Who has the best filmography ever?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0873385/

involved in no turkeys, has made no bad decisions

Immediately makes me want to search people who made one good movie and then died tragically, but I'm resisting the temptation.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1856457/

jean vigo

Nate Woolls wins.

http://www.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2007/61/9098826_117294794220.jpg
"Hiya guys!"

(Admittedly Cazale's is a terribly -short- filmography as well)

Terence Malick

Terence Malick

-- I know, right?, Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:50 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

also: Ozu, Bresson

maybe Rohmer?

Tarkovsky - all killer no filler.

Agreed abt Bresson, but I'm not sure enough of Ozu's films survive for us to say w/ absolute certainty that there were no duds along the way.

Kieslowski?

John Cazale

Unless you count a 1962 short and archive footage in The Godfather: Part III, this is it:

The Godfather
The Conversation
The Godfather: Part II
Dog Day Afternoon
The Deer Hunter

(I somehow missed Øystein's post above, but still, pays to see the list)

Miyazaki

I'd really like to say Todd Haynes

Rohmer ftw

rohmer has never made a bad movie, or even a middling one. i certainly have my favorites and least-favorites, but they are also respectable at least, fascinating most of the time, even when frustrating....

re. ozu, given the fact that ALL of his extant 35-something movies are either good or great or spectacular, i don't see any reason to presume that among the 15 or so missing films there are too many major duds.

oh yeah: eisenstein?

Jim Jarmusch is a good candidate, I think. Only his first movie is kinda meh, all the others are good or great. (Haven't seen his Neil Young documentary though.)

A third of both NIGHT ON EARTH (Winona) and MYSTERY TRAIN (Strummer) are pretty disastrous

Night on Earth has five segments, not three. I agree that Wynona part is the weakest, but why do you think it's "disastrous"? Anyway, all the other segments are pretty great.

jarmusch has made 1 1/2 great movies, c'mon. the rest are middling.

I definitely disagree with that.

Will I get laughed out of ILE for saying David Fincher? I've loved at least something about all of his films so far.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001238/

xp Yes.

I'm thinking on the doc side someone like Frederick Wiseman? Wong Kar Wai had a decent case until Norah Jones happened.

LEAVE NORAH OUT OF IT!

Oh wait Sergio Leone is pretty good. I guess there's some weird uncredited work though.

It's true. She sucked, but really that movie would have been disastrous whoever the female lead was.

International directors who have good resumes inevitably make at least one crap US film, don't they?

Lynch bitchez

Dune bitch.

nobody's selling me on any of these directors (granted I haven't seen any rohmer or ozu). my tarkovsky fixation is well documented on ilx but none of his films is absolutely perfect. and even tho I like/love some of their work, jarmusch, haynes, and fincher are like wtf?

kieslowski did have a pretty good run there, but the decalogue is about half amazing and half pedestrian. I know, heresy.

and besides dune, lynch seemed to lose his way for about a decade after blue velvet.

I love Dune. His weakest to me is Wild at Heart and even that is at least fitfully entertaining.

I have never seen a Rohmer film, what am I missing (bear in mind I hate Tarkovsky and found Fassbinder's "Berlin Alexanderplantz" unwatchable)

Ozu made like 70 films. I refuse to believe anyone here has seen all of them.

Um Fire Walk With Me?

Even if you like it, it's impossible to acknowledge that as a major mistep.

but agreed that Haynes Jarmusch and Fincher all have some serious crap that cannot be discounted

oh shit I forgot Fire Walk With Me. okay yeah that is bad, a smattering of great scenes excepted. okay I remove Lynch from the running...

still waiting for the first d-bag to offer up pt or wes anderson

I could get behind Anderson except for Life Aquatic which really was a mess

Tarantino as a director hasn't had a mistep (even if his Four Rooms bit is less than enthralling.) Whether you like his films or not is another matter, I guess.

bear in mind I hate Tarkovsky

dude, have you watched mirror yet?

Coens unfortunately out of the running as well. I dunno the more I think about this the more I agree that the only real possible winner is someone who's only made a few films. Malick seems like a decent candidate but I never saw his last two.

I have not seen Mirror. I saw Solaris and hated it, couldn't make it through Stalker.

I need to see New World. My memory is not kind to it (even though I recall liking it when I saw it.)

again that is.

true, kill bill wasn't a misstep. it was more like rolling down the side of a hill in a car on fire.

xpost

hmm Tarantino's not a bad suggestion. I never saw Four Rooms.

would say Kubrick but... Eyes Wide Shut...

