Was gonna say Fincher but he was saved by Se7en, so the obvious choice is N*lan. His only good film was Memento, and that was just good but nothing spectacular.
Fincher or Spielberg. Se7en is his only film that would be dearly missed. Spielberg has a lot of films that I like but won't particularly miss them if they're gone
Kubrick's only good movie is Dr. Strangelove but it's great enough to justify keeping his filmography despite the rest sucking. So either Tarantino or Nolan
>i’ll say the option i dont really mean just to piss people off >are you mad?? wait why arent you guys mad? but im such a le ebin troll
hows 11th grade?
The thing is Nolan and Fincher films are easy to ignore, if you erase their films nothing would change. Tarantino and Kubrick fans are very annoying but otherwise I don’t care and Scorsese is fine even though Francis Ford Coppola exists.
Spielberg (and George Lucas also somewhat) on the other hand basically ruined director driven films and consolidated the studio’s search for “blockbusters”. Everything you hate about the soullessness of movemaking, basically as Jodorowsky put it “industrial filmmaking” can be traced back to Spielberg (and a bit of Lucas)
Nolan and Fincher are auteurs(even if they're inconsistent filmmakers) trying to get by in a horrendous studio system created by Spielberg and Lucas. What's their influence? That movies should be serious? Considering movies are increasingly getting kiddified, I'd say that's not an issue.
Both George and Steve mentioned how they lament the direction Hollywood went after their movies in how films are no longer about the artform or examining the human condition, but are now theme park rides for studios. At the very least, they were self aware of their impact on the industry, bad as well as good. As for director driven films, you could probably blame George more but that's not entirely his fault. All he wanted was to control his movies the studios didn't care about and with merchandising not being the big thing it is today after Star Wars, they nor him could have foreseen the explosion in popularity it had which turned him into a billionaire. As a result of him becoming rich outside Hollywood, the system became so controlled that nothing like him will ever happen ever again.
Nolan. I’m convinced that Tenet was one big practical joke by him. That shit was so fricking dumb and contrived, made worse by what seems like intentionally bad sound mixing. Couldn’t understand a word anybody was saying and even then, HALF THE CAST were wearing masks.
Nolan is such a shitty writer too, he really needs decent co-writers to make anything work. Some of the dialogue in his films is like written by an AI chatbot.
>Tenet
I wouldn't be surprised if that "movie" makes a bunch of people's "Most Disappointing films of the 2020's so far" or "Worst films of the 2020's so far" lists. The film is so emotionally absent, the sound mixing is legitimately terrible to the point where you can't hear shit even on a 7.1 surround sound, and the concept of inverse entropy is so fricking moronic, especially with that big "battle" at the end that looked like a paintball arena or something. >Written and directed by Christopher Nolan
He cannot write movies at all, and any of his actually good movies, someone else basically makes the story up and screenwrites with him.
Inception is unironically one of the worst films I have ever seen. The entire movie is just random action sequences strung together with >whoah, it's like a dream within a dream, bro
while trying to pass itself off as some profound psychological thriller.
For me it’s Fincher
I appreciate his films from a technical standpoint, they look nice, they’re shot well, scripts are solid, and the acting’s good. In spite of all that, I just don’t like his movies that much, it’s weird
Hasn't made anything good since Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill and even that's stretching it. We would never have thinly disguised feet and Black fetishism mixed into blatant ripoffs of better films, movies, genres and directors etc. Anybody who writes a scene of a person sucking a Black folk dick in any context or makes an entire movie to appease his israeli masters by filming Nazi's getting massacred violently so they can jerk off is more in need of an ass-kicking rather than having continued access to celluloid, either real or digital. Quinton's autism pickled his brain.
Steve Buscemi did more for Tarantino. Travolta hadn't had a hit movie since the 70s before Quinton came along and was doing the Look Who's Talking series. Him and Uma Thurman owe Quinton a lot, but Travolta went right back to irrelevancy after Pulp Fiction. Uma at least got 2 films out of only having to give Tarantino her foot to rub for 2 minutes.
the obvious choice is either nolan or fincher, it depends on personal taste. Tarantino is a couple tiers above, and the other 3 are unreachable in this conversation
>guy who made alien 3 and the social network is better than the guy who made jaws, indiana jones and ET
yes
spielberg is like that meme IQ chart where low IQ morons love him, midwits dislike him, and high IQ geniuses love him.
Although he does have a couple midwit and shit movies, but so does every other director in the OP
Se7en and Gone Girl are better than any movie Spielberg has ever made
2 years ago
Anonymous
>we’re gonna need a bigger cope
2 years ago
Anonymous
>se7en and gone girl
those have no rewatchability. you can put jp, indy, and jaws on any day and immediately get into it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Although I prefer Fincher in almost every way, the notion that Spielberg is a bad director really has more to do with the genres and stories he has chosen to adapt than his actual ability behind the camera.
And "blockbusters" are actually quite traditional for the industry so he wasn't exactly doing anything radical, but then again maybe that's why a lot of people on Cinemaphile aren't into him.
I like him but I just think his manchd fanbase needs to grow up. He's good at "fun" movies but amongst them only JP, Jaws and Indie movies are tolerable as an adult. Whenever he tries "serious movies" with "deep" themes(Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan)he exposes himself as a pseud.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Whenever he tries "serious movies" with "deep" themes he exposes himself as a pseud.
thats every director ever
2 years ago
Anonymous
Spielberg more so than any other 🙂
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Spielberg more so than any other 🙂
Nolan and Fincher fit way more into the midwit category than Spielberg
assuming nothing retroactively changes and you're just erasing the movies, ai think I'd go with Spielberg. I don't think he's the least talented or worst of them alland certainly not the one with the weakest filmography, but all the others' filmmaking speak more to me than his.
I just don't care much for Spielberg's stuff, to be honest
Literally every single one of them. If all of their work magically poofed out of the world my life wouldn’t change at all and not only that but there wouldn’t be much impact on film making.
Nolan. He’s literally famous for doing capeshit and his attempts to create sophisticated blockbusters are easily beaten by Spielberg in that department.
I just can’t think of a good film he has made.
Easily Tarantino, how is this even a question. Whatever you may think of the other ones, Tarantino's entire career has served entirely to make israelite propaganda for Weinstein
He s a soulless hack. His best movie, Pulp Fiction, was a collaboration, the editor contributing greatly, and that absence shows greatly in his subsequent works. He can put together an entertaining profitable movie, and press some of your buttons, but that's it.
