Your Favorite Directors

[Gunmaster45]

I love Uwe Boll, I think he's an artist and a master filmaker.

HA! Kidding!

I think Clint Eastwood is a pretty good director. He's bagged a couple oscars and I don't think I can name any movies he directed or directed/starred in that were really bad movies. Personally I wouldn't really enjoy Bridges of Madison County for example, but I'm sure it was still a good film for who it was for. While an iconic badass and a great film maker, it still sucks that Eastwood in real life is kind of meh. He's a vegetarian who's pro-gun control and completely anti-violence. Seems like he's a parody of his film roles.

David Fincher is another director I'm fond of. Se7en and Fight Club are two of my favorite films, and for the most part he's got a good track record (sans Alien3).

Michael Mann, obviously, we all know from this site how he aims to please. All of his films are well acted, researched, and the training the actors are given is always impressive (personally I found Tom Cruise's performance in Collateral very awe inspiring). Althought the pacing to his films I find can be a bit sluggish at times.

I could sit here all day and look through my movie collection listing off great directors, but there's just too many really.

[Spades of Columbia]

I have to add a new one on my list after last night. I just watched Antibodies and visually loved it and the story was really kind of cool. So now Christian Alvart is rising on my list of awesome directors.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

I think Clint Eastwood is a pretty good director. He's bagged a couple oscars and I don't think I can name any movies he directed or directed/starred in that were really bad movies.

I would describe him as inconsistent. I thought Invictus was pretty bad, despite the predictably good reviews and Oscar nominations it received (let's face it - anti-racism movies always get praised regardless of whether or not they're actually good art). I also didn't like Blood Work or Changeling, both of which I recently watched for the first time.

Also, while watching Changeling, I remember having an epiphany: If I don't see Clint Eastwood on-camera (which is where he belongs, IMO), I don't particularly care whether or not he was behind the camera.

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

While an iconic badass and a great film maker, it still sucks that Eastwood in real life is kind of meh. He's a vegetarian who's pro-gun control and completely anti-violence. Seems like he's a parody of his film roles.

Not sure what's wrong with being a vegetarian, but I mostly just find his politics esoteric: He has claimed he doesn't like excessive violence and guns in movies, but he was also friends with Charlton Heston. I am guessing that he likes guns but is unwilling to admit this in the anti-RKBA climate of Hollywood. Besides, have you ever seen a Clint Eastwood movie where he handles guns, and it wasn't obvious that a lot of thought went into the choice of weapons and their use on-screen?

[Yournamehere]

Eastwood tends to evoke emotion from his audience with subject matter (rape is one of his frequently used) as opposed to something more thematic and I find that sort of cheap. As an actor as well he frequently just plays one character, and that is Clint Eastwood. I see him more as an icon than a good director or actor, though he's a far cry from being bad at either of those things, as his films are technically well made and he can adapt his single character (again, himself) to different roles relatively well.

To continue channeling my college film classes, Steven Spielberg is the yardstick when it comes to directorial talent, as he develops everything that needs to be in a proper film while placing in elements of his own, and he also directs across genres. Ihat's not to say Scorsese or De Palma are bad, I like them too as a matter of fact, but to break away from doing film featuring very similar subject matter (mobsters/gangsters in their case) adds points to credibility in a subjective sense.

[Clutch]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

Eastwood tends to evoke emotion from his audience with subject matter (rape is one of his frequently used) as opposed to something more thematic and I find that sort of cheap. As an actor as well he frequently just plays one character, and that is Clint Eastwood. I see him more as an icon than a good director or actor, though he's a far cry from being bad at either of those things, as his films are technically well made and he can adapt his single character (again, himself) to different roles relatively well.

To continue channeling my college film classes, Steven Spielberg is the yardstick when it comes to directorial talent, as he develops everything that needs to be in a proper film while placing in elements of his own, and he also directs across genres. Ihat's not to say Scorsese or De Palma are bad, I like them too as a matter of fact, but to break away from doing film featuring very similar subject matter (mobsters/gangsters in their case) adds points to credibility in a subjective sense.

Scorsese's the one who always seems to go for the mobster/gangster route.

De Palma tends to focus more on outright suspense/thriller type scenarios.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Clutch

Scorsese's the one who always seems to go for the mobster/gangster route.

De Palma tends to focus more on outright suspense/thriller type scenarios.

I applaud Scorcese for trying new things, (New York, New York, Last Temptation of Christ, and Kundun,) but let's face it, I think people will only remember his gangster films. (And Raging Bull.)

And DePalma, yikes. He's been in a freefall since Carlito's Way.

[Gunmaster45]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Also, while watching Changeling, I remember having an epiphany: If I don't see Clint Eastwood on-camera (which is where he belongs, IMO), I don't particularly care whether or not he was behind the camera.

I mostly agree with this, except with Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. I thought those were movies that drove well without him getting screen time (although a cameo couldn't have hurt).

Originally Posted by MT2008

Not sure what's wrong with being a vegetarian, but I mostly just find his politics esoteric: He has claimed he doesn't like excessive violence and guns in movies, but he was also friends with Charlton Heston. I am guessing that he likes guns but is unwilling to admit this in the anti-RKBA climate of Hollywood. Besides, have you ever seen a Clint Eastwood movie where he handles guns, and it wasn't obvious that a lot of thought went into the choice of weapons and their use on-screen?

While I respect anyone's choice if they chose to be a vegetarian, you rarely see a hardass protagonist claim "I'm a vegetarian", because it's not really associated with being badass.

I'm not sure what to think of Clint's views on guns. Like you said, his films show a lot of thought and care in the weapon choices, and practically every film he is in or directs shows everyone faking recoil (I think he picked that up from Don Segal after Dirty Harry, and stuck to it from then on), but if you appreciate guns, you shouldn't be pro gun-control. I feel like that's the same type of hypocracy you see from all those politicians who are fighting for family values and then go cheat on their wife with 15 different prostitutes.

I don't see why he'd have to be closeted about his appreciation of guns. He's Clint Eastwood. You hear the name and you picture him as any of his 100 or so iconic gun wielding characters. All those roles, along with being pals with Chuck Heston, you'd think maybe he'd be associated as a gun-lover regardless of whether he kept it in the dark. That's why him being pro gun-control confuses me. Also, Chuck Norris (viewed as a badass by many) is a proud member of the NRA, and his reputation isn't smeared for it (although those infomercials aren't helping).

But it's kind of just the basic hypocracy of Hollywood in general. 95% of the films need guns for so many things (even anti-gun movies need guns), yet if you actually appreciate those guns, you're a right-wing monster.

There's probably a lot of holes in what I just wrote, but hopefully I got the basic idea across of what I'm saying.