Is is Martin scorcese universally acknowledged as the worlds greatest director?

Genre..

I would be embarrassed collecting an award with him around

Smee_Again

Any award?

I think he’d have been pleased for me collecting my under 11s player of the year award.

Genre..

I was imagining going to up to collect an award while thinking about Goodfellas

I would be saying like wtf am u doing here

policarp

Double Yes.

The writer, director and lead actor of this genre-defying epic would like to have a word...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12975804/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

Best described as Goodfellas the movie meets Goodfellas the TV pizza ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipx6iA2CR1g

Genre..

Of all the people I don't know he is the most amazing

Goodfellas just blew my mind

And then the movie about the boxer

He is so outstanding that he's got like a piece of my head

He has had my unwavering respect ever since he called out those Superheroes movies for the bollocks they are.


I will say though, Gangs of New York was absolute muck. Mean Streets makes up for it though.

Cal4567

He's picked some great subject matter and is forever linked with De Niro in his iconic period. Throw in The Gangs of New York, which I liked, Shutter Island, The Departed and yes, these are great movies as well.

He's Italian American and he's our movie link with the mob and those inglorious times and stories. I have no doubt Killers of the Flower Moon will add to the legacy.

Like Speilberg, he's a lover of film history and the legacy they are continuing. He'd be on my wish list as a dinner party guest.

RulesOfNature

He's probably the best living director. But he's nearing his 80's and his output is becoming sloppier IMO. The Irishman is just full of weird, unpolished moments because it was more concerned with making grand statements about aging, life and being part of a generation nobody remembers anymore. - Contrast this with his old movies which were firmly placed on the pulse of contemporary society.

His movies as of late have been reminiscing abstract concepts like faith and legacy. Even his upcoming movie is an extended metaphor for climate change - under the guise of a 1920s murder mystery (seriously look it up). I feel like his output has been 'above-average' for the past 20-25 years, and he's had some definitive flops like Bringing out the dead and the aviator. Scorsese is not innovative - he tends to follow a formulaic rags-to-riches-to-rags-again' story based on non-fiction novels. What he's good at is picking actors and being really dynamic with the camera, especially during analog film formats when this experimental style could've ended up with blank, underexposed or overexposed images.

The best director of all time is Alfred Hitchcock - Very few people will dispute this.

Duckworth_Luas

Genre.. wrote: »

Goodfellas just blew my mind

Hi Tommy!

Yurt2

I'm with Chrissy on Kundun...

EltonJohn69

Cal4567 wrote: »

He's picked some great subject matter and is forever linked with De Niro in his iconic period. Throw in The Gangs of New York, which I liked, Shutter Island, The Departed and yes, these are great movies as well.

He's Italian American and he's our movie link with the mob and those inglorious times and stories. I have no doubt Killers of the Flower Moon will add to the legacy.

Like Speilberg, he's a lover of film history and the legacy they are continuing. He'd be on my wish list as a dinner party guest.

Spielberg isn’t fit to lace the boots of Martin Scorcese.

pickarooney

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Spielberg isn’t fit to lace the boots of Martin Scorcese.

Go home and get your ****ing shinebox, Steve

TheValeyard

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Spielberg isn’t fit to lace the boots of Martin Scorcese.

Jaws
ET
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jurrasic Park
Indiana Jones
Poltergeist
Schindlers List
Empire of the Sun
The Goonies
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal


Just ones I can think of right now. He's done some absolutely brilliant, era defining films.

Scorcese is a fantastic director but Spielberg helped create the childhood memories of many a child.

EltonJohn69

TheValeyard wrote: »

Jaws
ET
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jurrasic Park
Indiana Jones
Poltergeist
Schindlers List
Empire of the Sun
The Goonies
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal


Just ones I can think of right now. He's done some absolutely brilliant, era defining films.

Scorcese is a fantastic director but Spielberg helped create the childhood memories of many a child.

Spielberg does have great movies and kids love them (not sure about the terminal) but as a skilled movie maker Scorcese is way ahead. His camerawork is so much more idiosyncratic and immediately recognisable, the same can be said about DePalma, a fellow contemporary of Spielberg.