According to his own agenda, he will do one more movie (of the 10 he held himself to). After that, we will see what his reputation is.
I can see where you're coming from with the soulless thing even though I disagree, but you can't deny that basically no filmmaker can match his immaculate filmography in terms of consistency. The guy has never made a movie below "very good". I understand that it's a bit silly to rank an artist's worth by consistency but it's gotta count for something. He's also been the writer of basically every movie he's made, none of those other guys can claim that either. I dunno, it's pretty hard to argue against the guy's talent.
Death Proof is very good though, and that's probably his weakest movie.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's like saying TDKR and Alien 3 are very good Nolan and Fincher movies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
please elaborate
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm death proof is on the level of those films. I mean have any of you even rewatched that movie? It has some of the worst performances I've seen from a major director.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I haven't watched A3, but Death Proof is a better movie than TDKR, free.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's among his better movies. Superior to Inglorious, Django, From Dusk till Dawn, and a bunch of others.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Superior to Inglorious, Django
no >From Dusk till Dawn
not a QT movie
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree about Django and Inglorious but Dusk wasn't by Tarantula.
2 years ago
Anonymous
M8 Django is one of Tarantino's better flicks. Foxx and Leo carried that one hard.
That they're self-important and vain. Inglorious Basterds is masturbatory revenge porn (Tarantino's own words), and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is masturbatory about 60's Hollywood, plus revenge porn against the Manson Family
2 years ago
Anonymous
That goes for most of his movies. They also feel like they could all be set in the same universe.
I'd still take Tarantino over a shit ton of current directors, but he has become overrated through the years, primarily by film students.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I thought film students viewed Tarantino and Nolan as overrated these days. It's certainly the vibe I get from the "cinephile" crowd these past few years.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That goes for most of his movies
Certainly his last four. His earlier ones have those elements, but they're much more toned down or take a backseat.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's just a byproduct of age imo. He's doing movies mostly for himself at this point. He's also more of a fanboy than the rest of the people on the list, watching a movie or two every single day.
There are certain genres and aesthetics he likes and he does homages to them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There are certain genres and aesthetics he likes and he does homages to them.
Sure, which worked in Pulp Fiction when the only real world punching bag he set up to get absolutely bloodied were the gun store owners, and it's just implied. His latest movies are centered around the concept, and I don't want to watch the movie equivalent of Interactive Buddy, but a Nazi/Southerner/Manson.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That's just a byproduct of age imo
It's a byproduct of fame
>He's doing movies mostly for himself at this point.
Wrong. He's doing it for the industry, just like Tim Burton. Both names have become synonymous with a certain type of flanderized paint-by-numbers product that could pretty much be made by AI algorythms at this point.
Spielberg easily. I can see this being different for people who are older than 35 but when you get past the blockbuster nostalgia, his movies aren't very meaningful.
Scorcese, Tarantino, Nolan, and Spielberg stay, no questions asked.
Kubrick >The Shining is kino >e-girlta gets mogged by the remake >2001 is boring shit only propped up by pretentious c**ts >Clockwork Orange is good but ultimately too tame >Strangelove is overrated >Eyes Wide Shut is dumb
Fincher >Fight Club kino >Zodiac kino >Social Network kino >Gone Girl kino >Dragon Tattoo kino
I disagree. Spielberg makes blockbusters. Nothing wrong with that. But to actually experience them they need to be seen during their time in a packed theatre.
The same thing can be said about nolan but his best work is not in the 70s-80s.
Most of the other director's movies, notably Fincher and Kubrick, are better seen alone.
You said nobody under the age of 50 gives a frick about those movies. That's incorrect.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's like saying just because the Kardashians are popular, people can derive meaning from watching their shows. Spielberg's best movies are genuinely not meaningful for people who aren't 80s kids.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wasn't A.I. named film of the century? While I disagree with that assessment, I think some of his work holds up quite well regardless of his primary audience from back in the day.
Moreover, the average normie is still more familiar with him than most of the directors in the list, aside from, again, Nolan.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No. That was Mulholland drive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yeah but you said no one under 50 cares about those movies, which is false
they care about kardashians too
First if you think AI is film of the century, there is something wrong with you.
Second of all, when I say "care" I mean it in the most genuine sense of the word. Think about how many people went to film school because of QT for it to become a joke. Taxi driver is as old as any Spielberg movies and is as relevant as ever. Fight club will always be mandatory viewing for any guy. Do I really have to talk about Batman?
Sure most people know of Spielbergs 40 year old blockbusters but they aren't nearly as important or impactful as the above for people who aren't older Gen X or Boomers.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>First if you think AI is film of the century, there is something wrong with you.
I literally said I disagree with that assessment. But it was named one of them.
That alone should signify that your notion about no one under 50 caring about those movies is false, which is the essence of the argument.
Maybe you're right in the context of people who are specifically in film school, but even that is unclear.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anyone who would be deciding film of the century 22 years ago would be way over the age of 50 today.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yeah but you said no one under 50 cares about those movies, which is false
they care about kardashians too
I disagree. Spielberg makes blockbusters. Nothing wrong with that. But to actually experience them they need to be seen during their time in a packed theatre.
The same thing can be said about nolan but his best work is not in the 70s-80s.
Most of the other director's movies, notably Fincher and Kubrick, are better seen alone.
Here's my opinion on Spielberg. He's one of the most gifted directors out there in terms of Camerawork and Blocking. Freakishly adept at milking the emotion out of a scene. He makes Nolan look like an amateur. Yet, I very rarely find myself discussing his films. As I've grown older there's less of his films I rewatch. Most of his serious works seem brainless and even tactless because he's in "I must entertain" mode all the time. It results in melodrama and shlocky moments in films where it absolutely shouldn't be there (Schindler's list and SPR for example). It's also why he has completely fallen off as he got older because he tried to do more mature stuff/passion projects in order to be viewed among greats but all of it is neither entertaining nor profound.
Duel alone mogs a lot of these people's output and it's one of his earlier movies.
Cinemaphile hates 'Berg because he's the king of cliches and blockbusters, and due to him being israeli, but sucks the dick of resentful israelites like Jodorowsky.
