>>3771
I can't take half of what you said seriously. Your English is terrible as well and it makes you hard to understand.
>Corman
>good
Okay. I'll bite.
Masque of the Red Death is technically the best movie he ever made. If you watch a movie like The Court Jester starring Danny Kaye, you will see that he was technically on par with a film of that caliber. He was better tbh but he was generally on par with other directors who were churning out movies back then. Another similar director would be Andre de Toth. Modern equivalents would be Brian Yuzna and Charlie Band particularly with his Puppet Master movies. I like these movies, but I can see the edges of the sets if that makes sense.
If Vincent Price wasn't in that movie, it would likely not be a cult classic and be somewhat neglected in retrospect.
IMO, to be considered a competent director you have to have a near technical mastery of the medium. At the end of the day, this is mostly what directors ultimately do. If you're an auteur on top of that and attuned to formal and philosophical depth, I'd say then that director could be considered a genius.
I would say then that itt all competent directors are: Trier, Tarantino, Haneke, Fellini, Fincher, Scorcese, Petersen, Spielberg, Godard, Eastwood, Griffith, Chaplin, Rodriguez.
The TECHNICALLY worst itt are Corman, Jodo, Landis (he's better known for his writing anyways and a good script can transform an otherwise mediocre movie), Anderson, Carpenter, Godard, Zahler 100 percent, Refn, Noe Iskanov, Lanthimos. A lot of these people literally make ugly movies with poor acting. Even if they have cult qualities or other appeals, I cannot honestly say that they are good directors.
An adjacent example would be outsider art. Some people find the art deeply interesting, yet often the art itself is not technically well done.