dedicate a post to your favorite director - Page 3

max · 12.15.2007, 12:12 AM

the one and only

GEORGE A. ROMERO

the mighty fleshy

DAVID CRONENBERG

the hyper trippy

DAVID LYNCH

the ultra killer

JOHN CARPENTER

max · 12.15.2007, 12:18 AM

the supa bustah

IVAN REITMAN

the dark moody

MARK PELLINGTON

the neutro-protonic

ROBERT ZEMECKIS

the italocrunchy

BRIAN DE PALMA

evollove · 12.15.2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Wow a non-trying desperately to out obscure everybody else post. But no Hitchcock really is fucking amazing.

As for me. I'll post some up tomorrow. Taking some thinking. Has a director ever not made a bad film?

Maybe we should start a simpler directors thread, w/out the gushing or pics. I feel bad inserting commentaries into dedications. (but not bad enough not to do it, I guess).

Because this is an interesting point. It seems that any director who makes more than, say, five movies is bound to have a real dud in there. I'd like to suggest that filmmaking is extrodinarily difficult and is often made by commitee. It seems that 10,000 things can (and often do) go wrong in the production, things that are out of the director's control. Also, we all have a bad year, and it's unfortunate that a director's bad year might be etched onto a film forever.

Maybe we should judge directors not by how many good ones they made, but by how few bad ones they made. In which case Fellini, Godard, Woody Allen and a host of others wouldn't make the cut. Bergman, tho, would still be standing strong, who's made maybe 5 or 6 crap movies out of, like, 40 something.

Lamont Cranston · 12.15.2007, 08:48 AM

Welles only made on crap film: The Stranger. It was supposed to show Hollywood that yes he could go along with the studios and do everything they told him to do without complaint.
And now for another Director

John Huston.

The Usher · 12.15.2007, 09:09 AM

Hanneke
Lynch
Herzog
Korine

in that order.

h8kurdt · 12.15.2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evollove

Maybe we should start a simpler directors thread, w/out the gushing or pics. I feel bad inserting commentaries into dedications. (but not bad enough not to do it, I guess).

Because this is an interesting point. It seems that any director who makes more than, say, five movies is bound to have a real dud in there. I'd like to suggest that filmmaking is extrodinarily difficult and is often made by commitee. It seems that 10,000 things can (and often do) go wrong in the production, things that are out of the director's control. Also, we all have a bad year, and it's unfortunate that a director's bad year might be etched onto a film forever.

Maybe we should judge directors not by how many good ones they made, but by how few bad ones they made. In which case Fellini, Godard, Woody Allen and a host of others wouldn't make the cut. Bergman, tho, would still be standing strong, who's made maybe 5 or 6 crap movies out of, like, 40 something.

I'll add one more person to that. Spieldberg. And yes I do mean that. Anyone who pretty much diagrees should really get his head out of his arse as he's proven himself to be one hell of a director and able to make a movie, big or small. His bad films are probably 1941, Empire of the sun was not one I enjoyed and Hook is another one.

Kubrick is another guy whose list of bad films are minimal. Although I will say that I've not seen any of his films made before Spartacus. His films fom Spartacus onwards rarely dip below brilliant.

fugazifan · 12.15.2007, 12:04 PM

jarmucsh has yet to make a bad movie. broken flowers is his only not great movie, and it is still pretty decent

demonrail666 · 12.15.2007, 03:08 PM

evollove · 12.15.2007, 06:04 PM

KUBRICK- In his 44 year career, he made a grand total of 12 films, most of which he produced himself. Great way to keep the crap factor down. Smart guy. The one before Spartacus (1960) was Paths of Glory (1957), which is a masterpiece. Check it out, but be warned: it packs quite an emotional wallop.

WELLES- Although I can't call The Trial or Mr. Arkadian or Othello or Chimes at Midnight "great," they are interesting failures. I guess another way to judge a director is to ask: how interesting are the not-great ones?

