Most Consistent Director?
 

Ok, who would you say is the most consistent director regarding the quality of their work in their entire filmography?

My choice would be Stanley Kubrick. IMO, he never made a movie that was less than great.

Perhaps that is why he never let Fear and Desire be seen beyond its initial run (if it had a run)...

But I agree, even Killer's Kiss is tautly constructed and smoothly executed.

I would add Luis Bunuel with the qualification that I haven't seen a number of films in the middle of his career. But from Un Chien Andalou to That Obscure Object of Desire, you see a director who controlled his craft masterfully. On the surface the content varies, but his humanity and sincerity (even when he is being incendiary) is evident, in every work I've seen.

Particular examples are 2 lesser known works that retain that vitality (Mexican Bus Ride and The Brute).

Kurosawa maybe.

I think it's going to be very hard to narrow down one director. I could say Spielberg because his movies have grossed the most money and for the most part they are all entertaining. They might not all be Oscar worthy movies, but the vast majority of his movies are at the very least entertaining. Of course there are plenty of people out there that absolutely hate him. Same goes for any director though.

Maybe the term "consistent high quality" should be used to quantify this thread. Because there are a number of directors who are/were consistent in the quality of their movies, that is in always making "bad quality" movies (Ed Wood. for example).

I'd say Ridley Scott is consistent with his big budget films. Even when they're crap like Hannibal, at least the look and style of that movie was incredible.

How about most consistently bad? No one in their right mind will ever accuse Uwe Boll of even being a director.

Quentin Tarantino - Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill - hard to argue with that.

Also James Cameron and Wes Anderson, both in quality and style.

1) Hitchcock
2) Spielberg
3) Ridley Scott

Alan Smithee:D

Actually, Tarantino and Cameron....Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Peter Jackson.

This is an incredible run:

Aliens of the Deep (2005)
Ghosts of the Abyss (2003)
Titanic (1997)
T2 3-D (1996)
True Lies (1994)
Terminator 2 (1991)
The Abyss (1989)
Aliens (1986)
The Terminator (1984)

Brett Ratner's films are consistantly mediocre.

P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, Kevin Smith, and Quentin Tarantino have not yet made a bad film in my eyes.

James Cameron, Stanley Kubrick, and Steven Spielberg have made some great flicks, but each one of them has made something of less-than-stellar quality more than once.

Kubrick is who I immedialy thought of when I first saw the tread title. Kurosawa or maybe Lynch would be up there.

I'd have to say that Sam Raimi hasn't made a bad film yet. Everything I can think of that he has made has either been a critics favourite, fanboys favourite, or a blockbuster.

Just to remind you:

Sam Raimi - Director

Spider-Man 3 (2007) (filming)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Spider-Man (2002)
The Gift (2000)
For Love of the Game (1999)
A Simple Plan (1998)
The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Army of Darkness (1993)
Darkman (1990)
Evil Dead II (1987)
The Evil Dead (1981)

ps: I made a couple of ommisions from the list.

I'm going with my favorite, Spielberg. His resume is unmatched, imo. A good mix of drama/epic and event-type pictures:

Munich - 2005
War of the Worlds - 2004
The Terminal - 2004
Catch Me If You Can - 2002
Minority Report - 2002
A.I. - 2002
Saving Private Ryan - 1998*
The Lost World - 1997
Schindler's List - 1993*
Jurassic Park - 1993
Empire of the Sun, The Color Purple, Indiana Jones Trilogy, E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws, Duel

Upcoming/Rumored: Indiana Jones 4, Abe Lincoln project

1993 looks more impressive, as he released 2 high-profile films that had such huge impacts in the movie industry. Schindler's List won him the Oscar and Jurassic Park kickstarted a new era of FX.

If Steven Soderburgh or Wes Anderson directed it, chances are I'll like it.

how true

The Coen brothers would be my pick.
Their last two have only been OK, but their track record before that makes up for it. :D

Oooh! He wants to fight you now buddy!

This may be a controversial choice, but I think everything Terry Gilliam has done has been consistently great. "Brazil" is my favorite film of all time and I like "The Brothers Grimm" a lot too. Terry just has a style all his own and brings his texture to all his projects.

I also agree about Wes Anderson, he has yet to misfire for me.

That's easy. Kubrick.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
The Shining (1980)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Lolita (1962)
Spartacus (1960)
Paths of Glory (1957)
The Killing (1956)

My 3 favorite consistent directors are:

1) Christopher Nolan (Following, Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins)
2) Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dorgs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill series)
3) P.T. Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love)

Now, my top favorite consistent director who might not be SEEN as consistent by all (due to critical concensus) is Cameron Crowe. All of his films have entertained, engaged, and impressed me. Granted , everyone knows the positive qualities behind Almost Famous and Jerry Maguire. However, I have thoroughly enjoyed even his lesser-liked films, such as Vanilla Sky and Elizabethtown, one of the most underrated films from last year, imho. :up:

Raimi is my favorite director but consistency is absolutely not his strong point. You say "Everything I can think of that he has made has either been a critics favourite, fanboys favourite, or a blockbuster." yet "For Love of the Game" and "Crimewave" both flopped ("Crimewave" was only released on a handful of screens theatrically) and were hated by critics and fans alike.

I take it you haven't even seen "Crimewave" since it's not included in your Raimi filmography. If you haven't seen it, you'll undoubtedly think "why hasn't someone like Anchor Bay released this to cash in on the popularity of Sam Raimi, the Coen brothers (who co-wrote it) and Bruce Campbell?" but when you finally do see it, it all becomes crystal clear: words cannot describe how bad it is.

