Who is the most overrated film director?

[oliver9184]

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.)

[Aladdin Sane]

Hands down, it's Oliver Stone.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Hands down, it's Oliver Stone.

You beat me to it.

The guy who wrote that article is sometimes right, and sometimes crazy. It's also worth noting that some directors are currently overrated due to past work that is entirely deserving of the hype. James Cameron is one: Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2. All deserving of the hype. Since then, he has gone downhill. Ridley Scott is kind of the same: Alien and Blade Runner are masterpieces, but the rest of his movies are, at best, just good. I'd also put Tarantino into this category, though I have yet to see Inglorious Basterds.

As for Darren Aronofsky, I agree with you: one of the best things about American cinema today (I dunno about the single best).

[Bartender123]

"Requiem for a Dream is noteworthy only in that Aronofsky somehow convinced Jennifer Connolly to participate in a lesbian scene involving mutual anal sex and a dildo"

Speaking of that scene, look up arsche an arsche on youtube

I personally think that Aronofsky, Scorsese (until recently) and Hitchcock all produced greatness every single time. Aronofsky's directing style is the most interesting out of that pool of directors. Everyone else produces too much of the same thing, and only sometimes it turns out good.

Tarantino is an interesting character, his movies aren't that great, but they have a lot of soul in them, and he crafts absurd comedy into all of them.

[Fremen]

I voted Woody Allen.
I guess his movies are too cerebral for me, because I just don't get most of his stuff.

I would've voted for Spielberg if he was a choice. He hasn't been good since Schindler's List.

[mixedmedia]

The only person on that list that is overrated is Tarantino...in my opinion. Most of them are rated just enough, I think.

And even though I'm ok with him, I think Steven Spielberg deserves a place on that list. He's a good director, but he is saccharine and formulaic.

[rahl]

I voted tarantino, but would have voted for Micael Bay if I had the choice. His movies are over the top action and CG and totally miss the point.

[SecretMethod70]

No one considers Michael Bay good though. The only director whose name is a better punchline is Uwe Boll.

[Plan9]

Smeth:

Please... Postal was far better than Deathproof.

[pan6467]

Tarantino, his style is too over the top and he get far more kudos than he deserves. I find his work overdirected and overacted for the most part.

The rest....

Allen hasn't done anything good since Annie Hall, he got to "I need to make a social statement"... but his box office shows his lack of anything decent. Early stuff like Bananas, Sleeper, All You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex... classics.

Hitchcock was great and was the grandfather of modern horror and suspense if anything he is not as recognized as he should be. Noone else could take a 1960 tv budget and create a masterpiece of greatness on a bet (Psycho).

Scorsese is another that was very good but lately hasn't done anything close to what his earlier stuff was.

The rest of the list, eh.... they do what they do, i wouldn't consider any of them "greats". Their styles to me are pretty much the same in every movie they do. Aronofsky is probably the better of them, though.

[Vaultboy]

Looking at the poll sofar, Ridley Scott and Michael Mann are amongst the top - perhaps, as mixedmedia said, because they aren't overrated - they're rated well.

I actually find the most overrated director to be Martin Scorsese. He has the reputation of a god, yet only delivers movies that leave me with a satisfied experience. He's never really blown me away with anything he's done. Consistently above par execution does not equate brilliance. I'd rather rate someone as brilliant who has some misses in between some jaw-dropping, mind-blowing flicks.

[Aladdin Sane]

Roman Polanski is not on the list, but should be.

[Lasereth]

Spielburg needs to be on the list though he has made masterpieces. But his reputation is just waaay overboard.

[guy44]

Oliver Stone is the runaway winner. He's like late period Pacino - he's only good if he's very, very restrained. But that basically hasn't happened since, what? Platoon? Born on the Fourth of July?

Also, the list that inspired the OP was written by Breitbart, a crazy rightwing nut who has decided it is his task in life to take on Hollywood on behalf of God. Generally speaking, I'm inclined to believe the exact opposite of any list he puts together. I mean, he says Hitchcock is the most overrated director of all time! That said, I actually agree with him on Michael Mann. I hate saying that of a fellow Chicagoan, but has never made a great movie, and only a few good ones.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by guy44

Also, the list that inspired the OP was written by Breitbart, a crazy rightwing nut who has decided it is his task in life to take on Hollywood on behalf of God. Generally speaking, I'm inclined to believe the exact opposite of any list he puts together.

