Unpopular Director Opinion

Fair enough.

Stanley Kubrick's success is primarily due to his status as a darling of pretentious film snobs.

Steven Spielberg's early movies are childish but at least somewhat entertaining. His later "grown-up" films are derivative and
the work of a cinematic show-off; that they continue to be successful is due in part to studio hype and in part to the fact that
people are afraid to criticize them because they might be accused of being anti-American (in the case of Saving Private Ryan), anti-Semitic (Schindler's List) anti-Lincoln, etc.

David Lean's black-and-white films are great. His color "epics" are bloated, tedious rot.

Martin Scorsese's made a handful of good films. Raging Bull is not one of them.

Peter Jackson is a master of self-indulgent CGI, but a dud at depicting normal human interaction.

The films of James Cameron are all basically garbage.

Michael Ritchie was one of the most talented directors of the 1970s. His career might have been so much better if Hollywood movies hadn't abandoned the more insightful, adult movies of that decade for the puerile blockbusters of Star Wars and
Superman, a trend that still infects Hollywood today.

Roger Corman is known primarily as a "schlock" director, implying that his talents are limited only to B-movies at best. Yet
his 1962 film, The Intruder, is as good as anything "respected" filmmakers of that era put out, and should have taken its place among important social message films of that time, such as those made by "serious" directors such as Stanley Kramer. It's unfair that this film is often overlooked on lists of Corman's body of work.