phrases/opinions/proclamations that will quickest start a cinephile fight...

Spielberg; rather crippled by an innate sentimentalism - a shying away from proper conflicts and issues. Oh, he knows how to tell an entertaining mainstream story, but how much else? There's too much interchangeable John Williams 'heroic' music, all the time imposing the same sort of simplicity on the films. I sense that "Duel" and "Close Encounters" may be his finest films, though I've not seen those two.

De Palma; infuriating... certainly 'talented', but how many new ideas has he brought to the table? He has tapped into the gangster film mythos (his Pacino "Scarface" I'd like to see) reasonably well, but not pushed its barriers, from the evidence of "Carlito's Way". "Blow Out" I found a very watchable, yet distant experience... has a fine air of 'cool' about it, and pushes the right buttons, but is effectively a precis of "Blow Up" and "The Conversation". It's too long since I've seen "Carrie" to really judge, though I thought it mixed. I've heard his record is very patchy, especially in recent years. "Phantom of the Paradise" is a film I've very interested to see, however...

So, very much Coppola and Scorsese, I have to say, unimaginatively. I know their records are far from unblemished, but there are - at least from the stuff I've seen of all the above directors - more hits in their work. That being said, I'd struggle to decide on a favourite Scorsese film... I really like most of what I've seen, but they all seem a little limited in basic focus. "King of Comedy", "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver" are gut-instinct choices I guess... I did enjoy "Gangs of NY", fairly flawed though that was. Coppola has proved a thoughtful patron of many films as a producer, much like Scorsese's role as film historian, praising the likes of Michael Powell. Their influence seems to be roughly for the better, even if they would be open to criticism of being part of The Canon in many ways. It indeed can't be said that either has done much of importance in the last decade or more; but again, I've not seen enough of the films to really comment: good things have been said about "The Rainmaker" for example, IIRC.

Thank you! Couldn't have said it better myself. I do consider myself a De Palma fan, and he may very well be the most technically gifted of the group. But in his 30+ year career, he hasn't done much to improve the world or our understanding of it. As a matter of fact, De Palma's like the line that divides this group in half. Take the cinematic style of Coppola and Scorsese, throw in the hokum of Lucas and Spielberg, and you got Brian De Palma.

i loved Femme Fatale but couldn't even finish Sisters and that's all i've knowingly seen by him.

OTM.

but, to play moderator of my own thread... is De Palma the only thing that starts fights amongs film fans?

God I want to smack the f$^#ing morons who blabber this crap.

"Who wants to watch movies with subtitles?"

Nuff to be getting on with...

good ones tuomas--these are usually the same type of people who think the e.e. cummings has poor grammatical skills...

Exactly the sort of comment I can imagine getting a group of reasonably intelligent cinephiles up in arms and at eachothers' throats. Unfortunately, I don't know that many would take the Magnolia/Short Cuts bait, since PTA scarcely has as many other masterpieces in his career to siphon the vote as Altman does.

*Terminator 2 is so a classic".

I've found that calling either Dr. Strangelove or Clockwork Orange Kubrick's worst film gets things rolling even faster than calling Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut his best.

This observation does not reflect my personal opinion of either Spielberg or teenage males, btw.

Even though it is.

Clearly Chaplin's films from "The Great Dictator" onwards only have one foot in comedy; there is a grander purpose to TGD (political burlesque of a very high order, and also righteous propagandist mouthpiece for the Allies in WW2), "Limelight" (attempting to summarise and provide closure for his epic career, in changing times), "Monsieur Verdoux" (a genuine black comedy about a serial killer) and "A King in New York" (extraordinarily bitter film; all attacking American culture and McCarthyism, in a very lofty, disdainful manner). By all accounts, the most obviously comedic - his final, "A Countess from Hong Kong" - of his sound pictures, was a catastrophe.

These later films are all fascinating; they perhaps show the spirit of the man in more complex a fashion than his Tramp films do. They show him trying to please the audience, and be loved as the underdog. All of which was very successful, and produced many fine films on a certain level. His later work shows a man branching out and actively making some very daring (and sadly, so very often, mealy-mouthed) films. It is very much a moot point whether the Tramp films are 'better' or not; they are funnier and more agreeable, certainly. But not always so interesting, I find.

A case could certainly be made that Laurel and Hardy's comedy sits far more pleasingly with me, and makes me laugh more; one can relate more to the pair's dynamic and the archetypal, blunderingly angelic, stumblingly sublime vision of humanity they represent. But more prosaically; the Tramp always 'wins out', whereas L & H are perennial losers in the workings of the world. Chaplin is a master craftsman and one of the most graceful, physically gifted comedians of all; but his essential yearning to be loved (read David Thomson' s superb entry on him in his Dictionary of Film) comes across far too obviously compared with L & H. It can prove cloying at times, and get in the way of his physical mastery. A lot depends on how willing one is to accept Chaplin as the people's champion and representative of the 'little man' in his early films... His later films show him more as the man he was - an intensely well meaning, rather traditionalist sort, admiring the solid virtues. Yet, those films are uncanny in the deftness with which Chaplin takes to playing some rather more hateful characters; his Verdoux is a sublime performance of prim rectitude and micro/macro-economics being carried to their logical extreme. It's a shame that these films can tend to get bogged down in tedious, if right-on, talk. Extraneous waffle tends to bog down the great physical comedy and subsume the edge of uncertainty and darkness. For example, the scenes in a Jewish area of TGD completely fail for me; the very light comedic tone (which is not carried off well in terms of the older Chaplin style) rather undercuts the *EPOCHAL* and sinister playing with the globe scene, and also, well, one thinks about the reality of the Jews in WW2. The tone of TGD is astonishingly difficult to get one's head around; it deploys around four different strands of stylistic/thematic approach: Moral preaching, edgy burlesque on dictatorship, light pantomime with unengaging support characters and the wonderfully played farce of Mussolini's appearance and the ball scene. Makes for an uneasy yet gripping viewing experience. I do feel that "Monsieur Verdoux" works the best, overall, of his latter day pictures; entirely consistent in feel and conception. A very moving, jarringly unsentimental ending as well... maybe that was how he should have departed...

Though "Limelight" too would have clearly been a more graceful way to go, even with all its curios and longueurs, than the lamentable hectoring of "A King in New York" - the last in which he starred.