I read the link after seeing your post. The writer is definitely a right winged nutjob and proves it in his "review" of some of the directors. His review of Nichols shows his contempt for the left. That review had little to do with Nichols' work as it did with the fact he his movies are liberally biased.

It seemed he just had more personal issues against some of the listed than he did issues on their work.

[Jetée]

I would have voted for the director who I'v never heard of, as being the "overrated one", because I avoid those types of films like wuchereria bancrofti, but there was no "select multiple" feature for the poll.

I don't ever recall seeing a film directed by Michael Mann, Woody Allen, Ridley Scott, David Lynch, David Lean, Mike Nichols, and maybe, just maybe, Martin Scorsese.

It's a process of elimination. Either all those above are overrated in my book, or both Hitchcock and Tarantino are overrated because I can actually name films those two were present and accounted for in the director's chair. (or, it means I don't watch nearly enough films to know, or care too much about, a particular director's style, or penchant for angels, or explosions.)

[SecretMethod70]

Pretty sure you've at least seen a Ridley Scott film. At least, I hope so: Alien, Blade Runner, Legend, Thelma & Louise, G.I. Jane, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down... to name a few.

I don't quite understand what you mean by your first sentence though. What are "those types of films"? Films that aren't directed by someone you've heard of? Do you only watch movies directed by the same people you've already seen the work of?

[Jetée]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Pretty sure you've at least seen a Ridley Scott film. At least, I hope so: Alien, Blade Runner, Legend, Thelma & Louise, G.I. Jane, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down... to name a few.

I don't quite understand what you mean by your first sentence though. What are "those types of films"? Films that aren't directed by someone you've heard of? Do you only watch movies directed by the same people you've already seen the work of?

No, I only watch films I can get my hands on; that's what I meant. I don't have a general filtering process or state of mind to my film experience, it's just I have a sporadic way of going about it.

If you recommend a film to me, I'll probably watch it within the week. That's my first cue. If I just happen an obscure list of films pertaining to "such-and-such subject matter", I'll probably pick one out at random. It's a jumble.

I don't pay attention to actors, directors, plot, the history of the script... (was it adapted from a bestselling novel or videogame or what have you) I just look at the title of the film, if there is a quick synposis attached to it, and if it appeals to me, I give it a shot. If I come away satisfied, all the better.

There is something about being just free enough to enjoy an escape without having to, before and after, prepare, study and dissect every little piece of the production like I'm cramming for an exam, one that invloves rating actors and directors achievements over a lifetime when most of what goes into a film is put together by the efforts of hundreds, if not thousands, and to give just one person credit doesn't begin to cover the phrase "yeah, he made another classic". (I do, however, understand that the director is the "architect" to film's flow, progression, timing, and overall, longstanding effect on the audience; I just don't think any one director can be considered a "maestro" because he was able to create an acceptable environment for a successful and memorable film.)


and to tackle the point, yeah, I have seen a Ridley Scott-directed film before, perhaps several more than those you've mentioned, but I had (have) no idea what they were offhand, so I didn't really attribute the success of the film to the director (meaning: I couldn't name a single Ridley Scott film 10 minutes ago if you gave me a week to think about it, without any aid from google). Maybe I don't give this career of direction enough credit.


and a little fun:
here is a list of the last 20 films I've seen (for the first time) in descending order, with a star next to the ones I had no clue what the film pertained to, save for the actual title:
A Night at the Opera *
(Pixar's) Up
Blood Diamonds *
Constantine
Vincent Price's The Fly
Mean Creek *
The Great Outdoors *
The Joy Luck Club *
Almost Famous
The Seventh Coin *
Dog Day Afternoon
Hoodwinked *
Enchanted *
Apollo 13
The Manchurian Candidate (with Denzel)
The Amityville Horror (original)
Highlander
Dr. Strangelove *
The Last of the Mohicans *
Saving Private Ryan

[SecretMethod70]

Got it, thanks for the clarification Nothing wrong with not wanting to put thought into who directed the film or who acts in it, etc. One point where I have to disagree, though, is the characterization that putting this kind of thought into a movie is "like cramming for an exam." There are very few movies I can think of where that kind of attention is required to enjoy it. Rather, these are just the things that film enthusiasts like to discuss and analyze. To each their own, you know?

