Who is the most overrated director?

I don't think one has to be "popular" to be considered overrated.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Steven Spielberg is so overrated!

This will probably elicit many groans, but I say Martin Scorcese. Don't get me wrong; he's made a few outstanding films and he's undeniably talented, but he's usually placed among the greatest directors of all time, and I'm not sure he deserves that status. I was particularly disappointed by his last two films to be nominated, The Aviator and Gangs of New York. Each had phenomenal performances and was a well crafted spectacle, but lacked a compelling story arc.

I find it funny that he is such a touchstone when it comes to this type of conversation. The same names always come up and at the top of that list more often than not sits Tarantino. Stone, Spielberg and a few others come up in conversation but almost always 'ol Q is the focus.

What people tend to forget is that the topic here is "most overrated" is it not? That doesn't mean bad, and it doesn't mean talentless it just means not quite as good as we are lead to believe he is. With the Masonic zeal with which some people (including the man himself) promote him, I can't see how his name could not come up, over and over again.

Thats bad writing, not bad directing.

I thought Gangs of New York was terrible. I wish I could get that time back I wasted watching that film. It looked like it was gonna turn into something worth watching for the first 1/4 in but just tailed off from there. I dunno. It left a bad taste in my mouth anways.

Gangs of New York is a fantastic film, IMO. Scorsese is one of my favorite directors. The guy is a genius...

__________________

In my opinion, I think Steven Spielberg is WAAAYYY overrated. And you know this is true, when you see his name plastered all over advertisements for movies like War of the Worlds, and then you go to watch it and it turns out to be crap.

For the record, my favourite directors include:

Martin Scorsese
David Lynch
David Fincher
Martin Scorsese
Quentin Tarantino
Stanley Kubrick
Darren Aronofsky

And a little bit from Oliver Stone.

Spielberg and Tarantino are both really easy to pick on because of the enormous disparity between the hype surrounding their films and their actual accomplishments.

Even though I love some of his movies (especially Raging Bull), I find myself nodding my head with the people who have suggested Scorsese is a bit overrated. A few years ago, I would have found the very thought blasphemous, but the Gangs of New York and The Aviator really exposed some weaknesses in his filmmaking that were maybe always there, but not necessarily immediately apparent. In a way, I kind of view him as grimy underbelly version of Spielberg - a gifted narrative filmmaker with the sort of instinctual genius for storytelling that guarantees excellence when handed strong material. But, like Spielberg, his cinematic language is too conventional and middle brow to overcome less-than-stellar writing. He's a good director, but he's no stylist, and, as a result, he can't do what the truly great directors can (and do): make interesting and engaging films even when the writing is mediocre. But he's still counted among the immortals, which, to my mind, makes him overrated.

I wonder if its even fair to include still living/working filmmakers. To be judged on a body of work after you have completed your life and to be judged as you are still creating seems a bit skewed towards the dead.

I would even give Tarantino the benefit of a doubt here, especially if he were more prolific. But comparing someone like him to the likes of Goddard or Sam Peckinpah (who impressed me only at the end of his career, in retrospect of course me being only 38 years of age) seems unfair, Using Peckinpah as an example of another overrated filmmaker but still a good one, I don't think we have seen what Tarantino can really do yet, at least I hope not.

There's something to be said for a career in the perspective of time, but that doesn't let active filmmakers off the hook when their work doesn't measure up to the hype that surrounds it. For starters, you can still get that distant perspective on many directors, even when they're still making movies. For god's sake, Scorsese and Spielberg have both been making movies for more than 30 years, it's not like we don't have a proper frame of reference in which to judge them. Even someone like Tarantino can be viewed pretty objectively with an eye to the totality of his work to date. As long as he continues to be hailed as a visionary director while making films that are never more (and sometimes quite a bit less) than the sum of their influences, he's going to be overrated.

Agreed, sometimes I think an artist can be too prolific for their talent. Spielberg especially, Scorsese on the other hand if you take a long view of his work there are far more "hits" artistically, than there are "misses." I don't suggest letting anyone off the hook, but factor in some extra 40lb test for the living.

I'm less certain of that. Scorsese has had a 2-3 really great pictures, several that are merely good, and a couple that just aren't good at all, yet he is often counted among the all-time elite with men whose 'misses' were often excellent.

Ok I'll take that challenge, lets see...starting with his latest best films lets count the "hits" as I see them.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)
Kundun (1997)
Casino (1995)
The Age of Innocence (1993)
Cape Fear (1991)
Goodfellas (1990)
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
The Color of Money (1986)
After Hours (1985)
The King of Comedy (1983)
Raging Bull (1980)
The Last Waltz (1978)
New York, New York (1977)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)
Mean Streets (1973)
Street Scenes (1970)

That's seventeen certifiable classics. I'll give you The Last Waltz because it's subject matter doesn't lend itself well to direction, but even removing that film I think that 16 decent films is noteworthy for any director. 16 great films gets you legend status. I think its undeniable that when you mention the watershed films in film history ESPECIALLY American film history his impact is undeniable and his reputation deserved.

It seems you have a pretty broad definition of 'classic.' I'd account most of those films slightly above average, but the only genuine classics are Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ, and maybe, maybe, if I'm being generous, Goodfellas.

I hate to say it but Shyamalan because his films are either a hit or a miss, but a really bad miss.