Tarantino. Pulp Fiction is his only notable work and it rides on idiotically placed, edgy memes to make itself. Le DEAD Black person STORAGE. WHAT DOES HE LOOK LIKE. I mean have any of you honestly watched Hateful 8 and said, what a great use of a film platform that is widescreen?
Burg used to respect audiences. Little stuff like Grant tying two clipless seatbelt ends together to "find a way." Or Poltergeist existing as a rebuttal to Reagans dream.
>Pulp Fiction is his only notable work
What about Kill Bill? What about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? What about Inglorious Bastards? What about Django? >
Tarantino's monies are more memorable on their own than any other bullshit the others made, with only Spielberg coming close
Out of all of them I feel like Nolan has steadily become a caricature and worse over time. Memonto is a fantastic movie but Interstellar and the last Batman movie were trash. I didn’t even bother seeing his latest film.
>become a caricature and worse over time
That describes Spielberg and Tarantino more. In fact, that's the most common criticism of Tarantino these days. Although, what happened to Spielberg is worse. His films became soulless.
Fincher and it's not even close. Atleast Nolan gave us Christian Bale kinos and Baneposting plus Insomnia was like the last time Al Pacino did a serious movie that wasn't just him screaming
Just based on the movies, Nolan, but I would miss the memes. Might go with Fincher for that reason, even though TSN is one of my favorites of the 2010s.
Presuming the removal of one set of work doesn’t also affect the works that were tangentially influenced by it, I’d honestly have to say Kubrick. I think 2001 is maybe the sickest movie ever made and very possibly the most talented on the list, but because he’s the most dated his movies are just the least relevant to me.
Spielberg is the worst. His movies are mechanical and lack any deep, or even barely below the surface, meaning.
He's a hack through and through and a dirty israelite.
Kubrick is a high IQ patrician israelite.
Fincher, Tarantino and Nolan make good, entertaining, midwit movies.
Scorcese is a kino master.
I just hate *lol just turn your brain of* kind of movies and Spielberg not only does that but he also pushes his agendas and pretends being deeper than he really is.
ET suck, Indiana Jones sucks, Jaws sucks, AI sucks, saving goy Ryan sucks.
If you compare Kubrick to Spielberg it's like comparing an Opera to a broadway gay musical. It makes more money but it's childish and gay.
Spielberg made a cool dinosaur movie with a mix of ground-breaking CGI and practical effects that stil holds up three decades later. I hate to be a boomer but if you guys never saw the T-Rex roar for the first time in theaters you'll never know.
Stephen King is more "cool" and entertaining to read than Tolstoï. Doesn't mean he's better.
Amerimutts are incapable of enjoying high art, they settle for pleb entertainment.
I can tell you're smart judging by your choice of words.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Midwits need to employ sophisticated vernacular to distract people from the fact that they're not smart. I do like Dostoevsky but I still stand by what I said about Tolstoi.
To be fair, none of the directors on the list can be called high art. They're all pretty accessible. Maybe Kubrick, but that's about it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
True.
Spielberg is still lower than the rest, which is made worse by the fact he's so overrated.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's still objectively incorrect. You just hate the kinds of stories he adapted (didn't even write) and obviously for political reasons.
As a director, he's more than competent.
Lol high art/low art false dichotomy is the last refuge of the psued. Know what you like and be able to defend it passionately but to dislike something because it has commercial/mass appeal, so long as ot doesn't infringe on the art itself, is asinine.
To add to this, you literally have a whole generation of buttblasted psuedo paleontologists pissed off at new developments in the field because of how deeply etched the appearance of dinosaurs is in their psyche from this film.
Yes, are we really gonna pretend Nolan isn't capable of "cool" or "mass entertainment". I don't think Nolan is a genius or a fan of his but is the T-Rex any more fun than say the joker?
I'm not the biggest fan of Nolan but Interstellar was his biggest pleb filter as far as Cinemaphile is concerned.
That movie turns Cinemaphile into reddit immediately.
2 years ago
Anonymous
how come?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It took a big dump on science and Cinemaphile was forced to switch their traditional position of being anti pop-science just to seethe about that one film and it's message of "love" (love here being a placeholder for "human")
He can do mass entertainment of course but IMO Batman trilogy was a rapid descent in quality after the Begins and Heath's performance as good as it was might still be the 2nd or 3rd best Joker performance (and that's only counting cinema). What's Nolan's most iconic movie moment for normies? The spinning top in Inception? It's just not on the same level for me. But Nolan and Speilberg are probably the two most alike on the list in terms of success.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nolan makes films that have mass appeal and at the same time trick normies into thinking they're watching something deep.
In and of itself, that's a talent. But I didn't personally care for his last 2 movies at all.
I expect Oppenheimer to be better and it seems up his alley.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I will admit despite being down on his body of work I'm hoping Oppenheimer will be enjoyable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The thing is, the modern landscape of movies is so shallow and unexciting, I look forward to Nolan movies simply because I know I'll get a competent blockbuster at the very least. Or that's the case most of the time, although I didn't care for Dunkirk or Tenet.
And yes, Oppenheimer will likely be better than whatever Morbius-esque summer blockbusters is in theaters at that point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>might still be the 2nd or 3rd best Joker
Personal preference is fine but if we are talking concensus, Heath is still considered a tier above Pheonix and Nicholson.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Heath was better than those 2. Some people hated the performance due to it not being as close to the source material, + it being played straight which has always bothered Cinemaphile when it comes to comic book movies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Heath was better than those 2. Some people hated the performance due to it not being as close to the source material, + it being played straight which has always bothered Cinemaphile when it comes to comic book movies.
I like Heath's performance but prefer the others. But you guys are right.
Memento, Insomnia or The Prestige have more depth and soul than anything Spielberg has ever made.
>Scorcese is a kino master
Why do people keep pushing this meme? He hasn't been good in decades.
>He hasn't been good in decades.
Neither has Spielberg, what's your point? He made enough good movies, more than directors than have only good movies under their belt but were less proficient like the Coen brothers or Mel Gibson.
Spielberg makes like 2 movies a year and hasn't done anything worth re watching.
The man is a more subtle (read dishonest) and less entertaining Michael Bay.
