# Top 20 Favourite Directors



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

1. Billy Wilder
2. Howard Hawks
3. John Ford
4. Alfred Hitchcock
5. William Wyler
6. George Cukor
7. Coen Brothers
8 Vincente Minnelli
9. Preston Sturges
10. Ernst Lubitsch
11. Jean Renoir
12. Anthony Mann
13. Nicholas Ray
14. Powell & Pressburger
15. David Lean
16. Fritz Lang
17. FW Murnau
18. GW Pabst
19. John Huston
20. George Stevens


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

1. Ingmar Bergman
2. Michelangelo Antonioni
3. Luis Bunuel
4. Roman Polanski
5. Orson Welles
6. Hiroshi Teshigahara
7. Joseph Losey
8. Andrei Tarkovsky
9. Nicolas Roeg
10. Sidney Lumet
11. Jacques Rivette
12. Claude Chabrol
13. Jerzy Kawalerowicz
14. Raoul Ruiz
15. Hubert Cornfield
16. Alain Resnais
17. John Frankenheimer
18. Stephen Soderbergh
19. Robert Rossen
20. Otto Preminger
(Jules Dassin would follow next at 21st spot...)


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2012)

Polanski and Frankenheimer - yes two very good choices! I loved "The Pianist" by Polanski and "Far From the Madding Crowd" by Frankenheimer. Your list is a very interesting one, Prody!! Cheers!


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Glad you find my list interesting.

There's 4 directors on your list whose films I have a number of on home video: Anthony Mann, Nicholas Ray, Fritz Lang, & John Huston.

Your appreciation for "Far From The Madding Crowd" is noted; however this 1967 film from Great Britain was directed by another John - John Schlesinger, that is!

Hope you don't mind my friendly input (though we seemed to have scared away other board members); Frankenheimer helmed "Seconds', "The Train", "Seven Days In May", "The Manchurian Candidate", "Birdman Of Alcatraz", etc.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Was this thread titled, "Who can come up with the most obscure directors in hopes of looking cool?" What,...Stanley, Scorsese, Oliver and Spielberg ain't considered in the top 20 these days?


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

I have never liked movies by Steven Spielberg, to tell the truth. (not just these days, but for over 30 years)

Ingmar Bergman, for instance, is not obscure to anybody acquainted with non-American cinema. Bergman's reputation accumulated during the late-1950s & 1960s as a leading artist. Most of Bergman's films were on VHS tape by the late-1980s, though only about 1 Bergman film per year seems to surface on Criterion DVD or Blu-ray in recent years.

I do like films by Stanley Kubrick (I expect you meant Kubrick and not Kramer, by the way  ), but not enough to be on my personal top 20...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

kv466 said:


> Was this thread titled, "Who can come up with the most obscure directors in hopes of looking cool?" What,...Stanley, Scorsese, Oliver and Spielberg ain't considered in the top 20 these days?


Uh, what? Most of the directors in the first two lists are fairly obvious (especially those in the top 5 of each) to anyone with more than a passing interest in film. Just because they aren't mainstream western directors doesn't make them ultra obscure hipster-bait. Besides which, with only two lists posted so far I think it's a bit premature to dismiss the thread.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2012)

Thank you, Prody, for setting me straight on John Frankenheimer. Yes, of course - senior's moment!! I very much liked "Far From the Madding Crowd" and forget it was Schlesinger - who didn't seem to do much else of note. I loved Frankenheimer's "Manchurian Candidate" - a wonderful film, as was his "Birdman of Alcatraz". Infinitely different directors, to be sure!! There was an intensity in that director's work. I can't explain why we might have "scared away board members".


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2012)

Thank you, Prody, for setting me straight on John Frankenheimer. Yes, of course - senior's moment!! I very much liked "Far From the Madding Crowd" and forget it was Schlesinger - who didn't seem to do much else of note. I loved Frankenheimer's "Manchurian Candidate" - a wonderful film, as was his "Birdman of Alcatraz". Infinitely different directors, to be sure!! There was an intensity in that director's work. I can't explain why we might have "scared away board members". 

