Ugrás a tartalomhoz Lépj a menübe

Korunk 50 legjobb rendezője (50-26.)





THE EVIDENCE: Serpico (1973), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Network (1976)

WHY HIM: At an age when most directors are either retired, dead, or fighting a losing battle with the artists they used to be, Lumet, 84, is still the quintessential actor's director (see 2007's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Need more proof? He's led 18 of his stars to Oscar nominations. — Chris Nashawaty



THE EVIDENCE: I Shot Andy Warhol (1996), American Psycho (2000), The Notorious Bettie Page (2005)

WHY HER: Her filmography may be small, but her subversive quotient is high. In exploring a would-be assassin's misguided attack on patriarchy in I Shot Andy Warhol, a soulless yuppie's murderous impulses in American Psycho, and a porn pioneer's proto-feminist sexual liberation in The Notorious Bettie Page, Mary Harron has invented a new style of political filmmaking that asks more questions than it answers. — Christian Blauvelt



THE EVIDENCE: Bowling for Columbine (2002), Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

WHY HIM: Although his methods are sometimes questionable and his mega-hit Fahrenheit 9/11 becomes less relevant with each passing year, Michael Moore has become an icon of mainstream political agitation more than any American documentarian before him. And for good reason. Bowling for Columbine remains a searing visual essay on millennial fearmongering, while 2007's Sicko is a devastating critique of U.S. healthcare. Is he patriotic? Yes. Long before ''change'' became a winning campaign slogan, Moore fought for our country to be the best it can be. — Christian Blauvelt



THE EVIDENCE: Finding Nemo (2003), WALL•E (2008)

WHY HIM: With Finding Nemo, Stanton found a way to make fish charming, even adorable, and in the process delivered Pixar's highest grossing feature film to date. But Stanton's second act was even more impressive: making a film about a robot living on a desiccated Earth 800 years in the future, with no human dialogue for almost 40 minutes, into an artistic triumph and a bona fide blockbuster. — Adam B. Vary



THE EVIDENCE: Monsoon Wedding (2001), The Namesake (2006)

WHY HER: In a year in which Slumdog Millionaire is dominating, it's hard not to recall Nair's body of work. Her love letter to India, The Namesake, has an equally resonant spirit. Not to mention she managed to steer Kal Penn away from Kumar and into a memorable dramatic performance. — Aly Semigran



THE EVIDENCE: Rushmore (1998), The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

WHY HIM: The knock on the corduroy-clad boy wonder is that his movies lack heart — that he's more interested with set-design dioramas than the interior lives of his characters. We say, Baloney! Go back and watch Bill Murray in Rushmore or Gene Hackman in Tenenbaums again. — Chris Nashawaty



THE EVIDENCE: Chungking Express (1994), In the Mood for Love (2000), 2046 (2004)

WHY HIM: Because no one but the Hong Kong auteur could would think to express heartache by showing a lovesick cop mope around his flat and tell a sopping-wet washcloth not to cry about the breakup (Chungking Express). And who but Kar-Wai could make the mere possibility of adultery as tantalizingly gorgeous as In the Mood for Love? 2046 takes that longing and makes it epic. — Missy Schwartz



THE EVIDENCE: Blue Velvet (1986), Mulholland Dr. (2001); Inland Empire (2006)

WHY HIM: Since the height of his Twin Peaks/Wild at Heart mainstream popularity in 1990, the neo noir surrealist has directed five films whose combined gross is a whopping...$22 million. And yet 1997's Lost Highway has spawned a certifiable cult; 1999's The Straight Story was just plain wonderful; and Mulholland Dr. was a flat-out masterpiece that earned him an Oscar nomination and cemented his place on the All-Time Auteur list. (It also launched the career of Naomi Watts, and thankyouverymuch for that.) Yes, nobody saw Inland Empire, his challenging and acclaimed hand-held digital epic, but its Big Picture significance is seismic: At the age of 62, Lynch has redefined himself anew as a trailblazing artist and is redefining the whole notion of ''independent filmmaking'' for a new generation of eraserheads. — Jeff Jensen



THE EVIDENCE: Do the Right Thing (1989), Malcolm X (1992), When the Levees Broke (2006)

