Movie Director Bracket #5 - whose movie will you go see? (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

It has probably been done before.  I wanted to get this going during the heart of March Madness, but got busy.   We are focusing on movie directors still alive and active today. 

What I intend this to be (took the idea from a podcast) is to vote on who's new movie would you want to see today.  Obviously past movies factor into this, but it should be just as much about what they are doing now and what you think their output will be in the future.  Essentially the only information you have about the movie before watching it is "New Movie by ____________". 

I loved the individual director threads I was doing and the discussion with each, but I thought this would be a fun way to talk about a lot of directors quickly.  Vote/discuss/debate/argue away!!  Votes will be public, and I included the seeding in the poll options. 

I can only do 4 questions each thread, so the intent is to do a couple threads (one corner of the overall bracket) every day or so.  I will give it a few days for voting and then do the next round. 

Link to Bracket 1

Link to Bracket 2

Link to Bracket 3

Link to Bracket 4

 

[KarmaPolice]

I gave the first two about 2 days, and wrote down the results as they stand now.  The winners going on to the round of 32 are:

Spielberg 75-5

Tarantino 53-16

Iñárritu 37-32

Lynch 43-37

Mendes 68-12

Apatow 47-22

Van Sant 40-29

Payne 42-38

I will give the NE quarter of the bracket a little longer. 

 

[rockaction]

Sofia Coppola is like the Ivy that should have been seeded eighth but wasn't. Yow. Tough matchup there. 

eta* I mean, I'd see her movie over some of these thriller/horror guys in a second. What did she do to you?  

 

[dutch]

Another tough 5/12 matchup.  Went with Affleck as his output really strong right now and I don't think he's reached his peak as of yet.  He's got an all-timer coming down the pike, I'm sure of it. 

 

[rockaction]

Another tough 5/12 matchup.  Went with Affleck as his output really strong right now and I don't think he's reached his peak as of yet.  He's got an all-timer coming down the pike, I'm sure of it. 

I thought Gone Baby Gone was an all-timer. I can't forget that movie and how awesome Casey Affleck is in it.  

 

[dutch]

I thought Gone Baby Gone was an all-timer. I can't forget that movie and how awesome Casey Affleck is in it.  

Great movie and this gets to my point- as good as Ben Affleck has been so far I think he has something even more special in his future.  That's the why for the answer of whose movie am I more likely to want to go watch.

 

[dutch]

btw, KP, I left a question for you in bracket 4.

 

[rockaction]

Great movie and this gets to my point- as good as Ben Affleck has been so far I think he has something even more special in his future.  That's the why for the answer of whose movie am I more likely to want to go watch.

Agreed on this end. I think he'll have some others coming down the pike, too. I'll go see his movies as long as he keeps shooting in Boston or L.A. He seems to know both pretty well. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Shocked to see Woody getting shellacked.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Shocked to see Woody getting shellacked.

The voting in this section is a travesty.  Affleck over Cuaron? The 21 jump street guys over Woody?  Come on people.  

 

[dutch]

The voting in this section is a travesty.  Affleck over Cuaron? The 21 jump street guys over Woody?  Come on people.  

That's why they play the games.

 

[rockaction]

The voting in this section is a travesty.  Affleck over Cuaron? The 21 jump street guys over Woody?  Come on people.  

The latter is easy. Clone High guys over self-absorption and doubt. No-brainer.   

 

[KarmaPolice]

Sofia Coppola is like the Ivy that should have been seeded eighth but wasn't. Yow. Tough matchup there. 

eta* I mean, I'd see her movie over some of these thriller/horror guys in a second. What did she do to you?  

I admitted to it being a little random and by personal taste.  A hybrid of looking at online lists, trying to factor in awards and box office pull, etc.. Some good people aren't on here or might have an odd seeding.  But hey, it's for fun and it was my first go at it. 