Its not merely my definition but the opinion of many critics and cinephiles. I don't see how you can't rate Casino as one of the best American films of the 20th century, the use of music; the editing, the pacing and the acting are almost flawless. Mean streets not a classic? Taxi Driver? C’mon' now? The King of Comedy? How many film school syllabuses include any of the films I mentioned? If they include American films, I would bet most all.

1. American cinema on the whole is vastly inferior to foreign film anyway.

2. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that there's some sort of 'classic' consensus for most of the films you listed. Casino is a perfect example - that's a 3 or 3.5 star film on most major critics' lists. Certainly a good movie, but hardly a 'classic.' Mean Streets is in the same boat - a film that points to something more, but is not at the same level as his best work. A couple of the films you listed were flat out mediocre (Age of Innocence) and others (Taxi Driver) are known far more for the strength of their performances than for the quality of their direction.

Obviously, some of this is purely a matter of personal taste, but at the same time, I have a hard time believing that anyone really believes that Bringing Out the Dead is a 'classic.'

I didn't want to be presumptuous but I almost included a paragraph that disputed what I quoted before you even wrote it. This is a complete load of bull****, it is cinematic and cultural snobbery at its finest and I'm not at all surprised that someone who referred to Michael Moore as a (and I quote) "Fat socialist weasel" comes off as a snob.

When it comes to film or any art for that matter I am a cultural relativist in the extreme. For you to dismiss American film as "vastly inferior" just signals to me that you have no clue about what art and/or film is supposed to do.

I admit I am not the most "well-versed in foreign film" person, but I have seen my share. First off you cannot possibly believe you could get away with judging the whole of the rest of civilization's filmic output against that of the United States, its an extreme overgeneralization to even try to lump cinema as diverse as Indian, French and Japanese cinema into the "Foreign film" category. Its culturally ignorant to judge the storytelling of a Kurosawa against that of a Goddard not to mention Goddard to Truffaut or a Miike to Kurosawa or further to contain them all within the same box called “foreign film” and judge them against a culture of film that is born from a culture so new.

Honestly I have seen so many foreign pieces of **** from supposedly gifted directors (Blue, for example) that I was almost convinced of our own (American, that is) cultural superiority. Brooding bull****, mood lighting, absurdist claptrap a lot of it is. Some others are actually brilliant pieces of art disguised as ****, and still more are written off without hesitation for being "too American." 90% of the films made during the French "new wave" are crap, they are jumbled, narratively unfocused shmear, yet they are great because the perspective and the method were new, energetic and at least upon the first viewing, exciting and interesting. Most do not stand up to repeated viewings, believe me, I have tried.

I won’t stand for the supposedly culturally superior status of Europe, anyone who was around in 1942 will tell you otherwise, nor will I accept it from Japan or China or India. The Japanese culture tolerates far too much sexualizing of young women, the Chinese are still convinced Marx was right and government control of the mind is ok, and India still wallows in a caste system that spurns modernity. Bull**** that foreign films are superior, because saying that by extension means that the CULTURE from which they come is superior (not just older) and the continued snobbery of the French, and the English while still consuming American popular culture with the hunger of a pre-treatment Mary Kate Olsen is enough to tell me otherwise.

Get off the high horse, sit down with some good American films and actually watch them objectively. And stop believing and affirming your own superiority through the delusion of film snobbery. Then objectively watch some of the foreign classics you will see that many of them are just as vacuous and uninteresting as the latest Michael Bay boom fest, just with a soft focus some brooding and stage-blocked dialog.

I have no trouble admitting that the US has an issue with its own feelings of cultural superiority, we haven’t the benefit of history on our side to be so arrogant. Yet the rest of the world too has its “issues” some so long standing, more so than our slaughter of the natives or enslavement of Africans (and some more cruel and insidious than either, because they have so subtly worked their way into the culture over thousands of years) that our list of cultural misdeeds pale in comparison.

You're aware that was a reference to Team America, right?

I can't judge what 'art/film' is supposed to do - the enterprise is not only inherently subjective from a qualitative standpoint, but it's meanings and purposes are likewise neither settled nor certain. What I can judge is what I desire and expect from art and film, and what these concepts mean to me. Within that frame of reference, and keeping in mind historical patterns of cultural practice and mediation in the United States, I find the American national cinema to be inferior on the whole (key phrase, that) to the national cinemas of several other countries (notably Japan, China, Germay and France) in particular, and world cinema in general. So, to me, saying something is one of the best 20th century American films is a bit like saying, "Well, the New York Mets are the best team in the National League," and that's above and beyond any disputes I may have about the actual place of the film in question within the American cinematic pantheon.

In a sense, this is true. On the other hand, the sheer volume of output coming from the United States makes the match more appropriate than comparing it directly to many of the smaller national cinemas.

How is it 'culturally ignorant' to say film is the frame of reference for judging film? Using your criteria, we can't form any judgement or draw any comparison between any directors. Are we to treat each film as if it exists in a vacuum, with no reference to its place within an artist's body of work, much less to its place within the larger calvacade of film? What's the point of even having a site like this, of discussing film at all, if we are to be castigated for 'cultural ignorance' whenever we try to place a given film or film artist in a larger perspective?

Middle brow moralizing, artificially linear narratives, spoonfed plots - that's all most American film is. But you know, some people prefer that...just as some people prefer their films to be visually evocative, dreamlike in mood, and to play with memory and expectation through structure, you know, the 'absurdist claptrap' you so casually dismiss.

Look, I can draw this out for ages, but it's clear that I'm not the only one practicing a little snobbery here...