Today...who is the best director?

[SuperFerret]

Woody Allen still has fans?

 

[Max J Power]

I'm taking their overall careers into account. Although Allen hasn't been hugely acclaimed in the last decade, his overall career is terrific. And I'd say he's still got talent; Match Point was one of the best films of 2005, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona was good too.

 

[Infinity9999x]

the justice it deserved? jesus dude it made money because it was a love story and the girls saw it 500 times. other than that, i really dont see it. anyone could have done it.

While girls going ape ***** over leo was one reason it made so much money, it's not the only reason. If it was, then twilight would be making Titanic numbers.

Another big draw was that people really wanted to see the boat sink at the end of movie. At the time, it was visually stunning, a big event that everyone wanted to see, and it drew in more then the tween/teen girl crowd. And Cameron was a big reason that the scenes of that boat sinking looked so good.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm taking their overall careers into account. Although Allen hasn't been hugely acclaimed in the last decade, his overall career is terrific. And I'd say he's still got talent; Match Point was one of the best films of 2005, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona was good too.

I'll be honest, I've never seen the appeal of his movies. Maybe if there was one that he didn't also have a role in (the whole neurotic jew schtick gets old when you live around it), I'd have a different opinion.

 

[Octoberist]

Annie Hell is AMAZING though. Of all of the movies, watch that one.

 

[Max J Power]

I'll be honest, I've never seen the appeal of his movies. Maybe if there was one that he didn't also have a role in (the whole neurotic jew schtick gets old when you live around it), I'd have a different opinion.

There are a lot he's not in, or is barely in. The Purple Rose of Cairo, Sweet and Lowdown, and Radio Days come to mind, as well as the two I mentioned previously.

 

[Hush]

While girls going ape ***** over leo was one reason it made so much money, it's not the only reason. If it was, then twilight would be making Titanic numbers.

Another big draw was that people really wanted to see the boat sink at the end of movie. At the time, it was visually stunning, a big event that everyone wanted to see, and it drew in more then the tween/teen girl crowd. And Cameron was a big reason that the scenes of that boat sinking looked so good.

Right on, it was an EVENT! My mom took me to it because she said you NEED to see this. It was stunning and beyond anything we had ever seen in our lifetimes. Seeing that Boat sink was like seeing the T-Rex roar it brought life to something nearly no one in the audience had ever seen before. Thats why Titanic made so much money. Plus if you take into the account that the song for the movie was a huge hit and Leo and Kates romance was like attracting moths to the flame you have a bona fide hit.

With all that said I'am suprised that we are not seeing Danny Boyle get alot of mention here.

 

[scifiwolf]

What percentage of threads on this entire website digress into Nolan vs. Cameron?

 

[Heisenberg]

For me, there are two directors who definitely stand out from the crowd. Danny Boyle would be one of them as he's able to jump between genres and consistently make films that are not only technically astounding (Sunshine's budget was only that much?!) but are thoroughly entertaining and engaging too. Christopher Nolan would be the second, as his approach to film-making is my favourite of all directors; from his minimalistic use of CGI, to the scenes in which he emphasises hand-held camera work over static frames, there are so many images from Nolan films that simply stand-out and feel iconic. Both are simply very intelligent film-makers.

Also, not to jump into the Cameron or Nolan debate here, but whereas The Thing, Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens are all very dear to my heart, and I can appreciate Titanic as a monumental task that only an excellent director could accomplish, Avatar simply doesn't hold much weight with me. I can think of quite a few directors who, given the money and technology Cameron had, could have produced a better film - it could simply be a matter of improving the script.

Aside from those named, Coens, Cuaron, Tarantino, Del Toro and Scorsese stand out.

 

[Laderlappen]

Nobody can make every movie a masterpiece. Even Nolan has Insomnia which is a good film but only a good film.

 

[Sentinel X]

I really hope Cameron DOESN'T write the script for Avatar 2 or at least gets help from a professional. The guy is good at directing but he is not a good scriptwriter.

That being said, at this point, I think Christopher Nolan is definitely one of the best mainstream directors working today. I can't say who is the best because I need to watch a lot more movies before I come to that conclusion but I have really loved every single Christopher Nolan film so far. Hes like a one man Pixar to me.

 

[Ghostvirus]

A Director tells a story with the camera. Cameron as much as I love the things he has done before Avatar (Yep I like Titanic).