Killer's Kiss is also not very strong.

never seen it (another problem with me and this thread - there aren't a lot of directors of which I have seen EVERYTHING)

people usually forget that kubrick got off to a shakey start

or yeah, haven't seen the early films

PT ANDERSON!

"people usually forget that kubrick got off to a shakey start"

Just Killer's Kiss. The Killing and Paths of Glory are fucking awesome.

And Killer's Kiss is kind of intentionally awkward (it's basically a collection of trick shots w/ a negligible plot about a boxer IIRC) intended more as a stylistic showcase for the studios, I think, than a "real movie".

shakey you should see mirror. it's < 2 hours long, so if you're bored at least it's over soon.

I love tarkovsky but still think the first 45 minutes could be hacked off solaris no prob and I don't get the stalker love.

Andrei Rubleiv (sic) is the one I can never get through. Great opening shot and then just jesus turn this fucking thing off already.

yeah I was gonna say, I think I've seen every Kubrick except Barry Lyndon and Killer's Kiss. Killing and Paths of Glory I both really liked.

fear & desire, killer's kiss, the killing.

maybe fear & desire shouldn't count since kubrick disowned, but hey, it's a movie, and he made it!

I doubt that kubrick thought he wasn't making a "real movie" with killer's kiss. the flashes of brilliance are there but he was still learning the ropes. that's okay. it just means his track record isn't perfect.

even though I'm a film noir fan I don't rate the killing as highly as most people do.

def see barry lyndon. I thought scorsese was being an obscurantist dickhead when he claimed bl was his favorite kubrick. then I saw it. it's not my favorite but it ranks.

Of current directors, for me, David O Russell might be the most consistently enjoyable. It helps that, more by fluke than design with Spanking The Monkey and Flirting With Disaster, I have managed to see all his films on first theatrical release.

alex, yer rublev comment reads like

Ulysses is the one I can never get through. Great opening chapter and then just jesus stfu joyce.

try harder you lazy bastard!

Nate Woolls wins.

And how!

I'm surprised Truffaut hasn't been mentioned, but I don't know all the films in his -ography, and ILX isn't really a very Truffaut-y kind of place.

"try harder you lazy bastard!"

I've tried three times. I KEEP FALLING ASLEEP!

Maybe Fear & Desire is the trick shot one and Killer's Kiss is just not great. It's been a while.

no, I think you've got it right. killer's kiss is the boxing movie. fear and desire is the war movie that kubrick nearly successfully suppressed. he did not anticipate the advent of youtube.com however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JLkxzzKF5I

paul mazursky's acting debut!

my nomination for director is charles laughton

These are all directors though, who often pick and choose their own projects. How many actors have never made a dud (apart from Anne Sellors of course)? I'll wager none.

Or at least how many actors have never made a dud after they became well known, and can theoretically choose their projects to a greater extent than when they were struggling unknowns.

did you miss the john cazale discussion?

Someone who's made more than 5 films then.

shouldn't the question be actors who never gave a bad performance? I mean, they don't really have any control over the quality of the films they're in.

there is some serious shit in truffaut's filmography

yes, Jules et Jim!

reader, i hated it.

Chris Marker

or yeah, Jean Vigo

Charles Laughton (as director)!

Kenneth Anger!

was about to say Jodorowsky but Santa Sangre is pretty bad

Santa Sangre is pretty bad

?!??!?!?!!?

by the end, the overly literal imagery of being controlled by his mother just got really tiresome.

Isabelle Huppert's is pretty great.

Shakey Mo, your opinion on Santa Sangre is just. . . baffling. . .

shouldn't the question be actors who never gave a bad performance? I mean, they don't really have any control over the quality of the films they're in.

I've never seen Bill Murray give a bad performance.

Peter Cushing
Vincent Price
Christopher Lee
Harry Dean Stanton?

loads more reliable old pros

Yeah, I think Bill Murray's a good choice (we aren't counting Garfield, I assume).

A few people said John Cazale. What happened to him, anyway? I mean, why only six-or-so films?

maybe you should Google his name + cancer

What about James Stewart? I haven't seen all of his films, and there must be some not-so-good among them, but he's been in like 10-20 movies that rate among the best films ever made. Can't think of anyone else with a record like that.

Yikes! How horrible.

(xp)

As far as directors, has Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away) ever made a bad film? I'm not sure I've seen them all, but what I've seen is pretty impressive. The Cohen Bros. would be a good choice, too, but I imagine Ladykillers disqualifies them.

Howl's Moving Castle and Princess Mononoke are kinda uneven, though they're not really bad.

