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

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.

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.

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