He hasn't done anything with a camera that any filmmaker could have done.

You put some one like Del Toro behind the camera for anyone of Cameron's films. You automatically make it much better. Same with Nolan, Jackson, blah, blah, blah.

Good lord if Del Toro did The Abyss. That would be epic!

Just because a person makes good movies doesn't make him a great director. Wes Anderson is an amazing director visually. But over the years he has lost the balance between telling a story with the script & telling the story with the camera. He has made some movies that are too much like paintings with no real substance. The movie that really shows his potential is Royal Tenenbaums. That had great balance.

I am ragging on Cameron. Because it needs to be understood that Cameron is great technologically. & He knows how to put butts in the seats. But you give him a movie like No Country For Old Men, or There Will Be Blood. He would fail epically. But that is why he doesn't do movies like that he knows his limits.

 

[Sentinel X]

^To be honest, I think there are very few directors that can pull off big action blockbuster and small budget intense dramas. I don't know if the Coen brothers or Anderson can do it. Steven Spielberg is one of those people that instantly come to mind...I think its a lot harder than you might think.

 

[terry78]

Michael Mann is on my list as well, I forgot. He managed to make a Miami Vice adaption decent.

 

[Figs]

Christopher Nolan
Quentin Tarantino
Martin Scorsese
Paul Thomas Anderson
Coen Brothers
Darren Aronofsky

Still need to see films from Malick before I can consider him on my list. Surprisingly enough I looked him up and haven't seen a single film of his.

Still need to see more of Del Toro's earlier work and his future projects before I would even consider putting him on a list of best directors. I think he's good and he seems to definitely have a passion for film but Blade 2 and the Hellboy II(some would even say the first Hellboy as well)are not the best of films, meaning they're not films I would think a "best director" would have made. With that being said, I still enjoyed both of them.

 

[ALP]

No one here has yet to mention my single favorite filmmaker working, Jean Pierre-Jeunet. The best France has to offer.

Guillermo Del Toro
Alfonso Cuaron
Spike Jonze
Wes Anderson
Steven Spielberg
David Fincher
David Cronenberg
Darren Aronofsky
Hayao Miyazaki
Christopher Nolan
Quentin Tarantino
Martin Scorsese

 

[Passdom]

A Director tells a story with the camera. Cameron as much as I love the things he has done before Avatar (Yep I like Titanic).

He hasn't done anything with a camera that any filmmaker could have done.

You put some one like Del Toro behind the camera for anyone of Cameron's films. You automatically make it much better. Same with Nolan, Jackson, blah, blah, blah.

Good lord if Del Toro did The Abyss. That would be epic!

Just because a person makes good movies doesn't make him a great director. Wes Anderson is an amazing director visually. But over the years he has lost the balance between telling a story with the script & telling the story with the camera. He has made some movies that are too much like paintings with no real substance. The movie that really shows his potential is Royal Tenenbaums. That had great balance.

I am ragging on Cameron. Because it needs to be understood that Cameron is great technologically. & He knows how to put butts in the seats. But you give him a movie like No Country For Old Men, or There Will Be Blood. He would fail epically. But that is why he doesn't do movies like that he knows his limits.

This is the most hilarious garbage ive read today

And yeah, The Terminator, a movie with a very small budget, that movie sure as hell fell flat on its face right? Cameron makes movies with larger budgets because he's EARNED that right and he actually makes use of budgets in a way that show up on the screen.

 

[Project862006]

Martin Scorsese hands down imo he has been one of the only consistent directors still going today

 

[Ghostvirus]

^To be honest, I think there are very few directors that can pull off big action blockbuster and small budget intense dramas. I don't know if the Coen brothers or Anderson can do it. Steven Spielberg is one of those people that instantly come to mind...I think its a lot harder than you might think.

The Coens have shown signs that they could pull off action sequences. I really don't think Anderson could. But once again he seems to know his limits. So I don't think Anderson will be doing a superhero movie anytime soon.

This is the most hilarious garbage ive read today

And yeah, The Terminator, a movie with a very small budget, that movie sure as hell fell flat on its face right? Cameron makes movies with larger budgets because he's EARNED that right and he actually makes use of budgets in a way that show up on the screen.

Budget doesn't only apply to Indie.

