Comments by "TheNabOwnzz" (@TheNabOwnzz) on "Top 10 Movie Directors of All Time" video.

  1.  @kirind.dragon1901  no. He is #1.
    27
  2.  @kirind.dragon1901  No, he is far better than Hitchcock. And don't make me laugh, Polanski, Ray & Lynch don't even come close to him.
    16
  3. No.
    6
  4. Obviously.
    4
  5.  @cs-ke1by  Why wouldn't he compare? And please, Allen is a crappy whiny brat and so are his movies. Not even fit to lick Leone's boots.
    4
  6.  @cs-ke1by  ... That he is indeed far superior. Versatility and diversity are irrelevant. It matters only how good something you create is. That they are all the same genre is irrelevant to the greatness of a director.
    4
  7.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  What "defeat" was that exactly? The one where you disengaged the actual debate and started resorting to the petty ad hominems of "WHERREE URRR MOVIEE BRUU" because you didn't know what else to say? Just to let you know... having made a movie doesn't make your criticism any more valid.
    3
  8.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  Just as i thought... your blatant insecurity is palpable. You are utterly scared of the thought of arguing against me again. Sit down, boyo, and know that you do not hold a candle against me, like that pathetic 10 minute candle scene in Nostalghia.
    3
  9. No.
    2
  10.  @TheLJShow-ys8wr  Said no one ever.
    2
  11. Moron.
    2
  12. No.
    2
  13. Who?
    2
  14.  T M  Nobody knows this guy
    2
  15.  T M  Who are they?
    2
  16.  T M  Never. What are they? B movie directors or something?
    2
  17.  T M  Nope, never heard of those. Afraid i don't quite know what you're talking about. In any case, nobody knows them.
    2
  18.  T M  correct.
    2
  19. Yes.
    2
  20. Yeah... let's but 14 italians in a universal top 10. Makes sense. Of those, only Leone is worthy.
    2
  21.  @awhyte55  Godard thrives under the notion that his films are an 'innovative revolution', which is of course nonsense. Horribly inept screenplays, wooden acting, idiotic jump cut editing, no coherence whatsoever, failure of anything remotely looking like a narrative etc. He's terrible. Especially Breathless. And yeah, my top 5 is Spielberg, Kubrick, Scorsese, Kurosawa & Leone, in order from 5 to 1.
    2
  22. Absolutely not.
    2
  23. Fellini #1? Funny guy...
    2
  24. It doesn't matter what kind of shit he makes, it matters how good the shit is that he makes. Diversity isn't a strength.
    2
  25. @James Bryan None of the ones you mentioned except Kobayashi come even remotely close to Leone. Ray is am average director whose merit i have never been able to distinguish & Hitchcock, while good, is generally too standard a director to possibly beat Leone's grandeur.
    2
  26. No.
    2
  27. Yes, fuck him.
    2
  28.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  Did you just say every movie is art? And you do realize definitions are altered by the times, boyo? Definitions are irrelevant. It's highly debatable whether a movie can be art, but what is definitely not true is that every movie is art. You're telling me crap like "the Room" is art, boyo? It is a ridiculous rhetoric based on the post modernist notion that all is relative, which in itself holds no water. Art is the greatest of human expression, that is the only way the term can hold water, because if everything is art, the word becomes utterly devoid of meaning. Therefore, no, most movies are factually not art. And Chaplin movies are silly movies. Bunch of low framerate jumping around with zero emotional resonance (For man cannot relate to ridiculous fast forwards) already negates the so called "emotional" ending you speak of. It's also dreadfully unfunny, but the most important thing is it has no sound. Sound is one of the most important aspects of meaningful and filmmaking. Anything without it is just objectively laughable. Sit down, son.
    2
  29.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  PTSD from our last meeting, right? You know you will not survive against me.
    2
  30.  @kkkkkk-sj3wu  You probably don't even know any of them, kiddo.
    1
  31.  @kkkkkk-sj3wu  You're quite mainstream yourself, boyo. You probably think Tarantino & Nolan are the best directors ever. That's the definition of mainstream.
