I just read
Big Hollywood Blog Archive Top 10 Most Overrated Directors of All Time and, while it's a bit (a lot) OTT I can sort of see where he's coming from with some of them.
I had been thinking Hitchcock was overrated for a while, since seeing
Vertigo again and not really enjoying it. The remade
The Man Who Knew Too Much is close to unwatchable;
Topaz and
Family Plot are unwatchable. Compare
Frenzy to what was going on in American cinema by 1972 and it's embarrassing . It's Hitchcock trying to be edgy and modern and daring, I think, but it's risible. Earlier Hitchcock is better: small, tight suspense thrillers that made his name such as
The Lady Vanishes and
Shadow of a Doubt.
Aronofsky I totally disagree with, having loved
The Fountain,
The Wrestler and
Requiem for a Dream - this guy is the single best thing about American cinema today. The piece's writer really loses cred by seeming to suggest that the fact that his films haven't made money is some sort of quality indicator. Martin Scorsese isn't
really overrated - he knows filmmaking inside out and puts Leonardo DiCaprio to good work. Tarantino's similar though I still haven't seen his latest.
Reservoir Dogs on its own justifies his reputation but that was almost 20 years ago and nothing he did since has been as good.
Kill Bill is entirely empty and almost completely worthless. I haven't seen enough of Lynch's, Leans or Woody Allen's films to comment about them. I agree with Michael Mann and Ridley Scott though I don't hate their films as vehemently as the guy seems to. Both of them are style over substance. (But remember: Ridley Scott's involved with making a film of the game Monopoly. Think about that. A film of Monopoly. People don't seem to properly appreciate how bad that is. It's like a giant honking goose shitting all over your house. Abhorrent as it is, I don't think fact that
Ridley Scott is making a film of Monopoly has any effect on how overrated he is so I chose Hitchcock.)