Directors who fell from grace

Mickeroo · 09-02-2012 9:09pm

I think some of Clint's best films (Unforgiven, Outlaw Joesy Wales to name two) are up there with the best work of any of the greats.

I haven't watched Hereafter or J. Edgar yet, apparently they're not all that good so we might have seen his last great film

Sad Professor · 09-02-2012 9:10pm

mike65 wrote: »

I guess it depends on the directors most of whom just want to make films which is why the prolific tend to have lesser or downright poor patches/eras. To be fair Coppola made a string a genuinely great films between 1969 and 1979 and some pretty interesting ones up to and including Tucker: The Man and His Dream in 1988 so that's 20 years of goodness.

Yeah, I wouldn't completely dismiss Coppola's later output either, but he clearly lost something. The guy who once tried to make great films was suddenly content to make mediocre and downright bad films. He's one of the best examples of a director falling from grace. And I think that early ambition was one of the reasons he fell. He just burnt out. Where as I think one of the reasons why Scorsese didn't was because he never set out to make great films, just good ones, but some of them ended up great. Same with Woody Allen, Spielberg, Eastwood etc. Like you said, those guys just love making movies and i guess they don't mind if some of them turn out less-than-great provided they are allowed to continue making them.

pickarooney · 10-02-2012 10:57am

Personally, I'd have more respect for a director who tries a lot of varied projects at the very real risk of them being disasters, with some being masterpieces, than a 'safe' director who makes a handful of quality films over his/her career.

Of course it's better if the masterpieces are not all concentrated at the beginning of your career with two decades of dross thereafter.

FlashD · 10-02-2012 11:40am

I agree that Lucas has fallen from grace.

He didn't need to start messing around with the original trilogy of Star Wars, sticking in BS scenes of CGI.

Added to that all his later films are full of CGI, and bad CGI at that. Its like he forgot how to use a camera and decided to adopt a computer.

Finally as if he couldn't do anymore damage, his fingerprints are all over that abomination that is the Kingdom of Crystal Skulls. I know Speilberg directed it but when I saw all those CGI scenes popping up all over the place I knew....Lucas you muppet!!!

I read recently that he's retiring from Hollywood.:)

Nolanger · 10-02-2012 7:24pm

What you don't realise about directors like Coppola, Bogdanovich, Scorcese, and Demme is that they started out making bad or routine stuff and only got good later on.

10-02-2012 7:27pm

Nolanger wrote: »

What you don't realise about directors like Coppola, Bogdanovich, Scorcese, and Demme is that they started out making bad or routine stuff and only got good later on.

I think what you mean to say is that they learned their craft working in low budget exploitation cinema for producers such as Roger Corman. As routine and run of the mill as some of their early films are all showed a directorial style and vision which would marked them out as something more than a journey man director.

Nolanger · 10-02-2012 7:38pm

William Freidkin is another example. He made an early movie called Good times which was inept but a few years later did those classics. John Boorman started off the same way with the silly Catch us if you can, before going on to do much better movies.

OldeCinemaSoz · 20-02-2012 9:22pm

Sadly David Cronenberg has been disappearing up his own backside
in recent times.

Kinski · 20-02-2012 9:41pm

Scorsese. The man who brought us Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull, and wound up making snoozefests like Bringing Out the Dead and The Aviator; crap like The Departed (bad remake of bad HK movie); and most recently, the boring-but-for-some-nice-3D Hugo.

Mellor · 23-02-2012 6:01am

Kinski wrote: »

Scorsese. The man who brought us Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull, and wound up making snoozefests like Bringing Out the Dead and The Aviator; crap like The Departed (bad remake of bad HK movie); and most recently, the boring-but-for-some-nice-3D Hugo.

Jesus Wept · 23-02-2012 6:16am

Leonard Nemoy.

All went downhill after the fantastic 3 men and a baby.

Renn · 23-02-2012 12:02pm

Scorsese is still banging out some good films. Hugo was one of the more enjoyable cinema experiences I had last year - the guy clearly still loves the art of filmmaking and it shows. Shutter Island is another one that has been quickly forgotten about but will resurface in about ten years time and people will go 'oh yeah, that was actually a pretty damn good film'. Thought the pacing was a little off in it but the atmosphere he creates is fantastic.