WHY HIM: A master stylist, Lee has carved out a niche for himself in American cinema as an activist filmmaker dedicated to social commentary as mythology. His masterpiece, Do the Right Thing, with its bold colors and thumping soundtrack, proves racism to be as unendingly cyclical as the phases of the giant moon hanging in the sky when Klansmen attack Malcolm's family in Malcolm X. And he's never lost his edge. Case in point: When the Levees Broke, Lee's apocalyptic elegy to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, a documentary as epic poetry. — Christian Blauvelt



THE EVIDENCE: Dazed and Confused (1993), Before Sunrise (1995), Waking Life (2001)

WHY HIM: If anyone can make you nostalgic for high school, or have you wait nine long years to reunite with a long lost international love, it's Linklater. The worlds he creates, animated or otherwise, capture times and places that are always worth revisiting. — Aly Semigran




THE EVIDENCE: Being John Malkovich (1999), Adaptation (2002)

WHY HIM: Stratospherically high-concept movies — like the one about the puppeteer who finds a portal into John Malkovich's brain, or the one about a screenwriter whose movie adaptation of a book is about a screenwriter's movie adaptation of a book — can easily spin off into their own erratic, frivolous orbits. Jonze doesn't let them. He grounds his films in deadpan realism, shooting their wackadoo conceits as if they're everyday life — or, at least, no crazier than our own wackadoo, everyday lives. — Adam B. Vary



THE EVIDENCE: Rosemary's Baby (1968), Chinatown (1974), The Pianist (2002)

WHY HIM: Because he brings an artist's brush to tired genres and creates something totally new and unexpected: the hardboiled noir (Chinatown) and the then-dead horror genre (Rosemary's Baby). And just when his critics said his best days were behind him and that the years in exile left him with nothing to new say, he won Best Director for The Pianist. — Chris Nashawaty



THE EVIDENCE: Platoon (1986), Wall Street (1987), JFK (1991)

WHY HIM: Sure, he's had his missteps (Alexander, W.) but few other contemporary filmmakers have tapped into our latent paranoid fantasies for the sake of catharsis — and provocation — like Oliver Stone. Whether exorcising his own memories of Vietnam in the quasi-liturgical Platoon, capturing the conspiracy-theory-riddled aftermath of Kennedy's assassination in JFK, or exposing avarice run amok in the all-too-prescient Wall Street, Stone's approach to history as fever dream keeps us that the American Dream never becomes a nightmare. — Christian Blauvelt



THE EVIDENCE: Secrets & Lies (1996), Vera Drake (2004), Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)

WHY HIM: The bearded Brit has arguably the strangest working method of any filmmaker: Instead of writing an actual script, he works with his actors for weeks until a storyline and dialogue emerge. But he's responsible for some truly heart-wrenching big-screen stories, not to mention some strong female performances (Secrets' Brenda Blethyn, Vera's Imelda Staunton). — Dave Karger



THE EVIDENCE: Kiki's Delivery Service (1989), Princess Mononoke (1999), Spirited Away (2002)

WHY HIM: Most filmmakers would feel quite content to give audiences at least one thing — a story, a character, a place, an image — that we've never seen before. At his best (and he usually is), Miyazaki creates entire film experiences we've never seen before. From his films' lushly tweaked landscapes to the sublimely eccentric creatures who populate them, there's a reason the man is considered a true animation master by no less than the geniuses at Pixar. — Adam B. Vary



THE EVIDENCE: Y tu mama tambien (2001), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), Children of Men (2006)

WHY HIM: You could say it's because of his fluidity behind the camera — that stunning tracking shot in Children of Men deserves its spot in the single-take hall of fame, right next to GoodFellas and Touch of Evil — or his facility with actors. But he's here because his real gift is world building; making you believe that Men's edge-of-civilization future or Y tu mama's hothouse Mexico is a lived-in place. Plus, after two tepid Chris Columbus flicks, Cuarón found the magic in J.K. Rowling's magical universe. For that, the dude deserves a friggin' medal. — Marc Bernardin



THE EVIDENCE: Mission: Impossible III (2006)

WHY HIM: Weird to think the guy only has one film to his name as a director. Abrams' fingerprints seem to be all over pop culture these days, via TV shows like Lost and Fringe or the 2008 monster mash, Cloverfield, which he conceived and produced. In Hollywood, Abrams is viewed as the go-to dude for making geek stuff cool and compelling for both genre fans and the masses, thanks to his winning blend of visceral action, surprising plot twists, and huge doses of humor and heart. His storytelling voice is pure of-the-moment pop, but he also seems (for now) to have a sixth sense for ''what's next.'' If he manages the miracle of reviving Star Trek as blockbuster mainstream entertainment, Abrams seems destined for ''Next Spielberg'' veneration. — Jeff Jensen



