Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think there should have been a question on this in the horror survey thread so Ive made a poll for it:

Romero!

I like all of those, all good in their own ways, but chose Cronenberg. Hard choice.

I chose Carpenter, although I still think he and Craven are equals.

Cronenberg, not my cup of tea, and he's not truely a "Horror" director. Although "Rabid" was truely terrifying. I mean that in the most insincere way possible.

Romero, bar none.

Sam Raimi, David Cronenberg, John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, Dario Argento, George A Romero, Clive Barker, Alfred Hitchcock... they r all great, especialy sam riami, john carpenter and george A. romero........ nut the number 1 is; WES CRAVEN.

George A. Romero

Let's take a step back here.

Romero is all aces when it comes to writing. That said, writing and directing are two totally different things. "Night" was ingenius. "Dawn" had it's social commentary. "Day" had a perk of zombie character development.

The fact of the matter is that he's never had "name brand" talent, or deep story lines to work with in his movies, and he did nothing to expand the careers of anyone that starred in his movies. There was little to "direct" in his movies as people in the Dead trilogy had to do one of two things. A) Act like a zombie or B) Act like a distressed human.

Now, as naive and cliche as it may be, using only the "Dead" trilogy to base this opinion on, honestly, what else is there? "Martin", which hardly nobody knows about? "Bruiser" which is equally as obscure? C'mon.

Then there are Craven and Carpenter, who at some point and at MULTIPLE times provoked honest to God horror in peoples hearts.

Romero only had that honor once with "Night". To be perfectly honest, maybe I should have chose Hooper, because the level of realism, the fear of the unknown found in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" honestly has yet to be topped.

My point, or opinion is, Romero is Horror's greatest writer because he's smart, aware, and clever, but his directing is average.

care to qualify that bloody stupid statement in any way CD?

I agree with that statement to some extent. Coroneberg does as much non-horror as he does horror. Some of his most well know films aren't strictly horror, just look at 'Dead Ringers'. The most recent Cronenberg film I saw was 'Spider' which is more of a psychological thriller, a genre he pulls off just as well as horror.

The reason I included Cronenberg, and i voted for him, is because many horror fans, including myself, rate his horror as some of the most original work to appear in the genre. The likes of Scanners, Videodrome, Rabid and The Fly being good examples.

I count Cronenberg as a Horror director. The Brood, Shivers, Rabid, Videodrome, The Fly, Scanners. All wonderful horror films.

Others in the list have done non horror also, especially Hitchcock.

I chose Romero.

As a short rebuttle to C-dic's post....

While a director does indeed direct actors.......he also directs the camera. Romero being his own writer of his films enabled him to use the camera to portray exactly what he wanted to (within distributor's guidelines) in his scripts.

Romero himself has said many a time he doesn't care about actors. Actors are props.......they can add to a movie, they can detract.....but will never make or break a movie. If you have a great film written....and a good director.......no matter how bad the actors are, the movie will still turn out good. You could put Tom Hanks into Wrong Turn......it would have still been a turd. On the other hand, Romero could cast Jaleel White (tv's Urkel) as his main character in Land of the Dead.........dollars to pesos says it will still be a great film.

As far as Romero's films not "making" any actors.......giving them marquee names.....you're correct. The only flaw there is that movies do not "make" actors. Studios' marketing and hype "make" actors. You cannot detract from a great director simply because his films were low budget and not supported and hyped by studios.

I'm a fan of most directors on the list.......but Romero's movies (not just the "dead" trilogy) do generally tend to be more focused at their core audience and less generic as they are not watered down (which is usually forced on the others by studios).

Sorry, I thought it was all too obvious. In the traditional sense, he isn't. The fact he made a couple of contributions, doesn't make him a full fledged Horror director.

"Existenz", "The Fly", "Dead Zone", "Videodrome", and "Scanners" are all Sci Fi.

"Dead Ringers" is about his only claim to the Horror genre, while "Naked Lunch", and"Spider", are totally different animals.



While I wasn't aware that Romero acted as his own D.O.P. His stuff is still "point and shoot", ya know?