I do think Lost in Translation is great, but haven't liked much else she has done. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

btw, KP, I left a question for you in bracket 4.

I saw it, and have been trying to avoid it.

A few factors came in to play, but in the end he was left off for whatever reason.  Wasn't doing foreign language directors, he did say he retired, (at least Soderberg is still working in some capacity), etc..  I am curious how he would have fared. 

 

[Binky The Doormat]

The voting in this section is a travesty.  Affleck over Cuaron? The 21 jump street guys over Woody?  Come on people.  

If Woody Allen loses it just needs to be overturned.  

Seems like people are voting based on his pedophilia.  

 

[rockaction]

If Woody Allen loses it just needs to be overturned.  

Seems like people are voting based on his pedophilia.  

No, I'm voting based on what I'd rather see, and not from 1975. Ever try to watch one of his more recent films? Atrocious, save for Match Point, which is utterly Dostoyevskian, which is boring at this point. We all get nebbish self-consciousness now; it's not new. Same problem that Lord is having these days with 22 Jump Street. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Seems like people are voting based on his pedophilia.  

...or we have actually watched his movies.

You could put up damn near anybody vs Woody and I would probably lean towards the other person.  I have loved everything Lord and Miller have done, plus they are in charge of the Han Solo movie.  Sign me up. 

 

[rockaction]

I admitted to it being a little random and by personal taste.  A hybrid of looking at online lists, trying to factor in awards and box office pull, etc.. Some good people aren't on here or might have an odd seeding.  But hey, it's for fun and it was my first go at it. 

I do think Lost in Translation is great, but haven't liked much else she has done. 

Sure. No problem.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

No, I'm voting based on what I'd rather see, and not from 1975. Ever try to watch one of his more recent films? Atrocious, save for Match Point, which is utterly Dostoyevskian, which is boring at this point. We all get nebbish self-consciousness now; it's not new. Same problem that Lord is having these days with 22 Jump Street. 

I do wonder how much people are still voting on past performance.  Do the Woody fans still love his last several movies?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Another tough 5/12 matchup.  Went with Affleck as his output really strong right now and I don't think he's reached his peak as of yet.  He's got an all-timer coming down the pike, I'm sure of it. 

Agreed I have them very close but settled on Affleck.  Part of it I think was expectations heading into the movies.  All of Affleck's movies were better than I thought they were going to be, whereas movies like Gravity and Children of Men looked amazing to me based on the marketing and ended up being just pretty good.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Shocked to see Woody getting shellacked.

Woody was a gutsy call at a 4 seed.  People either love him or hate him - not much in between.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

I do wonder how much people are still voting on past performance.  Do the Woody fans still love his last several movies?

Blue Jasmine was an academy award winner for best actress. And I enjoyed Midnight in Paris. Woody and Noah Baumbach in the earlier bracket are making movies for grown ups. I'll check those out even if they may disappoint. Woody basically makes a film every year so you are going to miss. Don't get me wrong, I loved guardians of the galaxy but I could live my whole life without seeing 22 jump street. 

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Can I vote "Neither" on Coppola / PTA. Except for Boogie Nights, I can't stand either. On the other hand, it does get rid of one. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Blue Jasmine was an academy award winner for best actress. And I enjoyed Midnight in Paris. Woody and Noah Baumbach in the earlier bracket are making movies for grown ups. I'll check those out even if they may disappoint. Woody basically makes a film every year so you are going to miss. Don't get me wrong, I loved guardians of the galaxy but I could live my whole life without seeing 22 jump street. 

Ok, but did you like watching it?  It was a fantastic performance, and I did like that it was the darker side of Woody, but that is a person I wouldn't want to be around for 1 min, let alone watch her for 90mins +.  It was tough to get through for me.  Now, by "movies for grownups", do you mean cynical and devoid of fun?

I am not saying that they are churning out Academy Award winners, but I have laughed a lot at all their movies, even the sequels.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Can I vote "Neither" on Coppola / PTA.