Kv466 - we didn't say "popular directors" but "Favourite Directors". There's a big difference. I agree with Prody: I, too, am not fussed about Spielberg and I actually walked out of "Schindler's List" because I found it faux and self-consciously twee. I would prefer "The Sorrow and the Pity" if I wanted a film on that subject rather than anything by SS. Scorsese? I liked "Raging Bull" and "Age of Innocence" but I find his endless fascination with gangsters - well, just the one: Robert de Niro - to be habit-forming from his pov and, therefore, a kind of tic. Sorry!


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Prodromides said:


> Ingmar Bergman, for instance, is not obscure to anybody acquainted with non-American cinema. Bergman's reputation accumulated during the late-1950s & 1960s as a leading artist. Most of Bergman's films were on VHS tape by the late-1980s, though only about 1 Bergman film per year seems to surface on Criterion DVD or Blu-ray in recent years.


Bergman's ouevre is virtually unknown to all but film/movie buffs.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I actually walked out of "Schindler's List" because I found it faux and self-consciously twee.


In what way was it either faux, or self-consciously twee? I realise you walked out and may not be able to remember exact details, but try.

I very seldom see movies these days because of severe time restraints but Schindler's List was one I have actually seen twice.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Moira said:


> Bergman's ouevre is virtually unknown to all but film/movie buffs.


Maybe to the common american movie goer.
Since he's Swedish he's more well known in Europe. The same goes for Tarkovsky or even Chabrol or Rhomer (maybe even Godard).


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2012)

Yeah, good question Moira. Did you know this film had the nickname of the Steven Spielberg Holocaust Theme Park? I felt it was "faux" because it was so mannered in its style and performance, so choreographed and calculated to arouse emotion with its 'set pieces', eg. the little girl in Red (a steal from Cecil B. DeMille). So, the film was self-conscious on that level alone. Twee: in this sense I meant that it was full of stereotypes rather than red-blooded, flawed people who seemed real. It was like, "set piece - Jew, Nazi Cruel Guy, pretty little innocent girl..." Along those lines. I felt manipulated and I had great difficulty trying to empathise because I felt removed/outside of the film. It was like a very refined, contrived documentary to me. I also felt the violence was gratuitous and because I had no 'relationship' with the individuals who were murdered they just seemed like "victims" with whom I could not identify - surely an important element in narrative film. There was more "truth" for me in Roberto Bernigni's "Life is Beautiful", despite its subtle humour. It had more pathos and reality than the Spielberg film could ever have.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I wasn't saying popular but there is always something suspicious to me when there is a list of 20 and nothing mainstream; do your top 20 composers include no sign of Debussy, Beethoven or Brahms? My dad's 75 and I have watched all of those movies more than once and sure, they're great...but to...anyway, what does Chris Nolan know? 

Oh, wow, Soderbergh's in there...sure we don't like Lewis Milestone better?


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Yeah, good question Moira. Did you know this film had the nickname of the Steven Spielberg Holocaust Theme Park? I felt it was "faux" because it was so mannered in its style and performance, so choreographed and calculated to arouse emotion with its 'set pieces', eg. the little girl in Red (a steal from Cecil B. DeMille). So, the film was self-conscious on that level alone. Twee: in this sense I meant that it was full of stereotypes rather than red-blooded, flawed people who seemed real. It was like, "set piece - Jew, Nazi Cruel Guy, pretty little innocent girl..." Along those lines. I felt manipulated and I had great difficulty trying to empathise because I felt removed/outside of the film. It was like a very refined, contrived documentary to me. I also felt the violence was gratuitous and because I had no 'relationship' with the individuals who were murdered they just seemed like "victims" with whom I could not identify - surely an important element in narrative film. There was more "truth" for me in Roberto Bernigni's "Life is Beautiful", despite its subtle humour. It had more pathos and reality than the Spielberg film could ever have.


The fact that someone uses a technique used to good effect elsewhere doesn't make it "faux" (a fairly pretentious word in itself in this context), but at worst, perhaps, not original. But then as the Bible will have it, there is nothing new under the sun.