 

[ALP]

Just because a person makes good movies doesn't make him a great director. Wes Anderson is an amazing director visually. But over the years he has lost the balance between telling a story with the script & telling the story with the camera. He has made some movies that are too much like paintings with no real substance. The movie that really shows his potential is Royal Tenenbaums. That had great balance.

Can't agree with a single word of this. Your view of a good filmmaker or even a good film is far too narrow minded.

Wes Anderson may not incorporate as much substance into his films as PT Anderson or Nolan but his films do have a meaning and a balance between the visuals and the story- he makes them one. "Too much like paintings," this makes little sense to me. A film does not need to be overflowing with apparent substance and subtext to be good. Just as a painting does not need to convey an epic story to be a good painting, sometimes there's only a small message. And that is what Wes Anderson gives us. He's not trying to be anyone other than the filmmaker he is. If you consider yourself so highly intelligent and sophisticated that you can't appreciate a small scale story with a simple meaning, oh well, your loss.

Goes back to what I first said, I simply think many of you are far too narrow minded on what makes a good film or story. "It has to be this way or that way." "The script must use these elements and the visuals must do that..."

 

[Ghostvirus]

Can't agree with a single word of this. Your view of a good filmmaker or even a good film is far too narrow minded.

Wes Anderson may not incorporate as much substance into his films as PT Anderson or Nolan but his films do have a meaning and a balance between the visuals and the story- he makes them one. "Too much like paintings," this makes little sense to me. A film does not need to be overflowing with apparent substance and subtext to be good. Just as a painting does not need to convey an epic story to be a good painting, sometimes there's only a small message. And that is what Wes Anderson gives us. He's not trying to be anyone other than the filmmaker he is. If you consider yourself so highly intelligent and sophisticated that you can't appreciate a small scale story with a simple meaning, oh well, your loss.

Goes back to what I first said, I simply think many of you are far too narrow minded on what makes a good film or story.

Have you seen Life Aquatic. That thing is basically a motion painting.

 

[ALP]

Have you seen Life Aquatic. That thing is basically a motion painting.

Yes, I have seen it. I understand that...what I don't understand is using it as a negative. Life Aquatic was a painterly film with a simple message, nothing at all wrong with that. You talked about the script and such. None of that is noble truth. A filmmaker may incorporate more work into the visuals than the scripting or more work into the scripting than the visuals. And either choice can turn out a brilliant piece of cinema. Have you ever heard of the brilliant English vet Mike Leigh? Many times he starts a film with only an idea and a story and does not write a script at all. He simply casts the film and works out the dialogue and story on set. It has won him 6 academy award nominations. There is no single right or wrong way of making a film.

 

[Passdom]

Can't agree with a single word of this. Your view of a good filmmaker or even a good film is far too narrow minded.

Wes Anderson may not incorporate as much substance into his films as PT Anderson or Nolan but his films do have a meaning and a balance between the visuals and the story- he makes them one. "Too much like paintings," this makes little sense to me. A film does not need to be overflowing with apparent substance and subtext to be good. Just as a painting does not need to convey an epic story to be a good painting, sometimes there's only a small message. And that is what Wes Anderson gives us. He's not trying to be anyone other than the filmmaker he is. If you consider yourself so highly intelligent and sophisticated that you can't appreciate a small scale story with a simple meaning, oh well, your loss.

Goes back to what I first said, I simply think many of you are far too narrow minded on what makes a good film or story. "It has to be this way or that way." "The script must use these elements and the visuals must do that..."

That sentence seems to describe almost every Nolan fanboy. Putting aside the hilarity of calling something like Inception a deep and highly intelligent movie (its complex for the sake of it, in the end its complexity is utterly meaningless), they view his storytelling ability as the the standard to which almost everyone should be judged, and if any director deviates from that style, then he is a lesser director.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Spielberg, Nolan, Zemeckis, Del Toro, Tarantino, Rodriguez, Singer, Jackson and Boyle are all right up there on my list, but Cameron is still tops for me, Avatar wasnt his best movie, but I thought it was great, and IMO no one can make you care about characters like Cameron does.

I will say though, if Neill Blomkamp and Duncan Jones make movies better than D9 and Moon, we could have a couple of masters on our hands.

 

[TNC9852002]

I will also add:

-Frank Darabont
-Brad Bird
-Darren Aronofsky
-David Fincher
-Paul Thomas Anderson
-Paul Greengrass