No, you may not.

 

[dutch]

I saw it, and have been trying to avoid it.

A few factors came in to play, but in the end he was left off for whatever reason.  Wasn't doing foreign language directors, he did say he retired, (at least Soderberg is still working in some capacity), etc..  I am curious how he would have fared. 

Yeah, with an endeavor this ambitious someone was bound to fall through the cracks.  It's all good, I still love the tournament.

 

[sbonomo]

I guess I am not the only one that does not like Woody Allen movies. 

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Ok, but did you like watching it?  It was a fantastic performance, and I did like that it was the darker side of Woody, but that is a person I wouldn't want to be around for 1 min, let alone watch her for 90mins +.  It was tough to get through for me.  Now, by "movies for grownups", do you mean cynical and devoid of fun?

I am not saying that they are churning out Academy Award winners, but I have laughed a lot at all their movies, even the sequels.

I did like it. Particularly the supporting actress. I don't need all movies to hit me the same way. I don't always need to escape. It might help in this case that I deal with a lot of weird people in New York. I also like Girls which a lot of people dismiss because they don't like the characters. If well done I'll watch a movie about any old #####. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Cuarón vs Affleck was a really hard one.  I actually thought Cuarón had more movies under his belt.  In the end I went with him in the slimmest of margins.  The tie breaker was my fear that with the Batman thingy going on, Affleck is going to move away from what he has been doing to trying to be the next Nolan, and I am not sure I am on board with that. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Is the FFC vote all on history?  Has he done anything in the last 15 years or so?

 

[Don Quixote]

Is the FFC vote all on history?  Has he done anything in the last 15 years or so?

I don't think Sam Raimi has done much worth watching either. I think the last of his that I watched was A Simple Plan.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't think Sam Raimi has done much worth watching either. I think the last of his that I watched was A Simple Plan.

He did the Spidey movies, and I had a blast with Drag Me to Hell.  Oz Great and Powerful was awful though.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

PTA sucks donkeyballs. 

And Affleck should be seeded much higher IMO. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

PTA sucks donkeyballs. 

 

[jhib]

...or we have actually watched his movies.

You could put up damn near anybody vs Woody and I would probably lean towards the other person.  I have loved everything Lord and Miller have done, plus they are in charge of the Han Solo movie.  Sign me up. 

I enjoyed watching The Lego Movie 20x more than any Woody movie I've ever scene. 

 

[Binky The Doormat]

I enjoyed watching The Lego Movie 20x more than any Woody movie I've ever scene. 

You are either 8 years old or you collect pogs.

Or both.

 

[jhib]

You are either 8 years old or you collect pogs.

Or both.

You........don't have to be.......the bad guy. 

 

[The Dreaded Marco]

Ok, but did you like watching it?  It was a fantastic performance, and I did like that it was the darker side of Woody, but that is a person I wouldn't want to be around for 1 min, let alone watch her for 90mins +.  It was tough to get through for me.  Now, by "movies for grownups", do you mean cynical and devoid of fun?

I am not saying that they are churning out Academy Award winners, but I have laughed a lot at all their movies, even the sequels.

So if a main character in a film is somehow objectionable and someone you wouldn't want to be around you cannot sit through the movie? I bet I can go back to your top movies of the decade thread from a couple months ago and find a dozen or more films that would contradict that statement.  Personally, I loved Blue Jasmine and Midnight in Paris and don't see how they could be labeled devoid of fun. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the criteria by which we're supposed to be voting here, but if Woody Allen loses to the Lego/Jump Street guys, which it appears he will, then this is a joke.  Allen's brilliant early career is exponentially better than anything Lord/Miller have done to this point and likely will ever do.  Oh well, to each his own.

 

[TripItUp]

Woody getting railroaded here, I realize he isn't exactly going after the FBG demographic, but cmon people.

