Author Topic: The Ratings Project: Directors  (Read 43177 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34263
  • Marathon Man
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2015, 12:39:36 PM »
Looking at initial results, I'm surprised Shocktober is our most popular Group Marathon.
I'm expecting a lower turnout, which means each person that does vote will have more influence on the results.


Cameron, James (2) - 1.5
Why?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 12:41:36 PM by 1SO »
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad  | The Worst

Jared

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3492
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2015, 01:10:54 PM »
Looking at initial results, I'm surprised Shocktober is our most popular Group Marathon.

As far as new releases go horror is a lot more alive and kicking then westerns, film noir and musicals. I'd estimate if those other genres had such a healthy bunch of new/recent releases they'd be doing just as well.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28698
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2015, 01:18:00 PM »
Pure gut on these. Multiple films on my top 100 gets you an automatic 10, other tens are based on feeling and vibe. Don't really care about bad movies unless they're really bad (looking at you, George Lucas).

Group 1
Allen, Woody - 8
Almodovar, Pedro - 7
Brooks, James L. - 6
Burton, Tim - 7
Cameron, James - 7
Carpenter, John - 9
Coen, Joel and Ethan - 10
Coppola, Francis Ford - 9
Craven, Wes - 8
Cronenberg, David - 9
De Palma, Brian - 8
Demme, Jonathan - 8
Donner, Richard - 7
Eastwood, Clint - 8
Forman, Milos - 7
Friedkin, William - 9
Godard, Jean-Luc - 8
Herzog, Werner - 8
Howard, Ron - 8
Jackson, Peter - 8
Jarmusch, Jim - 8
Landis, John - 8
Lee, Ang - 8
Lee, Spike - 8
Leigh, Mike - 9
Lucas, George - 3
Lynch, David - 8
Malick, Terrence - 10
Mann, Michael - 8
Miyazaki, Hayao - 10
Polanski, Roman - 10
Reitman, Ivan - 8
Romero, George - 8
Scorsese, Martin - 9
Scott, Ridley - 9
Soderbergh, Steven - 10
Spielberg, Steven - 10
Stone, Oliver - 7
Tarantino, Quentin - 9
Verhoeven, Paul - 9
Von Trier, Lars - 9
Weir, Peter - 8
Wong, Kar-Wai -
Zemeckis, Robert - 7
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2015, 01:19:02 PM »
Cameron, James (2) - 1.5
Why?

I'm done with Titanic (15) and Aliens (20) of his and when I looked at his Letterboxd page the covers of the films I haven't seen either had a midnight blue-ish illustration or a portrait of Arnold Schwarzenegger on them (except for Xenogenesis, of which I know nothing). That gave me a very limiting feeling about Cameron and no push to seek out anything whatsoever. Should I?
Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 22263
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2015, 01:24:58 PM »
Wait, you haven't seen Terminator 2? Though Abyss might be the best for those who don't think they'd like something from Cameron because it's distinctive from the more action spectacle bent of the others.

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2015, 01:37:09 PM »
Spielberg, Steven (16) - 4

Once you've seen 15 from someone and are giving him a 4/10, how on Earth are you choosing to watch the 16th?

Partly I guess it depends on how your scale is weighted and in my book a 4 equals a Fair grade. I suspect that a 4 in your book is something less flattering?!

In Spielberg's case I could paraphrase Whiplash ("There are no two words in the English language more harmful than 'good job'.") and in that sense give him a "Good" label. He rarely takes any chances and make movies that are much more entertainment than art. Thanks for disputing the grading, though. It helps me understand myself a bit better!

The Adventures Of Tintin was the 16th Spielberg movie I saw and I actually took the time to see it theatrically. It was a disappointment.

It's  fair enough comment if that's how you feel, but you think making "entertaining" films is a lesser form than making "art". If that's the case then no don't watch James Cameron films.
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2015, 01:40:06 PM »
Though Abyss might be the best for those who don't think they'd like something from Cameron because it's distinctive from the more action spectacle bent of the others.
It's also terrible, though. And still relies a lot on (terribly dated and cheesy) spectacle. Terminator surpasses what Schwarzenegger action movie would lead you to expect and is the only Cameron worth seeking out.

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2015, 02:29:43 PM »
Wait, you haven't seen Terminator 2? Though Abyss might be the best for those who don't think they'd like something from Cameron because it's distinctive from the more action spectacle bent of the others.

That's right Bondo, T2 is a blind spot! Maybe the Top 100 Club will give me an opportunity to rectify that.

It's  fair enough comment if that's how you feel, but you think making "entertaining" films is a lesser form than making "art". If that's the case then no don't watch James Cameron films.

I would say that both categories have their raison d'etre, but the movies that primarily are made from a financial outset generally speaks far less to me personally than films that isn't made for the box office. I guess having seen only two Cameron movies in way is an indication of that.
Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28698
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2015, 02:34:14 PM »
Is there a rule that says artistic movies aren't entertaining, or that entertaining movies aren't artistic? And aren't most movies made for money?
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: The Ratings Project: Directors
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2015, 02:52:17 PM »
Of course there isn't! Not that I know anyway. I just use those terms to simplify things  for myself. It's up to you if you think it is an oversimplification. Maybe most movies made for money in some sort of way but I still think the heart of The Turin Horse is very different from that of Spielberg's War Horse.
Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

 

love