Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Sept 8, 2018 21:26:10 GMT
I was so delighted to see Lumet finish this high, and see such a notable amount of Ballot appearances for him (he'd be 12th if this was based purely on number of ballots). I probably haven't even seen half his filmography yet, but I still consider him one of my Top 5 with ease.
Can't say that Tarkovsky doesn't deserve that placement - he's too high relative to Kieslowski and Herzog but his filmography is unfnckwithable and he's one of the most profound filmmakers without question.
February 27, 2017 at 12:06 : distain (pupdurcs) posted on Gold Derby:
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 8, 2018 21:30:24 GMT
The Top 12 is not hard to guess at this point: Wilder, Spielberg, Allen, Coens, PTA, Lynch, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorsese, Bergman, Coppola.
On Woody: I think Woody deserves his placement if you judge by sheer volume of output. He has 6 films I rate 8+++, and at least 4 others at a 7.5
Though he has become somewhat of a parody after Mighty Aphrodite. Other than Carpenter once the 90s fell upon his old creaky ass, I don't think anyone has about as many good years as he does bad years. Literally 20 good ones, and 20.... not as good ones.
On Leone: This isn't Film General. We have our own standards of cool here. I knew the Film General cohorts would invade. Go back home..... scram
On Malick: HAHAHAHA. I generally love his movies, but I always enjoy him taking a tumble.
#23 is about the best I can hope for on him though. He won't go any lower than that.
For real though, this list isn't bad so far. My own ranking of most of these guys would be very different but they're mostly good picks.
As far as Welles being deserving - yeah, he is. The Magnificent Ambersons would've been better than CK if it hadn't gotten butchered. As it stands though it's still pretty great, and so are The Trial and Touch of Evil.