So no, I don't think Scorsese belongs in this thread.

Sad Professor · 23-02-2012 1:38pm

Anytime Scorsese comes up in this context people always list the same four or five films as examples of his previous work: Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Casino. You'd never think that he made 15-20 films during the same period, most of which weren't gangster films.

Kinski · 23-02-2012 2:33pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

Anytime Scorsese comes up in this context people always list the same four or five films as examples of his previous work: Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Casino. You'd never think that he made 15-20 films during the same period, most of which weren't gangster films.

Of those listed, three (Mean Streets, Casino and Goodfellas) are what I'd consider gangster films, though I'm not sure of the relevance of that?

He directed thirteen pictures from Mean Streets in 1973 to 1995's Casino, including concert film The Last Waltz (Out of thirteen, is it surprising that five keep coming up? How many would be representative? Ten? Fourteen?)The five films you list just happen to be his most famous - the ones which spring to mind readily - but he made plenty of other interesting, challenging and diverse movies in that period, from the superb King of Comedy to The Last Temptation of Christ.

Nothing I've seen from him in the last fifteen years suggests he's anything other than a spent force. The likes of Hugo and Aviator were okay, Gangs of New York was pretty silly, and his big Oscar moment, The Departed, is a dreadful film.

Sad Professor · 23-02-2012 3:30pm

Raging Bull and Taxi Driver aren't gangster films, no, but they take place in the same kind of violent underworld of Italian American street life that Scorsese became famous for. I just feel most of the criticism (though not necessarily in your case) that gets directed at Scorsese now days is based on the idea that violent gangster films are all that he can do.

He’s still making interesting and diverse films, maybe not as challenging, but not all his earlier work was that challenging and he is working within an industry that has become totally averse to such films. He’s had to adapt and become more mainstream, but has managed to do so without sacrificing his artistic integrity or enthusiasm for filmmaking. Hugo and The Aviator were a great deal better than okay and have a lot more depth than, say, The Colour of Money. And while GONY, The Departed and Shutter Island might not be on the level of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, that’s no basis for dismissing him as a spent force. He remains one of America's finest and most important filmmakers.

His next film should be Silence which he's been trying to get made for some time now and unless he's interfered with I see no reason why it shouldn't be another Scorsese masterpiece.

Syferus · 23-02-2012 3:41pm

I listened to a short interview Scorsese did on Five Live a couple months ago, the sheer passion and love of film he has is unbelievable.

He's had his hand in so many fantastic projects that rarely get mentioned lately - documentaries like Shine a Light and Public Speaking, being a producer on Boardwalk Empire, directing the feature length first episode of that show and setting its visual palette and themes starkly and beautifully - that to say he's a spent force reeks of iconoclastic thinking.

Sad Professor · 23-02-2012 4:05pm

I’m sceptical anyway about the idea that a director can just “lose it” at a certain point in the their career. I mean, it’s undoubtedly applicable to Coppola, among others, but in those cases it can usually be attributed to personal and financial factors. Scorsese and Spielberg are still extremely vibrant filmmakers and it’s ridiculous to dismiss their recent output because it doesn’t match their previous work, especially when those earlier films are considered among the greatest films ever made. No director, no matter how talented, can be expected to live up to that, not when they are at the mercy of Hollywood financiers who only care about money. Scorsese can’t just wake up in the morning and decide to make a film about Portuguese Jesuits in 17th century Japan. He has to get somebody to put the money up first and that can take years. Another thing is that a great film needs a great story and great stories don’t grow on trees. Why do you think Kubrick made so few films? Because it took him that long to find a story he thought was worthy of his attention. Scorsese and Spielberg aren’t perfectionists like Kubrick. They’d rather be making films than sitting around trying to find the idea for their next masterpiece.

Kinski · 23-02-2012 4:31pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

He’s still making interesting and diverse films, maybe not as challenging, but not all his earlier work was that challenging and he is working within an industry that has become totally averse to such films. He’s had to adapt and become more mainstream, but has managed to do so without sacrificing his artistic integrity or enthusiasm for filmmaking.

