ITT: Post your absolute least favorite directors.
I want to punch these motherfuckers right in the face.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
You don't like Woody's films or his "affection" for little girls?
I think he put out plenty of great stuff until the 90s or so. And even though I haven't seen recent work, it's notable that he's made at least one film per year since 1977.
Beyond the obvious ones like Bay, Boll and Shyamalamadingdong; I fucking hate Spike Lee
Maybe not "least favorite" but close enough. This picture alone has so much affectation it's kind of infuriating, ha ha.
Who looks at a filmstrip wearing sunglasses? Too much smoke in the eyes from that cool dangling cigarette?
The smoke is also gonna damage the film, now I kinda understand how /k/ feels when someone doesn't use proper trigger discipline
I made the thread strictly because I hate his films, but that doesn't mean I don't hate him as a human being either. What filth.
I prefer his early stuff tbh
Jesus christ, yes.
I hate von Trier with a passion; his movies are overrated, needlessly complicated and almost always contain Tarantino-level edge. That, and he's a massive
prick in real life.Fuck
Oh my fucking god, von Trier is the biggest, most conceited asshole ever. The edge and complication in his movies never bothered me too much, but while some would argue that his biggest flaws come from that old "style over substance" thing, I wouldn't even say his films HAVE style, outside of his cool-looking title cards.
Another big issue I have with him that I've never actually seen people talk about is how blatantly he talks through his characters. YMS touched very briefly on it in his Nymphomaniac review, and even though I hugely disagree with him in a lot of ways about movies in general, he knows kind of a lot when it comes to calling Trier out on his fucking bullshit. Trier talked blatantly through Gainsbourg in Antichrist, through her AGAIN in Nymphomaniac, and through Dunst in Melancholia. Those are the biggest examples of Trier blatantly talking through characters.
An easy way to tell when he's talking through a character is when a female character says something controversial, and another person reacts negatively to it, while the female just keeps deadpanning her edgy bullshit about women being inferior to men, pedophiles deserving so much respect in the world, or that life has no meaning and God doesn't exist.
I'm not sure who's worse, Uwe Boll or Micheal Bay. They're both extremely inept at directing. The shit Boll churns out is kind of funny due to how bewilderingly awful it is. Everything Bay makes is just a cynical cash-grab that embodies the worst aspects of mainstream cinema.
No love for Ed Wood?
Wes Anderson, but mostly because of his popularity and mediatic bloating as one of the greatest modern auteurs. His movies are Jackie Chan-level shit. I can't stand the prick.
I liked him up to a point. Life Aquatic was probably the beginning of the end for me. His stuff seems to be so predictably precious now I stopped caring about it.
I mean the current Tim Burton. Also hate him because he's very popular amongst mexican teenage girls lol
I hate Gillermo del Taco too, because he's fat and mexican.
I think it's hard to hate on guys like michael bay. He says he's making movies for an adolescent, male audience. He's just cashing in stupid people's/unimaginative kids' money. He produces shit, obviously, but he seems to know it. You can helplessly hate the director, but there's always gonna be a crowd for shit tier shit. Someone else will take his place.
It's another thing entirely with directors who disgustingly claim to be artists, or who thrive on making it seem like they are making good, original content, but whose actual artistic level is Bay-ish.
As for Trier.. People hatin' and I get that. I've seen all his stuff. A lot of it is boring or plane dumb. But I remember laughing several times watching the idiots. Analyzing it in university made me think come to like it more. Maybe we just found things that weren't really there. Whatever. In any case, his rules of dogme concept is just a rip-off of the nouvelle vague.
You already posted mine. (Lars)
I don't have a opinion either way about woody allen because I have never watched any of this films but none of then strike me as interesting either.
Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne
I might say Jess Franco simply because he made so many movies that are rarely ever good, containing so much nudity that's rarely ever sexy.
Yet I've stupidly watched his stuff hoping for some alternative, better outcome.
The Coen Brothers
These two should be tortured for what they've done to film.
Directors who insist on composing all their own music are insufferable. Why can't they spread it around a little bit? Two that stand out are Robert Rodriguez and John Carpenter. Instead of being auteurs, they seem like control freaks and/or glory hogs.
