Which director from the Alien series is the best overall as a filmmaker?

[SM]

Is there an objective measure that would judge Cameron's last to two flicks as mediocre?

[PierreVW]

Titanic mediocre?
Did IQs just drop suddenly?

Avatar...sci-fi re-telling of Dances with Wolves...I get it but damn it wow'd everyone that saw it in IMAX and 3D

To each their own.

I find Titanic to be a very mediocre movie.

[tleilaxu]

Voted Ridley because the Alien franchise trumps everything else, but James Cameron is very good too. I don't care for Pocahontas in space (one of the most overrated movies ever if you ask me), but Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss are all good films.

[PierreVW]

Voted Ridley because the Alien franchise trumps everything else, but James Cameron is very good too. I don't care for Pocahontas in space (one of the most overrated movies ever if you ask me), but Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss are all good films.

I voted Ridley Scott because I love 7 of his films.

I love only 3 James Cameron films.

[Russ]

You forgot genius auteur Paul WS Anderson...

[Local Trouble]

Jeunet.

Jeunet has never made a bad film.

[PierreVW]

You forgot genius auteur Paul WS Anderson...

Paul W.S. Anderson is BETTER than the Strause Brothers.

[Laz]

Cameron by a landslide for me. I only recently (within the last year or two) caught Xenogenesis, his debut short, and the level of talent on display even then was remarkable. When I think of what I want out of a movie - enjoyment, spectacle, heart, cohesive storytelling - he's the one that shows the greatest amount of ability in each category. Not only this, but looking at his filmography (as director alone) reveals not only three of my favorite films (the first two Terminators and Aliens), but also significant works for film as a whole.

Fincher is second but there's a considerable gap. Alien 3 turned out as good as it did through his vision but its faults, though not on Fincher's shoulders, are still there. Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are my favorites of his, but stuff like Zodiac, Gone Girl, and Social Network either bore or aggravate me. His is a very distinct visual style, too, but that has its benefits and its drawbacks.

#3 is Scott. I have no problem saying he peaked early with Alien and Blade Runner, and even less saying I don't enjoy much of his work at all. Black Hawk Down feels like Ridley trying to do a "mature" take on the technique du jour (quick cuts, drain the color in post, focus on the situation and not characters), Robin Hood is an embarrassment, Gladiator is overrated, White Squall and 1492 are subpar even compared to Lloyd Kaufman's output...but hey, at least Alien and Blade Runner are legitimately great.

Just missing the medals is Jeunet, and that's only because City of Lost Children is amazing.

#5 is the Brothers Strause, with an even wider gap than between Cameron and Fincher. Say what you will about AVPR or Skyline, but at least there feels like a true attempt at doing something somewhat original within genre tropes. Plus? They do some solid VFX work.

#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.

[PierreVW]

Cameron by a landslide for me. I only recently (within the last year or two) caught Xenogenesis, his debut short, and the level of talent on display even then was remarkable. When I think of what I want out of a movie - enjoyment, spectacle, heart, cohesive storytelling - he's the one that shows the greatest amount of ability in each category. Not only this, but looking at his filmography (as director alone) reveals not only three of my favorite films (the first two Terminators and Aliens), but also significant works for film as a whole.

Fincher is second but there's a considerable gap. Alien 3 turned out as good as it did through his vision but its faults, though not on Fincher's shoulders, are still there. Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are my favorites of his, but stuff like Zodiac, Gone Girl, and Social Network either bore or aggravate me. His is a very distinct visual style, too, but that has its benefits and its drawbacks.

#3 is Scott. I have no problem saying he peaked early with Alien and Blade Runner, and even less saying I don't enjoy much of his work at all. Black Hawk Down feels like Ridley trying to do a "mature" take on the technique du jour (quick cuts, drain the color in post, focus on the situation and not characters), Robin Hood is an embarrassment, Gladiator is overrated, White Squall and 1492 are subpar even compared to Lloyd Kaufman's output...but hey, at least Alien and Blade Runner are legitimately great.