That's true.

Hugo and The Aviator were a great deal better than okay and have a lot more depth than, say, The Colour of Money. And while GONY, The Departed and Shutter Island might not be on the level of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, that’s no basis for dismissing him as a spent force. He remains one of America's finest and most important filmmakers.

Well, they might be better than Color of Money or After Hours, but I didn't care for either. As a piece of filmmaking, I'll concede that Hugo is highly-accomplished, but as a piece of drama, I thought it was weak.

His next film should be Silence which he's been trying to get made for some time now and unless he's interfered with I see no reason why it shouldn't be another Scorsese masterpiece.

It's the most interesting project he's mentioned in recent years, but as someone who's enthusiastic about Japanese culture (especially its literature and cinema), I would think that! And it could just as easily turn out to be mediocre...

Scorsese and Spielberg are still extremely vibrant filmmakers and it’s ridiculous to dismiss their recent output because it doesn’t match their previous work, especially when those earlier films are considered among the greatest films ever made.

Drifting a little OT, but does anyone (outside the pages of Empire magazine) really think Spielberg has made any of "the greatest films ever"?

Syferus wrote: »

He's had his hand in so many fantastic projects that rarely get mentioned lately - documentaries like Shine a Light and Public Speaking, being a producer on Boardwalk Empire, directing the feature length first episode of that show and setting its visual palate and themes sparkly and beautifully.

Some of us don't give a **** about television!

to say he's a spent force reeks of iconoclastic thinking.

Good, thanks!

Syferus · 23-02-2012 6:25pm

Kinski wrote: »

Some of us don't give a **** about television

And that refutes the idea he isn't a spent force how exactly?

Oh, and for the record, Shine a Light was a theater release and Public Speaking was an independently produced film that HBO aired in November 2010.

Kinski · 23-02-2012 7:02pm

Syferus wrote: »

And that refutes the idea he isn't a spent force how exactly?

I'm arguing that Martin Scorsese is a spent force as a filmmaker - someone who makes feature-length motion pictures. I neither know nor care what Boardwalk Empire is like, nor what contribution he made to it. He may very well, for all I know, have done sterling work on it, but it's not that relevant to the argument I'm making, other than possibly showing that he may still be able to do it. But television drama is a very different medium from cinema, so I wouldn't really count it as compelling evidence.

Oh, and for the record, Shine a Light was a theater release and Public Speaking was an independently produced film that HBO aired in November 2010.

Oh, I know; my post was aimed at the Boardwalk reference. Shine A Light and Public Speaking are both documentaries, and, as above, not that relevant to my argument, which is about feature length film drama.

indough · 23-02-2012 8:11pm

whether or not you like them scorsese is still making great movies. ridiculous to suggest his name in a discussion like this to be honest

Kinski · 23-02-2012 8:22pm

indough wrote: »

whether or not you like them scorsese is still making great movies. ridiculous to suggest his name in a discussion like this to be honest

In other words, whether I think they're good or not, Scorsese is still making good movies; therefore it's ridiculous for me to argue that his movies aren't good anymore. Makes sense.

pixelburp · 23-02-2012 8:38pm

Kinski wrote: »

I'm arguing that Martin Scorsese is a spent force as a filmmaker - someone who makes feature-length motion pictures. I neither know nor care what Boardwalk Empire is like, nor what contribution he made to it. He may very well, for all I know, have done sterling work on it, but it's not that relevant to the argument I'm making, other than possibly showing that he may still be able to do it. But television drama is a very different medium from cinema, so I wouldn't really count it as compelling evidence.

With respect, the way serial television has gone in the last 10 years, I don't think you can entirely dismiss it as evidence. HBO et al have brought a cinematic quality to television that easily rivals the kind of mid-range productions you see at the movies. So for me, Scorsese's work on Boardwalk Empire is fair game & had you watched it, you would have seen the mark of a man clearly still full of passion & vigor for his craft. In fact, watch any of the subsequent, non-Scorsese episodes & the difference is like day & night.

Besides, surely his involvement in an area that would be traditionally outside his perceived comfort zone would argue that if anything, the man's still trying new things and new ideas. A spent force would stick to the familiar, not constantly try to do new things; be it a family-friendly production shot in 3D, a musical documentary or the aforementioned TV drama.