The greatest directors make actors better. My point was, as disposable as independent Horror movies are, he didn't furthur anyone elses career.
Wes Craven launched Robert Englund's, Carpenter did the same for Jamie Lee Curtis, John David, Kurt Russell, etc.

Romero hasn't offered anything visually that would entice me to consider him as a great director, because his 3 biggest movies revolve around the exact same plot, the exact same locales, and the exact same characters. Familiarity with a subject gets stale when all you can do to distinguish the movies is improve the make up application.

You guys have any actual hard evidence why he should be considered, other than being predisposed to his writing, which I said, is the stuff of legend?

The Fly, Videodrome and Scanners definately have elements of horror. Maybe you could call them Sci-Fi Horror.

All the Cronenberg films I mentioned are horror also. As well as Sci-Fi yes. Biological Horror. Body and science. And so on.

I loathe "genre benders" like that. Especially "The Sixth Sense". The way I see it, where ever Hollywood Video and Best Buy keep the movie, THAT'S the genre it is.

Cronenberg: Shivers, Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, The Fly. Yes they are not "typical" horror movies - thankyou David for not spoon feeding us the same old shit.

But if I'm hearing this right - any movie that has a SF element to the horror isn't a horror movie it's SF? And because only a few of Cronenbergs films fall within your definition he isn't "full-fledged" enough?

Y'know Romero establishes in Night of the Living dead that the zombies are probably walking because of contamination from outer space... so I guess those are SF films and thus don't count in the traditional sense so following your rules we are left with Creepshow and The Dark Half to judge old George. How the hell did he get 3 votes on the back of those stinkers?

As to Carpenter - who in his prime was always looking to serve up a non traditional scare - if we disallow his "non traditional and sci fi tinged" work you are saying is the greatest horror director on the strength of Halloween, The Fog and Christine. Or do you allow JC to include his nontraditional work because he IS your cup of tea? If you are going to be biased, be biased and consistent or it leaves your argument meaningless.

Really hard for me to pick the best Horror director. True, I do have a large amount of admiration for Cronenberg but I can't just pick him over the others. Also where is Fulci in that Poll? He deserves to be on that poll. And also Ruggero Deodato, Joe D'Amato, and Takashi Miike. Those guys deserve recognition as well.

And while I'm kicking your ass - I dont own a single one of romeros zombie movies on DVD (as yet) but I do own The Crazies, Martin, Knightriders, Monkeyshines & Bruiser. The guy may not be a genius, but he's a fine director.

Be careful Winddancer, Miike isn't 'truly a horror director'... Ooo good call for him, love his films.

You're not following. Crony belongs in a best directors PERIOD poll. As do Hitchcock and Raimi. In essence, this being the Horror forum and all, I figured nods for the title would be reserved for those whos life works mainly reside in the genre? He's a great director, just not a typical director with which you'd hear in a Horror genre word association.

As for Romero. There's not much more than a 4 second blurp on the radio to "establish" the zombies origin in NOTLD. In any case, that's a subplot, not the main story. I'll say it, as a director, I feel Romero is overrated. He belongs in such a list, but wouldn't be in my poll, and for good reason.

John Carpenter..



Lest we forget "Vampires", "In the Mouth of Madness", and "Prince of Darkness"? That's quite a resume. Who did you vote for? Do tell.

See, there's no biased, there's you people trying to force square pegs in round holes, and then there is what actually fits.

Carpenter fits. Like butta.

"Please don't kill me, Mr. Zero! I wanna be in the sequel!" Nigga, please.

End of the day it doesn't really matter what genre a film is, whether its horror, sc-fi or a mixture of everything. A good film is a good film and David Cronenberg makes good films, M Night Shyamalan doesn't.

MildPossession> Technically, most fans wouldn't see him as Horror director. But after watching Audition he seens to be a promising horror director in the future. Also, Audition isn't his only horror film (actually is one of his best) but there is also Visitor Q and Ichi the Killer (which I'm sure not a lot ppl like it, but I did).

Most of Takashi films combine Crime and Horror into his movies. Yes, his movies sometimes involved Yakuza characters. He doesn't go for the supernatural stuff. He aims more at the evil within humans. Which I think is a great setting for a horror.