Carpenter in particular has made some pretty terrible music. Assault on Precinct 13 sounds like babby's first synthesizer. With Halloween he fell assbackwards into a memorable theme, but he since doesn't know how to structure a composition he runs it into the ground by endlessly looping the same few bars.
Did you like Spike in Three Kings? I thought his whole southern thing was really cute.
one of these things is not like the other
I never really "got" Chabrol
Saw 4-5 of his films and only halfway liked one (The Butcher). The others were mostly forgettable dramas, even when someone was murdered.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Lars von Trier is a great director
jesus fucking christ, pure autism
dat edge do
I watched some of the Emmanuelle movies and really wasn't expecting to see a horse getting jacked off for 5 minutes
I hate Von Trier more for the influence his "le constant shakey camera that says absolutely nothing" style has had on Cinema than anything else. I'd be lying though if I said I didn't like The Element of Crime or Europa.
Directors like Woody Allen and Wes Anderson really just rub me the wrong way. Both of them tap into this trendy low brow conception of culture and art a la the new yorker that I just can't stand.
I dislike Baz Luhrmann mainly because of Moulin Rouge
The editing is too spastic and the images have no time to breathe at all. Too loud too fast too much
Von Trier for this >>9871 same reason and NuTim Burton for always casting his fugly wife and his tired fucboi Johnny Depp in every movie. I used to like the three of them separately before they became the three headed hipster fagblob they are now.
Michael Bay and J. J. Abrahams get as special spot in my hate list too.
Scorsese and Spielberg I guess.
> Both of them tap into this trendy low brow conception of culture and art a la the new yorker that I just can't stand.
True and I really ate that stuff up when I was younger
I guess Tim Burton's last "great" project was Ed Wood?
Now how about Malta... is there some interesting local filmmaking that we wouldn't know about, or is the country used more as a filming location?
Villenueve, Refn, Nolan, Chazelle, Lars Von Trier, PTA, Wes Anderson, Inarritu, Woody Allen, Coen Brothers, Scorsese, Korine
>Lars Von Trier
I don't know tbh. There's way more opera, theater, musical concerts, dance performances here than film culture.
heh, i was thinking when i saw this thread how the hell did no one mention this meme
his persona (maybe just his smug face) is so repellant that i've avoided him, and forgot about him. do i really need to take time out of my life to watch a movie called "MOMMY"? and what's going on with that obnoxious aspect ratio?
better off forgetting about him again probably, but here's the aspect ratio change clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoFM4pWCAg0
pretty cringy and on the nose but reading the comments, lots of people dig it
heartbeats is probably the most honest and grounded of his other pictures, still pretty thin at the end, the rest are ridiculous, annoying and empty, i'll never understand the praise this guy got
oh i didn't know the AR changed. that's a little more interesting. i thought he made a proto-periscope film with a "unique" AR because he's an auteur.
it doesn't seem so bad - it looks like a typical "indie" suburban drama. that's not something i go out of my way to watch but it's fairly harmless.
Me too. Never understand such many praises this guy's got.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
i've only seen one Dolan but I loved it.
i think my dislike for his films are based on what I perceive to be a fake and bluepilled version of reality in his films, sligthly caricatural in its details but mostly relying on popular soundtracks, constant histrionics, and tv-ads-tier cinematography to carry its pointless sentimentality.
i'm glad you liked that movie. personally, couldn't for the life of me understand why anyone was supposed to care about the protagonist that can't be bothered to speak up to his family. i just remember the ridiculous scene where cotillard and what's-his-face stare for a minute or two as the soundtrack swells. i'd rather spend time with my own family than waste time trying to care about non-existing, uninteresting fake people who listen to blink 185.
Am I the only one who absolutely fucking despises Baz Luhrmann?
His cinematography and editing is some of the most nauseous, dizzying shit I've ever had the displeasure of enduring in my entire life. His films' dialogue are top cringe, and the way he organizes the soundtracks are fucking autistic, for lack of a better term. Oh, and his CGI is fucking terrible. You can see right through that shit. I've seen PS2 cutscenes that look more convincing.