JARMUCSH- Have you seen Permanent Vacation? It's the one he made before Stranger Than Paradise. He's tried to pretend that he didn't make it but he did and it sucks. It's a hard one to track down and not at all worth it.

WARHOL- Are you fucking kidding? When I get too excited watching paint dry, I pop in one of his flicks to calm my nerves. Works every time.

Lamont Cranston · 12.15.2007, 11:26 PM

Hey now, Kubrick made two films before Paths of Glory: Killer's Kiss (1955) and The Killing (1956). Haven't seen Killer's Kiss but The Killing is a fine noir.
Despite being a Salkind production The Trial is a good film; Mr. Arkadin was taken away from Welles during editing; You try making a professional film at the start of the 1950s with your own money after the studio goes bankrupt and see if its as good as Othello; I don't know what you're talking about when you call Chimes at Midnight an "interesting failure".

HaydenAsche · 12.15.2007, 11:39 PM

Wes Anderson kicks ass.

evollove · 12.16.2007, 10:30 AM

The "Kill" movies are fine. Paths is outstanding.

Welles had to deal with so much shit, poor guy. Even by his second, he was getting fucked with by the studios, who inserted a "new and improved" ending. Still, the films are what the films are. We all have to live with it. I totally agree that, although Othello is a bit painful to watch, I could never make it. He ALWAYS gets an "A" for effort.

"Interesting failure" means that one leaves the film unsatisfied, but there's enough in the film to warrant a viewing or two. I don't like The Trial, for example, but the wonderful image of K swimming in a pile of books has been seared into my mind, among other outstanding bits.

Lamont Cranston · 12.16.2007, 12:10 PM

At the time the 132 minute workprint of Ambersons was screened for a test audience, Welles was down in South America on some bizarro expedition making a documentary for Uncle Sam without any sort of directive on what he was supposed to do; it ended up never seeing the light of day. The response to that uncut print and the apocalyptic collapse of the South American sojourn dogged his career for decades.
I still disagree, I was completely satisfied by Chimes at Midnight. Maybe you were so overwhelmed by the depiction of the Battle of Shrewsbury you were unable to process the rest of the film?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Capt. Cravat himself:

The Cat's Meow was a return to form.

!@#$%! · 12.16.2007, 03:04 PM

this is my post for movie antagonism

Quote:

Originally Posted by max

the neutro-protonic

ROBERT ZEMECKIS

fuck no, fuck no, fuck no-- i was going to pick him to start my "post a picture of your most hated directors" thread. the suck who made forrest gump, polar express, and now that turd beowulf? motherfucker needs to DIE. DIE. or change careers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by evollove

WELLES- Although I can't call The Trial or Mr. Arkadian or Othello or Chimes at Midnight "great," they are interesting failures.

are you on fucking crack? the trial one of the most brilliant movies ever.
EVER.

evollove · 12.17.2007, 01:02 PM

^ Hm. Maybe the problem is I WASN'T on crack. Might've helped.

But here's the good news: I would watch it again. Same with Chimes. I might even look forward to the experience. I have a ton of personal examples of films that I liked/didn't, and then saw years later and didn't/liked. Film's funny that way.