THE EVIDENCE: Bound (1996), The Matrix (1999)

WHY THEM: Because with The Matrix they redefined the action film. Okay, even before they concocted the adventures of Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus in the Machineworld, Larry and Andy Wachowski combined pulp luridity and noir slickness in their lesbian heist flick, Bound. Then came bullet-time. (And, yes, 2008's Speed Racer...which isn't quite the day-glo crapfest it's made out to be.) — Marc Bernardin



THE EVIDENCE: Braveheart (1995), The Passion of the Christ (2004)

WHY HIM: After winning Best Director and Best Picture for Braveheart, the star took one of the great risks in movie history, putting up his own money to direct a disturbingly graphic — and deeply personal — vision of Jesus Christ's execution. The Passion of the Christ made over $200 million, paving the way for 2006's equally bold — though not nearly as successful — historical action epic, Apocalypto. — Adam Markovitz



THE EVIDENCE: American Beauty (1999), The Road to Perdition (2002), Revolutionary Road (2008)

WHY HIM: When your first film wins five Oscars, including one for Best Director, the only place to go is down, but Mendes has remained remarkably sharp since dissecting suburbia in American Beauty. His star-studded films — Hanks/Newman, Leo/Kate — are bittersweet symphonies, as graceful as a windswept plastic bag. — Jeff Labrecque



THE EVIDENCE: The Usual Suspects (1995), X2: X-Men United (2003)

WHY HIM: After making a name for himself by deftly navigating the plot twists of The Usual Suspects, Singer scored major box office cred with a pair of mega-hit X-Men movies. Lately, the director has devoted his sizable talent to revitalizing fallen heroes, both fictional — as in 2006's Superman Returns — or real — like Tom Cruise's German revolutionary in 2008's Valkyrie. — Adam Markovitz



THE EVIDENCE: Lost in Translation (2003), Marie Antoinette (2006)

WHY HER: There's nothing surprising about a Hollywood kid trying to follow in her famous daddy's footsteps. But 1999's The Virgin Suicides — the directorial debut of Francis Ford Coppola's daughter, Sofia — still shocked the film world for one simple reason: It was good. Coppola would go on to become the first American female Best Director nominee for Lost in Translation, further carving out her own place in the pantheon of modern directors — right alongside dear old dad. — Adam Markovitz



THE EVIDENCE: Videodrome (1983), The Fly (1986), A History of Violence (2005)

WHY HIM: Few directors get under your skin like Cronenberg. In fact, getting under the skin is pretty much what his work, a cold fusion of psychological and biological horror, is all about. Infections, perversions, exploding brains, naked fight scenes — love them or hate them, you won't easily get his movies out of your head. — Josh Rottenberg



THE EVIDENCE: The Iron Giant (1999), The Incredibles (2004), Ratatouille (2007)

WHY HIM: Even in a place as hallowed as Pixar Animation, Bird's got the Midas Touch. After doing the impossible with the old-school toon The Iron Giant — he got us to shed real tears at a movie with Vin Diesel in it — the writer-director hatched a pair of Oscar winners for the CG dream factory. And even more impressive: both The Incredibles and Ratatouille were nominated for Best Original Screenplay Oscars as well. He combines story savvy, technical know-how, and mad character skillz. — Marc Bernardin



THE EVIDENCE: Annie Hall (1977), Manhattan (1979), Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)

WHY HIM: Four decades after first shuffling into moviegoers' hearts with his iconic persona of the neurotic shlemiel, Allen still cranks out movies with a regularity you can set a watch to. Not every one measures up with his classics, but 2005's Match Point and 2008's Vicky Cristina Barcelona show he still has some tricks up his rumpled sleeve. — Josh Rottenberg




Hozzászólás megtekintése

Hozzászólások megtekintése

és ha már az ilyen

(Editor in chief, 2009.09.18 14:29)

...populárisabb filmeket készítők is nagy számban kerültek fel a listára, akkor meg azt nem értem, hogy miért nincs rajta M. Night Shyamalan:
# The Happening (2008)
# Lady in the Water (2006)
# The Village (2004)
# Signs (2002)
# Unbreakable (2000)
# The Sixth Sense (1999)
Ezekkel azért befért volna az 50-be.

az pedig, hogy

(Editor in chief, 2009.09.17 11:23)

...Coppola tényleg nincs benne az 50-ben, az szerintem is nevetséges!