Akrasia

Stanley Kubrick has to be in with a bit of a shout? Spartacus, Dr Strangelove, 2001 a space odyssey? Full metal Jacket, a clockwork orange? The Shining?

TomTomTim

I just watched Cape Fear last night. I never even heard of it until recently, now I know why.

My current favourite is Paul Thomas Anderson. Writes and directs. He's created quite the filmography and is still relatively young.

Did you smash it

Danny Boyle- shallow grave and trainspotting are incredible movies with an incredible look. A bit like Tarantino I’m not sure they ever scaled those heights after their initial output.

The Irishman was quite dull in its shooting and the intensity of what was on the screen. Intensity is what separated Goodfellas from just another movie.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

My current favourite is Paul Thomas Anderson. Writes and directs. He's created quite the filmography and is still relatively young.

The Master is probably my favourite cinema experience of the last decade. The frequency and tone of that movie left a huge impression on me. Not to mention the unbelievable on-screen chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Must give it a watch again and see do I feel the same way about it a second time around.

There's something brilliant about going to see a movie that's been so carefully made and crafted in the cinema. I really miss that with covid. Netflix and a decent at-home setup plug the gap a little bit, but I really miss a night out at the pictures as my Mam used to say.

TheValeyard

TomTomTim wrote: »

I just watched Cape Fear last night. I never even heard of it until recently, now I know why.

Never seen the Simpsons version with Sideshow Bob?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

My current favourite is Paul Thomas Anderson. Writes and directs. He's created quite the filmography and is still relatively young.

each director goes through a "peak phase" when they produce their best work

Spielberg seems to have given up to enjoy his life pretty much (he's worth 3.7 billion usd apparently vs 150 mill for MS)

PTA would be very much still in his "peak phase"

Personally I think best director is a bit moot - just enjoy the movies.

Tarantino, Nolan, PTA, Eastwood, Wes Anderson, Iñárritu, Damien Chazelle they have all done good stuff

blueser

Shouldn't this be in the films thread in the entertainment forum?

KaneToad

TheValeyard wrote: »

Never seen the Simpsons version with Sideshow Bob?

Or the original version of the movie, made in the 60's?

Did you smash it

Coen Brothers worthy of mention. No country for old men is a masterpiece. Miller’s’ crossing also great.

Brian?

RulesOfNature wrote: »

He's probably the best living director. But he's nearing his 80's and his output is becoming sloppier IMO. The Irishman is just full of weird, unpolished moments because it was more concerned with making grand statements about aging, life and being part of a generation nobody remembers anymore. - Contrast this with his old movies which were firmly placed on the pulse of contemporary society.

His movies as of late have been reminiscing abstract concepts like faith and legacy. Even his upcoming movie is an extended metaphor for climate change - under the guise of a 1920s murder mystery (seriously look it up). I feel like his output has been 'above-average' for the past 20-25 years, and he's had some definitive flops like Bringing out the dead and the aviator. Scorsese is not innovative - he tends to follow a formulaic rags-to-riches-to-rags-again' story based on non-fiction novels. What he's good at is picking actors and being really dynamic with the camera, especially during analog film formats when this experimental style could've ended up with blank, underexposed or overexposed images.

The best director of all time is Alfred Hitchcock - Very few people will dispute this.

It's disputing time I'm afraid.

For me it's:

1. Kurosawa
2. Kubrick
3. Hitchcock
4. Scorsese
.
.
.
.
2582898. Bay

Tilden Katz

Genre.. wrote: »

I would be embarrassed collecting an award with him around

He's great but years he's been nominated for awards, his film wasn't always the best. No great director has a 100% hit rate and Scorsese is no exception.

glasso wrote: »

each director goes through a "peak phase" when they produce their best work

Spielberg seems to have given up to enjoy his life pretty much (he's worth 3.7 billion usd apparently vs 150 mill for MS)

PTA would be very much still in his "peak phase"

Personally I think best director is a bit moot - just enjoy the movies.

Tarantino, Nolan, PTA, Eastwood, Wes Anderson, Iñárritu, Damien Chazelle they have all done good stuff

Absolutely. Though I'd say Scorsese is the director that has bucked that trend the most. I think The Wolf Of Wall Street is one his best films and he was north of 70 when he directed it. But, yeah, look at any of the top directors and it's surprising how many duds are in their back catalogues and how their greatest works tend to be in a fairly narrow time period.

