t done anything worthy since.
And John Woo. WTF is up with this guy? The only thing he knows how to do is shoot painfully long scenes in super-slow motion.
I like a few things George Lucas has produced but nothing he’s directed, I’m gonna have to go with him.
Spielberg’s my favorite. I know the OP didn’t ask who your favorite director is but I thought I should come up in his corner.
Woo and Cameron aren’t really eligible, as I’m thinking of overrated as in “critical praise”, not as in “too popular”.
Wow- everybody else I considered mentioning (but didn’t) has already come up on this list! John Woo (I just don’t like action movies, and I think he’s way over-stylized), James Cameron and George Lucas (for the same reason - both have visual ability, but neither can write to save his life and have ZERO restraint).
John Woo was the first name I thought of when I opened the thread.
Also David Mamet, whose mystique exceeds his talent by a margin of about a million percent. He’s had his moments as a writer, but as a director he’s a catastrophe. And people love his films. I have no idea why.
John Woo.
I don’t think Lucas is overrated. Nobody thinks he’s great as a director.
Woody Allen.
Pretty much every movie he makes is basically the same: a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly directed, long, drawn-out whinge about his insecurities. Worse still, he has an annoying tendency to put himself in front of the camera - even movies he doesn’t direct (see Antz).
I’d only have one thing to say to him: just because no one likes your work or understands you, it does NOT make you an artist.
Woody Allen, David Lynch, Spielberg
M. Night Shyamalan. He has two touchstones: “slow” and “whispering”.
Robert Altman.
MAS*H, while definitely feeling more like the Korean War than the series, just never really took off for me. Brewster McLoud wasn’t the only thing in the same name movie that didn’t fly, Pret a Porter was unwatchable, GOSFORD PARK was pretty to look at but ultimately more “who cares?” than “who dunnit?”, Short Cuts wasted more talent than most movies ever have, and Popeye was the Sunday papers on blotter acid, plus most of his movies either lose money or at least don’t make a lot, yet he’s the director so many actors want to work with above all others. He must give really good wrap parties.
His movies remind me of Gore Vidal’s fiction in that they’re intelligent and witty and sophisticated but they never get that vital spark that makes the characters become living people whom you either care about or at least enjoy watching. Very flat.
My next choice would be Mel Gibson- self-indulgent with sucky history.
Well I’m gonna be majorly shunned but I think Stanley Kubrick - yes, the Stanley Kubrick – was/is way overrated. “Clockwork Orange” was well done, but his other stuff just can’t keep my interest. Take my word for it (I feel I must pre-defend myself here) I’m not a total slacker dullard, I’m of the Space Odyssey generation, and I do have an attention span. I just don’t see what’s so great about Kubrick’s stuff.
in my book there are 3 - Roman Pulansky, Stanley Kubrick, and Woody Allen.
Most of my nominees have aready been mentioned.
Robert Altman is at the top of the list, simply because he’s made so many utterly atrocious movies. Frankly, back in 2000, when I read that Altman was threatening to leave the U.S. forever if Bush got elected, I thought Bush should mail out copies of “O.C. and Stiggs” to undecided voters! EVERYONE would have voted to get that no-talent, celluloid-wasting hack out of our country!
Tim Burton trumps all these. He never seems to invest more thought into a movie than fancy set design and a greasy undercurrent of sadomasochism. Curiously, the fancy sets look like set pieces rather than real places, and the undercurrent turns into a maelstrom that dominates the movie. I seriously wonder who keeps him giving him money to make more movies. Too many of his “classics” - “Batman”, “Edward Scissorhands”, “Nightmare Before Christmas” - are simply unwatchable. “Mars Attacks!” is, without question, the worst movie ever made, ever, worse even than “Castle of Fu Manchu”. Please, God, stop him before he directs again!
Actually I liked Edward Scissorhands, but I agree about Burton’s other movies.
I also agree that David Lynch is lame. But Kubrick is the man.
[sub]
2001 puts me to sleep every time. But I like his other stuff. Except Eyes Wide Shut. That sucked.[/sub]
Most over rated for me is Scorsese…he’s reached legendary status by re-hashing the same theme over and over.
I’d have to agree about David Lynch too, he is pretty lame.
I’m sure it’s boring if you watch them all, but if you only do the ones that are supposed to be good, it can be funny.
Other people casting him isn’t really his fault, now is it? 