 

[rockaction]

The voting in this section is a travesty.  Affleck over Cuaron? The 21 jump street guys over Woody?  Come on people.  

Affleck has a Best Picture Oscar under his belt and two widely critically acclaimed movies that I happen to like better than the guy who directed Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter and ol' Sandy in space. Gone Baby Gone is exactly up my alley as a neo-noir. So is The Town as a heist/family film. They're also both filmed in the city in which I was close to most of my life. It's a personal question that deserves a personal answer. 

I mean, I don't care about subjective hipster judgments usually (unless they involve indie pop lovers dismissing punk rock or fawning over the latest R&B crooner or singer-songwriters), but here I have to speak up: it's not like Affleck is a total lightweight. Guy has emotional and critical cachet.  

Yes, Affleck over Cuaron. I don't want to insult the other director, but I can't watch his movies. None of them interest me. Both, contra to some posts, make movies for adults unless, of course, they're making Harry Potter films, which clearly aren't. There isn't an Affleck film where a major player hasn't been (rightfully) nominated for an Academy Award. 

I mean, if we take your argument about Blue Jasmine, and if we're going on Best Supporting Actress or Academy Awards and you've agreed implicitly that we can cite authority as legitimate debate, Affleck has nominations and wins to speak of.  Every movie has a major academy nomination and some players win film festival awards in various categories (I'm thinking of Amy Ryan, Casey Affleck, Jeremy Renner, and a whole host of them in Argo). He won the Golden Globe for Argo as Best Director. No joke. I mean, a quick scan of these Wiki pages should let one know that he's a serious filmmaker, and a really, really good one.  That, and he's an Oscar winner for Best Screenplay and what should have been Best Picture with Good Will Hunting. I can't claim to have kept up with film and where it has gone, but both my visceral sense and the weight of authoritative consensus at least provide evidence to the contrary that it's not that cut-and-dried.

Anyway, don't want to be hostile -- I just have a strong opinion about your strong opinion.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Baby_Gone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Town_(2010_film)

 

[rockaction]

Woody getting railroaded here, I realize he isn't exactly going after the FBG demographic, but cmon people.

Nobody is getting railroaded. People don't want to see his movies anymore. His nihilistic, self-consumed, self-doubt seems dated to people. It happens to the best of us. Nobody wants to see my cranky wanky anymore now that I'm forty plus. This shouldn't be hard to understand. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

So if a main character in a film is somehow objectionable and someone you wouldn't want to be around you cannot sit through the movie? I bet I can go back to your top movies of the decade thread from a couple months ago and find a dozen or more films that would contradict that statement.  Personally, I loved Blue Jasmine and Midnight in Paris and don't see how they could be labeled devoid of fun. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the criteria by which we're supposed to be voting here, but if Woody Allen loses to the Lego/Jump Street guys, which it appears he will, then this is a joke.  Allen's brilliant early career is exponentially better than anything Lord/Miller have done to this point and likely will ever do.  Oh well, to each his own.

As usual, I am not getting my thoughts across correctly. 

I actually liked Blue Jasmine more than most of Woody's movies.  You are 100% correct, as I seem to mostly gravitate towards darker movies with questionable characters - There Will Be Blood for example.  If it makes sense, I think she was horrible in an uninteresting way to me, where other movie's bad characters interest me more.  Also, Allen's movies don't seem to pull me in visually or with their soundtracks like other director's movies do, so that adds another layer on where his movies might not jive with me.  Basically, I just had to sit with that character and stew in her awfulness, and while I love the performance and appreciated the darker side of Woody, I still didn't love or enjoy watching the movie that much.  The devoid of fun comment was just a stupid comment.  I don't get the "movies for grownups" remark, as it seems 75%+ of these directors are doing that as well. 