Greyfox

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Spielberg isn’t fit to lace the boots of Martin Scorcese.

Ah get real, Spielberg is a far better director, even James Cameron has made better films than Scorsese. Goodfellas is his only masterpieces, Scorsese is a tier below the best directors.

Greyfox

Brian? wrote: »

It's disputing time I'm afraid.

For me it's:

1. Kurosawa
2. Kubrick
3. Hitchcock

They have directed a few good films, none of them great imo

McGinniesta

Leah Gotti's arse should win a lifetime achievement award.

I could direct an award winning skinny movie with that thing.

Brian?

Greyfox wrote: »

Ah get real, Spielberg is a far better director, even James Cameron has made better films than Scorsese. Goodfellas is his only masterpieces, Scorsese is a tier below the best directors.

Spielberg defined what it is to be a modern film maker in a way no one had done it before. He controlled the entire film in a way that was rarely done before. He deserves credit for that.

However, his output is mass marketed entertainment and rarely rises to the level of great. Schindlers list aside.

Scorsese has made several films that are better each time you watch them. Which is a sign of greatness to me. Even the Irishman, wasn't great but get better on a rewatch

Mad_maxx

Martin Scoreses hasnt been a great director in decades

the Oscars decided to celebrate him late in life regardless of what he churned out

Gangs of New York is awful , The Departed the worst movie to win best picture this century and the Irish Man horribly over rated , Shutter Island is mediocre , The Wolf of Wall St is just a bunch of horribly unlikeable wall st cowboys engaging in debauchery over and over again for three hours , its crap

last good movie he made was Casino and it was no classic

Brian?

Greyfox wrote: »

They have directed a few good films, none of them great imo

That's funny, because Speilberg's favourite director is Kurosawa. I'm sure I've heard him say he's the greatest ever.

Genre..

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Martin Scoreses hasnt been a great director in decades

the Oscars decided to celebrate him late in life regardless of what he churned out

Gangs of New York is awful , The Departed the worst movie to win best picture this century and the Irish Man horribly over rated , Shutter Island is mediocre

last good movie he made was Casino and it was no classic

Departed was brilliant

Anyway you seem to be on a rant

Mad_maxx

Genre.. wrote: »

Departed was brilliant

Anyway you seem to be on a rant

Its rubbish though not as bad the Gangs of New York which was well received by critics at the time despite being garbage

critics praise anything he delivers this past twenty years

seenitall

The greatest? No, not for me. He is one of the greats, sure, and pretty much making the same movie 80-85% of the time. Nothing wrong with that either, it’s the way of Chabrol or Hitchcock or Bergman or Fellini, who are also some of the greats. However, The Departed is one of my all time favourite films and the reason I’m even posting here.

The greatest is a matter of taste, anyway, as there are so many people that are supremely accomplished, skillfull, innovative and daring, or were all that in their prime. All my votes would go to Hitch, Huston, Welles, Polanski, Forman, Lang, Wilder, Kubrick, Aronofsky, the Coens. Tarantino is not to my taste. Nor is Nolan, I’m afraid.

(This is all very American-slanted. I haven’t been watching enough world cinema since living in Ireland.)

HillCloudHop

Senor Spielbergo is the greatest living director in terms of legacy.

pioneerpro

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Spielberg does have great movies and kids love them (not sure about the terminal) but as a skilled movie maker Scorcese is way ahead. His camerawork is so much more idiosyncratic and immediately recognisable, the same can be said about DePalma, a fellow contemporary of Spielberg.

Spielberg's subtlety is the point here in terms of his skill. Man absolutely knows his ****, and is a master at framing in particular. Blockbuster intimacy par excellence. Jaws is one of the great ignored Directorial gems in just so many respects.

You know who's a seriously idisoyncratic and immediately recognisable Director who kids love? Michael Bay. Don't think we'd be making the same arguments though

pioneerpro

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Martin Scoreses hasnt been a great director in decades

the Oscars decided to celebrate him late in life regardless of what he churned out

Agreed completely. Same thing with Pacino re: Scent of a Woman. Now he thinks that overacting is what wins him oscars. Pavlov and his dogs scenario to the detriment of us all.