Romeo + Juliet was the first bad movie I ever watched and had an immediate aversion to. Of course, I was a freshman in high school at the time, but it was the first bad movie that I instantly recognized as bad right off the bat. Strictly Ballroom was hardly any better, quite an obnoxious pile of horseshit right there. Moulin Rouge felt like my intelligence was being raped, it was so fucking stupid. Australia and The Great Gatsby are only slightly better, but still have absolutely shitty CGI, like I said earlier. Both those films seem to be at least decent in their third acts, so they feel like his best films, though they're still kinda shit. At least they're not total shit like his other three films.
I posted about him based on Moulin Rouge. >>9874 I assumed he must have made something better years earlier (to establish a career) but maybe not !
villueneve is uneven too
Apparently, Strictly Ballroom and Romeo + Juliet established his career solidly enough. Christ knows how, considering what an absolute mess those films are.
Nolan, Villenueve, Refn, that guy who made Under the Skin,
the whole "i´ll make my movie slow-paced so the movie critics will that shit up and normies would think i´m making deep art" should unironically kill themselves, it´s a mockery of true art
>Under the Skin
That's (((Jonathan Glazer))), some guy who made a music video for Radiohead once.
I'm more against his influence than him. Still, he did more harm than good in the long run
Forgot about Sorrentino the biggest Fellini wannabe in cinema. He's a self obsessed cunt. He's the artistic equivalent of what pizza hut is for pizza
>I'm more against his influence
What specifically? I like low budget New York stuff.
I really don't. I think it's a cultural thing but american "indie" really looks stale and all around the same to me.
I wish they took more from europeans directors. It's like they self impose their visual limits so that they can call themself indie and part of a scene. There is no momentum behind it, no one is trying to do anything new, they are happy with the studio system and happy with the state of cinema. I mean, John was hardly a good director to begin with. Important yes, but he really had no interest in images. If I want to see raw human interaction I go to theater. Plus why everything must be Cassavettes? With digital these days you can be whatever you want for cheap, why there is no new Rosselini? Europeans never lost interest in image when they did their shit for cheap, Cassavetes on the other hand borderline didn't give a shit. Too much power to the actors, I don't like it.
> american "indie" really looks stale and all around the same to me.
I agree with that. I don't watch indie because I assume it will be a snoozefest. The "indie" films aren't independent anyway. They are made by small divisions of the same large studios that make everything else.
I thought you were talking about Cassavetes' contemporaries in New York rather than people who do the same type of thing today. What I like is the older gritty New York films. Blast of Silence is one example I thought of. Part of the appeal is seeing the city as it used to be.
> Europeans never lost interest in image when they did their shit for cheap
Is this true for Italians more than everyone else? Great aesthetics and great music in films that you'd never watch otherwise.
J.J. Abrams can eat a fat dick.
Lasse Hallstrom makes some wanky dreck, especially his dog nonsense.
Aronofsky is a puerile provocateur, similar to Von Trier, there's no depth behind the initial shock. Pi was half way decent.
Peter Berg is discount Greengrass, awful handheld Parkinson's disease ridden camera work. Pathetic patriotic powder-puff garbage.
Others -- Shane Black, Todd Solondz, Xiaogang Feng, Clint Eastwood, Sofia Coppola, Bryan Singer, Rian Johnson, Tom Hooper, Gaspar Noe, Tom Ford...others.
Guillermo del Toro makes surprisingly dull movies for being touted as a master of fantasy. Even his early stuff is unremarkable.
Lost in translation is a great movie tho
Aronofsky ripped a bunch of scenes across his filmography from Satoshi Kon and even bought adaption rights to Perfect Blue, only to direct a ballet reskin instead while insisting all similarities are (((pure coincidence))) and denying any influence. It's no surprise that normalfags finally realized his stuff was shit when he tried being again with Noah and Mother.
Maybe I'll watch Pi someday because if there's one thing Jews do well, it's driving themselves mad overanalyzing the Torah.
Hey now. His first few X-Men movies are a lot better than the shovelware we get today.
How can you hate tarko? He's so sweet.
It's entry level shit. I loved Bowling for collumbine though, but i get you. As i've grown up i've developed an aversion to him.