12.15.2007, 12:12 AM	#41
max expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: sardinia, italy Posts: 1,263	the one and only GEORGE A. ROMERO the mighty fleshy DAVID CRONENBERG the hyper trippy DAVID LYNCH the ultra killer JOHN CARPENTER __________________ A Dance Of Shadows - Kingdom Of Night
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 12:18 AM	#42
max expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: sardinia, italy Posts: 1,263	the supa bustah IVAN REITMAN the dark moody MARK PELLINGTON the neutro-protonic ROBERT ZEMECKIS the italocrunchy BRIAN DE PALMA __________________ A Dance Of Shadows - Kingdom Of Night
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 08:48 AM	#44
Lamont Cranston 100% Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 725	Welles only made on crap film: The Stranger. It was supposed to show Hollywood that yes he could go along with the studios and do everything they told him to do without complaint. And now for another Director John Huston.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 09:09 AM	#45
The Usher stalker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hell Posts: 454	Hanneke Lynch Herzog Korine in that order. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 12:04 PM	#47
fugazifan invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,816	jarmucsh has yet to make a bad movie. broken flowers is his only not great movie, and it is still pretty decent __________________ If there's been a way to build it, There'll be a way to destroy it, Things are not that out of control www.myspace.com/dellilahtheband www.myspace.com/lecirquedesvampiresmusic
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 03:08 PM	#48
demonrail666 invito al cielo Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 18,509
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 06:04 PM	#49
evollove invito al cielo Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,879	KUBRICK- In his 44 year career, he made a grand total of 12 films, most of which he produced himself. Great way to keep the crap factor down. Smart guy. The one before Spartacus (1960) was Paths of Glory (1957), which is a masterpiece. Check it out, but be warned: it packs quite an emotional wallop. WELLES- Although I can't call The Trial or Mr. Arkadian or Othello or Chimes at Midnight "great," they are interesting failures. I guess another way to judge a director is to ask: how interesting are the not-great ones? JARMUCSH- Have you seen Permanent Vacation? It's the one he made before Stranger Than Paradise. He's tried to pretend that he didn't make it but he did and it sucks. It's a hard one to track down and not at all worth it. WARHOL- Are you fucking kidding? When I get too excited watching paint dry, I pop in one of his flicks to calm my nerves. Works every time.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 11:26 PM	#50
Lamont Cranston 100% Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 725	Hey now, Kubrick made two films before Paths of Glory: Killer's Kiss (1955) and The Killing (1956). Haven't seen Killer's Kiss but The Killing is a fine noir. Despite being a Salkind production The Trial is a good film; Mr. Arkadin was taken away from Welles during editing; You try making a professional film at the start of the 1950s with your own money after the studio goes bankrupt and see if its as good as Othello; I don't know what you're talking about when you call Chimes at Midnight an "interesting failure".
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.15.2007, 11:39 PM	#51
HaydenAsche invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 10,755	Wes Anderson kicks ass. __________________ rip
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.16.2007, 10:30 AM	#52
evollove invito al cielo Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,879	The "Kill" movies are fine. Paths is outstanding. Welles had to deal with so much shit, poor guy. Even by his second, he was getting fucked with by the studios, who inserted a "new and improved" ending. Still, the films are what the films are. We all have to live with it. I totally agree that, although Othello is a bit painful to watch, I could never make it. He ALWAYS gets an "A" for effort. "Interesting failure" means that one leaves the film unsatisfied, but there's enough in the film to warrant a viewing or two. I don't like The Trial, for example, but the wonderful image of K swimming in a pile of books has been seared into my mind, among other outstanding bits.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.16.2007, 12:10 PM	#53
Lamont Cranston 100% Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 725	At the time the 132 minute workprint of Ambersons was screened for a test audience, Welles was down in South America on some bizarro expedition making a documentary for Uncle Sam without any sort of directive on what he was supposed to do; it ended up never seeing the light of day. The response to that uncut print and the apocalyptic collapse of the South American sojourn dogged his career for decades. I still disagree, I was completely satisfied by Chimes at Midnight. Maybe you were so overwhelmed by the depiction of the Battle of Shrewsbury you were unable to process the rest of the film? Ladies and Gentlemen, Capt. Cravat himself: The Cat's Meow was a return to form.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.17.2007, 01:02 PM	#55
evollove invito al cielo Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,879	^ Hm. Maybe the problem is I WASN'T on crack. Might've helped. But here's the good news: I would watch it again. Same with Chimes. I might even look forward to the experience. I have a ton of personal examples of films that I liked/didn't, and then saw years later and didn't/liked. Film's funny that way.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|