Comments on: In Response to Spike’s 10 Most Overrated Directors List

By: joseph

joseph — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:07:33 +0000

steven speil burg? why would ypusay he is over rated?

jurassic park
indiana jones
etc
jaws etc FUCK YOU you are an idiot if you think he is over rated

By: kimmon17

kimmon17 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:05:49 +0000

Enough is enough.

We are starting a new worldwide mowement, this is it!. We the people takes control, enough is enough. Please, wait until 1. dec, we will rock the hole world.

By: fallenknight

fallenknight — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:39:42 +0000

You both forgot Spike Lee, who critics worship for no apparent reason. If you saw a movie with a tedious pace, nonexistent plot, inane dialog and a grainy picture, it would greatly surprise me if it was anyone else directing it.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:49:41 +0000

I can't believe you guys would put Hitchcock on your list of overrated directors in place of someone like Lucas. That man easily did more for the current art of directing than Lucas, Burton, and Spielberg combined.

By: Erik

Erik — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:08 +0000

You see a lot of great characters with fantastic qualities in movies.
In real life most people just are not movie characters, so when
you get to know them better you find that they are just people
like yourself…

By: b.rae

b.rae — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:25:50 +0000

alright, i'll say it. nice pull with the pasolini.

also, not that i give a rat's ass, but 1. take coppola off of any "10 worst…" list, ever.
and, 2. ….how can you call QT overrated when you write for Spike?! there's got to be an erectile dysfunction joke in there somewhere. i trust you'll find it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:05:34 +0000

Quentin Tarantino delivered two of the greatest movies ever, he is not overrated. Spielberg made some awesome films as well.
I can make a stronger list with my eyes closed:

Cronenberg
Kubrick
Lucas
Shyamalan
Burton
Carpenter
Coen Brothers
Lynch
Gondry
Smith

Quite easy.

By: Steven Frechette

Steven Frechette — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:04:09 +0000

speilberg and tarantino are legitimately overrated. end of story..

By: kent

kent — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:15:20 +0000

sucks to be a movie director.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:32:34 +0000

Spielberg is most definitely over-rated. There's something slightly hysterical about the establishment critics' ongoing need to shore up Spielberg as the greatest director ever. He made two excellent films: ET and Schindler's List. This is enough to indicate he has some real natural talent, no question, but being a great artist takes a little more endurance/consistency than that when you consider how many throw-away films he has directed. The rest of his work is quite mediocre for the most part, a good portion of it downright bad, and I agree with the commenter who notes that Spielberg is not a particularly good story-teller. His work is far too self-conscious and there's a mannered way in which he attempts to build iconic images that's just annoying over time. Cliche can be interesting in the hands of a more subversive, ironic mind than Spielberg's, but, thank you, if we're going to grapple with iconography and myth-making, I'll talk the real Norman Rockwell over a wanna-be Norman Rockwell. His status is really testimony to the mindless, sycophantic, lobotomized state of our critic class.

The list is patchy and irritating though. Francis Coppola is a genius, period. His less celebrated/known work is actually amazing (see Rumblefish). And who considers George Lucas a great artist? Wake up people! Anthony Lane's brutal take-down of–was it Phantom Menace? (one of the newer ones at any rate, I just remember laughing a lot)–in the New Yorker will become an all-time classic of film criticism. I like Sofia Coppola's work; Lost in Translation was quite affecting. Is she over-rated, I don't know. I didn't know she was considered some amazing genius.

By: FanKen

FanKen — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:07:06 +0000

fully agree…

By: Quenfis

Quenfis — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:03:39 +0000

Well here is what the meaning is based on Wikipedia "Given an undue amount of credit for quality or merit in a field; not necessarily related to popularity." I would take this to mean that if QT took a dump on a piece of paper and captured that on film, then released in the theaters, and all of the people in their field thought it was the best thing since Pulp Fiction, then I suppose he would be overrated.??

I would say that each of these directors have just the right amount of credit for their field, and therefore are not overrated. Some films may suck more than others, and I think that overall that has been noted in their field. I agree with the comments from Cole, and I do see the humor in it. It was a comical read, which I don't think the Spike article was humorous at all.

By: Jim Rohner

Jim Rohner — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:10:13 +0000

You're likely right. I was also told I Heart Huckabees would change my life. It did in the sense that I can never get that time of my life back. F*ck you, David O. Russell.

By: slink

slink — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:01:19 +0000

i'd say it was because you were told it would be the funniest movie you'll ever see. That's instant death to a film right there. Being stoned would obviously have helped though

By: Jim Rohner

Jim Rohner — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:54:36 +0000

The reason I think Coppola should not be on the list is because his "bad" films were straight up (and he will admit it too) director-for-hire films that he simply used to pay the bills. There's no authorship in any of them.

While I love Apatow films, I will say I think you have a point that time will tell, especially seeing as he only has directed two films. He may be soiling his name as a producer with sh*t like Don't Mess With the Zohan, though. It's also interesting you mention The Big Lebowski because I felt that was a very overrated film. I love the Cohen Brothers, but I was told that would be the funniest movie I'll ever see and it fell far short. My suspicions are it's because I wasn't high while watching it.