As I said before, I will leave no opinions about Hitchcock as this thread could turn into something of a war.
-
JohnWelles — 16 years ago(January 03, 2010 11:30 AM)
Well, as good as Goldfinger is, its not great, and it lacks the stylistic elements of The Third Man, whereas Citizen Kane, The Lady From Shanghai, Touch of Evil, etc. do contain the stylistic elements. <<
Yes, I agree that
Goldfinger
wasn't as good as
The Third Man
. I just used that to demostrate the Welles was not the only creative force invovled. Greene worked on a lot of screenplays, so who knows hom much he contributed? -
ContinentalOp — 16 years ago(January 24, 2010 03:59 AM)
He may not be the greatest director ever but he is better than Alfred ''One Trick Pony'' Hitchcock. And you see more people blatehring on about how great a director Hitchcock is more than Welles, yet I doubt you'll make a similar post of Alfred ''everyone is forced to think him great'' Hitchcock's board.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo" -
JohnWelles — 16 years ago(January 30, 2010 02:58 AM)
He may not be the greatest director ever but he is better than Alfred ''One Trick Pony'' Hitchcock. And you see more people blatehring on about how great a director Hitchcock is more than Welles, yet I doubt you'll make a similar post of Alfred ''everyone is forced to think him great'' Hitchcock's board.
I don't think Hitchcock was a "One Trick Pony", as you put it. All he did was refine a certain way of filmmaking until he was the best he was, just like Leone or Lean (with h2000is epics) or Hawks. No one is forces to like a director or film. A person may force themselves to like it, but other people can't.
Welles made the the three greatest movies of all time (
Citizen Kane
,
The Magnificent Ambersons
and
Touch of Evil
), so it's logical to call the best. I'ld put Kubrick second because he tried his hand at a differant genre each time and made a masterpiece (most of the time, anyhow). -
CharteredStreets — 16 years ago(February 02, 2010 06:39 AM)
Anybody who talks about Citizen Kane as though the plot matters or has anything to do with why it's admired has not business talking about movies, period.
Sorry I love Citizen Kane beyond measure but that's an idiotic statement to make.
If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like! -
psicosismark — 15 years ago(April 16, 2010 09:01 PM)
Welles filmography is borderline flawless in my opinion as I can really only find two I dislike; The Stranger and The Immortal Story.
My favorite Welles pictures are from his 60's period such as The Trial & Falstaff Chimes at Midnight, I read someone mention Vertigo was "haunting", well these two are the epitome of psychological terror with claustrophobic visuals only Welles could conjure.
I find both are highly underrated and were the victim of the director's negative publicity caused by Hollywood's obsession to undermine his credibility as a director in which mediocre director's like Steven Spielberg willfully took part in.
If these later films were financially successful they would be hailed as the deserving masterpieces they truly are, instead they were barely shown anywhere let alone on a national level and its up to people with good taste to understand their beauty. -
Martin_Sloan — 15 years ago(April 17, 2010 07:04 AM)
It's not about how many, but how good, the films are. Hitchcock made 54(?) films, not all masterpieces. Terrence Malick has made four films, all masterpieces. Personally, I rank Malick higher than Hitchcock.
Kubrick made "only" 13 movies, 11 of which are more or less concidered great works. Chaplin didn't direct that many feature films either, but is still concidered one of the greatest.
I wouldn't put Welles #1 on the list. He made some truly great movies, but compared to, let's say Kubrick, or my personal favorite Scorsese, or Billy Wilder - Welles can't really be concidered better than these. In my opinion. Welles was a great director, and certainly is on my top 15, but there are other directors I like more. Hell, all lists are about personal taste.
The Seventh Seal
is an amazing, powerful film, but I'd be lying if I say I see it as often as
Back to the Future
.
Martin Scorsese
IS
the best -
elvisgr6 — 15 years ago(May 18, 2010 07:28 PM)
In response to previous posts, Orson Welles admitted he didn't direct any of The Third Man (1949) it was all Carol Reed. As a note of interest, Orson Welles said that his favourite film director was John Ford. As Scorsese86 previously stated, it's all about personal taste. I already disagree with his last statement in which he claims The Seventh Seal is an amazing, powerful film. I found it overrated and to be honest, boring. There can never be a "best director ever." Nobody is ever going to agree on the same person.
-
vintagevalor-2 — 15 years ago(March 31, 2011 03:28 PM)
Having read all of the posts here I must jump in and add my 2 cents worth. In the opinion of Wells himself, John Ford was the best director of their day. And maybe that is where this discussion should be placed, "best direcrtor of their day" As both Wells and Ford are gone, along with most of the rest of the fine directors mentioned in these postings, Kurisawa, hawks, Hitchcock, there can be no "Best Director of alltime" Time ain't finished yet! However, placed in the context of the times in which these fine gentleman lived, I vote for Ford, followed by Wells and then Hitchcock and then the rest in any order one chooses.
Most of Fords films are timeless, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, FORT APACHE, THE QUIET MAN, THE SEARCHERS, HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, even his lesser pictures hold up today. Collectively they are some ofthe best films ever made.
Wells contribution is CITIZEN KANE and TOUCH OF EVIL, in my opinion. Two great movies. I do not think his films in which hewas only an Actor can be considered As fine a film as THE THIRD MAN is, it's Reeds picture, not Wells. -
eternalhennessy — 12 years ago(August 18, 2013 10:39 PM)
"Hugo" may have been a visual marvel but it's a simplistic, trite, bad film sorry. And "The Departed" was wildly uneven with every cast member doing their own thing rather than having them mesh cohesively. Jack Nicholson's ultra hambone overrated performance in it is unintentionally humorous rather than the expected menacing figure he was meant to be. "Gangs of New York" was also more tilting on the bad side with inconsistent performances again (Daniel Day Lewis' wildly overdone performance & Cameron Diaz as a remarkably modern, shiny clean 1800's prostie). "Shutter Island" was like a lavishly laid out expensive pseudo B film that has a very predictable & silly plot.
It seems more often than not good actors & directors fade as do good athletes as the years pass. And at least the athletes retire though when they lose it. Hollywood not so much. But Scorsese's beginnings were fantastic.