As Godard put it better than I can >Most of the time there is no mystery at all, and no beauty—just makeup. Schindler’s List is a good example of making up reality. It’s Max Factor. It’s color stock described in black and white, because labs can’t afford to make real black and white. Spielberg thinks black and white is more serious than color. Of course you can do a movie in black and white today, but it’s difficult, and black and white is more expensive than color. So he keeps faithful to his system—it’s phony thinking. To him it’s not phony, I think he’s honest to himself, but he’s not very intelligent, so it’s a phony result. I saw a documentary, not a good one, but at least you get the real facts about Schindler. [Spielberg] used this man and this story and all the israeli tragedy as if it were a big orchestra, to make a stereophonic sound from a simple story. >HE doesn’t give you historical fact—He’s not capable. Hollywood is not capable. In fact, I’m not capable of doing the picture I should be able to do. I’m capable of aiming for it and making part of it, two-thirds or sometimes nine-tenths. Spielberg is not capable of doing Schindler’s List the way a regular director, not a genius but a director like William Wyler—who was able, just after the war, to make The Best Years of Our Lives, which today, when you see it, you’re amazed by the fact that in Hollywood some honest people and good craftsmen were able to reach someone. Cinema as a whole has greater potential than the Wyler picture, but he was 100 percent his potential. Today, that has disappeared. If there was a race, William would do the 100 yards in twelve seconds; Spielberg would do it in two minutes.
There's a big difference between "fun" edge like Tarantino's gallons of blood spurting from a cut finger, and edge in the vein of the Exorcist or Hostel.
My favorite director and all of his films were purged from this timeline when CERN fired up last week. I forget his name and face and all of his movies, but I had many of them on VHS and laserdisc. But even those are missing from my collection now.
>Scorsese
This one.
Based, wops are a fricking cancer
Tarantino is also a wop, or at least his father was
+1 for Scorsese. Never liked the guy or his films. The Godfather is overrated as frick
Probably bait, but if you are actually moronic Scorsese didn’t direct The Godfather. That was Coppola
I would delete al of them except nolan and kubrick
Was gonna say Fincher but he was saved by Se7en, so the obvious choice is N*lan. His only good film was Memento, and that was just good but nothing spectacular.
Too easy OP
The one about magicians with Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman was good.
the prestige, unquestionable kino
>His only good film was Memento, and that was just good but nothing spectacular.
How can you not like his Batman trilogy or The Prestige?
tarantino
It’s between Nolan or Fincher for me.
Fincher or Spielberg. Se7en is his only film that would be dearly missed. Spielberg has a lot of films that I like but won't particularly miss them if they're gone
Kubrick's only good movie is Dr. Strangelove but it's great enough to justify keeping his filmography despite the rest sucking. So either Tarantino or Nolan
>Shining
Eyes wide shut alone is better than all the other’s filmographies, except for scorcese and spielberg
Kubrick's 2001 space odyssey struck me harder than almost any other film despite being a boring ass art piece.
Michael Bay produced the Friday the 13th remake. Doesn't mean he makes those kinds of movies.
Agreed. I don't care about Kubrick much but it's an important film.
Tarantino. 99.5% of all the pretentious film students would disappear immediately and the world would a better place because of it.
Kubrick to piss everyone here off.
>m-m-muh colours and symbolism
Cry more homosexual
>muh colors
>two of his best movies are black and white
The killing and Path of glory?
The shining and clockwork orange aren't black and white though??? :O
>i’ll say the option i dont really mean just to piss people off
>are you mad?? wait why arent you guys mad? but im such a le ebin troll
hows 11th grade?
>Spielberg
Hasn't made a simultaneous crowd-pleaser and critical darling in a long time.
Last critically acclaimed was, like, Lincoln.
>old af
Time to goooooooooooo
Nolan easily
The thing is Nolan and Fincher films are easy to ignore, if you erase their films nothing would change. Tarantino and Kubrick fans are very annoying but otherwise I don’t care and Scorsese is fine even though Francis Ford Coppola exists.
Spielberg (and George Lucas also somewhat) on the other hand basically ruined director driven films and consolidated the studio’s search for “blockbusters”. Everything you hate about the soullessness of movemaking, basically as Jodorowsky put it “industrial filmmaking” can be traced back to Spielberg (and a bit of Lucas)
The answer is clearly Spielberg.
Obvious Nolan/Fincher zoom zoom. Both had more negative influence on shit directors than anyone in the OP.
Nolan and Fincher are auteurs(even if they're inconsistent filmmakers) trying to get by in a horrendous studio system created by Spielberg and Lucas. What's their influence? That movies should be serious? Considering movies are increasingly getting kiddified, I'd say that's not an issue.
Se7en ruined thrillers, The Dark Knight movies ruined capekino
>The Dark Knight
The MCU*. How many serious capeshit do we get these days?
Logan was the last one i think
True I guess it ruined Batman movies forever instead
Batman movies were never good.
Now that you put it like that it's the obvious choice
Literal moronic Reddit take. No movies made money before Spielberg! Jaws is a kino film, not a soulless summer movie.
Nolan is a hack so get rid.
Here we see a Spielberg-goy in its natural environment.
>Francis Ford Coppola exists
>hasn't made any good movies since 90's
He's a hack and Scorsese is the better filmmaker
scorcese still hasn't made any great films
Coppola is much better
There is reason he wasn't included in picture, I would erase Coppola from existence even if I didn't need to
Both George and Steve mentioned how they lament the direction Hollywood went after their movies in how films are no longer about the artform or examining the human condition, but are now theme park rides for studios. At the very least, they were self aware of their impact on the industry, bad as well as good. As for director driven films, you could probably blame George more but that's not entirely his fault. All he wanted was to control his movies the studios didn't care about and with merchandising not being the big thing it is today after Star Wars, they nor him could have foreseen the explosion in popularity it had which turned him into a billionaire. As a result of him becoming rich outside Hollywood, the system became so controlled that nothing like him will ever happen ever again.
Nah, you'd only think this if you're a fricking pseud.
Nolan. I’m convinced that Tenet was one big practical joke by him. That shit was so fricking dumb and contrived, made worse by what seems like intentionally bad sound mixing. Couldn’t understand a word anybody was saying and even then, HALF THE CAST were wearing masks.
I do like a few of his other films though.
Nolan is such a shitty writer too, he really needs decent co-writers to make anything work. Some of the dialogue in his films is like written by an AI chatbot.