    1
  32. Tarantino above Scorsese... lmao.
    1
  33. Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
    1
  34.  @daboi8734  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA
    1
  35. No.
    1
  36. No.
    1
  37.  @TheLJShow-ys8wr  Taxi Driver.
    1
  38.  @TheLJShow-ys8wr  That's right, it is.
    1
  39.  @TheLJShow-ys8wr  No, Taxi Driver is inherently superior to the Godfather, in psychological and metaphorical terms. TD is much more near a perfect film, as it is perfectly layered and structured, while the Godfather has many unnecessary scenes or verdicts. Besides which, Goodfellas & Casino are also better than the Godfather.
    1
  40.  @TheLJShow-ys8wr  De Niro's performance in TD is better than Pacino's in the Godfather, especially the first one. The Godfather is just a depiction of a family tragedy. TD is something surreal, something nightmarish, both real and unreal, akin to peering into the very depths of the heart of darkness as displayed in Travis's desorientating condition. It's much more artistic and metaphorical than the Godfather. And the Godfather has these nonsense scenes like Michael's bodyguard screaming the names of American actors to those tourists in Italy. No, it's not subjective, TD is simply better.
    1
  41.  @TheLJShow-ys8wr  Art isn't subjective, it's objective, that's the entire point of art. Besides which, if you think it's all so subjective, what are you even arguing about? You think the goodness of an acting performance has no real value, and only exists in the human mind, so why act like there are performances that are worth a damn? And sub text isn't conveyed through what an actor does, it's conveyed through what is written, and TD is far richer in that than the Godfather.
    1
  42.  @TheLJShow-ys8wr  Michael's arc is also very good but not on par with Travis's. Michael only really starts with his arc through necessity by having to defend his father, but in Travis, this is already boiling down deep inside of him from the very first frame. Besides which, only Michael in the Godfather has an arc. And my favorite is The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.
    1
  43. No.
    1
  44.  @leonardmatthaus531  'You should shut the fuck' hhahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahajahaa that analphabetic neanderthal language made me laugh. Are you like 12 or something? And Tarantino isn't even a top 30 director.
    1
  45.  @astrixi4441  Yeah, starry night DOES suck.
    1
  46.  @seraj3068  King isn't anywhere near #1 author.
    1
  47. No.
    1
  48. No.
    1
  49. No.
    1
  50.  @seraj3068  Lmao, Jack & Rose's romance is on par with Edward & Bella's or Padme & Anakin's. That's how terrible it is. Not to mention the fact that there is absolutely no sub text. Cameron can't write. That's fact. He's a pretty good director, but he can't write.
    1
  51. Nolan isn't even top 50.
    1
  52. No.
    1
  53. No.
    1
  54. No.
    1
  55. No.
    1
  56. All utter nonsense
    1
  57. No.
    1
  58.  @evanrusso1963  Because none of those are good.
    1
  59. Evan Russo IMDb is for superhero & nolan fanboys. Their opinions are hardly valid.
    1
  60. No.
    1
  61. No.
    1
  62. You know what cinematography is, right?
    1
  63.  @kkkkkk-sj3wu  Ha-ha, no. Not by a long shot.
    1
  64. Wher Cristofffer Nolun? Bezt directur evirr!!!
    1
  65.  T M  No, actually it's Sansho the Bailiff, Tokyo Twilight, Tokyo Story, Early Summer & Late Spring in it.
    1
  66.  T M  Dumbass? This coming from the one failing to recognize easy to detect sarcasm? Kind of ironic, don't you think?
    1
  67.  T M  Trying to connect the definitions of sanity to this because you fail to understand a simple satirical remark? Seems a bit far fetched, boyo. And yeah, i obviously know Ray, although i haven't seen anything of him.
    1
  68.  T M  Why should i care about that? I am not responsible for what other people think. You need to lighten up a bit, Jesus.
    1
  69. No.
    1
  70. Tarantino is nothing like Kubrick. They're not even similar.
    1
  71. No.
    1
  72.  @awhyte55  Funny guy. You know what i mean. Godard? Don't make me laugh..
