• Before you can add your own film to the site you will need to be a contributing member of our filmmaking community.

    Join the site to remove ads and read more about How to Submit Film.

Best Directors

Steven Speilburg directed ET and Saving Private Ryan, but on the other hand did (in my opinion) that crap fest called CATCH ME IF YOU CAN (they promoted the movie showing that ALIAS chick in it, making it seem like she was a MAIN CHARACTER....but she was in the movie for like 10 minutes
icon_rolleyes.gif
) So cancel him out....

Martin Scorsese....directed masterpieces like TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, & GOODFELLAS. Hmm....before we jump to conclusions, lets see what the others have to offer....

Fracis Ford Coppola....Apocalypse Now, The Godfather....but then he did those S.E Hinton adaptations......hmm..

Frank Capra..........nah...he doesn't even belong competing in this group.

Michael Mann....Manhunter was OK, Heat was allright.....

I'm going to have to say SCORSESE takes the cake.
 
I voted for Scorsese because of Gangs of New York and, to a slightly lesser extent, Goodfellas.

Spielberg's done loads of films, but on a Films:Good films ratio, Scorsese wins hands down.
 
I went for Spielberg because of:
Jaws
Close Encounters of the third Kind
Empire of the Sun
ET
Indiana Jones Trilogy
Saving Private Ryan
Jurassic Park
Schindlers List

I could name many more

The man is a god, and really has contributed to my love of film. Dont get me wrong, the others are great, but Spielberg reigns supreme. I'm sure people will post about how Spielbergs films are all about the money, just big special effects crap, blah blah blah, BUT the fact is those are some awesome films. Maybe not "artsy" enough for some of your tastes, but many millions of people around the world think you're wrong. Spielberg is one of, if not the best director OF ALL TIME (in my opinion)

By the way I really enjoyed Catch Me If you Can too. But again, just my opinion.
 
Polls are always very subjective, especially when you can't list all of the choices that need to be listed!

I'm a huge Speilberg fan, but I voted for Frank Capra as he was one of the pioneers. Plus, if it wasn't for his MR DEEDS GOES TO TOWN back in the 30s, Adam Sandler would have had to star in something else!

I did a little research (with our friend, www.imdb.com ), and found these interesting facts about directors, their Oscar nominations and wins.

Capra - 11 nominations, 3 wins
Speilberg - 10 noms, 2 wins
Scorcese - 7 noms, 0 wins
Coppola - 14 noms, 1 win (as director, 3 wins for writing)
Mann - 3 noms, 0 wins

Other directors of note (that weren't listed):
Howard Hawks - 1 nom, 0 wins
Ron Howard - 1 nom, 1 win (Beautiful Mind)
John Ford - 7 noms, 4 wins (good percentage)
John Huston - 15 noms, 1 win

And one of my all-time favorite directors -

Alfred Hitchcock, 7 noms and an astounding ZERO wins, which goes to show that Oscar nominations and wins have nothing to do with being a good director!!!

Nice topic. Thanks!
 
of those, the only two who i think are any good are scorsese and coppola, other directors i like are kubrick, malick, stone, egoyan, harron, leone, taranrino, aronofsky, and coppola
 
Out of those directors Scorcese easily.
Spielberg makes huge crap kiddie movies ( everything he has ever done apart from Schindlers List) and destroys great novels (Minority Report-which was originally meant to be filmed as Total Recall 2 by Paul Verhoeven before Spielberg and Cruise got their grubby hands on them.
Ridley Scott, Peter Weir, Nicholas Roeg, David Cronenberg, David Lynch and other should have all been there.
But no one can deny Stanley Kubrick as the king of all directors!! Who else has been so great across so many genres?
No One!
 
Scorcese up until 95, he directed some of my favouirite films, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, and to a lesser extent, the psychological thriller Cape Fear. After Casino though, I think it went downhill a bit, Gangs of New York IMHO was a bad films, I guess it's that time period as to why I didn't like it, but the whole movie itself made me nearly fall asleep. The Aviator doesn't appeal that much to me at all, IMO those two films were/are Scorcese's least personal work, I don't know that for a fact but it's the vibe I get.

As for Spielberg, I did like/love some of his stuff, but it's just because some of them seem to be created just for money. I love ET and all, but I felt after watching after seeing Close Encounters, that it was just a cheap remake, now I know some directors do this, but it is virtually the same story and characters with a 20-year difference.

I loved the Godfather Trilogy by Coppola, but haven't seen the rest of his work so I can't pass judgement, same with the Capra whom I haven't seen anything of. I liked Mann's Heat, it was one of the best films I've seen, but he's in the same boat with the two Franks.
 
At this stage in the game, I really dont think spielberg makes movies for the money. Some people just like to say that cause they dont like the types of movies he's made recently. He said it himself that he makes movies that he wants to make, no matter what other people think.
I like these guys too:
Ron Howard, Zemekis, Michael Feinstein (up and coming), and Coppola
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jdunn555:
At this stage in the game, I really dont think spielberg makes movies for the money. Some people just like to say that cause they dont like the types of movies he's made recently. He said it himself that he makes movies that he wants to make, no matter what other people think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think "Taken" a tv miniseries he did is an example of him doing more stuff that he wants, same thing for "The Terminal" &lt;--- I dunno though I didn't see it, but definately Taken because you see his fascination with aliens, UFO's, government conspiracies and such.
 
very much agree, Mr. Blonde. I dont think its about people liking or hating directors. Its all about difference in style. So if someone does like a director's style, that director shouldn't be hated for it, they should simply be respected because they're doing their own thing, and are successful for it.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by angryassdrummer:
Out of those directors Scorcese easily.
Spielberg makes huge crap kiddie movies ( everything he has ever done apart from Schindlers List)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, The Color Purple, Poltergeist, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Sugarland Express, and Duel.

Are those kiddie movies?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jdunn555:
very much agree, Mr. Blonde. I dont think its about people liking or hating directors. Its all about difference in style. So if someone does like a director's style, that director shouldn't be hated for it, they should simply be respected because they're doing their own thing, and are successful for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah you hit the nail on the head and made it stick in the wall in one hit. Comparing Scorcese and Speilberg, they're from the same film movements and each have their own styles like you said, Scorcese is New York (mostly) Gritty borderline neo-realistic approach, Spielberg is more on World-Wide, usually epic films that envoke emotions in viewers because they can relate to the characters. So best director is more of a preference as to which style is more pleasing to an audience member.
 
Are you saying Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Poltergeist arent for kids?
Who are you kidding?
Spielberg didnt even direct Poltergeist, but his childish fingerprints are all over it.
Jaws- is a horror film if you are young, if not its a big dumb rubber monster. And as for Saving Private Ryan- it has its moments, but is wrecked by the fact that Spielberg changes history for a film! Who does he think he is?
You would have to be a very naive american to believe everything from that film.
 

Latest posts

Best Reviewed Films

View more items
Back
Top