>Tenet
I wouldn't be surprised if that "movie" makes a bunch of people's "Most Disappointing films of the 2020's so far" or "Worst films of the 2020's so far" lists. The film is so emotionally absent, the sound mixing is legitimately terrible to the point where you can't hear shit even on a 7.1 surround sound, and the concept of inverse entropy is so fricking moronic, especially with that big "battle" at the end that looked like a paintball arena or something.
>Written and directed by Christopher Nolan
He cannot write movies at all, and any of his actually good movies, someone else basically makes the story up and screenwrites with him.
Spielberg, to save the kiddies.
He earned those kids
Can you do without never seeing inception?
It's fine i guess but nothing groundbreaking
Inception is unironically one of the worst films I have ever seen. The entire movie is just random action sequences strung together with
>whoah, it's like a dream within a dream, bro
while trying to pass itself off as some profound psychological thriller.
fincher
For me it’s Fincher
I appreciate his films from a technical standpoint, they look nice, they’re shot well, scripts are solid, and the acting’s good. In spite of all that, I just don’t like his movies that much, it’s weird
>Spielberg
I'd probably enjoy surfing if I hadn't seen Jaws as a child.
Fincher>Nolan>Tarantula>Spielberg>Marty>Kubrick
Tarantino.
Hasn't made anything good since Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill and even that's stretching it. We would never have thinly disguised feet and Black fetishism mixed into blatant ripoffs of better films, movies, genres and directors etc. Anybody who writes a scene of a person sucking a Black folk dick in any context or makes an entire movie to appease his israeli masters by filming Nazi's getting massacred violently so they can jerk off is more in need of an ass-kicking rather than having continued access to celluloid, either real or digital. Quinton's autism pickled his brain.
I didn't notice Tarantino but getting rid of him will erase travoltas role which created Tarantino
Steve Buscemi did more for Tarantino. Travolta hadn't had a hit movie since the 70s before Quinton came along and was doing the Look Who's Talking series. Him and Uma Thurman owe Quinton a lot, but Travolta went right back to irrelevancy after Pulp Fiction. Uma at least got 2 films out of only having to give Tarantino her foot to rub for 2 minutes.
>Travolta went back to irrelevancy
Zoomer moment
I'm not a zoomer.
Even worse
he's a bighead
Fincher and it's not even close
We're going to lose Baneposting, but Nolan is still the most fitting choice out of them.
I don't like any of their films. Not one.
Delete all. Jim's films are all i need.
Fincher because I don't even know anything that homosexual made.
the obvious choice is either nolan or fincher, it depends on personal taste. Tarantino is a couple tiers above, and the other 3 are unreachable in this conversation
Spielberg is the worst, most unimaginative filmmaker in that list.
>unimaginative
Lol zoomer moment
>guy who made alien 3 and the social network is better than the guy who made jaws, indiana jones and ET
no
>Mommy, Mommy, they're making fun of movies made for 10 year olds! Why are they so mean mommy?
>says Spielberg is unimaginative
>posts a really imaginative kidkino
>LE MOMMY HE POSTED LE KID MOVIE XD
spielberg is like that meme IQ chart where low IQ morons love him, midwits dislike him, and high IQ geniuses love him.
Although he does have a couple midwit and shit movies, but so does every other director in the OP
Se7en and Gone Girl are better than any movie Spielberg has ever made
>we’re gonna need a bigger cope
>se7en and gone girl
those have no rewatchability. you can put jp, indy, and jaws on any day and immediately get into it.
Although I prefer Fincher in almost every way, the notion that Spielberg is a bad director really has more to do with the genres and stories he has chosen to adapt than his actual ability behind the camera.
And "blockbusters" are actually quite traditional for the industry so he wasn't exactly doing anything radical, but then again maybe that's why a lot of people on Cinemaphile aren't into him.
I like him but I just think his manchd fanbase needs to grow up. He's good at "fun" movies but amongst them only JP, Jaws and Indie movies are tolerable as an adult. Whenever he tries "serious movies" with "deep" themes(Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan)he exposes himself as a pseud.
>Whenever he tries "serious movies" with "deep" themes he exposes himself as a pseud.
thats every director ever
Spielberg more so than any other 🙂
>Spielberg more so than any other 🙂
Nolan and Fincher fit way more into the midwit category than Spielberg
>guy who made alien 3 and the social network is better than the guy who made jaws, indiana jones and ET
yes
What's wrong with The Social Network? If your answer is anything like "it's about Facebook" then you are a confirmed moron
>What's wrong with The Social Network?
it has jesse eisenberg and its a boring snoozefest, i dont need another reason
tarantino
I'm completely indifferent about Scorsese movies, so probably him
Spielberg has some Cruise Kinos and Private Ryan, but he would be the 2nd to remove
After that Nolan
Fincher only over my dead body
Nolan ofc
tarantino
fincher
scorcese
in that order
assuming nothing retroactively changes and you're just erasing the movies, ai think I'd go with Spielberg. I don't think he's the least talented or worst of them alland certainly not the one with the weakest filmography, but all the others' filmmaking speak more to me than his.
I just don't care much for Spielberg's stuff, to be honest
I'd delete all else expect Scorsese and kibrick
Nolan
Kubrick.
Fricking tryhard!
>"98 takes for one shot!"
Literally every single one of them. If all of their work magically poofed out of the world my life wouldn’t change at all and not only that but there wouldn’t be much impact on film making.
Only one?
Nolan and Fincher for sure.
Honestly just save scorcese and delete all.
Tarantino
Nolan. He’s literally famous for doing capeshit and his attempts to create sophisticated blockbusters are easily beaten by Spielberg in that department.
I just can’t think of a good film he has made.
Ridley Scott
Easily Tarantino, how is this even a question. Whatever you may think of the other ones, Tarantino's entire career has served entirely to make israelite propaganda for Weinstein
Tarantino
round 2
Orsen Welles
Alfred Hitchwiener
Paul Thomas Anderson
Akira Kurosawa
Coen Bros
Francis Coppola
which one Cinemaphile?
You couldn't have made this any easier. PTA all the way. Completely soulless filmmaker who makes films for critics and film studies students.
Nolan
Paul Thomas Anderson
Easy.
Akira Kurosawa
'Ate Westerns. Simple as.
PTA. Too easy.
Here’s a better one
>kubrick
>kurosawa
>lumet
>bergman
>lynch
>scorsese
>veerhoven
>fellini
Who are you getting rid of?
Lynch. He only has two good films.
lynch
Spielberg and PTA. This isn’t even that hard.
