No. First off, it's sometimes hard to tell if the filmmaker truly agrees with his own movie, or if the studio forced some changes, or if he's just doing it for the money.

Secondly, and far more importantly, if the filmmaker DOES truly agree with his own movie (which is optimal, to be sure), that is not to say that he is dying to reenact the things that happen in it. Some directors (Spielberg springs instantly to mind) have said they use their movies as their own personal therapy, to deal with ideas they've been thinking about and sort them out. If they have to sort out some very controversial or negative ideas, it is not fair to attack them for it.

I like Roger Ebert's approach to film criticism, because he takes every director's work one movie at a time. He will never write off a director as too far gone, nor will he allow a directorial credit to bias him before going into a screening. For example, after years and years of giving David Lynch 1-star and 2-star votes and saying his movies really felt wrong, he gladly and ecstatically gave "Mulholland Drive" 4 stars. Or, more recently, his review of "Year One" seemed to suggest that he really admired Harold Ramis, but that didn't stop him from giving the movie a 1-star.

Basically, the only way should use a director's movie against them is if you're criticizing their CRAFT. If you hated the movie, you can say he's a bad filmmaker. But you cannot say he's a bad person for making the film.

Per filmmakers — no. Quite frankly, I've ripped on that same list of directors you listed. However, after having an hour long conversation with one of them, I felt genuinely badly for the director who I ripped on. The director explained his motives behind his recent film and also admitted to regretting some decisions. But he genuinely felt the direction he was taking with the film was a great one.

With Bay, there's testimony to the fact he's a dick and slightly misogynistic. QT also comes across as very egotistical and at times, pretentious. When you attack someone because of their commentary or interviews, I'd say thats justified. But the judging a person based off a film itself is wrong.

Yes, I think it is okay to use a movie to attack a filmmaker. Personally, I don't get how you could use any of Quentin Tarantino's movies to attack because they're all so good (with the exception of Inglourious Basterds which I haven't seen yet), but directors like McG and Michael Bay can easily be judged by their movies. As Peter Travers from Rolling Stone pointed out, in Transformers 2, Bay directs Megan Fox as though she's a porn actress. He positions her on that motorcycle with so much intention and it's absolutely disgusting. Uwe Boll's films are horrible and after more than three bad ones in a row, I'd say it's time you can start personally attacking him. Rob Zombie is another example of this. House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween are all hackneyed gorefests lacking any cinematic quality. Again, three strikes, you're out! You can personally attack now! However, if you're just juding by one movie, it's not okay. You need to watch a few movies to really make a judgement about the director.

I'm with Laremy (or at least what I think Laremy was saying); yeah it's okay, but it's entirely not needed. I'd add that if your criticism of a director/writer/producer/editor/actor/whatever spans multiple films, then your criticism is of the person's overall work and not any individual film.

And sometimes the comments are valid but completely unrelated. Roman Polanski's a perv AND Chinatown's one of my favourite movies, unrelated. Woody Allen's a perv AND I don't really enjoy any of his work, also unrelated.

Use a film as an excuse to attack a filmmaker? No. No. No. But I agree with what Laremy says about making personal assumptions regarding a filmmaker vis-a-vie his/her work. But the other way around, not liking the filmmaker and using the review of their film to beat them up? Bad, no doubt.

What is more to the point, and something you touch upon a bit, is berating a film…and its audience…because you don't personally like a film. You get that alot on this communication device, the internet. As Brad talks about, it's like the op doesn't even acknowledge the humanity of the person or people they are attacking.

By the way guys. Talking about meeting someone in person and suddenly having all the vitriol disappear, I have two stories that illustrate both sides. Have you ever seen the video of Quentin Taratino spitting on a reporter? Seems the reporter's employer ran a bit about QT's mother that he didn't like. I mean he really spewed a loogie. It was disgusting. For a long time after that I thought QT was the most dispicable person in the film business. But then I saw a video of him gently dismissing the guards that were trying to keep Phoebe Price off the red carpet at Cannes. I thought it was very compassionate of him to endulge her almost stalker like obsession at these events. It melted my heart that he made this small gesture when he could have just kept walking. He could also have done it to piss off the folks at Cannes. Could be either one.

Great stuff to listen to. I think it is almost an unanswerable question because it is morally wrong, but it is also sometimes inevitable. Many times coming out of bad movies I will attack the people involved almost instinctively. That doesn't mean I'm an immoral person, I just feel so strongly about movies, like you guys said — It stems from passion.

Keep the podcasts going they're great.

It's not that Armond White only likes bad movies and hates good ones, although that is the case most of the time. His favorite two movies of last year were Rachel getting married and Happy-go-lucky which were received well and I thought were very good. Having siad that, I hate Armond White with a passion in most ways but then he teases me every now and then with good things too say, but every one good thing out of 1 million I can get in a larger amount from Andrew Sarris.

@GregM: But these guys are talking about people judging filmmakers based on their work. you are talking about filmmakers information out in the air judging them based on that and their films, which is different.