Here's how I look at it: There are lots of different kinds of books. Some are enjoyable fluff. Others require a little analysis and thought to get the most out of the story. Movies are no different. Some people prefer watching movies that are simply an "escape." Others enjoy putting more effort into analyzing the movie, and sometimes enjoy putting thought into the movie before and after the viewing experience.

Point is, no one expects you to put that kind of effort into thinking about movies or directors or actors... but a discussion about "most overrated film director" is kind of specifically tailored for people who do enjoy such mental endeavors

[filtherton]

David Lynch. Just because the people I know personally who are into him are really fucking into him. And Dune sucked.

[roachboy]

yeah unfortunately i read the linked article so the rating game had a bit of the interest sucked out of it simply because the cat who wrote the initial piece is a fuckwit of pretty epic proportions. there are some innovative directors on this list and while i don't like everything any of them has done, the idea that these folk are more "over-rated" than hacks like james cameron seems surreal to me.

anyway blah blah blah dissing hitchcock just seems stupid to me....but not as stupid as seeing the graduate as tied to the time period during which it was made. this seems a duh point like few others.

scorcese and polanski both had long runs of making great innovative work and fell off at some point.

david lynch is ok. i liked eraserhead. i liked blue velvet. i kinda liked mulholland drive.

aronofsky? i really liked pi. it reminded me a bit of liquid sky, which no-one remembers. i liked that it reminded me a little of liquid sky.

i dont have anything in particular to say about tarantino.
ridley scott. blade runner. he didnt have to do anything else.

woody allen.

why am i doing this again?

[DaveOrion]

Its all a matter of personal taste, no doubt about it. I think Woody Allen is totally overrated and most definitely needs a new twist aside from young girls. Thats just my opinion, others will vary.

I like Tarantino's work, he has some classics in his bag, no matter your personal preference.

[Nikilidstrom]

Originally Posted by roachboy

ridley scott. blade runner. he didnt have to do anything else.

not that this has anything to do necessarily with this topic, and don't get me wrong, I love Blade Runner, but does it at all nullify Scott's greatness when he himself has said that Blade Runner turned out far from his vision for the movie, he hated every minute of working on that film, and even the "definitive" Director's Cut is nothing like the version he wanted to produce?

I love Scott's movies, but I find it curious when people hold up Blade Runner as THE Ridley Scott movie, when great films like Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven are much more indicative of his style.

[Jetée]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Got it, thanks for the clarification Nothing wrong with not wanting to put thought into who directed the film or who acts in it, etc. One point where I have to disagree, though, is the characterization that putting this kind of thought into a movie is "like cramming for an exam." There are very few movies I can think of where that kind of attention is required to enjoy it. Rather, these are just the things that film enthusiasts like to discuss and analyze. To each their own, you know?

Here's how I look at it: There are lots of different kinds of books. Some are enjoyable fluff. Others require a little analysis and thought to get the most out of the story. Movies are no different. Some people prefer watching movies that are simply an "escape." Others enjoy putting more effort into analyzing the movie, and sometimes enjoy putting thought into the movie before and after the viewing experience.

Point is, no one expects you to put that kind of effort into thinking about movies or directors or actors... but a discussion about "most overrated film director" is kind of specifically tailored for people who do enjoy such mental endeavors

I know it's not required to research a film to enjoy it, I'm just pointing out that in our present-day society, (as illustrated by that other current film/audience analysis thread in this forum) it is an ever-increasing majority of "normal" consumers who feel they need to at least read a review of the film, find out who's acting in it, where the story developed from, and then ask their friends beforehand what they thought of the film before they even give it a chance. And if someone were to mention any little plot details they thought were important, it's the "shut up. don't spoil the film/ending" remark.