Paul Thomas Anderson, duh
coen bros or orson welles
at least PTA did MK and Event Horizon
>at least PTA did MK and Event Horizon
You're thinking of Paul W.S. Anderson.
Hot take
Paul WS Anderson > PTA
>Spielberg
I don't like the israelite
No-brainer. Nolan.
>if i can delete a directors filmography from existence
>logically that means every film ever made could be deleted using the same power
>I choose every film, media, song ever made to delete please
Non sequitur
Nice out of the box thinking but the OP is being very specific. OP asks you what director you want to delete and he deletes him.
You can later kill OP and steal his power to delete every piece of medis made by humankind. That sounds better huh?
Queertin Shartantino
I don't know who top left or top right are but Tarantino
>Spielberg
What the frick is Tarantino even doing on that list?
he's arguably the most talented of all of them and the only ones that are competing are Kubrik and Marty. And I'm talking talent, not filmography.
He s a soulless hack. His best movie, Pulp Fiction, was a collaboration, the editor contributing greatly, and that absence shows greatly in his subsequent works. He can put together an entertaining profitable movie, and press some of your buttons, but that's it.
According to his own agenda, he will do one more movie (of the 10 he held himself to). After that, we will see what his reputation is.
I can see where you're coming from with the soulless thing even though I disagree, but you can't deny that basically no filmmaker can match his immaculate filmography in terms of consistency. The guy has never made a movie below "very good". I understand that it's a bit silly to rank an artist's worth by consistency but it's gotta count for something. He's also been the writer of basically every movie he's made, none of those other guys can claim that either. I dunno, it's pretty hard to argue against the guy's talent.
>very good
Death proof?
Death Proof is very good though, and that's probably his weakest movie.
That's like saying TDKR and Alien 3 are very good Nolan and Fincher movies.
please elaborate
I'm death proof is on the level of those films. I mean have any of you even rewatched that movie? It has some of the worst performances I've seen from a major director.
I haven't watched A3, but Death Proof is a better movie than TDKR, free.
It's among his better movies. Superior to Inglorious, Django, From Dusk till Dawn, and a bunch of others.
>Superior to Inglorious, Django
no
>From Dusk till Dawn
not a QT movie
I agree about Django and Inglorious but Dusk wasn't by Tarantula.
M8 Django is one of Tarantino's better flicks. Foxx and Leo carried that one hard.
Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood are too far up their own ass to be good
what does that even mean?
That they're self-important and vain. Inglorious Basterds is masturbatory revenge porn (Tarantino's own words), and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is masturbatory about 60's Hollywood, plus revenge porn against the Manson Family
That goes for most of his movies. They also feel like they could all be set in the same universe.
I'd still take Tarantino over a shit ton of current directors, but he has become overrated through the years, primarily by film students.
I thought film students viewed Tarantino and Nolan as overrated these days. It's certainly the vibe I get from the "cinephile" crowd these past few years.
>That goes for most of his movies
Certainly his last four. His earlier ones have those elements, but they're much more toned down or take a backseat.
That's just a byproduct of age imo. He's doing movies mostly for himself at this point. He's also more of a fanboy than the rest of the people on the list, watching a movie or two every single day.
There are certain genres and aesthetics he likes and he does homages to them.
>There are certain genres and aesthetics he likes and he does homages to them.
Sure, which worked in Pulp Fiction when the only real world punching bag he set up to get absolutely bloodied were the gun store owners, and it's just implied. His latest movies are centered around the concept, and I don't want to watch the movie equivalent of Interactive Buddy, but a Nazi/Southerner/Manson.
>That's just a byproduct of age imo
It's a byproduct of fame
>He's doing movies mostly for himself at this point.
Wrong. He's doing it for the industry, just like Tim Burton. Both names have become synonymous with a certain type of flanderized paint-by-numbers product that could pretty much be made by AI algorythms at this point.
all his movies after jackie brown are shit
Easily Tarantino
Tarantino.
Fincher>Nolan>Tarantino>Spielberg>Scorsese>Kubrick
Wait, frick flip that around.
Nolan, though getting rid of the dark knight trilogy is hard
If not for Indiana Jones I’d boot Spielberg.
Nolan
Spielberg easily. I can see this being different for people who are older than 35 but when you get past the blockbuster nostalgia, his movies aren't very meaningful.
kubrick is for pseuds and nolan is trash but i don't wanna do my boy christian bale dirty so kubrick
Marty. He only has 2 truly good movies.
Tarantino without a doubt
Fincher is the most obvious choice I don't know why this thread keeps getting posted.
nah
Yeah. Only other acceptable choice is Nolan.
>who is Tarantino
kubrick is a hack for fake deep morons
midwits pretend to hate kubrick to seem smart.
Yeah but his first few movies are entertaining at least.
He's a one trick pony. Kill Bill and Death Proof were the peak of his output.
Scorcese, Tarantino, Nolan, and Spielberg stay, no questions asked.
Kubrick
>The Shining is kino
>e-girlta gets mogged by the remake
>2001 is boring shit only propped up by pretentious c**ts
>Clockwork Orange is good but ultimately too tame
>Strangelove is overrated
>Eyes Wide Shut is dumb
Fincher
>Fight Club kino
>Zodiac kino
>Social Network kino
>Gone Girl kino
>Dragon Tattoo kino
Nolan is too sterile, therefore him. Still, not a bad director.
Not into Mobshit. Pretty easy choice.
Nobody under the age of 50 actually gives a frick about any of these movies.
Jurassic Park isn't even 30 years old man.
besides JP.
Same could be applied to anyone on the list
I disagree. Spielberg makes blockbusters. Nothing wrong with that. But to actually experience them they need to be seen during their time in a packed theatre.
The same thing can be said about nolan but his best work is not in the 70s-80s.
Most of the other director's movies, notably Fincher and Kubrick, are better seen alone.
Spielberg's output is more well known in pop culture than perhaps anyone on the list sans Nolan
That is true but not what was being discussed.
You said nobody under the age of 50 gives a frick about those movies. That's incorrect.
That's like saying just because the Kardashians are popular, people can derive meaning from watching their shows. Spielberg's best movies are genuinely not meaningful for people who aren't 80s kids.
Wasn't A.I. named film of the century? While I disagree with that assessment, I think some of his work holds up quite well regardless of his primary audience from back in the day.
