| d21lewis said: We'll all still go see it. |
Haha speak for yourself :)
I've learned over the years that the most important single factor in whether a film turns out to be bad, mediocre, good, or great is the director. I've learned my lesson with Zach Snyder. He's not terrible, but I'm definitely not paying theatre prices to see anything he does unless the reviews are crazy good.
His major films :
2004 Dawn of the Dead (this was okay) 75% RT
2007 300 (the trailer was better than the film. Also, the slow motion.) 60% RT
2009 Watchmen (this was okay, but the only character I cared about at all was Rorschach.) 65% RT
2010 Legend of the Guardians (didn't see it, got mediocre reviews) 50% RT
2011 Sucker Punch (cool visuals, terribad film) 23% RT
2013 Man of Steel (I really wanted this to be good. It had elements of great things, but felt too muddled, and that long Superman vs Zod mess at the end along with some pretty sketchy CG kind of killed it for me. Better than Superman Returns at least.) 56% RT
Reviews don't mean everything to me, I've certainly enjoyed more than a few films that didn't get high marks. But in general I do think that a great director is ALMOST always (the exceptions prove the rule) a killer indication of how good the product will be. Factors like budget, actors, script, etc all are important, but none more so than the guy in the chair.
Let's compare a couple of other directors :
Affleck :
Gone Baby Gone (awesome, highly recommended) 94% RT
The Town (awesome action/crime flick, kind of like a slightly less epic Heat set in Boston) 93% RT
Argo (well done imho) 96% RT
Nolan :
Memento 92%
Insomnia 92%
Batman Begins 85%
The Prestige 76%
The Dark Knight 94%
Inception 86%
The Dark Knight Rises 87%
Now again, I don't 100% agree with each of those ratings, but in general it does hold up in regards to how great directors make generally decent to great films, and medicre directors make meh to decent films.
:D