It's impossible as an American to make "best" filmographies: too much money, too many compromises.

Preston Sturges comes closest. Otherwise I'd say Ozu and Renoir.

Joan Crawford once she left MGM.

There are some terrible answers on this thread (Bill Murray! The Coen Brothers? Jimmy Stewart!?!?!?)

Well, name me a bad Bill Murray performance then.

The Man Who Knew Too Little. Every single AT&T Pro Am.

The Razor's Edge

Ghostbusters 2

Every single AT&T Pro Am.

Is this some sort of coded language?

Yeah it's called English.

Scrooged

What About Bob?

A better question might be find the few examples where Bill Murray hasn't phoned it in, actually.

Charlie's Angels (jesus how could I forget)

Oh come on, Scrooged and What About Bob are good movies, and especially in the latter he gives a brilliant performance.

Haha so you concede the others might be missteps then?

They aren't and he didn't but if you concede that Charlie's Angels might be a "bad decision" I'll let it drop.

Murray's genius is that you don't know whether he's always phoning it in.

Checking IMDB I appear to have forgotten Osmosis Jones!

Yeah, Bresson is probably about the best answer, but I haven't seen some of his earliest stuff ... or some of the latest.

Bresson is good answer from all I've read (I've only seen Pickpocket and A Man Escaped myself.)

Money wasn't that good, to be honest. It started great, but went kind downhill towards the end.

I dunno: The Trial of Joan of Arc, A Gentle Woman, and Lancelot are either duds or misconceived.

KURT RUSSEELL

Even with all the duds, I would suggest Alfred Hitchcock. It doesn't say "perfect" filmography, it just says "best".

In my mind "best" means "I want to watch the duds too."

Yeah I mean this no bad decisions thing is kind of weird. The best directors occassionally make bad decisions because they try a lot of new things. That's occassionally doesn't pan out. Doesn't mean I'd rather watch Wes Anderson (who makes consistent films, I guess) over Alfred Hitchcock (who was consistently awesome, but made a few clods.)

In my mind "best" means "I want to watch the duds too."

Gawd, then that's practically every director in the first 150 pages of Sarris' The American Cinema for me.

I'd like to say Resnais, Godard or Oshima, only seen about four or five from either...but all really interesting and rich in flaws with some incredible cinematic highs. xxp

did howard hawks make any bad (as opposed to just unexceptional) films? i can't think of any.

roman polanski has a pretty good track record if you discount some of the 80s stuff.

. . . and his last couple of films. . .

Bill Murray is a fucking totally laughable suggestion Alex in SF otm

so is polankski.

well, I've never seen a Polanski film I didn't like, but then I've only seen like 6.

He's made bad movies. A lot of bad movies.

HAI GUYS

http://www.films.pierre-marteau.com/bilder/pirates.jpg

(has anyone SEEN this?)

yes

Bitter Moon is amongst the worst things i've ever seen.

that's why i said "if you discount some of the '80s stuff."

brad bird :D

Emmanuelle Beart is thankfully a much better actress than Bitter Moon would have us believe.

I've not watched Pirates all the way through. The parts I've seen are as bad as everyone sez.

did howard hawks make any bad (as opposed to just unexceptional) films? i can't think of any.

Oh yes. Today We Live is flat-out bad. The ONLY good thing about it is scene-sucking ironing board Adrian creation that Joan Crawford wears towards the beginning.

I still don't get Land of the Pharaohs. But I know it has ardent supporters so I'll try harder with it at a later date.

Death and the Maiden is pretty mediocre. Ninth Gate is crappy. Frantic is just okay. Tess is meh.

is THE scene-sucking ironing board

xp

oh and Parajanov surely better than Tarkovsky (whom I really like) at the whole 'poetic cinema' lark? Maybe a better filmog, but for very unfortunate reasons...

that's why i said "if you discount some of the '80s stuff."

-- J.D., Friday, August 8, 2008 10:36 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

it's from 1992! has he had a good film since Tess?

i would say the pianist but maybe others disagree

Hawks made lots of increasingly tired Rio Bravo let's-bullshit-while-we-wait-for-a-movie-to-start exercises (which nevertheless have their defenders): Hatari!, El Dorado, etc.

in terms of actors who rarely seem to phone it in, i always enjoy watching harvey keitel, although a glance at his imdb does reveal that he was in national treasure: book of secrets, which i can't vouch for.

directors: kurosawa, ford, peckinpah (although there is a lot of kurosawa i haven't seen)

As far as actors: Vanessa Redgrave. I can't recall her ever giving a bad performance.

dude keitel did that homeless pirate movie with the fucking monkey

You mean Emma Thompson.

y'know peckinpah is an interesting nomination - love love love his stuff, but everybody seems to agree that his latter work (which I have not seen) degenerated into pretty bad hackery.