Moreover, the average normie is still more familiar with him than most of the directors in the list, aside from, again, Nolan.
No. That was Mulholland drive.
First if you think AI is film of the century, there is something wrong with you.
Second of all, when I say "care" I mean it in the most genuine sense of the word. Think about how many people went to film school because of QT for it to become a joke. Taxi driver is as old as any Spielberg movies and is as relevant as ever. Fight club will always be mandatory viewing for any guy. Do I really have to talk about Batman?
Sure most people know of Spielbergs 40 year old blockbusters but they aren't nearly as important or impactful as the above for people who aren't older Gen X or Boomers.
>First if you think AI is film of the century, there is something wrong with you.
I literally said I disagree with that assessment. But it was named one of them.
That alone should signify that your notion about no one under 50 caring about those movies is false, which is the essence of the argument.
Maybe you're right in the context of people who are specifically in film school, but even that is unclear.
Anyone who would be deciding film of the century 22 years ago would be way over the age of 50 today.
yeah but you said no one under 50 cares about those movies, which is false
they care about kardashians too
Here's my opinion on Spielberg. He's one of the most gifted directors out there in terms of Camerawork and Blocking. Freakishly adept at milking the emotion out of a scene. He makes Nolan look like an amateur. Yet, I very rarely find myself discussing his films. As I've grown older there's less of his films I rewatch. Most of his serious works seem brainless and even tactless because he's in "I must entertain" mode all the time. It results in melodrama and shlocky moments in films where it absolutely shouldn't be there (Schindler's list and SPR for example). It's also why he has completely fallen off as he got older because he tried to do more mature stuff/passion projects in order to be viewed among greats but all of it is neither entertaining nor profound.
he's just a more traditional filmmaker in that respect, but I see what you mean
The only decent post ITT.
Duel alone mogs a lot of these people's output and it's one of his earlier movies.
Cinemaphile hates 'Berg because he's the king of cliches and blockbusters, and due to him being israeli, but sucks the dick of resentful israelites like Jodorowsky.
>Duel alone mogs a lot of these people's output
Worst take in this thread so far.
Not at all
Tarantino. Pulp Fiction is his only notable work and it rides on idiotically placed, edgy memes to make itself. Le DEAD Black person STORAGE. WHAT DOES HE LOOK LIKE. I mean have any of you honestly watched Hateful 8 and said, what a great use of a film platform that is widescreen?
Burg used to respect audiences. Little stuff like Grant tying two clipless seatbelt ends together to "find a way." Or Poltergeist existing as a rebuttal to Reagans dream.
>Pulp Fiction is his only notable work
What about Kill Bill? What about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? What about Inglorious Bastards? What about Django?
>
Tarantino's monies are more memorable on their own than any other bullshit the others made, with only Spielberg coming close
>Django is better than Kubrick
Found the capeshitter
Nolan or Tarantino.
*mogs everyone on the list*
not even as a comedian
Out of all of them I feel like Nolan has steadily become a caricature and worse over time. Memonto is a fantastic movie but Interstellar and the last Batman movie were trash. I didn’t even bother seeing his latest film.
>become a caricature and worse over time
That describes Spielberg and Tarantino more. In fact, that's the most common criticism of Tarantino these days. Although, what happened to Spielberg is worse. His films became soulless.
Fincher and it's not even close. Atleast Nolan gave us Christian Bale kinos and Baneposting plus Insomnia was like the last time Al Pacino did a serious movie that wasn't just him screaming
Now that you mention it, Insomnia was also the last good Robin Williams performance as well.
Bale was the weakest part of the Batman trilogy
No Marion Cotillard or Katie Holmes were plus Bale is good in The Prestige aswell
>throw the israelite down the well
Disagree, Eyes Wide Shut was kino
>Spielberg
that was easy
All the israelites
Just based on the movies, Nolan, but I would miss the memes. Might go with Fincher for that reason, even though TSN is one of my favorites of the 2010s.
Tarantino. His films are universally trash
Presuming the removal of one set of work doesn’t also affect the works that were tangentially influenced by it, I’d honestly have to say Kubrick. I think 2001 is maybe the sickest movie ever made and very possibly the most talented on the list, but because he’s the most dated his movies are just the least relevant to me.
I like Kubrick but 2001 is the only film of his I consider a "must see", so I'll have to agree. You wouldn't lose a whole lot by skipping the rest.
Spielberg is the worst. His movies are mechanical and lack any deep, or even barely below the surface, meaning.
He's a hack through and through and a dirty israelite.
Kubrick is a high IQ patrician israelite.
Fincher, Tarantino and Nolan make good, entertaining, midwit movies.
Scorcese is a kino master.
I just hate *lol just turn your brain of* kind of movies and Spielberg not only does that but he also pushes his agendas and pretends being deeper than he really is.
ET suck, Indiana Jones sucks, Jaws sucks, AI sucks, saving goy Ryan sucks.
If you compare Kubrick to Spielberg it's like comparing an Opera to a broadway gay musical. It makes more money but it's childish and gay.
>Spielberg is the worst. His movies are mechanical and lack any deep, or even barely below the surface, meaning.
You just described Nolan
Nolan's obsession over time is more interesting than any theme Spielberg has dealt with in his films.
Spielberg made a cool dinosaur movie with a mix of ground-breaking CGI and practical effects that stil holds up three decades later. I hate to be a boomer but if you guys never saw the T-Rex roar for the first time in theaters you'll never know.
Stephen King is more "cool" and entertaining to read than Tolstoï. Doesn't mean he's better.
Amerimutts are incapable of enjoying high art, they settle for pleb entertainment.
Not American but Tolstoi sucks ass
I can tell you're smart judging by your choice of words.
Midwits need to employ sophisticated vernacular to distract people from the fact that they're not smart. I do like Dostoevsky but I still stand by what I said about Tolstoi.
To be fair, none of the directors on the list can be called high art. They're all pretty accessible. Maybe Kubrick, but that's about it.
True.
Spielberg is still lower than the rest, which is made worse by the fact he's so overrated.
That's still objectively incorrect. You just hate the kinds of stories he adapted (didn't even write) and obviously for political reasons.
As a director, he's more than competent.
Lol high art/low art false dichotomy is the last refuge of the psued. Know what you like and be able to defend it passionately but to dislike something because it has commercial/mass appeal, so long as ot doesn't infringe on the art itself, is asinine.