Gangs of New York is awful , The Departed the worst movie to win best picture this century and the Irish Man horribly over rated , Shutter Island is mediocre , The Wolf of Wall St is just a bunch of horribly unlikeable wall st cowboys engaging in debauchery over and over again for three hours , its crap

last good movie he made was Casino and it was no classic

Gangs of New York is a truely hammy and hocky movie. May have worked as a 70s production. Painful for a 2000s.

The Departed as worst best picture of the Century? Either Slumdog Millionaire 2 years after, or Lord of the Rings 3 years before, would be far better nominations. Hell, I'll even throw in that 'Green Book' travesty in recent times. If ever there was a more cynical oscar-bait movie, I've yet to see it.

In terms of Biopics as well, I'll always defend The Aviator. Great performances from the leads, amazing era-correct colouring and grading in certain scenes, nice and clippy for a longer movie as well editing wise. He took a lot of risks with that one and should have been celebrated more imo - I absolutely love the primitive two-strip technicolour effect in the golfing scene; you'll never see another blockbuster movie doing that kind of stuff for the sake of art.

RulesOfNature

Brian? wrote: »

It's disputing time I'm afraid.

For me it's:

1. Kurosawa
2. Kubrick
3. Hitchcock
4. Scorsese
.
.
.
.
2582898. Bay

Why Kubrick above Hitchcock? Kubrick is an all time great of course, but why do you think he’s above hitchcock? Kubrick had an awful tendency to direct actors to be as wooden as possible. Watch Full Metal Jacket - the actors are always deadpan and the delivery of the lines feel very stilted and off. It plagues his movies.

Same for kurosawa. Why put him above hitchcock? Subjectively you might say he made the best movies of all time. But objectively Hitchcock has done more for the industry.

RulesOfNature

As for modern directors, I think Denis Villeneuve is a cut above the rest. His output has been phenomenal.

Mad_maxx

pioneerpro wrote: »

Agreed completely. Same thing with Pacino re: Scent of a Woman. Now he thinks that overacting is what wins him oscars. Pavlov and his dogs scenario to the detriment of us all.



Gangs of New York is a truely hammy and hocky movie. May have worked as a 70s production. Painful for a 2000s.

The Departed as worst best picture of the Century? Either Slumdog Millionaire 2 years after, or Lord of the Rings 3 years before, would be far better nominations. Hell, I'll even throw in that 'Green Book' travesty in recent times. If ever there was a more cynical oscar-bait movie, I've yet to see it.

In terms of Biopics as well, I'll always defend The Aviator. Great performances from the leads, amazing era-correct colouring and grading in certain scenes, nice and clippy for a longer movie as well editing wise. He took a lot of risks with that one and should have been celebrated more imo - I absolutely love the primitive two-strip technicolour effect in the golfing scene; you'll never see another blockbuster movie doing that kind of stuff for the sake of art.

the Aviator was his best movie this century , Id overlooked that one , I do like it though like all of this movies this past twenty years , too long

I suppose people differ in tastes , I love all of the LOTR movies

Tony EH

While Scorsese is a great director, he's not without a few duds here and there. 'Gangs of New York' and 'The Aviator' were underwhelming, to be polite, and 'The Age of Innocence' was just a crushing bore. His output in recent years, as a whole, hasn't really been that much to write home about and his ongoing collaboration with DiCaprio never filled me with much enthusiasm as I consider him to be one of the most overrated actors in the business today.

However, he has achieved great things, there's no doubt. Something like 'Taxi Driver' or 'Goodfellas' can't be dismissed from any serious film fan's watch list. But, really, the last truly great film he's made was probably 'Casino' and that was 1995.

Taken purely on a body of work, Kubrick comes out looking better as the vast majority of his output was fantastic. Everything the man did from the mid 50's (bar 'Eyes Wide Shut') was or approached great movie status. That's something that neither Scorsese or Hitchcock can't boast. In fact, if most people were to go back and view a lot of Alfred Hitchcock's output, I'd reckon they'd end up quite disappointed. Hitchcock helmed an awful lot of pretty mediocre films, especially in the 30's and his propaganda movies look incredibly twee today. It's really the classics of the 50's and 60's that people remember when they make any claims for Hitchcock. Plus, there's a lot of techniques in Hitchcock's movies that have always left me bewildered. His use of artificial backdrops can be very off putting and certain camera jiggery pokery he allowed just rubs me up the wrong way and end up looking like questionable takes.