I do understand your point, though, and I'm sorry if I somehow coalesced the two contentions in my previous explanation, it's just that I like to analyze my films as I am watching them, not beforehand, not because of the director's / producer's credits, and what they have come to produce in the past; I watch, (emote), analyze, (ponder) and then repeat as many times as necessary for any one film, and in that precise order.

I'll give a weird example here, and I'm not sure it will prove a point, but anyways:

I think this discussion is comparing apples to oranges, or like comparing Alien to Aliens, or comparing The Terminator to Terminator 2: Judgment Day, even though only one these film franchises may have had the same director for both of them. Some might like the sequel more, or hail the original as a masterpiece, and the sequel as merely an acceptable follow-up. I don't know where that led, other than me finding out James Cameron actually directed three of my four examples, and also figuring out that I never saw how either the original Alien or Terminator ended, but I tried. Either way, I like the taste of a good film experience above all, and if the director is a hack or the next coming of the Minnelli, at least in my mind, it doesn't matter as much.

[mixedmedia]

I tend to not lose respect for people I have respected greatly in the past for creating works that I'm not so fond of later down the line.

This includes Lynch, Scorsese, Mike Nichols and Woody Allen. I don't think any of them are overrated.

And I agree with roachboy that James Cameron is a hack (even worse than Spielberg). Falling off the auteur train somewhere along a 30-40 year road is one thing. Never being on it and being treated like you were is quite another.

And I've never liked Tarantino, so there's no love lost there. I reiterate my conviction that he is the most overrated director of our time. And yes, I tried sitting through Inglorious Basterds but it didn't hold my attention.

[Lasereth]

Inglourious Basterds was robbed of best picture. You take it back!!! BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

And I agree with roachboy that James Cameron is a hack (even worse than Spielberg). Falling off the auteur train somewhere along a 30-40 year road is one thing. Never being on it and being treated like you were is quite another.

I half agree. James Cameron is most certainly a hack now, and has been for the past ~15 years. I also agree he has never been an auteur. That said, I don't think there's any denying that his early film work was spectacular. It's not just the first two Terminator movies, The Abyss was also great, and Aliens was a respectable followup to Alien (though admittedly inferior in my view). Unfortunately, Cameron's work post-T2 (with the possible exception of True Lies) has been so bad that I don't really have any warm feelings for him despite that string of 4 sci-fi classics.

And I've never liked Tarantino, so there's no love lost there. I reiterate my conviction that he is the most overrated director of our time. And yes, I tried sitting through Inglorious Basterds but it didn't hold my attention.

Definitely overrated, but you've never liked Tarantino? Really? Not even Reservoir Dogs?!

[dippin]

Tarantino is overrated. But the most overrated director ever is Spielberg. By a wide margin. His success comes from being a director of blockbusters even as blockbusters became the norm and widely accepted. Had he started 10 years earlier, he'd never make a good movie with the lower budgets. Had he started 10 years later, he'd be Michael Bay.

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Definitely overrated, but you've never liked Tarantino? Really? Not even Reservoir Dogs?!

I did enjoy Reservoir Dogs, that's true. But Pulp Fiction was one of the most unendurable films I've ever had to sit through. I hated it. And not for the sensationalistic aspects of it, but for that unctuous quality that seems to ooze out of all of his pictures since RD. I don't prefer filmmakers who think they're being clever. There's got to be some level of humility before the craft.

[FoolThemAll]

If anything, Deathproof was underrated.

And Requiem For a Dream was a pretty awesome music video, too bad there was a couple hours of bullshit surrounding it.

[Reese]

I voted Woody Allen only because I haven't liked a single film that he's directed.

For this to be a poll though, I don't think it really proves anything about who's overrated, it only proves who has the most polarized audience.

[Jetée]

David Lynch on who he likes:

YouTube - David Lynch Favorites Movies and FilmMakers

YouTube - David Lynch Favorites Movies and FilmMakers

[Jove]

How about M. Night Shyamalan? I enjoyed his earlier films: The Sixth Sense, Signs (even with several plot holes), Unbreakable and Lady in the Water, but The Village and The Happening were weak. I have noticed M. Night tries to follow the same format in all of his films, but it doesn't work so well in The Happening. The casting choice was all wrong.

