Couldn't find the wording to best describe the thread title, so here is the gist: there are many movies that work well on their own where no prior knowledge or viewing of a director's previous work is necessary. However, often a film can bump up a star (at least by my standards) in quality if one is more familiar with the work of the director and how it fits into their style.

Examples for me:

-The Constant Gardener - worked okay as its own movie, but having seen City of God I appreciated its style more than I would have had I not.

-Drag Me to Hell- about a three star movie as far as general horror would go IMO. However, as a Sam Raimi horror movie this is four stars all the way IMO. Everything one could want in one of his horror flicks. I've heard Oz is this way as well.

-Any David Lynch movie

Neat idea for a thread.

Several Francis Coppola films. I'd say Rumble Fish, Tucker, and Bram Stoker's Dracula can be more appreciated when viewed for the "Coppola-ness" of their visual aesthetics.

I usually have the opposite reaction. Movies like The Departed seem vastly disappointing when you know what Scorsese is actually capable of.

However for the thread topic I'd have to pick Takashi Miike, he always makes the most generic yakuza stories seem unique and interesting.

This is weird to articulate but here goes...

Anytime I watch a movie, I watch it based on the film itself first. It doesn't matter whose film it is I just try to enjoy it as a work of art.

The only director that is the exception to this rule is David Cronenberg. Every time I watch one of his flicks I set my mind to the fact that I'm about to watch a Cronenberg film. I'm not exactly sure what this does to my experience.

I don't know if that made any sense.

Sometimes I look at a movie by a director that seems a bit off at first, but if they have a pretty big filmography I try to see what into what mold that movie may fit. For instance, I would say Scorsese's Shutter Island fits into the Cape Fear mold. Goodfellas and Casino are another, and The Departed is kind of off in that regard aside from stylistic trademarks.

Terrence Malick. Esp The New World and The Tree of Life.

True especially since those are my least favorite of his films.

Ed Wood:
BRIDE OF THE MONSTER
PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE
GLEN OR GLENDA?
NIGHT OF THE GHOULS

Those are both his best and worst films, respectively.

Blade II - I hadn't seen it in years, then in the meantime I discovered Guillermo Del Toro's work. I went back to it and this fun genre entry found a lot more depth with me.

Snake Eyes - I dismissed it as a weak mystery in the theaters. Then last year I saw it again after getting into Brian De Palma's work. Don't get me wrong, this is still a terrible movie. But considering De Palma's more technical works, I think this was such a near miss to being one of his better movies if you just shifted a few things around (like, don't reveal the murderer to the audience 40 minutes in and still have the protagonist piecing clues together after that). It was almost a multiple-angle Rear Window.

I know this isn't what's being asked, but I appreciated Snow White and the Huntsman more when I realized Miyazaki's influence, like it's how a live action Miyazaki movie might look.

Disagree with this entirely I saw Constant Gardner back when it came out, but hadn't seen City of God until late last year. I enjoy both movies, but I loved GARDNER (much moreso than City of God) on its own without any preconceived "director" notions going in.

To each their own. Just my way of looking at it.


I feel that Black Dahlia also works better , at least visually, when viewed as a DePalma movie. Definitely has his prints all over it. Unfortunately, that includes a weak story. Wish they had stayed closer to the book in the second half.

Now you make me want to see SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN.

You don't. Visually it had some fine moments, but... full scrotilia.