As far as criteria, I tried to relay my intentions in the OP.  I wanted this to be us considering these directors past, present, and future.  GOT lists bore me, as they don't seem to deviate that much from list to list.  Sure, there will be a little shuffling, but you are generally going to get the same 20 people over and over.  Here I was curious if we would get people passing on an aging director that people might feel we have already seen the best of over somebody who great movies are still to come.  Or in battles of more "artsy" directors we would get people going with the director who might be a tad more fun. 

I started off by using a theater for example - a new movie by each of these directors is playing, but you can only watch one of them - which do you go in to?  As others started discussing, I didn't want this do just be about theater experience and that we just tend to watch action movies in the theater now, I wanted this to be about the directors.  So how about this: we assume that all of us have the same TV size, set up, etc...  For each of these match ups pretend that you are getting 2 blurays sent to you in the mail.  One is labeled "New movie by Woody Allen" the other is labeled "New movie by Lord/Miller".  That is all the info you will get, no synopsis, no trailer, no imdb page.  You pick one, and the other explodes MI style.  So which movie do you pick based just on the director and where they are now?   

Woody's movies are love/hate as it is, and then you factor in that some may feel that his good work is far in the past.  That is how you get a vote like what is going on here. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Affleck has a Best Picture Oscar under his belt and two widely critically acclaimed movies that I happen to like better than the guy who directed Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter and ol' Sandy in space. Gone Baby Gone is exactly up my alley as a neo-noir. So is The Town as a heist/family film. They're also both filmed in the city in which I was close to most of my life. It's a personal question that deserves a personal answer. 

I mean, I don't care about subjective hipster judgments usually (unless they involve indie pop lovers dismissing punk rock or fawning over the latest R&B crooner or singer-songwriters), but here I have to speak up: it's not like Affleck is a total lightweight. Guy has emotional and critical cachet.  

Yes, Affleck over Cuaron. I don't want to insult the other director, but I can't watch his movies. None of them interest me. Both, contra to some posts, make movies for adults unless, of course, they're making Harry Potter films, which clearly aren't. There isn't an Affleck film where a major player hasn't been (rightfully) nominated for an Academy Award. 

I mean, if we take your argument about Blue Jasmine, and if we're going on Best Supporting Actress or Academy Awards and you've agreed implicitly that we can cite authority as legitimate debate, Affleck has nominations and wins to speak of.  Every movie has a major academy nomination and some players win film festival awards in various categories (I'm thinking of Amy Ryan, Casey Affleck, Jeremy Renner, and a hole host of them in Argo). He won the Golden Globe for Argo as Best Director. No joke. I mean, a quick scan of these Wiki pages should let one know that he's a serious filmmaker, and a really, really good one.  That, and he's an Oscar winner for Best Screenplay and what should have been Best Picture with Good Will Hunting. I can't claim to have kept up with film and where it has gone, but both my visceral sense and the weight of authoritative consensus at least provide evidence to the contrary that it's not that cut-and-dried.

Anyway, don't want to be hostile -- I just have a strong opinion about your strong opinion.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Baby_Gone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Town_(2010_film)

Good points, and I agree 100%. As the voting is showing, this might be the toughest matchup we've had yet.  Both have made only a few movies.  I would say that Cuarón is technically better than Affleck, but would also assume that his movies are more hit and miss with a majority of people.  Gravity was visually impressive, but a complete bore.  Another is a kids movie, albeit the best of the Potter movies.  Like I said, Alfonso got my vote by the slimmest of margins, mostly because I am nervous that Affleck will be going into a superhero rut.  I hope I am wrong about that.  I also think that Cuarón has the talent to have a masterpiece in him, so that tips the scale slightly.  I think Affleck will have a filmography of very good to great movies, but I am not so sure he has a best of decade/masterpiece movie in him.  Anyway, I have no problem with the Affleck votes here, and there is a part of me that thinks I should have voted that way. 

