I just looked at every director and honestly he has no bad movies so far. Argue what you want but this guy has made sure every film is awesome. Name any director and I will tell you a dud he has made. It may be early in his career but so what that guy sucks.
shareThis message has been deleted by the poster
shareHe's truly one of the greats. His movies have heart, soul, originality, intellect, and pander to no one. Not to mention, he's the best director of actors in film of the past 30 years.
Wait what are you basing this on? About the actors that is, and who is the best director of actor before him?
Not that I don't agree, since Kubrick is more technical, Wes is more set orientated, Marty is well, he's close and Tarantino is so dang tallky. I know there are more directors out there that can be considered. Woody Allen just got one for Cate. But who came back in the 60's better than Paul?
Cassavetes and Kazan before him.
Stanley Kubrick called Kazan "without question, the best director we have in America, [and] capable of performing miracles with the actors he uses."
Though, I'd say Paul is getting to be on par with them.
interested in who your other two are?
If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
Funny. I consider all of Anderson's films to be duds, for varying reasons. He's a clown.
shareYet you're the one trolling on an internet message board.
shareDisagreeing with your worship of P.T. Anderson is not "trolling", although it's clear you need to consider it as such since your hero is under fire.
share