To add to this, you literally have a whole generation of buttblasted psuedo paleontologists pissed off at new developments in the field because of how deeply etched the appearance of dinosaurs is in their psyche from this film.
Yes, are we really gonna pretend Nolan isn't capable of "cool" or "mass entertainment". I don't think Nolan is a genius or a fan of his but is the T-Rex any more fun than say the joker?
I'm not the biggest fan of Nolan but Interstellar was his biggest pleb filter as far as Cinemaphile is concerned.
That movie turns Cinemaphile into reddit immediately.
how come?
It took a big dump on science and Cinemaphile was forced to switch their traditional position of being anti pop-science just to seethe about that one film and it's message of "love" (love here being a placeholder for "human")
He can do mass entertainment of course but IMO Batman trilogy was a rapid descent in quality after the Begins and Heath's performance as good as it was might still be the 2nd or 3rd best Joker performance (and that's only counting cinema). What's Nolan's most iconic movie moment for normies? The spinning top in Inception? It's just not on the same level for me. But Nolan and Speilberg are probably the two most alike on the list in terms of success.
Nolan makes films that have mass appeal and at the same time trick normies into thinking they're watching something deep.
In and of itself, that's a talent. But I didn't personally care for his last 2 movies at all.
I expect Oppenheimer to be better and it seems up his alley.
I will admit despite being down on his body of work I'm hoping Oppenheimer will be enjoyable.
The thing is, the modern landscape of movies is so shallow and unexciting, I look forward to Nolan movies simply because I know I'll get a competent blockbuster at the very least. Or that's the case most of the time, although I didn't care for Dunkirk or Tenet.
And yes, Oppenheimer will likely be better than whatever Morbius-esque summer blockbusters is in theaters at that point.
>might still be the 2nd or 3rd best Joker
Personal preference is fine but if we are talking concensus, Heath is still considered a tier above Pheonix and Nicholson.
Heath was better than those 2. Some people hated the performance due to it not being as close to the source material, + it being played straight which has always bothered Cinemaphile when it comes to comic book movies.
I like Heath's performance but prefer the others. But you guys are right.
Memento, Insomnia or The Prestige have more depth and soul than anything Spielberg has ever made.
>He hasn't been good in decades.
Neither has Spielberg, what's your point? He made enough good movies, more than directors than have only good movies under their belt but were less proficient like the Coen brothers or Mel Gibson.
Spielberg makes like 2 movies a year and hasn't done anything worth re watching.
The man is a more subtle (read dishonest) and less entertaining Michael Bay.
>Memento, Insomnia or The Prestige have more depth and soul
They really don't.
Scorsese sucks now. He's become senile. I don't care about Spielberg one way or the other.
>Scorcese is a kino master
Why do people keep pushing this meme? He hasn't been good in decades.
As Godard put it better than I can
>Most of the time there is no mystery at all, and no beauty—just makeup. Schindler’s List is a good example of making up reality. It’s Max Factor. It’s color stock described in black and white, because labs can’t afford to make real black and white. Spielberg thinks black and white is more serious than color. Of course you can do a movie in black and white today, but it’s difficult, and black and white is more expensive than color. So he keeps faithful to his system—it’s phony thinking. To him it’s not phony, I think he’s honest to himself, but he’s not very intelligent, so it’s a phony result. I saw a documentary, not a good one, but at least you get the real facts about Schindler. [Spielberg] used this man and this story and all the israeli tragedy as if it were a big orchestra, to make a stereophonic sound from a simple story.
>HE doesn’t give you historical fact—He’s not capable. Hollywood is not capable. In fact, I’m not capable of doing the picture I should be able to do. I’m capable of aiming for it and making part of it, two-thirds or sometimes nine-tenths. Spielberg is not capable of doing Schindler’s List the way a regular director, not a genius but a director like William Wyler—who was able, just after the war, to make The Best Years of Our Lives, which today, when you see it, you’re amazed by the fact that in Hollywood some honest people and good craftsmen were able to reach someone. Cinema as a whole has greater potential than the Wyler picture, but he was 100 percent his potential. Today, that has disappeared. If there was a race, William would do the 100 yards in twelve seconds; Spielberg would do it in two minutes.
>Have to
>Not get to
Anyway for me it's Tarantino. Frick this homosexual and his cut and pasted try hard edgy shock.
>cut and pasted try hard edgy shock
So half of Spielberg movies, the other half being proto-reddit/MCU homosexualry?
It's not edgy. It only satirizes edge and is thus dishonest. It's also quite reddit-esque, although I'd be lying if Kill Bill wasn't a good series.
>It's not theft it is merely homage
How many zoomer have seen the original Django.
>It only satirizes edge
Tarantino is 100% sincere in his edge. He thinks it's fun
There's a big difference between "fun" edge like Tarantino's gallons of blood spurting from a cut finger, and edge in the vein of the Exorcist or Hostel.
>edge in the vein of Hostel
Which Tarantino executive produced
Nolan, easy. Nothing of true historical value would be lost.
holy shit you guys are so reddit
back to your soi wars goyslop
You didn't even agree or disagree with any of the statements. What a worthless post.
My favorite director and all of his films were purged from this timeline when CERN fired up last week. I forget his name and face and all of his movies, but I had many of them on VHS and laserdisc. But even those are missing from my collection now.
Only one?
Tarantino.
The only Fincher movie I truly enjoyed was Zodiac.
Fincher. I’ll make Zodiac, Seven, and Fight Club. We don’t need him.
Scorcese, easy. The world will be a better place without that filth.
True.
I've enjoyed Nolan's movies, but he's easily the least significant of the six.
Spielberg, easily.
Redditino
Kubrick because he's israeli. Spielberg is too but I like saving private ryan
Nolan. I don't think I like 1 of his films.
I appreciated the IMAX Spitfire stuff in Dunkirk though.
Nolan. Overrated homosexual.
And Scorsese would be lucky that Nolan is on that list.
I delete everyone except Nolan and gladly so.
Spielberg has only one watchable movie which was made like 50 years ago and is by far the israelite-iest of all so him.
Tarantino no contest. Anyone saying otherwise should also be removed.
agreed
Tarantino, easily.
First one to go without any challenge needed is Tarantino
Next Spielberg, he's been washed up for 3 decades
Next Scorsese
Then Nolan
The Fincher
Kubrick stays safe
Nolan.