They're just weak action films.

I just thought of one guy whose films (that I've seen) are all great:

Henri-Georges Clouzot

Hawks made lots of increasingly tired Rio Bravo let's-bullshit-while-we-wait-for-a-movie-to-start exercises (which nevertheless have their defenders): Hatari!, El Dorado, etc.

Well, I'll give you El Dorado but Hatari! could bullshit for six hours and I wouldn't even notice. Starting movies sucks anyway.

I think Kubrick was a solid nomination. Even discounting Eyes Wide Shut as a dud (which I don't), the dude's got classic after classic in his filmography.

Apparently Miquette et sa mère is not that good according to IMDB so maybe Clouzot is out.

keitel withdrawn due to monkey trouble. i'll tentatively (due to the fact he's been in a fucking load of films) put forward gene hackman.

has anyone mentioned charlie chaplin yet?

have you ever seen A Countess From Hong Kong?

ugh Hackman

Brian Dennehey?

M. Emmet Walsh?

J.T. Walsh?

xxxxpost, yeah it's not great but with the exception of kubrick (who only directed about a dozen films) and cazale (who died before he was popular enough to start acting alongside chimps) none of the names above have struck me as approaching flawlessness. and i think chaplin, like hitchcock, kind of made enough great stuff to allow us to overlook the (very rare) stinkers.

Money wasn't that good, to be honest. It started great, but went kind downhill towards the end.

roffle-roffel

I love Bitter Moon.

It's always at about this point that I ask "what is the point of this game, anyway?" Usual suspect directors/actors get named, punchline movies get counternamed, people get pissed.

What's the point of any game?

harry dean stanton

Exactly.

Howl's Moving Castle and Princess Mononoke are kinda uneven, though they're not really bad.

Tuomas OTM! At least, that is, in picking those particular two. I was surprisingly underwhelmed by Mononoke, and Howl's really fell apart in its last third. Porco Rosso isn't a favorite, either. Still, none of those are worse than "meh", and Miyazaki may be the best suggestion so far.

I want to say Hal Ashby, but that's probably because I've never seen any of his 80s movies, which are apparently so bad that they are, like, pretty much totally unavailable on DVD. Can we just pretend that he stopped c.1979?

I need to see a bunch more, but I haven't seen a poor or mediocre Powell and Pressburger movie.

Not Tarkovsky, Sacrifice sucked. (Both of his film school projects are better.)

I'd say Shozin Fukui, but he recently released a new movie that I haven't seen yet.

Shigeru Izumiya!

Joss Whedon!

Wait...can tv series count?

I haven't seen Parade, but I think if you don't count the shorts, Tati is a pretty good contender.

i was about to say harry dean stanton.

alpha dog is so incredible

WOW yeah cazale! brilliant choice. what a fucking terribly short career tho :(

For director: Robert Wise
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0936404/

His duds aren't really duds and his early meat-and-potatoes noirs (Blood On The Moon, etc) are terrific.

I'm tempted to nominate Clive Owen, although I really haven't seen any of his early pre-superfamous work. And even though Closer was shit, he came away the only likeable character in the whole mess.

RE: robert wise - THE SOUND OF MUSIC and STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE = ultraduds. Wise also had a hand in mangling THE MAGNIFICENT ANDERSONS, which counts as a pretty bad decision in my book.

If Clouzot and Wise are being seriously considered, I re-enter Bresson's name into the conversation. (Especially because L'Argent is fantastic.)

Ap[art for some who were mentioned:
Douglas Sirk,which, like Hitchcock is good even when he is bad. or lt least intersting.
Cassavetes also had a relatively solid filmography imo

and Bergamn of course

Terence Davies
Sophia Coppola
James Bidgood

James Bidgood

There we go.

Yeah I thought I was being quite clever there.

it's not most CONSISTENT filmography dudes. you can make some bad movies and still be best cuz you made enough amazing ones. viz. hitchcock.

Either an actor or a director; who has really been involved in no turkeys, has made no bad decisions?

-- Scik Mouthy, Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:39 AM (4 days ago

i wouldn't take his word for it.

that said, anyone who answered someone with a really short filmography is cheating.

: )

I like to have seen all the movies or I can't know

certainly never seen all bergman or ozu