Well, they might be better than Color of Money or After Hours, but I didn't care for either. As a piece of filmmaking, I'll concede that Hugo is highly-accomplished, but as a piece of drama, I thought it was weak.

I'm confused: from what your'e saying here, it sounds like the blame should be on the shoulders of John Logan - the guy who wrote Hugo - rather than Scorcese who by your own words did a good / accomplished job?

My own personal view is that some of his work is highly overrated, but watching interviews with the man, he clearly still bubbles with ideas and creativity. His resume is certainly more varied than most directors would dream of.

indough · 23-02-2012 8:42pm

Kinski wrote: »

In other words, whether I think they're good or not, Scorsese is still making good movies; therefore it's ridiculous for me to argue that his movies aren't good anymore. Makes sense.

yes it does make sense. there are plenty of great movies that i just dont like because they arent to my taste. shouldnt really be too difficult a concept to grasp

if you can outline what is technically wrong with his recent movies then fire away by all means

johnny_ultimate · 23-02-2012 9:07pm

I'm far from a Scorcese enthusiast, in stark contrast to the supposed 'film forum mod Scorcese conspiracy' that has been suggested in the past. Indeed, I'd personally hold Takeshi Kitano up as the undisputed champion of the gangster film before Scorcese. But in fairness I do think most of his recent films are at least interesting if not always entirely successful. I'd put him far above Clint Eastwood anyway, as I feel CE has just fallen back on making bland, conservative films that lack insight or force. The Aviator, The Departed, Hugo and Shutter Island may not be 'great' films in the hyperbolic sense, but they have much going for them at the same time.

I'd even defend The Departed which - while being an over-stretching of a much leaner, tighter original in narrative terms - does have a lot of energy and life. Hugo certainly lacks dramatic momentum but makes up for it as a passionate sonnet to the birth of cinema. The Aviator is a stylistically successful and inventive biopic, while Shutter Island is an atmospheric and well considered thriller that only really suffers from a few weaknesses inherited from the source material.

The only major negative I'd level towards 'late Scorcese' is an over-reliance on adaptations over new ideas. But of the handful of active filmmakers from the 70s innovators - Woody Allen, Coppolla, Eastwood etc... - I'd put Scorcese as having more successes than the others.

Kinski wrote: »

Drifting a little OT, but does anyone (outside the pages of Empire magazine) really think Spielberg has made any of "the greatest films ever"?

I kind of agree with you there. I think Spielberg has made some of the best blockbusters to emerge from Hollywood, without a doubt. But I'd consider his 'worthier' films overrated at best. He has a penchant for cheap storytelling cheats - graveside memorials, soaring strings, over-sentimentality - that just doesn't appeal to me. His films are often A-Grade spectacles: even the so-so War Horse was a beautifully composed film. As a storyteller, though, he lacks subtlety. Which is fine for many, but usually not for me.

That said, of all his films, I think Jurassic Park is the one I'd hold up as one of the best of its type. I still think it's too hollow and disposable to be considered one of cinema's greatest achievements, but as pure entertainment, it's possibly up there with the best Hollywood has ever produced.

Kinski · 23-02-2012 11:08pm

pixelburp wrote: »

With respect, the way serial television has gone in the last 10 years, I don't think you can entirely dismiss it as evidence. HBO et al have brought a cinematic quality to television that easily rivals the kind of mid-range productions you see at the movies. So for me, Scorsese's work on Boardwalk Empire is fair game & had you watched it, you would have seen the mark of a man clearly still full of passion & vigor for his craft. In fact, watch any of the subsequent, non-Scorsese episodes & the difference is like day & night.

I take your point, but obviously I'm not in a position to get into a debate about Boardwalk Empire, or the documentaries (which I haven't seen either).

Besides, surely his involvement in an area that would be traditionally outside his perceived comfort zone would argue that if anything, the man's still trying new things and new ideas. A spent force would stick to the familiar, not constantly try to do new things; be it a family-friendly production shot in 3D, a musical documentary or the aforementioned TV drama.