Then there is your interesting take on a movie you did not see to the end. I did not ever feel that the violence was gratuitous, quite the opposite in fact. The violence inflicted during the Holocaust was sometimes so horrible that it defies imagination. A parent being killed in front of a child. A child being killed in front of a parent. The incredible lengths that people went to to save their lives and that of their children. The choice a parent had to make between saving the life of one child while another was to die. The sheer desperation of hunger to the point at which people literally starved to death while those who did not lost all their teeth as their bodies stole the calcium in the teeth for its other needs and their fertility as the body recognised that a woman that starved couldn't feed a baby. People were skinned and turned into lamps. That's the reality and Schindler's List didn't get anywhere near depicting that sort of thing. So slam it for underplaying the reality of the Holocaust, not overplaying it.

The fact is that most people alive today did not have any relationship with anyone who died in the Holocaust, yet the Holocaust is still the most horrific systemic act of destruction of human life in history. The fact that we (and Schindler) do not have a direct emotional relationship makes the whole concept of risk and sacrifice much more powerful. The question that one asks is "Would I do the same or would I, like nearly everyone else, turn a blind eye?" Perhaps because I 'survived' Apartheid in South Africa I am more sensitive to that question. I simply turned a blind eye for the most part. I chose not to make it my problem. Do I regret that now? Yes. Perhaps that is why I view a movie like Schindler's List in a different light. Perhaps not.

So when you pronounce the movie "faux" and "twee" you commit a double fault. One is that you make a public judgement on a movie which you did not bother to see through to the end, relying on commentary from others to assist you in making that public judgement. Secondly, you fail to think through the impact of the movie simply because it didn't involve you or your emotions up to the point at which you left. This despite the fact that the Holocaust is probably one of the most emotive of all historical topics of all time, and certainly of the twentieth century.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

kv466 said:


> My dad's 75 and I have watched all of those movies more than once and sure, they're great...but to...anyway, what does Chris Nolan know?


I don't understand this sentence. Why do you mention your dad being 75?

Nolan's one of my favourites of recent times. Memento and Inception are first class.

I've heard of just over half of those names in the first two lists. Prodromides is by far the more 'artsy' list. I like some Welles and Polanski, but Bergman has produced some unbelievably boring films.

Okay, I'll throw some names out there:

Terry Gilliam
Ridley Scott
Michael Mann
David Lynch
Terrence Malick
Quentin Tarantino
John Hughes
Paul Thomas Anderson
Wes Anderson
Oliver Stone
Sergio Leone
Paul Verhoeven
Bernardo Bertolucci
Andrew Stanton
Stanley Kubrick
Werner Herzog
David Fincher
Hayao Miyazaki
Zhang Yimou
John Woo


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

kv466 said:


> I wasn't saying popular but there is always something suspicious to me when there is a list of 20 and nothing mainstream; do your top 20 composers include no sign of Debussy, Beethoven or Brahms? My dad's 75 and I have watched all of those movies more than once and sure, they're great...but to...anyway, what does Chris Nolan know?
> 
> Oh, wow, Soderbergh's in there...sure we don't like Lewis Milestone better?


Dude,
From both of those lists you can name quite famous and even mainstream directors - Orson Welles (I'm sure you have at least heard of Citizen Kane), Roman Polanski, Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico. All quite known films.), Coen Brothers (The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men), Alfred Hitchcock I'd even add Chabrol and Tarkovsky. 
So, where's the problem?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

^^

I was referring to the first two lists and how those directors' films were primarily from the 30's to the early 80's. Sure,...those were the golden days of cinema but what was happened in the last two decades of film is extraordinary and O' Brother Where Art Thou?, while being a great film, is certainly not the best the modern screen has had to offer. I mentioned Nolan sarcastically because like you said, he is 'first class'. Then again, the thread is called 'favourite' directors so I guess it doesn't really matter if they've used technology in masterful ways or not; everything goes.



Prodromides said:


> Glad you find my list interesting.
> 
> Hope you don't mind my friendly input *(though we seemed to have scared away other board members)*; Frankenheimer helmed "Seconds', "The Train", "Seven Days In May", "The Manchurian Candidate", "Birdman Of Alcatraz", etc.