[oliver9184]

Reese is right I think. Not many conclusions to be drawn here. I should have researched who that guy was better - I may not have bothered knowing what I now do about him and how invalid his opinions are. So far the two Michaels have no votes, so they are the 'least overrated' directors and poor old Woody is most overrated. It seems like some people loved Mann's latest film Public Enemies and some hated it. Career-wise he's had huge hits both critical and popular - Heat, Ali - and more dodgy stuff (Miami Vice), as well as more low-key films like Collateral that have seemed to pick up momentum since release. Whoever said Mike Nichols is on the list purely because he's liberal is right - he's had a great career and his films have generally done well commercially (one of Mr Breitbart's barometers of quality remember) but he isn't renowned as a name-above-title director like the rest. He shouldn't be on the list.

Woody Allen is difficult because he's so prolific (40+ films directed) and yet pretty niche; I think you have to be a real fan to have seen a substantial portion of his work. Judging from past reputation and more contemporary critical response he seems to have dropped off in the last decade or so: my own scant experience directly contradicts this: I saw Sleeper (1973) and disliked it, the only other of his films I've properly watched is Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008) which I enjoyed immensely. None of which is really useful in determining his overratedness.

[Jetée]

Reading your above post, oliver, I can't help but make the comparison that some (maybe more than I personally know) people compare and rate a certain "name-brand" director by their notables, their bombs, but overall, the sum of his parts thorughout the years, not unlike those who are total baseball geeks.

It is like you take all the films that, say, another unnamed director in this discussion, Stanley Kubrick, has directed throughout his lifetime, and you add a certain weighted argument towards his notables (A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey) and his critical failures, (A Clockwork Orange, The Seafarers, Eyes Wide Shut) and you total them up to arrive at his "batting average".

From the quick little glance I took at the total body of his work and how it rates among the online film community, Kubrick might be the gold standard for a director's total accomplishments (which, of course, means someone will state he is overrated).

[oliver9184]

You make a good point about Kubrick Jetée, and it prompted me to look at some figures to find out whether or not I do think he's overrated. I compared my marks out of ten for his films to the IMDB score, of the eight Kubrick films that I've watched so far. Compared with the thousands of IMDB voters I underrated five and overrated three (Lolita, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining). Over the eight films the average IMDB score is 8.16 and my average score is 7.25. So now I can say with confidence and with statistics to back up my reasoning that yes, I do think Stanley Kubrick is overrated - but only by 0.91 of a mark out of ten.

[Charlatan]

I am pretty much of a mind with mixedmedia.

Most of the directors on that list are not overrated so much as rated just fine. To be clear, that isn't to say that I love everything they've ever done. Rather, it's an indication that they have a) done enough to impress b) not been over hyped or c) a combination of a and b

The only one on that list that I think is OVER hyped is Tarrantino. I just watched Inglorious Basterds this past week and it really wasn't great. It is the definition of over hyped.

If I were to add anyone to the list it would be Tim Burton. He's a filmmaker that gets way more respect than his output deserves. All flash and no substance.

As for Spielberg... don't be haters. Don't hate him just because his films are mainstream. I'd suggest that while he has made some less than successful films (who on this list hasn't or won't in their careers) I would say that his reputation is well-earned and not over-hyped. He changed the industry and he influenced how stories are told on film. Whoever it was that suggested he's never made a low budget film... a) so what? and b) see Duel - low budget, high concept and one of the best TV movies ever made.

[mixedmedia]

I don't hate on Steven Spielberg. I just don't think that, for all of his filmmaking talent, he really has that much to say. I'm sure Mr. Spielberg would disagree with me. But I certainly don't hate him.

[Charlatan]

Mixed... hate may have been a strong word for your posts but others seem to have this knee-jerk reaction to Spielberg.

I agree that he has little to say but that's entirely besides the point. In the world of mainstream, Hollywood film making he is successful for a reason. While I think his best film making years are behind him, he is a master of filmic storytelling. His earlier films didn't aspire to be anything more that what they were... mainstream film. It wasn't until he was a success that he sought to make films that had "meaning" (i.e Shindler's List, etc.).

Ultimately, my point is that he is not overrated but rather accurately rated.