Not necessarily. For one thing making documentaries and concert films is nothing new for Scorsese. Also, while this may be an unfair comparison, Coppola (who I think everyone can agree was a spent force by the mid-80's, if not earlier) has flitted from one thing to another in his late career, trying his hand at horror, comedy, and various other projects best forgotten. So it can just as easily be a sign that someone is out of ideas as it can be that they're still full of them.

I'm confused: from what your'e saying here, it sounds like the blame should be on the shoulders of John Logan - the guy who wrote Hugo - rather than Scorcese who by your own words did a good / accomplished job?

Okay, let me rephrase. I found Hugo to be, at times, an accomplished spectacle. There were problems with the script, sure, but there was also plenty wrong with the pacing, the performances (which the director has to take some responsibility for), and the overall conception of the movie. Anyhow, when the film wasn't hurtling along train platforms or recreating silent classics, it bored the arse off me.

And I thought The Departed (sorry to bang on about it!) was a quite poorly-directed film.

indough wrote: »

yes it does make sense. there are plenty of great movies that i just dont like because they arent to my taste. shouldnt really be too difficult a concept to grasp

That's not my position. I'm not saying The Departed or The Aviator were "not my cup of tea"; I'm saying I think they're bad films. Anyhow, I think great films are ones which transcend personal tastes in genre and the like; I'm not even sure I think there's such a thing as a film which I consider good but don't like. That just doesn't make sense to me.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

the supposed 'film forum mod Scorcese conspiracy' that has been suggested in the past.

There's a conspiracy?:eek:

I kind of agree with you there. I think Spielberg has made some of the best blockbusters to emerge from Hollywood, without a doubt. But I'd consider his 'worthier' films overrated at best. He has a penchant for cheap storytelling cheats - graveside memorials, soaring strings, over-sentimentality - that just doesn't appeal to me. His films are often A-Grade spectacles: even the so-so War Horse was a beautifully composed film. As a storyteller, though, he lacks subtlety. Which is fine for many, but usually not for me.

That said, of all his films, I think Jurassic Park is the one I'd hold up as one of the best of its type. I still think it's too hollow and disposable to be considered one of cinema's greatest achievements, but as pure entertainment, it's possibly up there with the best Hollywood has ever produced.

Exactly. When it comes to pure entertainment, there's probably been no director better. I really like Raiders, Jaws, and Jurassic Park. But they're fairly light fare - not great art or anything (not that films need be). And when he turns his hand to more serious subjects and makes supposedly worthy films, he tends to trivialize things by using all the same tools and tricks that serve him so well in his action/adventure flicks. He's a very talented filmmaker, but I don't think he's a particularly intelligent one.

SirDelboy18 · 23-02-2012 11:09pm

I think Spielberg is without doubt one of the best directors of all time who produced some of the finest movies of all time. His versatility is unparalleled, as he is able to pull off thriller, drama, horror

Jaws will always be one of the most influential movies around.
E.T is one of the most beautifully made films of the past 30 years.
Schindlers List is without question one of the best movies of all time.
Saving Private Ryan, is undoubtedly brilliant, and that landing scene at the beginning is one of the most powerful in recent memory.
(Those four alone are worth recognising him as one of the greats)

Then you have the likes of Munich, Catch me if you can, Minority Report, Indy which are all fantastic movies.

Renn · 23-02-2012 11:30pm

Loving the inclusion of 'without question' and 'undoubtedly brilliant'

Haven't seen Jaws but have seen a good few of his other ones. Overly-sentimental tripe most of the time.

pixelburp · 23-02-2012 11:45pm

Renn wrote: »

Loving the inclusion of 'without question' and 'undoubtedly brilliant'

Haven't seen Jaws but have seen a good few of his other ones. Overly-sentimental tripe most of the time.

I would definitely see Jaws; in many ways it's a movie whose myth & legend (not to mention it's ass-clenchingly bad sequels) get in the way of appreciating what is, in effect, a fantastic thriller. And like all the great movies, its production is as fascinating as the film itself.

SirDelboy18 · 24-02-2012 12:13am

Kevin Smith once looked like a director with promise but no longer.