Oh, good...it wasn't us.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Chrythes said:


> Dude,
> From both of those lists you can name quite famous and even mainstream directors - Orson Welles (I'm sure you have at least heard of Citizen Kane), Roman Polanski, Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico. All quite known films.), Coen Brothers (The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men), Alfred Hitchcock I'd even add Chabrol and Tarkovsky.
> So, where's the problem?


(Seen it at least twice) and 12 Angry Men is one of my all-time favorite comfort movies...but does this mean Lumet is a genius? Nothing against him but there are so many fine directors working on films at this very moment who don't have Pacino or Fonda and create wonderfully artistic and insightful expressions of cinematic art. Hitchcock: Sure, I've heard it time and again...genius,...more than 90 shots and 70 camera angles for a single shower scene...yes, I agree, he was amazing and has more than earned his place in history as one of the tops...but no one has done anything better since?

I guess it's because when I am asked what my favorite directors are, I don't necessarily think about movies I like. Instead, I think about how innovative a director is and how well they can carry scenes and actors and take in everything that makes a movie what it is into account, even if it is a film I don't particularly like.

Oh, and, there's no problem I am aware of.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

I know you were referring to the first two lists, this is why I listed these specific directors.
Indeed, they are from an older cinematic era, but I don't see the problem in that. 
Your main problem was that these lists didn't include mainstream directors - I showed that they did. They might not be of these times, but yet again - maybe they just like older films. I know I do. I find most of the mainstream movies today boring and uninspiring. 
Yet again, I don't know most of the directors they listed there. Some of them might be even modern. 
I didn't even mention O' Brother Where Art Thou. In my opinion The Coens certainly made better films than that, e.g Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing, Fargo and The Big Lebowski. 
In the end, a fair number of those "obscure" films can be much better than the movies nowdays. And simply because they make you think, at least more than the standard blockbuster.

Edit: Oh, I thought you responded to my post in your previous comment. I was mislead by those arrows. :lol:

Still, my post remains relevant. Regarding innovations. Check out Tarkovsky's films. I haven't seen better cinematography than that. Even after 40 years. 
Godard's and all the french new wave - those hand held cameras, the shooting in the middle of the city - it was quite innovative in the old days. Those movies felt authentic. They were shot beautifully but also had a very well written script. Watching Bergman's movies sometimes feels like reading a great novel. 
I highly regard Sidney Lumet mainly because in the old days he chose excellent scripts and relevant themes (corruption, consumerism) to these times. His films might not have used innovative shooting techniques but they always had a solid story and great characters.
Maybe I find the innovations of the old era as only a tool for presenting a good story, when these days it's essentially a shallow show-off (Avatar was just horrendous).


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

kv466 said:


> I wasn't saying popular but there is always something suspicious to me when there is a list of 20 and nothing mainstream; do your top 20 composers include no sign of Debussy, Beethoven or Brahms? My dad's 75 and I have watched all of those movies more than once and sure, they're great...but to...anyway, what does Chris Nolan know?
> 
> Oh, wow, Soderbergh's in there...sure we don't like Lewis Milestone better?


I am confused by whatever you might be considering as suspicious?

Of course, there's no right or wrong here - these lists reflect personal tastes. If my tastes are _NOT_ mainstream, why should I feel obligated to cite directors whose works do not resonate with my sensibilities?
Are you implying that "Status" or "reputation" or the approval of the majority are pre-requisite parameters in chosing one's list.

If this were a thread about our favorite flavors of ice cream, must plain vanilla be on everybody's list just because it is a standard and accepted popular favorite?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Prodromides said:


> I am confused by whatever you might be considering as suspicious?
> 
> Of course, there's no right or wrong here - these lists reflect personal tastes. If my tastes are _NOT_ mainstream, why should I feel obligated to cite directors whose works do not resonate with my sensibilities?
> Are you implying that "Status" or "reputation" or the approval of the majority are pre-requisite parameters in chosing one's list.
> ...


