Let's get a few things straight:
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Brett Ratner
Deniro68 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 09:55 PM)
Let's get a few things straight:
1: Brett Ratner is far from the best director working right now.
2: He's also not the worst (neither is Michael Bay). Opinions may very. But I'd pick Raja Gosnell as the definite worst. Bay at least has made The Rock and Pain and Gain. Gosnell has yet to make anything that's even passable.
Is Ratner a hack? Not quite.
He's no Scorsese for sure. He's not a brilliant writer/director like Paul T Anderson. He's not a brilliant balance of popcorn and weightier films like Spielberg. He's not a master of genre films like Robert Rodriguez and he doesn't have the ability to make them transcend genres like Tarantino or De Palma. And unlike fellow music video maestro David Fincher he has never made a classic era defining film.
Yet I would argue that Ratner is less a hack and more a director working in the wrong era.
Consider this quote:
"Why do I need final cut? Final cut is for artistes quote unquotedirectors whose movies don't make a lot of money. Maybe Scorsese should have final cut because a guy like Harvey Weinstein or a studio might change it to make it a little more accessible or a little more commercial and he has a vision of what he wants it to be. He wants it to be four hours long or whatever."
As a writer/director myself I totally disagree on that statement. To me final cut is vital But that statement shows that Ratner would have fit in perfectly in the pre-Bonnie and Clyde era. Or maybe even in the early Hollywood era.
He's not an auteur and that quote makes it clear that he has no interest in being one. He's just interested in making whatever movies a studio gives him.
There are two kinds of directors, ones for whom it's a calling and ones for whom it's a profession. Ratner falls squarely in the second category.
He's made one movie I actually enjoyed on a certain level (the original Rush Hour). So he's not the worst director working now (the aforementioned Gosnell and MCG, to name two, are far worse). But he's far from the best.
2 ways you can go on this job. My way or the highway. Now what's it gonna be Mr. Pink?
-
zachbernheisel — 11 years ago(June 05, 2014 10:05 PM)
Gosnell is definitely horrible, but Never Been Kissed was decent.
As for McG, he only really has one truly good movie (Charlie's Angels) but the pilot of Chuck was some of the best directing I've ever seen in TV. -
ccr1633 — 11 years ago(June 10, 2014 08:37 PM)
Deniro68 wrote:
As a writer/director myself I totally disagree on that statement. To me final cut is vital But that statement shows that Ratner would have fit in perfectly in the pre-Bonnie and Clyde era. Or maybe even in the early Hollywood era.
This yes-man trait you mention of Ratner makes him a perfect fit for Hollywood as it exists right
now
.