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Affleck has a Best Picture Oscar under his belt and two widely critically acclaimed movies that I happen to like better than the guy who directed Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter and ol' Sandy in space. Gone Baby Gone is exactly up my alley as a neo-noir. So is The Town as a heist/family film. They're also both filmed in the city in which I was close to most of my life. It's a personal question that deserves a personal answer. 

I mean, I don't care about subjective hipster judgments usually (unless they involve indie pop lovers dismissing punk rock or fawning over the latest R&B crooner or singer-songwriters), but here I have to speak up: it's not like Affleck is a total lightweight. Guy has emotional and critical cachet.  

Yes, Affleck over Cuaron. I don't want to insult the other director, but I can't watch his movies. None of them interest me. Both, contra to some posts, make movies for adults unless, of course, they're making Harry Potter films, which clearly aren't. There isn't an Affleck film where a major player hasn't been (rightfully) nominated for an Academy Award. 

I mean, if we take your argument about Blue Jasmine, and if we're going on Best Supporting Actress or Academy Awards and you've agreed implicitly that we can cite authority as legitimate debate, Affleck has nominations and wins to speak of.  Every movie has a major academy nomination and some players win film festival awards in various categories (I'm thinking of Amy Ryan, Casey Affleck, Jeremy Renner, and a whole host of them in Argo). He won the Golden Globe for Argo as Best Director. No joke. I mean, a quick scan of these Wiki pages should let one know that he's a serious filmmaker, and a really, really good one.  That, and he's an Oscar winner for Best Screenplay and what should have been Best Picture with Good Will Hunting. I can't claim to have kept up with film and where it has gone, but both my visceral sense and the weight of authoritative consensus at least provide evidence to the contrary that it's not that cut-and-dried.

Anyway, don't want to be hostile -- I just have a strong opinion about your strong opinion.  

Valid points all but so, so wrong.    I wasn't making the academy award point for Blue Jasmine as an argument that Woody should win a head to head matchup, just that he had not lost relevance as was suggested.  

As for Affleck v. Cuaron argument you left out the best film Children of Men.  With an Affleck movie, you are likely going to get a well paced and told story with accurate if over emphasized Boston accents that hits all the right story beats and wraps up clean.  I like his films just fine with Argo being by far his best.  But I don't know that he has a particular style or brings anything of substance to a film beyond being a solid manager of talent and crew and story. Gone Girl and The Town would have been pretty much the same in the hands of many other directors.  Cuaron is going to take risks, he has a style that will not be confused with any other director.  I agree that Gravity was a bore, in my opinion it was miscast and too safe because of that cast and the budget.  But damn if I and most everyone else wasn't amped up to see it.  So given the criteria set out by KP, if I'm standing at the theater and can pick only one, I'll see Cuaron's film.  I'll catch the Affleck thing on HBO.  

As far as docking Cuaron for Harry Potter, I think that film almost has to be thrown out.  The directors of that franchise were all saddled with stylistic and casting choices set in stone by the director of Mrs. Doubtfire.  Hardly seems fair.  

 

[Nick Vermeil]

As usual, I am not getting my thoughts across correctly. 

I actually liked Blue Jasmine more than most of Woody's movies.  You are 100% correct, as I seem to mostly gravitate towards darker movies with questionable characters - There Will Be Blood for example.  If it makes sense, I think she was horrible in an uninteresting way to me, where other movie's bad characters interest me more.  Also, Allen's movies don't seem to pull me in visually or with their soundtracks like other director's movies do, so that adds another layer on where his movies might not jive with me.  Basically, I just had to sit with that character and stew in her awfulness, and while I love the performance and appreciated the darker side of Woody, I still didn't love or enjoy watching the movie that much.  The devoid of fun comment was just a stupid comment.  I don't get the "movies for grownups" remark, as it seems 75%+ of these directors are doing that as well. 