Honestly, I chose some wrong words initially to describe what I wanted to say. I'm not talking about status or reputation because if anything then the first two lists are loaded with outstanding credentials. I'm not sure what you mean by plain vanilla; I buy a different flavor each time. You're right, there is no right or wrong. I was simply stating a fact that there are far better directors that have done everything those have with film and more. That's it. But, it was my fault for caring because this is supposed to be about _favorites_. As far as what I consider suspicious, that remains. I do find it strange that what is basically being said by those lists is that the past 30 years or so of film come down to only a handful of good flicks where I feel cinema is and has been alive and well throughout that time and has offered a much broader sweep of directorial tasks ranging from what has been done to what no one has ever even dreamed of.

So, I wasn't coming from popular or mainstream or accepted favorites. I was simply thinking 'what truly makes a great director' and not generating a list of my favorite films and then citing the directors. In the end, I am wrong as I didn't follow the rules of the OP.

For the record, I respect the works of all directors cited in the first two lists and have enjoyed several of them.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Argus said:


> I've heard of just over half of those names in the first two lists. Prodromides is by far the more 'artsy' list. I like some Welles and Polanski, but Bergman has produced some unbelievably boring films.


I also love films by Werner Herzog, Stanley Kubrick, Bernardo Bertolucci, etc. - some by David Lynch, too.

However, I don't like anything I've seen by Paul Verhoeven.

It's all matters of personal tastes.

Bergman films may be boring to you (and a majority of other viewers, no doubt), but I own almost every film Bergman ever made. To me, Bergman films are captivating because I much rather watch 4 characters in limited sets and within isolated settings, for example, wherein the manner is theatrical and dialogue and characterizations are the focus instead of a "plot" from point A to point B.

Indeed, my selections are "arty" because most films by my favorite directors are each like a painting or a musical opus which are singular works but also reflect the artists' lifelong pre-occupations with specific themes. Select any film by Luis Bunuel, and one can be assured (regardless if the picture is a comedy or serious effort) that either aristocracy, clergy, bourgeoisie, perverts etc. are under Bunuel's observation to be exposed for hypocrisy.
I cannot say the same about movies made by Spielberg, though.

[also, I do prefer monochrome chiaroscuro over color films as well]


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

kv466 said:


> I was simply thinking 'what truly makes a great director' and not generating a list of my favorite films and then citing the directors.


Ah ... there's films on my favorites list whose directors I did not include because I may not consider them as an "auteur" - that is with common thematc elements which link all the director's films into an expressive whole.

I love Hammer's TWINS OF EVIL, for example, but would not consider its director John Hough as an auteur, much as I may like his other movies.

Hope this makes sense?

All I meant by plain vanilla was basically commercially driven cinema aimed at the ages-13-to-23 demographic which emphasizes plot or movement. The long takes by those such as Akira Kurosawa or Antonioni or Tarkovsky demonstrate how a director can create composition and rely minimally on the craft of the film editor, for example...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

kv466 said:


> I wasn't saying popular but there is always something suspicious to me when there is a list of 20 and nothing mainstream; do your top 20 composers include no sign of Debussy, Beethoven or Brahms?


Hitchcock, Welles, Ford, the Coens and Polanski aren't mainstream?

And no; my top 20 composers wouldn't include Debussy, Beethoven or Brahms. To put my point another way; you don't have to like The Godfather just because everyone else does.


----------



## Mesa (Mar 2, 2012)

Francis Ford Coppola
Ethan & Joel Coen
Quentin Tarantino
John Landis
Andrew Stanton
Woody Allen
Alfred Hitchcock
George Lucas
Martin Scorsese
Gore Verbinski
Clint Eastwood
Akira Kurosawa
John Carpenter
Robert Zemeckis
Terry Gilliam
Judd Apatow
Barry Levinson
Christopher Nolan
Shane Meadows
Brian De Palma

I'm 21 now, i'm saving this list somewhere and doing it again when i'm 42.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2012)

Moira, I stand by what I said. I found the film more of a documentary than a narrative experience for the reasons I outlined. Again, I say "Life is Beautiful" did the theme of genocide far more sensitively as far as I'm concerned. In disliking the film I do not eshew the experience of the holocaust - clearly that would be ridiculous. But I disliked Spielberg's style and make no apology for that. But I'm glad you 'liked' the film and that it worked for you. Perhaps, being much older than you, I had already seen thousands of hours of documentaries on the holocaust and, because of this, felt that "Schindler's List' had little to add to that. No good trying to tell me the importance of the holocaust because I was raised on news footage repeated over and over and over from that era. I don't like Spielberg and I still think he's contrived as a film-maker and, actually, patronizing. We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Hitchcock, Welles, Ford, the Coens and Polanski aren't mainstream?
> 
> And no; my top 20 composers wouldn't include Debussy, Beethoven or Brahms. To put my point another way; you don't have to like The Godfather just because everyone else does.