The other day i checked a documentary called "Slacker uprising" and i couldn't get past five minutes once i understood the stupid propaganda he was setting up.
bay is one of hollywood's last auteurs
Uve Boll's a good or at least decent director who willingly decided to make trash and tank his reputation in order to exploit tax loopholes. He's legitimately one of the best, and probably last, great avant-garde filmmaker of our time. Postal (2007) is a flawed masterpiece.
andrei Tarkovsky has to be the most pretentious and overrated director in history his films are so boring especially mirror the most boring film i 've seen anyone who claims to like him is a hack
You sound really butthurt, bro.
Aside of that, yes he was average.
Why don't you like Kubrick? He's the most common director to wean people off of heavily-marketed mainstream Hollywood. Did you watch someone else instead?
Danny Boyle and Alex Garland. Fuck I hate these cunts.
Sunshine for example is a sci-fi film where a desperate mission to the sun is wrecked because the tired navigator (against recommendations) changes course and forgets to realign the shields. In reality course adjustments etc, would be overseen and monitored by a room full of NASA techs/engineers. At the very least, the full crew of the Icarus II should have been present to oversee the course change. But in this piece of shit movie, where all believabibility has been sucked out the space hatch, the fucktard navigator takes it upon himself to make such an immensely important decision (life on Earth is at stake) all by himself, and oops, he forgets to realign the shields causing devastation and destruction to the Icarus II.
I can accept the conceit that a human crew is even necessary to stage such a mission. I can accept the bullshit that when the sun runs out of fuel, no explosion is going to reignite it (if there's no fuel there's no fucking fuel). I can suspend belief when it comes to the fact that a bomb would melt before it even came close to the core of the sun. But all believability collapses when one must entertain that such a casual attitude could exist amongst the crew, and that no automatic fail safe design is built into such a crucial safety mechanism like the shield.
If you like and enjoy Sunshine you don't have a fucking brain faggot.
I don't know why people love this guy so much. Wes Anderson has a predictable and repetitive style that doesn't help very much to make his stories better. His style is just visual exercise without any purpose.
I used to like him in the Bottle Rocket and Rushmore days. But eventually I got bored with the overly precious and formal style that he likes so much. And the stories always seem to have themes of adults who refuse grow up. But maybe that makes sense because he seems stuck in a rut, at least he did when I stopped watching after Darjeeling Limited.
I like Rushmore, it's a good movie. In Rushmore, Wes Anderson made a film with a well constructed major character that is really interesting. But nowadays... his last movie, Isle of Dogs is terrible, boring story, boring characters and has even more formalism. I gave up, I don't want to watch any new movies from him.
Andrei Tarkovsky: his films have the depth of a puddle and his grammar is even smaller. It's a farce how he acclaimed he is in contemporary Western film culture. I'll grant that he's strong visually but that doesn't make his films "good." He liked to cry about how the Russian censors treated him but they never gave him the Stroheim treatment which he was fully deserving of in his bloated self-indulgence.
Holy shit. Are there any directors you guys do like?
For me? I like D.W. Griffith.
I don't hate a lot of the directors mentioned here. I remember someone tried to combat the negativity with a favorite director thread >>9910
I sicnerely hate retards making big deal of them. Most of those hated here are either 1) babies first directors like scorsese or tarkovsky 2) oblivious retards like van trier or herzog 3) directors undeserving any praise like anderson.
It's much more a reaction on current critics and was shit/is shit/will be shit festivals as many feel to call them out for bullshit. Many of them being contemporary(70s onwards) and 'muricans just prove my point.
>>14592 I agree. I don't really think Wes Anderson is completely shit, for example, but I won't agree with people telling me he is a genius.
He's not the worst director to ever live or the biggest asshat around, but he will always be the one that I, and the 6 year old me watching star wars for the first time, will always hate the most
>believing his lying roastie wife
13 Hours was actually a solid action flick.
Kill yourself immediately, there is no time to waste!
>still believing Trashkovsky is any good
>denying his goat status
Outing yourself as a pseud.
You're a lost cause.
That's as contrarian as you can get. Care to provide any arguments?
I asked you about what you have to say about Tarkovsky; not what Deleuze had to say.
What we have to say about Tarkovsky is very well explained by Deleuze, if you don't take it, I just don't care, tbh. I have already educated you more than enough with a path to follow and make you think.