As far as criteria, I tried to relay my intentions in the OP.  I wanted this to be us considering these directors past, present, and future.  GOT lists bore me, as they don't seem to deviate that much from list to list.  Sure, there will be a little shuffling, but you are generally going to get the same 20 people over and over.  Here I was curious if we would get people passing on an aging director that people might feel we have already seen the best of over somebody who great movies are still to come.  Or in battles of more "artsy" directors we would get people going with the director who might be a tad more fun. 

I started off by using a theater for example - a new movie by each of these directors is playing, but you can only watch one of them - which do you go in to?  As others started discussing, I didn't want this do just be about theater experience and that we just tend to watch action movies in the theater now, I wanted this to be about the directors.  So how about this: we assume that all of us have the same TV size, set up, etc...  For each of these match ups pretend that you are getting 2 blurays sent to you in the mail.  One is labeled "New movie by Woody Allen" the other is labeled "New movie by Lord/Miller".  That is all the info you will get, no synopsis, no trailer, no imdb page.  You pick one, and the other explodes MI style.  So which movie do you pick based just on the director and where they are now?   

Woody's movies are love/hate as it is, and then you factor in that some may feel that his good work is far in the past.  That is how you get a vote like what is going on here. 

You don't get that comment in an argument of Woody Allen vs. the Lego movie and 21 Jump Street guys?

 

[rockaction]

Valid points all but so, so wrong.    I wasn't making the academy award point for Blue Jasmine as an argument that Woody should win a head to head matchup, just that he had not lost relevance as was suggested.  

As for Affleck v. Cuaron argument you left out the best film Children of Men.  With an Affleck movie, you are likely going to get a well paced and told story with accurate if over emphasized Boston accents that hits all the right story beats and wraps up clean.  I like his films just fine with Argo being by far his best.  But I don't know that he has a particular style or brings anything of substance to a film beyond being a solid manager of talent and crew and story. Gone Girl and The Town would have been pretty much the same in the hands of many other directors.  Cuaron is going to take risks, he has a style that will not be confused with any other director.  I agree that Gravity was a bore, in my opinion it was miscast and too safe because of that cast and the budget.  But damn if I and most everyone else wasn't amped up to see it.  So given the criteria set out by KP, if I'm standing at the theater and can pick only one, I'll see Cuaron's film.  I'll catch the Affleck thing on HBO.  

As far as docking Cuaron for Harry Potter, I think that film almost has to be thrown out.  The directors of that franchise were all saddled with stylistic and casting choices set in stone by the director of Mrs. Doubtfire.  Hardly seems fair.  

 Fair enough. I have not seen Children of Men. I'll have to pay more attention to all of these men and women in the future. I always wondered -- as you lightly tread upon and point out -- whether Affleck is so good because of his source material and connections, or as an actual director. 

That's where I'm out of my league. I love certain films from certain eras and certain movements; but I am not a film buff nor a critic. I just know I'm going to see the Affleck movie. To the untrained eye, it's going to be well-acted and the story well-told, as you point out.  

eta* You have to love the overemphasized Boston accents. It's what Affleck and Damon do.  Or, well, you don't. Those annoy me a little bit, too.  

 

[spOOfy]

the 5/12 matchup by far the toughest.  all movies i would watch.

 

[oso diablo]

i'd rather watch a movie directed by anyone who has posted in this thread than one by Woody Allen.

 

[KarmaPolice]

You don't get that comment in an argument of Woody Allen vs. the Lego movie and 21 Jump Street guys?

Yesish. 

Sorry, I thought you were talking in general about Woody in the overall scheme of things, but you were just referring to this head to head match.  Sure they did some kids movies, but I still think a bit of the humor was aimed at our crowd, which is what made the movies great for everybody.  Pretty sure I had The Lego Movie in my top 10 of the decade so far - I loved it.   I would rather have that then the rehash of the same neurotic characters that Woody rolls out in 80% of the movies he seems to do. I've seen it enough and don't seem to enjoy it most of the time.  It doesn't look like I am alone in that thinking. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

still a tie with the 5-12 match.  Not sure what to do here.