I personally agree with Chris.C, ripping on filmmakers because of their film is unfair because you don't know what conflicted with that project or their intention in a certain bit of the film.
However at the same time, I think that interviews are a bit more fair because the director is putting himself out there and if they don't bother to come off as intelligent or respectful, no else should. For example I like McG a lot better then Michael Bay, even though I wasn't a fan of either T4 or ROTF. This is because McG tried to do something interesting with the terminator series but sadly he was pulled back by the writer's strike and questionable casting choices (Coming from someone who will defend the Bat-voice till the day he dies.) and the interviews talking about the project shows he really is passionate.
Bay on the other hand comes off as a complete jack-ass, whether its blaming other people for his failures (The cast of The Island for it flopping, the animators for the racism accusations in ROTF.), insulting his own fanbase and films (Cause nerds don't care about plot.) or his clear sexism (Anything involving Megan Fox) Its all so classless and embarrassing that I can't really say anything respectful about the guy.
So that is wear my point lies, the film should be be judged as a work of art but once the filmmaker puts himself out there not his craft. Then points can be made.

I would have to say yes. I may not agree in any situation that Rob Zombie or Michael Bay (though I haven't seen Transformers 2 yet) suck like people say they do. But I for one cannot stand Guy Richie movies, especially Rock N Rolla. I mean who would want to watch a movie where Gerald Butler is molested by another man? That is disgusting and tastless beyond porno scenes with Megan Fox or Rob Zombie gorefests. To me, he and his movies are prime examples of how to make an extreme, over the top movie. Though I don't think anyone should be attacked for a movie just because of bad acting. What does that have to do with the director? And honestly, I'd rather watch a movie with bad acting that is at least entertaining with shooting and gore (all of Uwe Boll's movies pretty much) than a really boring movie with good acting (Guy Richie's movies).

I know I rambled on, but that is what I think about attacking directors…

I have to say something: I like Armond White. Partly because he clearly out of his mind and off the grid. But I like that he reviews every single movie like they matter. He treats the medium with respect, he creates discussion, treats films many would write off as worthy of dicussion, good or bad. He irritates me and he angers me but I'd rather live in a world with Armond White than one without.

Having said all that, I think it's okay to discuss a filmmaker and try to tap the artist on a personal level, as long as you're doing it responsibly. Sometimes writers, movie fans etc. do need to call out guys like Michael Bay personally when their misogyny, arrogance, or laziness pours onto our laps (note: not all specifically Bay faults…he ain't lazy). I think it's one thing to outright attack someone but – as Alex pointed out – Peter Travers bringing up how Bay shoots Megan Fox like a porn star… every… single… shot… that IS – in my book – worth discussing. He may be right, he may be wrong. But that is certainly a low-level attack on Mr. Bay and gets no complain on my end.

I think a lot of this is missing the point, really. Is it okay to attack a director's ability because he made a terrible movie? Absolutely. Should we go easy on the director because the studio could have changed things or he has a lot of pressure to deliver a hit or the actors were out of control? Of course not. Those are all things that happen, yes, but that's part of the burden you bear as director. If you know your movie is a piece of shit, then call it out as such, like Danny Boyle with The Beach, or disown it, like David Fincher and Alien Cubed. It doesn't make the movie any less awful, but it does allow you to save some face.

What is not okay is using a film to attack the director personally, beyond his or her film-making prowess. Is it okay to call Lars Von Trier a misogynist because he made Breaking the Waves or Antichrist? Is it okay to call Woody Allen a racist because his movies prominently feature few to no black people? Absolutely not. Judging a person's character based on the film he made is stepping over the line. Unless you're dealing with D.W. Griffith or Leni Riefenstahl or their ilk, what right does the audience have to judge the director? What brilliant insight are you gaining into their soul based on some flick they made? Does your work define you? No. And it doesn't define them, either.

If it's Michael Bay, then by all means fire away everybody.

Anybody who disses films like There Will Be Blood, Wall-E, The Dark Knight, UP, Trek, Iron Man, and sings the praises of gems like Dance Flick and Land of the Lost deserves every harsh and cruel thing thrown their way.

I don't think I'd attack a director because of a movie they'd made, but a lot of them deserve coming under attack from their audio commentaries or remarks to the press which may be obnoxious, pretentious or egotistical – Lurhmann, P T Anderson, Von Trier come to mind. Generally I can separate the director from the film, if it makes the viewing experience more productive (Having said that I think Lurhmann is beyond redemption now – his last film 'Australia' isn't going to bail him out of any more his prattle).

@Zack Solomon: Using a film critique to attack a personality trait, wasn't that the discussion? The examples I used simply point out how the opinion of a film and the option of a filmmaker can both be valid yet one is has nothing to do with the other.
Let me try again, you could do a right up about Michael Bay as an artist vs destroyer of all things childhood OR you could review Transformers 2. Both are valid, all I'm saying is that they are (should be) separate articles/discussions.