    1
  73. Lmao some silent movie boyo in a top 10 directors. Don't make me laugh.
    1
  74.  @rosebud8175  Says the boyo who thinks no sound can equal sound. What does one say to such stupidity?
    1
  75.  @rosebud8175  Please elaborate. I do not see how such an intellectually devoid medium such as film can be beneath my understanding.
    1
  76. Who?
    1
  77. That 'fact' is in itself based on opinion, moron. Opinion by biased academy snobs, which i consider even less relevant. Gross is also solely based on popularity, not quality. Your point is invalid.
    1
  78.  @cforte0423  The endgoal of a movie doesn't signify anything about the overall quality of it. It is just popularity. A movie's quality is not determined by what it means to achieve. This idiotic relativist notion makes no sense, because by that logic, if a movie's goal is to be terrible, and it is, that would mean it is a contender for one of the best ever made. Merits for movie quality are absolute, and they are not based on popularity. Your point is invalid, once again.
    1
  79. cforte0423 Your ridiculous infantile insults are invalid, especially seeing as you believe the fact that movies & art is subjective. Movies and art are objective. They are, for the most part, objectively traceable. To disagree with this is to deny anything has value, and of course that is completely idiotic. It is in fact you that has been listening to many teachers preaching pro subjectivism nonsense. Box office is relative to age and is completely reliant on pre-created hype & popularity. It doesn't have anything to do with the objective quality of the acting, writing, cinematography etc. Thus, this idiotic argument is invalid. The only thing that matters are internal factors in the movie itself, such as, like i said, the quality of acting, writing, sound, production, cinematography. By your logic, Transformers, Titanic & Avatar are some of the greatest movies ever made. Obviously, this is completely ridiculous.
    1
  80. No
    1
  81. No.
    1
  82. @James Bryan Wrong. The right list is; 1. Sergio Leone 2. Akira Kurosawa 3. Martin Scorsese 4. Stanley Kubrick 5. William Wyler 6. Masaki Kobayashi 7. Steven Spielberg 8. Alfred Hitchcock 9. David Lean 10. Billy Wilder 25. Yasujiro Ozu 26. Ingmar Bergman And indeed the others do not make a top 50. Though i did only see Panther Panchali of Ray, but it was such an ordinarily average movie with no special merits whatsoever that i doubt something else in his filmography is worthy of the utmost praise.
    1
  83. @James Bryan also, this boggles the mind, Leone has bad films? Pretty much every director does, but not Leone. Colossus of Rhodes is even 6.5ish worthy and is by far his worst. The rest is indubitably 8+.
    1
  84. @James Bryan He only has Colossus as pre-Dollar film, and thst is 6.5ish. So no, nothing of him is bad, unlike Kubrick (Fear&Desire) for example. Fellini is usually a filmmaker with little coherence, instead loosely going from one thing to the other. His pre 60s phase wasn't too bad but after La Strada he turned into a pretentious hack. 8 1/2 & La Dolce Vita are borderline terrible. Meaningless self indulgent pieces of nonsense, meandering on and on about nothing. As for Ray, like i said, Pachali was dreadfully substandard. It's like a 6 in every aspect. It isn't bad, it isn't good, it's just there, and that's about it. I forgot about Coppola, that one i ranked #38. Pressburger & Powell's only piece that might be seen as transcendental is A Matter of Life and Death. The Red Shoes & Black Narcissus is undoubtedly what you're gonna bring up, but those are, while good, not great by any stretch.
