W.

I hear asfixation sex can be quite the turnon.

 

Yeah, it's obviously not a favorable opinion... For some reason most people who've seen the movie absolutely love it. But I've never talked to anyone that read the book that thought the movie was even remotely good.

 

Yeah man I own several of Kurosawa's movies. I also own the movies that were made into american films...I've got to say that once I saw Seven Samurai I hated the Magnificent Seven.


Kurosawa was largely influenced by John Ford.

Just pulled this from wiki...

When Kurosawa got to meet John Ford, an American film director commonly said to be the most influential to Kurosawa, Ford simply said, "You really like rain." Kurosawa responded, "You've really been paying attention to my films."




Off the top of my head...

Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Ran, Yojimbo/Sanjuro, Red Beard, Throne of Blood.

I have yet to see High and Low (really want to watch it)

Those are the ones I own.

 

The review I heard was that W. had Buch come off as a sympathetic dumbass. In my opinion that would be a generous portrayal.

 

I pretty much agree with everything on that list except for James Cameron. Brian DePalma made a few goods ones but meh, Mel Gibson really surprised me with Apcaplypto (sp?).

 

Check out Stray Dog. It is post-war Japan where a prostitute/pickpocket steals a cops gun on the bus and he has to go slumming it in order to get it back.

Also, the scene in Dreams called "Fox's Wedding", where the little boy is watching the "foxes" (Noh-style theatre actors) from behind a giant tree, is probably my favorite single scene in all of cinema.

 

Braveheart is my favorite movie and arguably one of the greatest of all time; but Gibson doesn't belong in this category. If you do that, then you have to include Kevin Costner as well (Dances with Wolves).

 

I was just listing him as a favorite of mine. He's only directed like 3 movies.

But i guess thats bring another dynamic into the thought process. If its arguably one of the greatest movies of all time, why doesnt it deserve some consideration?

Is it a single moment of brilliance that makes a director great or is it the body of work. Thats probably why i rate someone like Ridley Scott so highly, i really really dig most of his movies.

Other than Citizen Kane, i cant think of another Orson Wells movie off hand, And Coppola is known primarily for his Godfather work so its not a massive stretch to at least consider DWW. But i do still consider Costner more an actor over a director. I also like alot of his work too BTW.

Incidently 2001 was on AMC last night, caught the last 5 minutes or so. I still havent seen that movie in its entirety, but ive come to the conclusion that Kubrick must have been on some serious drugs when he made that movie.

 

Touch of Evil probably most famous.

No drugs, just mindbending. The aliens take Bowman through the experiences of a human life, with all its mistakes, old age, and accidents, so that he can be reborn.

 

First of all, Coppola directed Apocalypse Now, so that, along with all 3 Godfathers,(he also wrote the screenplay for all 4 movies) automatically puts him above Costner or Gibson.

I think you have a strong argument to say that if a movie is considered one of the best ever then the director belongs in at least a discussion of great directors, but there is nothing else in their body of work to compare it to. I've seen Passion and it wasn't that great. IMO a director needs at least 2 or 3 movies that were great to be considered in this discussion.