Just missing the medals is Jeunet, and that's only because City of Lost Children is amazing.

#5 is the Brothers Strause, with an even wider gap than between Cameron and Fincher. Say what you will about AVPR or Skyline, but at least there feels like a true attempt at doing something somewhat original within genre tropes. Plus? They do some solid VFX work.

#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.

I disagree 100%.

James Cameron peaked 31 years ago. His finests still are THE TERMINATOR(1984) and ALIENS(1986). TERMINATOR 2 is a family friendly version of his greatest film ever.

Sir Ridley Scott got better with age. Actors and actresses said it. The perfect performances in ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER were lucky because he almost never talked to the actors and actresses. I prefer his later work. I love THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THE MARTIAN, AMERICAN GANGSTER, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT, PROMETHEUS, THE COUNSELOR and ALIEN: COVENANT.

[SM]

The two films that will define him, Alien and Blade Runner, were made when he sucked at dealing with actors.

[Protozoid]

Ridley Scott by a mile. I genuinely love several of his movies: The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Prometheus, The Counselor, and The Martian. All of his films have admirable qualities, imho. I watch his movies over and over and always find new things about them to appreciate. People who think he peaked early need to give his post-1990 resume another look.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet is second.

Fincher and Cameron are great craftsman but I don't resonate with their work. Fincher's Zodiac is the only undeniable masterpiece between the two of them, imho.

[LastSurvivor92]

I am severely surprised over the lack of appreciated and admiration for Fincher. A majoirty of his film are masterpieces of cinema.

James Cameron? Really? Titanic? Avatar? Terminator, besides that what else does the guy have going for him???

[SM]

Championing new technologies, good reviews and obscenely large box office receipts?

[LastSurvivor92]

Championing new technologies, good reviews and obscenely large box office receipts?

Ok, that is true.

[Russ]

#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.

But Resident Evil is a billion dollar franchise. Death Race has gone on to spawn two sequels (which are pretty good). AvP is a good movie. It's not a great movie, but its a good movie and I'd defend Anderson if anyone tries to say he doesn't love the Alien-verse (you only have to look at Event Horizon). As I was saying in another thread (or maybe even this one) I'm not sure that it was the movie the he actually wanted to make but rather - like the Bros - it was the movie that the studio wanted him to make. That's purely speculation on my part regarding Anderson.

He's a decent director who makes entertaining movies for the masses. That he screws with his own continuity is annoying, but it hasn't seemed to have affected the Resident Evil juggernaut (see what I did there). That he ignored the Alien lifecycle is really annoying, especially given his level of fandom - but, reasons. They had to get the story moving - or at least the story he was telling. AvP was never going to be a slow burning, tension building horror movie. It's got "vs" in the title for a start. It had Aliens fighting Predators - that's what people wanted to see - that's what they got. I read more and more on the forum here even that the film is getting a lot more love in later years than it did on the time.

As I say - its got holes - but on the whole, AvP works. It's certainly better than AvPR which is appalling on almost every level. Lately, I'm coming off like a Strause Bros apologist: I do have some sympathy for them in that they were landed with an outline that they had no intention of making. That they screwed up - totally - a beloved franchise. However, if you listen to their commentary, the sympathy starts to dissipate - for me, they actually had little respect for the job (or maybe even the franchise itself - dunno about that, but the comments about the fans of one of the creatures - I forget which, but basically they were saying "Well, we prefer the Predator so fck you Xeno fans" or some such)... that the darkness (lighting wise, not tonally ) was a choice...

No, there's no way these two are above Anderson. He's competent, he continually makes movies that I - and apparently legions of other people - enjoy. And he's still working in a directorial / writing which our friends the Bros are (sadly - I don't wish ill on any film-maker because no one really sets out to make a bad film) not (they've gone back to VFX - good work if you can get it).

Musketeers was shit, though.