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:17am

Renn wrote: »

Loving the inclusion of 'without question' and 'undoubtedly brilliant'

Haven't seen Jaws but have seen a good few of his other ones. Overly-sentimental tripe most of the time.

Not been smart but how did you manage that! Thought it was the one film that everyone on Earth with an interest in cinema would have seen, would you consider yourself a huge film fan or just have a casual interest in cinema?

Renn · 24-02-2012 12:19am

Massive film fan but just haven't seen that. I've obviously seen bits and pieces of it, and know the story/seen references etc, but the film never really appealed to me. It's on my list to watch some day but there's about 1000 films above it currently.

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:20am

Kinski wrote: »

I'm arguing that Martin Scorsese is a spent force as a filmmaker -

I think the only two great films he has made are Goodfellows and Raging Bull, the rest go from fairly good to awful, he still might pull something out of the hat though.

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 12:21am

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:24am

Renn wrote: »

Massive film fan but just haven't seen that. I've obviously seen bits and pieces of it, and know the story/seen references etc, but the film never really appealed to me. It's on my list to watch some day but there's about 1000 films above it currently.

I'd say its one if the few films that unite every film fan from those interested in mainly obscure art-house to people who just watch action flicks, he manages to rack up the tension as good as Hitchcock even after 10 viewings it still works, couldn't recommend it enough.

pixelburp · 24-02-2012 12:26am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

Jaws is worth it just for Robert Shaw alone though. Plus I think once you move it out of the "big monster attacks" genre and view it as a thriller, of the serial-killer type, the film shines a bit brighter. I love its structure & arc too, it just all seems to sit so well as a story.

</unapologetic Jaws fanboy>

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:26am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

Would you not say that as a textbook example of a truly brilliant high concept movie that it should be required viewing from an early age?

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:31am

pixelburp wrote: »

Jaws is worth it just for Robert Shaw alone though. Plus I think once you move it out of the "big monster attacks" genre and view it as a thriller, of the serial-killer type, the film shines a bit brighter. I love its structure & arc too, it just all seems to sit so well as a story.

</unapologetic Jaws fanboy>

I view it absolutely as a thriller plus the interplay between Shaw and Dreyfuss is fantastic.

Sad Professor · 24-02-2012 12:43am

Renn wrote: »

Massive film fan but just haven't seen that. I've obviously seen bits and pieces of it, and know the story/seen references etc, but the film never really appealed to me. It's on my list to watch some day but there's about 1000 films above it currently.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

There are films one should watch before Jaws? You're crazy, both of ya! Jaws is something you have to experience at a young age or it will be ruined due to seeing to many parodies/rip-offs of it.

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 2:41am

I'm not saying Jaws is a bad film - it's a very very good film. It's just to me far more disposable than countless other 'great' films. Yes, I'd much rather people be introduced to it a young age when compared to the nonsense that passes for blockbusters these days. But I'd still rather if they watched Studio Ghibli films first.

And Jurassic Park is more fun anyway

(I'm aware this is a slightly silly argument, but I don't consider Jaws a film I'd describe with superlatives)

FlashD · 24-02-2012 6:55am

This threads a joke now.

Whether you like their films or not Speilberg and Scorsese are consistantly at the top of their game since they started in the business, to say otherwise is simply ridiculous.

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 10:43am

FlashD wrote: »

Whether you like their films or not Speilberg and Scorsese are consistantly at the top of their game since they started in the business, to say otherwise is simply ridiculous.

No, it's giving an opinion. As I said, I'll somewhat defend Scorcese but even on his own terms it's been a long time since Spielberg made a film of note. Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can and Munich were his only really good films during the 2000s, and there were far more duds than that - The Terminal, A.I., War of the Worlds, Indy 4 (which I still think is decent fun at times but utterly throwaway) etc... Some of those were interesting (if often unsuccessful) films, but none could be considered as anything remarkable.

No-one's denying he's made some important and excellent film in his time, and he at least plays by his own game which is admirable. But nor should he be immune to criticism just because he's Steven Spielberg.

Zubeneschamali · 24-02-2012 10:46am

FlashD wrote: »

Speilberg and Scorsese are consistantly at the top of their game since they started in the business

And Lucas didn't fall, he was always useless.