én azt nézem a rendezők esetében

(Editor in chief, 2009.09.17 11:16)

...hogy mennyire fogott meg a film, mennyire van hiányérzetem a történet logikai felépítésben, a látványban, a zenében. Csak azok a filmek tudnak magával ragadni, "letaglózni", ahol szinte minden tökéletes. Egy jó rendező kis pénzből is nagyot tud alkotni, tudja, hogy mennyi az elég, nem esik túlzásokba és rettentően odafigyel a részletekre is! Ha bele tudom élni magam a történésbe, ott érzem magam a 20-as évek amerikai utcáin, a tomboló viharban hánykódó tépett vitorlájú hajón, ha át tudom élni bármelyik szereplő szenvedését, örömét, ha hiteles az egész, akkor a rendező kiválót alkotott, jól hozta össze a szereplőgárdát, és jó csapattal dolgozott, akkor az egy igazán jó rendező. Az eredeti ötlet is fontos, a látásmód, ahogy a gyakran azonos mondanivalót (bátorság, kitartás, önfeláldozás, szerelem...) új megvilágításba helyezi, új cselekményekkel árnyalja stb. Ezek a rendezők a tehetségek, a zsenik.
Az, hogy mekkora bevételt hozott a film, csak azt mutatja, hogy mennyire volt közönségsiker, a többség szerette-e van sem. Ez persze mérce, mert amit sokan nem szeretnek, az a legtöbbször olyan is... De én úgy vagyok pl. a távolkeleti filmekkel - amellett, hogy vonz valamennyire ez a kultúra -, hogy a japán, kínai, koreai filmek, még ha jók is, sokkal kevésbé jutnak el a szélesebb közönséghez, kevesebbet beszélnek róla...
A héten "vágták a fejemhez", hogy jellemzően a fantasy filmeknek adom a legjobb értékeléseket. Bár tényleg vonzanak a misztikus, elképzelt világokban játszódó filmek, mert ott aztán nem csak egy-egy szituációt kell profin kidolgozni, hanem egy egész világot kell logikusan, látványosan felépíteni és a cselekmény összerakása csak ezután következik, de azért a 8-10-es értékelések között ezek egyáltalán nincsenek túlsúlyban...
Szóval amellett, hogy az itt felsorolt rendezők közül sok munkáját nem ismerem, azért meglehetősen kritikusan állok ahhoz, hogy a lista alján szerepel: Spike Lee (42.), Wachowski testvérek (33.), Mel Gibson (32.) - akit egyébként utálok, de mint rendező ennél jobb -, Sam Mendes (31.) - ennél jóval jobb! -, Bryan Singer (30.) - jöhetne a legjobb 20-ba -, miközben nem értem, hogy kerülhet a legjobbak közé Judd Apatow (14.) - a néha elég gyenge vígjátékaival -, Sam Raimi (15.) - az igényes, de nem sok mondanivalóval töltött látványos, horroros filmjeivel -, Zack Snyder (16.) - nagy cucc, hogy megcsinálta a Watchmen-t, de kb. 4 filmet rendezett összesen...

ez a kemény dió

(CSuck, 2009.09.16 16:11)

A sorrend természetesen nekem sem így néz(ne) ki, de hozzá kell tennem, hogy ez nehéz ügy..megkockáztatom nehezebb, mint a színészekkel..
Mert mit kell figyelnünk, ha rendező-sorrendet állítunk fel?..talán a filmek bevételét, művészi pontosságát, vagy nem is tudom..Jon Favreau mostanában jó dolgokat csinál, de azért mé meg másik, hogy annak ellenére, hogy mostanában szart sem csinált, mégis F.F.Coppola csinálta meg minden idők legjobb filmjét, és ő nincs itt?...mindenesetre az első öttel kapcsolatban nem fogok pampogni, az rendben van, még akár sorrendileg is. Az pedig, hogy ki miért hiányzik..hát nézd, Gilliam oly nagyot nem mutatott manapság, Ritchie-nek meg volt két nagyon jó filmje (amik kultuszfilmek is lettek!), de aztán annyi..Maradjunk annyiban, hogy Ron Howard nyugodtan lehetne előrébb, Spielberg első helye teljesen korrekt, PJ soso, oda azért simán Scorsese illenék (már csak azért is mert 2szer annyi film és rendezői év van mögötte, na!).