Although the man has unquestionably great movies in his repertoire, it's things like 'Rear Window' and 'Psycho' that will immediately spring to mind for most when his name is mentioned. Personally, I find it hard these days to sit down and watch a lot of his movies, bar the out and out classics. In fact, outside of the obvious classics, if I were to pick a Hitchcock movie that I would consider a "favourite" and one of his most re-watchable, it would be 'Frenzy'.

The Aviator is brilliant.

Probably not enough cool gangster stuff in it for some.

Outkast_IRE

I would generally be a fan of most of Scorcese's body of work. Including the Aviator and Gangs of New York , they are not flawless films but they are better than 95% of the mediocre blockbusters out there.

Silience though is a movie i cannot take to no matter how hard i try.

pioneerpro

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Silience though is a movie i cannot take to no matter how hard i try.

Yeah the 'religious' trilogy of last temptation, kundun and silence are all his strange passion projects really. All went through some variants of development hell, with Silence being somewhat of a two-decade ordeal in pre-production.

Out of the three Kundun is actually a fine fine movie if you give it a chance and are in the right temperment for engaging with it, but I feel at times it should have been either Speilberg or Herzog to achieve either end of the actual vision. That said I'm a sucker for anything with Philip Glass backing.

quickbeam

Honestly, I find most of his movies highly overrated.

RulesOfNature

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Aviator is brilliant.

Probably not enough cool gangster stuff in it for some.

Dicaprio is horribly miscast.

pioneerpro

RulesOfNature wrote: »

As for modern directors, I think Denis Villeneuve is a cut above the rest. His output has been phenomenal.

If we're talking output, in terms of sheer-range of movies and (deserving) critical acclaim it has to be Ridley Scott on the mainstream side. In the same two decade range we're discussing Scorsese's decline, Scott has the following to his credit:

• Gladiator (5 Academy Awards, 4 BAFTAs)
• Hannibal (Broke all box office records)
• Kingdom of Heaven (Box Office Disappointment, Critically Acclaimed)
• American Gangster (21 Nominations, 3 Oscars)
• The Martian (Award Magnet)

Grand, they're populist movies, but they're all technically very very competent movies ranging from period pieces to action-thrillers to sci-fi to straight up gangster. He gets superb performances from his actors (Phoenix in Gladiator or Denzel in American Gangser being the standouts) and is pretty even-handed in delivering what the audience wants versus being an auteur/artist.

I will also fight anyone who would like to challenge Blade Runner, Aliens or Thelma and Louise as poor pieces of cinema on a thematic basis. Scotts grasp of visual language on a macro-scale, combined with his intimate ability to capture the nuances of human emotion on the micro-scale, mean he's one of the few directors who can pull off something on the theatrical and philosophical scale of Blade Runner in particular. My first time watching it on the big screen was reminiscent of that line about star wars being the first Western with real sets.

And most recently, he did All the Money in the World . Whatever about the movie itself, which is admittedly a remake, Scott reshot the whole thing in 8 days to exclude Kevin Spacey when the scandal broke, a month before release. It ended up turning a profit and got an Academy Award nomination for Spacey's replacement!

pioneerpro

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Dicaprio is horribly miscast.

Couldn't disagree more. Overcast maybe, but that whole movie didn't have a bad note in the casting. The chemistry between DiCaprio and Blanchett is only surpassed by the chemistry of DiCaprio and Alan Alda on-screen. If ever there was a well-done bit of casting in a biopic, this is the one.



Also, in terms of accuracy, both Scorsese and DiCaprio are pitch-perfect. Have a look at the real-life footage comparison. This movie was an absolute love-letter to the era in a way that later stuff like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood were better recognised for. Check out the court-room scene at the end and tell me that DiCaprio isn't the absolute embodiment of Howard Hughes. It's honestly undeniable with the side-by-side footage.

RulesOfNature

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Dicaprio is horribly miscast.

If by that you mean it's his best role, then yes I'd agree.