Even among his good films there's a wide range of quality, from the excellent ("Evil Dead 2", "A Simple Plan", "Spider-Man 2") to the average ("The Quick and the Dead").

Speaking of the Coen brothers, I think there's a wide range of quality among their films, too, but even the worst ones are still good, that of course is not counting the awful "Crimewave", which is no more a Coen brothers movie than "The Hudsucker Proxy" is a Sam Raimi movie.

Speaking of "Crimewave", it's never been released on DVD in R1 but there's a R0 DVD from Panorama floating around. The picture quality is horrible but it's uncut and includes an extended scene not available on the original VHS release.

David Lynch. Every one of his films is in my top thirty.

I'm not a person that hates Alien³ so I'd have to say David Fincher. Even if that's his weakest film, it was his first. Quentin Tarantino, to date, has not made a bad film.

I can't say that Spielberg is consistent. I don't like The Lost World, Amistad, A.I., or Hook. I haven't seen a bad Martin Scorcese movie, but I haven't heard great things about some of his films.

As far as Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and other big-name directors, I haven't seen enough movies.

If Wes Anderson does a good job with Mr. Fox then he'll have five great films under his belt.

Hitchcock? Kubrick isn't a terrible choice, but I don't get that excited about his films. I don't get Lynch because I'm a dumbass.

Spielberg is a pretty solid choice among current directors.

Finch is certainly on the right track for future consideration. So is Tarantino.

Fincher
Scott Brothers (Tony/Ridley)
Bryan Singer

Most Inconsistent Director: Wes Craven

Billy Wilder was pretty good. I've liked just about everything I've seen from him. Frank Capra too.

I don't know. While "Crimewave" is not up to the standards of his later work, there is enough visual inventiveness and slapstick that works at play to make it an interesting watch. For instance, I am constantly amused by the door chase.

By no means great, but not a complete turkey either. Just one of those films that could have only come out of the 80's.

I just watched "Crimewave" again less than a week ago (I'm on a big Raimi kick for some random reason, I broke out my trusty R0 release) and I agree that there are great moments in it, and I enjoy Brion James's performance more and more each time I see it, but I still think the overall tone of the movie defines "complete turkey" in spite of a few sporadic inspired moments.

Deciding between "For Love of the Game" and "Crimewave" for the "worst Raimi film" title is a real close call, though. Raimi's direction on "FLotG" is competent and the baseball scenes are particularly exciting but the script is just sooooo bad and the movie runs around 30-40 minutes longer than it should (which you can blame on Costner rather than Raimi). I think the moment where Kelly Preston does her "is this not America?" speech in the hospital is easily the cheesiest moment in any Raimi film, and this is coming from a director known for cheesy moments. The problem is that the normal "Raimi cheese" is fun and goofy whereas the aforementioned "FLotG" moment is just poorly-written and acted and totally embarrassing.

Anyways, my point is that I think "FLotG" and "Crimewave" have their redeeming qualities but you have to dig through an overwhelming amount of flaws to find them.

Ditto Wilder

DOUBLE INDEMNITY
LOST WEEKEND
SOME LIKE IT HOT
SUNSET BOULEVARD
BIG CARNIVAL
THE APARTMENT
ONE, TWO, THREE
THE FORTUNE COOKIE
KISS ME STUPID
LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON
STALAG 17
FIVE GRAVES TO CAIRO
That I can think of off the top of my head
Just about everybody missed the mark at least once but others that batted nearly 1000:
John Ford
David Lean
William Wyler
George Stevens

Witness for the Prosecution and the Secret Life of Sherlock Holmes are pretty good too. Oh, and Sabrina.

Even though he only has four films under his belt, I'd still say he's one of the most consistent directors, if not of all time (since he has so few works to his credit right now), then at least of the current day. I said it right after watching Following and Memento, one day we'll all look back over film history and Christopher Nolan will be viewed a legend, one of the greatest and most consistent directors of all time.

What do you guys think of this list of the top ranking directors over at RottenTomatoes?

Howard Hawks

Michael Haneke. So far, I haven't liked only Code Unknown.

I liked "Memento" and "Batman Begins" but I thought "Insomnia" was a snoozefest. I haven't seen "Following" though.

I'm shocked that Sergio Leone hasn't been mentioned yet?

-Once Upon a Time in America
-A Fistful of Dynamite
-Once Upon a Time in the West
-The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
-For a Few Dollars More
-A Fistful of Dollars

David Cronenberg is pretty consistent:

A History of Violence (2005)
Spider (2002)
eXistenZ (1999)
Crash (1996/I)
M. Butterfly (1993)
Naked Lunch (1991)
Dead Ringers (1988)
The Fly (1986)
The Dead Zone (1983)
Videodrome (1983)
Scanners (1981)


Michael Mann is also good:

Miami Vice (2006) (looks like it could be good)
Collateral (2004)
Ali (2001)
The Insider (1999)
Heat (1995)
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
Manhunter (1986)
... aka Red Dragon: The Curse of Hannibal Lecter (USA: TV title)

Ozu.

I would say Kubrick, hands down.

I wish I could say P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, or one of the many other great choices mentioned here but I'd like to point out that directors like PT, Wes and Q have only made about 4 or 5 movies apiece while guys like Kubrick, Spielberg, and Kurosawa have had much longer careers and have each been consistent in quality throughout.

Luc Besson

Dont feel like posting all his films but "the professional" and "District B13" are a couple.

Charles Laughton

For a real answer, I'd have to say that Orson Welles maintained a very high level of quality in his films, and especially maintained a consistent distinctive look and sound to his work despite working with numerous cinematographers and often with limited resources. F for Fake is intentionally different from his other films but still quite good IMHO.