Probably the other anon (who linked the "Navajo" versions of his essay) is more willing to discuss, so just wait for his reply; this is a friendly community after all.
I think if you can't explain your position on something than you may be just parroting someone else's without having a real grasp on it
>why should I tell you anything when you can dig through two 300 page PDFs yourself?
If you're too lazy to articulate it yourselves, why should we care what you think? Fuck off.
bergman and this chap >>14182
can't blame him though, have you seen him without sunglasses?
Apparently, you care enough to be seething.
CUCKCHAN OUT N O W
>willing to discuss
Not at all.
It's kinda like "recommended" reading. You don't go on /lit/ when you haven't read any literary theory too. Or do you?
Why don't you like Bergman?
For me it's Herzog, Rossellini, Fellini, Russell and Kiarostami.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Actually I love Lars Von Trier's Zentropa.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Woody Allen is a creepy little jew but there's nothing that says creepy little jews can't make excellent movies. Zelig, at least the first 20 minutes is genuinely funny and a pioneering effort in digital compositing that's worth seeing even now after all these years. I also recommend Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Andrei Rubelyev is excellent.
Even Dwarves Started Small and Aguirre Wrath of God is excellent too.
Tarakovsky and Herzog are among the greats.
I hadn't noticed that 2018 was the first year since 1981 without a Woody Allen movie
Have you seen Francesco guillare di dio (1950) by Rossellini?
>the biggest Fellini wannabe in cinema
God, that's Lina Wertmuller and she's terrible. Pure garbage.
Yes, the only film I had some hope for, given the setting. Realists, oh, the realists, Vous vous vantez de ne peindre que des sujets dénués de poésie!
I wish I didn't look her up.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
I think she started out as a film critic, which just goes to show the value of film critics.
Seven Beauties was her film that the left pushed the hardest and it's so bad...watch the opening speech...the "Oh Yeah" speech.
The Last Picture Show you said is "really good" is made by critic. And look, three of my seven favorite film directors were critics as well, Rohmer (who has strange talent to make ugly things beatiful, I think he's poetic realist tbh, really weird films, kinda like Rivette, like Balzac, vulgar, but God, he is colors, Heaven and Hell, outer space and the Core of the Earth, all in the same time, all the same place), Rivette and arguably Pasolini (I can't do anything but to like him, artist first in his own way, exceptional director, I can't help myself but love him).
In the end it's way harder to talk than to do.
Tbh, this is not contrarian at all, beware, I don't like Żuławski too that much, but I still like him very much. I think artificial, human creativity is always superior to what's natural, and seem much more natural as well; compare being possessed by mask to not having any, acting truthful, not acting; shallow, inaccurate, sketch, but finished, as if it were complete, as if painting doesn't exist. Same with Herzog I guess, although I like, despite what I said, Aguirre very much. Herz aus Glas too.
Anarchy, discord in art have nothing to do with anarchy, discord in real life. One is lie chiselled to seem true and the other truth. And look at it also this way; Art is perfection. Art is bigger and better in every single aspect than Life, Art is what you want Life to be, Art is Life but not. Once you take that away there's nothing but reception, overbearing shadow, throttling Death with cuddle.
I'm aware I may seem like cheap knock-off of Wilde, but, God is my witness, I loved Rubempré before I knew Wilde exists.
> Art is bigger and better in every single aspect than Life, Art is what you want Life to be, Art is Life but not.
There's a tendency by artists (and lovers of art), to deform the importance of the reality of art. As there is an art reality, there's also the "family reality", for example.
One must never distort the value of art, as to place it above all the other realities.
Herzog is an odd one I'll grant you that. Some of his movies are among the greatest ever made; Aguirre, Dwarves. But Scream of Stone is terrible. Pretty much unwatchable garbage. I suggest you find a torrent and skip through it in oh 8 minutes or so. The music alone kills it for me. The worst dramatic Hollywood style crap.
Personally I have no time for Peter Greenaway movies. They're meticulously crafted with good crews, big budgets, and ambitious subjects so you can get sucked in, but the pedantic leftist, hell, marxist agenda is just too heavyhanded. Sorry I'm not paying to be indoctrinated.