    1
  85. @James Bryan Without the influence hocus pocus, i don't care anything about such irrelevant crap, what is actually good about Ray? What about his movies? Panchali was dreadfully substandard in its quality, i can't make anything more of it. And you hit the nail on the head when you say that La Dolce Vita is about the guy trying to be an intellectual and fucking whores. That seemed to be about it. Besides, Nights of Cabiria also has this structuring where there were constsntly characters to which nothing was done, but at least there was a concrete goal of development in that movie, which is doubtless Fellini's best. Of the ones you mentioned only Kubrick isn't pretentious. And while i in no way insinuate their incapabilities as directors, purposely creating interpretative shit without connecting any sort of meaning to it is just taking the easy way out. You probably think Solaris is one of Tarkovsky's worst, it is undoubtedly his best. Lynch has some good ones like The Elephant Man, Godard is just a complete hack and Truffaut seems kinda soso, though i only saw 2 of the latter. Incidentally, i'd consider Cimino better than most of these, since he made one movie that is generally better than any of the ones by those other directors ( The Deer Hunter, obviously ) and two that are reasonably decent.
    1
  86.  @DMVGREY  Wrong.
    1
  87. No.
    1
  88. No.
    1
  89. Yes.
    1
  90. No.
    1
  91. No.
    1
  92. No.
    1
  93. This is not about feminism virtue signalling, it's about the greatest directors. Just think about it.
    1
  94. Idiot.
    1
  95. No.
    1
  96.  @nl3064  I don't know Dreyer, but something being 'dated' isn't an argument. When you watch a film, you need to place yourself into the time it was made. Movies aren't made to predict the future, and therefore do not deserve to be judged as such.
    1
  97. No.
    1
  98.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  I'm still here to see you squirming on your fallacious false pride, boyo. You're quite a laughable and naive character.
    1
  99.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  Is this Randy White?
    1
  100.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  Ok boyo go watch some kiddy star wars, that's exactly the kind of shit you could maybe still understand.
    1
  101.  @dawsondjodvorj2408  Why don't you instead try explaining how something without sound can possibly beat a sound movie?
    1
  102. He's one of the best, but not the best. Characterization is an obvious flaw in his films.
    1
  103.  @ivana7431  Leone, Kurosawa & Scorsese are better. And nobody cares about the opinions of moronic critics & biased directors.
    1
  104.  @ivana7431  I don't care about Scorsese's opinions. And yes, Leone is superior to Kubrick in nearly every way, ESPECIALLY angles.
    1
  105. Ivan Ahmed Alright.. first off... i don't care about Scorsese's damn opinions, again. I care about his directing. And again, Kubrick is one of the best, but objectively, substantially he isn't very great. And yes, Leone's angles, particularly the impeccable cutting between close-up & gorgeous widescreens are unequaled, even by Kubrick. Diversity also doesn't reflect quality. Who cares what different variations of genre he made? What matters is how many good ones he has made. Leone has 3 movies in my top 15, Kubrick only has 1 in my top 30. Sure, he did a lot of different stuff, but that doesn't compare to a master of his genre like Leone. Kurosawa also has loads of non-samurai movies which are excellent by the way, such as High & Low, Ikiru, Stray Dog & Drunken Angel. He's probably been as varied as Kubrick has. But that's not the reason he's so good. Diversity doesn't matter.
    1
  106. Ivan Ahmed It's obvious you're a very big fan of popular opinion. Can't you speak for yourself for once, man? Are you a sheep? I don't care what is in AFI's moronic lists. I don't give a damn about other people's opinions and other lists. This is a two way debate, and you need to give me your own arguments, not bring forth a lot of opinionated claims by someone you think has high authority. That's not an argument. And yes, my list is better than all of those idiotic ones you hold so dear. When did i say Kubrick films sucked…? I even said he was the 4th greatest director in the world… so how did i either say that he sucked or that i didn't like him? You don't make any sense. 2001 is a visual revolution, yes, but it has no human element, it has no character, it has no development, it has no connection with the audience. The Shining is far from the best horror movie ever made. Alien, The Thing, The Innocents, The Exorcist & Psycho are arguably superior. All boast superior characterization and general structure. Spartacus is also far from one of the best history movies, and Dr Strangelove isn't the 'best comedy ever'. It isn't even that funny. Again, Kubrick is a very good director, but he never mastered what connects an audience with a picture. Leone, Kurosawa & Scorsese are generally the superior directors due to this. And Tarkovsky is terrible.
    1