If you'd bothered to read on you would know that I've corrected my use of that word. I was really talking about, 'the best', which this thread was clearly not about. Congrats to you for not liking The Godfather nor three of the best composers ever given us...it's great to be against the grain...even nicer, though, when you're not trying so hard to do so.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Prodromides said:


> I also love films by Werner Herzog, Stanley Kubrick, Bernardo Bertolucci, etc. - some by David Lynch, too.
> 
> However, I don't like anything I've seen by Paul Verhoeven.
> 
> ...


Of course, it's all personal taste. I was just saying I find Bergman films terribly boring (The Seventh Seal is okay, but I have actually abandoned watching pieces like Through a Glass Darkly and Cries and Whispers).

Paul Verhoeven made a run of four great films (Flesh + Blood, RoboCop, Total Recall and Basic Instinct) from a directorial standpoint, which, along with the cinematography, really captured the zeitgeist of late 80's/early 90's Hollywood. Plus, Total Recall is probably in my top 5 most watched films.

Did you get to see Mark Cousins' The Story of Film over there in America? It covers a lot of the directors you mentioned, iirc.

[B&W is fine still for some films, but I don't just prefer colour films, I like bright (not Technicolor) films like Manhunter and Scarface, but lots of films nowadays have filters/tints that subdue all the vibrancy; give me neons and pastels all day]



Mesa said:


> Francis Ford Coppola
> Ethan & Joel Coen
> Quentin Tarantino
> John Landis
> ...


I totally forgot about Carpenter. He made some great films in the 80's.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I don't like Spielberg and I still think he's contrived as a film-maker and, actually, patronizing. We'll have to agree to disagree.


Even the Indiana Jones films. Surely they are just classic rip-roaring adventure films.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

kv466 said:


> If you'd bothered to read on you would know that I've corrected my use of that word. I was really talking about, 'the best', which this thread was clearly not about.


Enlighten me; what are your criteria for determining which directors are "the best", and what is the resulting top 20 list?


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Apropo Total Recall, I've recently been surprised by how Face Off actually sucks. It was one of those moments when you realize that something you considered to be cool and good all your life is actually a piece of crap.
The night before I watched Die Hard and it was good. Much better than that over the top obnoxious Travolta and Cage action piece.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Enlighten me; what are your criteria for determining which directors are "the best", and what is the resulting top 20 list?


That's not what this thread is about. Don't you have 'more than a passing interest' in film, anyway? Enlighten yourself.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Chrythes said:


> Apropo Total Recall, I've recently been surprised by how Face Off actually sucks. It was one of those moments when you realize that something you considered to be cool and good all your life is actually a piece of crap.
> The night before I watched Die Hard and it was good. Much better than that over the top obnoxious Travolta and Cage action piece.


I agree Die Hard is better than Face/Off, but you've got to love the Cage/Travolta ham-off in that movie.

For balls-to-the-wall action films, you cannot beat Commando. Packed with one-liners, ludicrous shoot outs and a baddie that wouldn't look out of place in an early 80's gay club, it is essentially testosterone on celluloid.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

kv466 said:


> That's not what this thread is about. Don't you have 'more than a passing interest' in film, anyway? Enlighten yourself.


I can't tell myself what *your* criteria are, that's why I asked *you*. I'm trying to understand your point of view on the matter, something which I can't do if you keep dodging the question.

And I really wish you'd stop being so defensive, the insults and generally sarcastic attitude you're showing here aren't very pleasant.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Look, Crud, I have said what I wanted to say here. I haven't insulted anyone and if you want to talk unpleasant look at how you've addressed me from your very first post. That is the _only _reason I have been defensive. I like your posts and really don't wanna get into anything. Keep liking who you like and I will like who I like. Salud.


----------