I look at "Audition" as more suspense than anything. "Ichi the Killer" can't be categorized, much like "Versus", where as "Battle Royale" is an action movie.

Bearing in mind we're taking these directors actual DIRECTING into account here, Fulci's work is basic. Excessive gore doesn't merit much.

D'amato was a bonafide pervert. I can't appreciate "art" in his direction.

Craven's a horror director, through and through. He never really delved into other genre's.

Carpenter has 2 easily recognizable sides. Horror and Sci Fi. In his prime, he was the best at both. However, really hasn't had much to offer the last 15 years.

Hitchcock was the master of suspense, not Horror. Buh-bye.

Raimi's is like Romero. An indie trilogy. The rest of his works are as far away from the genre as possible. Raimi however did leave his mark on cinematography.

Tobe Hooper is responsible for making probably the single most important Horror movie ever, then swiftly dropping off the face of the Earth, "Poltergeist" and "Toolbox Murders" not withstanding.

Cronenberg is a double dipper who has directed fantastic movies, but who is better recognized for said movies, and the fact that he CAN'T BE categorized. Another reason why he shouldn't be relegated to this particular poll.

Winddancer I know he combines, I was just being sarcastic in my other reply to you

I agree with Cine with Romero being overrated as a director.

Cine- Battle Royale is not a Miike film, or were you just adding that onto the list in that sentence.

You prove my point. Not all Horror fans see his movies as pure Horror flicks.



The gore that Fulci brings into his movies is quite unique. There are times in which is hard to watch a scene, but that's what's great about his movies! Watching the gore happen brings that horrofic sense of death in the characters.



It is understandble that not many fans will appreciate his style of Erotica and Beastily in his works. Yes, is not for younger audiences and that's what I like about him. His films were never targeted at a younger audience but more at the adults. Offensive? Only if you don't appreciate harcore.



The same can be said about Ridley Scott. He made Alien, brought two genres into one movie. The result was a great movie.

IMO Romero isn't overrated. But prior to his movies were there really any good Zombie flicks?

Still blurring the line between directing and writing/producing, though.

In my personal opinion, George Romero has nothing to his directing credit that really makes him stand out. Writing? Yes, yes, yes. Stroke of genius, but his work is so candid and campy, that there isn't anything that would move people emotionally, as he was cleverly mocking human nature to begin with.

While there was a level of credibility and relatibility, the actual WAY in which most of his movies were directed was average. He deserves credit for single handedly (re)creating the zombie movie genre, but his directing is so vanilla. There's no credible threat posed by the zombies in his movies, which may be why we've seen mobile undead as of late.

Lucio Fulci is indeed the godfather of gore, but the only highlights of his actual directing seem to be memorable death scenes. In retrospect, perhaps Fulci does belong on this short list, given there are a few instances.

Thanks for being civil, guys. Hope I am getting my opinion/point across.

"In my personal opinion, George Romero has nothing to his directing credit that really makes him stand out. Writing? Yes, yes, yes. Stroke of genius, but his work is so candid and campy, that there isn't anything that would move people emotionally, as he was cleverly mocking human nature to begin with."

The ending of the original Night of the Living Dead is recognized as one of the most powerful and emotional endings of horror history. When we see Ben being thrown with hooks in to the pile of zombie bodies it is heart breaking to witness.

Romero does indeed have a directing style, it is being simplistic, which adds a sense of realism to his films. It's what made his zombie films so great, they were simple, basic and thus, realistic.

However, C-dic does have a point, Romero's greatness is definately more involved in his writing skill then his directing. I guess when I answered the question I wasn't really answering "best horror director" but "best horror film maker". Something that's easy to confuse with "director".

If we're basing the question purely on directing, I'll have to say the best horror director of all time is Dario Argento. His films had the most style and creativity behind them in a directorial sense. But if we're talking the best "horror film maker" then the nod definately goes to Romero, he has the total package.

imo, i think the scriptwriter has more to do with how good the film is than the director. however, a clear exception to this is evil dead. while im not sure who wrote it, it was raimis camera work and brilliant ideas that made the movie.

Romero, He made Dawn, Nuff Said!!