Mickeroo · 24-02-2012 10:47am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, it's giving an opinion. As I said, I'll somewhat defend Scorcese but even on his own terms it's been a long time since Spielberg made a film of note. Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can and Munich were his only really good films during the 2000s, and there were far more duds than that - The Terminal, A.I., War of the Worlds, Indy 4 (which I still think is decent fun at times but utterly throwaway) etc... Some of those were interesting (if often unsuccessful) films, but none could be considered as anything remarkable.

No-one's denying he's made some important and excellent film in his time, and he at least plays by his own game which is admirable. But nor should he be immune to criticism just because he's Steven Spielberg.

Both Tintin and War Horse were pretty good, a return to form of sorts I thought. I don't think he's ever made an out and out awful film, Indy 4 is the closest probably but it was still ok(only ok).

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 10:55am

Mickeroo wrote: »

Both Tintin and War Horse were pretty good, a return to form of sorts I thought. I don't think he's ever made an out and out awful film, Indy 4 is the closest probably but it was still ok(only ok).

I don't know - there's Always, Hook, A.I., The Lost World and The Terminal amongst others.... He's a director who has kind of hit all bases: from bad to mediocre to great. Mostly, I find he tends to fall between the latter two.

I'm not saying Spielberg has 'fallen from grace', I think you'll find I've purposefully avoided that phrase

But he's just had very mixed successes over the years IMO (indeed, I'd put War Horse as a film that has both very poorly and very well considered bits to create a mixed whole). Although he almost single-handedly changed the way Hollywood works, and has been at some level involved in many of the big budget greats of the past few decades, not all of his influence has been positive.

Sad Professor · 24-02-2012 11:28am

Spielberg is greatly under appreciated if you ask me, similar to how Hitchcock probably was in the latter stages of his career, taken for granted with some of his best films overlooked or even outright dismissed. Even though I would have prefered that Kubrick had lived to make it, I'd still consider A.I. something of a flawed masterpiece, and I'd have no hesitation listing Catch Me If You Can among Spielberg's best films.

FlashD · 24-02-2012 5:30pm

Well to be honest I thought this thread was directors who have fallen from grace in the eyes of the public, Speilberg and Scorsese certainly haven't.

If its all just a matter of opinion and individual taste then every director is fair game to having directed a few stinkers....personally I think Christopher Nolan is on the way up but to someone who thinks his last few films are rubbish and he sold out for the big time, well he has fallen from grace.

Anyway, pity about Peter Jackson then...the Lovely Bones and that overbloated nonsence that was King Kong :pac:

Kinski · 24-02-2012 5:57pm

FlashD wrote: »

If its all just a matter of opinion and individual taste then every director is fair game to having directed a few stinkers....personally I think Christopher Nolan is on the way up but to someone who thinks his last few films are rubbish and he sold out for the big time, well he has fallen from grace.

I disagree with you about that. People sometimes invoke the "taste is entirely subjective" argument in debates over the merits of films, as if it were all just a matter of "different strokes for different folks." IMO, that's not how it is.

When you say that you like a film, clearly you're saying something about your personal subjective reaction to it. But when you say a film is good, bad, great, abysmal, then you're saying something about the film itself.

Of course, we all have to work from our own subjective positions, but forming an intelligent, informed opinion on a movie involves attributing qualities to the object itself. I think it's possible to construct arguments about the merits of a film, arguments which at least gesture toward an objective assessment of it (even if a purely objective assessment is impossible).

To take your example of Nolan, someone who wanted to argue that he hasn't lived up to his potential (which is a little different to "falling from grace") would have to build a case that The Dark Knight etc aren't as good as Memento, one which cites evidence from the films themselves - otherwise, their argument couldn't carry any weight, and it would just be a personal, subjective reaction, unlikely to persuade anyone.

bnt · 10-03-2012 12:31am

If Clint Eastwood hasn't already fallen from grace, his next film should seal the deal. He's directing a remake of A Star Is Born, a film already made many times before. Starring Beyoncé Knowles and possibly Tom Cruise. :eek:

mike65 · 10-03-2012 12:44am

Eastwoods music and romantic films have been rather good.

Directors who fell from grace

Comments