@Brian: I hear where you're coming from, Brian. And although I agree with your overall point that personally attacking a filmmaker for the films they make is bad, I think it is often bad taste rather than unsubstantial. Being able to make a judgement call on someone's character based on their films is not alway possible. I don't think I know a darn thing about many directors based on their films that race for the almighty dollar. But with some films, or more accurately, with some bodies of work, it is inevitable. And sometimes, I think that a film made just to rage against the filmmakers demons may be the only point.

If you have a bit of time, go to this website, it recounts the reactions to Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" when it was shown at Cannes. Many of the things said here use his film, as well as his others, to examine von Trier as a human being. But what I most applaud is the gentle compassion that they use to describe a man they may not agree with, but who nevertheless has something to say.

I'd say the only case is Uwe Boll. I've only seen one of his films–In the Name of the King–and I can already personally attack him for his lack of any sort of skill with a camera. A drunk one-eyed monkey shooting from a script that has largely been shredded and doused with water so as to smudge up the words could fare better as a filmmaker than Boll.

And I like Michael Bay, so suck it. :P

After they've had a proven track record with movies, there should be criticism leveled at the director for not doing more or improving their body of work. Case in point: Michael Bay and Rob Zombie. Bay just does his same vacuous action schtick for three movies in a row: The Island and subsequent Transformers movies (and never does he try to improve his standards and just doesn't listen to criticism — he pins the blame on someone else).

More people haven't called Rob Zombie out on his lack of talent either. All of his work is just reiterations of those '70s grindhouse movies he idolized growing up. Even the more restrained "Halloween" remake had his fingerprints all over it. But the awful "Halloween 2" had him doing his own thing with the Halloween mythos — and it was both sickening and robbed the Halloween franchise of what made it Halloween. He can't ruin the Blob remake he's attached to… or can he?

To personally attack someone based on their craft or lack thereof, is a telltale sign of one's own insecurity. What I find interesting is one can judge; yet, offer no advice or their own thoughts of improvement. Why? They fear they same judgement. So their judgement can only go as "deep" as a personal attack. Plain Silly.

@Phil:

That's the problem. Bay and Zombie just don't care about the story, or don't know how to make it better. There are a few good elements Zombie tried with "Halloween 2" (like Laurie's growing psychological problems), but took them in the wrong direction. Not everyone with post-traumatic stress disorder deals with their problems either yelling at loved ones, going to raves, running away from home or acting hysterical. There's more to it than the obvious.

The thing is with Bay and Zombie is that they need to know how to tell a story properly, as opposed to just putting together ideas and scenes with a bare thread to connect them together. Some movies benefit from steadicam treatment, and not the current trend of handheld cameras introduced by the Bourne series.

i voted depends, but the only situation i feel it's acceptable is with someone like micheal moore ( im a huge fan and actually wathcing the big one as im typing) because what he does can easily be considered an attack towards the republican party so i feel retaliation is only fair

Even though I disagree with him, I believe Armond has the right to dislike films like the Dark Knight, Up, Wall-E and champion films like Transporter 3, Dance Flick, and Torque. The main problem I have with Armond is that he'll champion a film like The Hurt Locker (I believe he called it "one of the best Iraq films ever") then weeks later rip it to pieces because "too many people were loving it."

Directors like Bay and others who can't take objective criticism and uses the time old defense of "critics just don't get it" and "it's supposed to be fun" and most of all implying that "The worldwide audience spoke to the tune of a bajillion dollars so that's egg on all your faces" deserve to get it. If a critic gives a well thought out, professional, and well-mannered film criticism without any personal attack, and the director comes out and scoffs at him/her and throws insults their way, the gloves are off (and that goes the other way around too).

Michael Bay is just Uwe Boll but with a bigger budget to work with. He gets those big jobs because he probably has ilicit pictures of producers in the industry.

Yes. Especially when a filmmaker continuously makes movies that rubs it in and insults audiences. Some moviegoers are just too naive to realize that they are being made fun of, and the filmmaker is practically saying "You guys are too dumb anyway and will eat whatever garbage I put on the table"

Generally, no, it's not alright. I just find Uwe Boll frustrating for making so many crappy movies based on video games. But I certainly don't hate the man – he's got the courage and energy to make his movies, so I give him respect in that matter.

Last night I saw "The Passion of the Christ" (I consider myself agnostic and found it to be a terrific movie) and I remember all kinds of personal attacks being put on Mel Gibson when the film came out. Sure, he's had some incidents in his personal life that don't exactly help his public image, but you can't despise a man and criticize his personal life and beliefs just because of a movie he's made. People claimed his film to be anti-Semitic, which I didn't think as I watched it. He's just telling a story (at least according to the Bible), something he is terrific at doing in his films.

Armond White is tasteless. I don't get how he could diss great movies such as HP, Iron Man, Star Trek, Wall-E, Up, Hellboy, District 9 and Dark Knight but praise such horrible movies as Twilight, Dance Flick, Confessions of a Shopaholic and GI Joe.

It's not just directors. Sometimes actors, too, have a negative stigma attached to them that causes near-automatic negative reviews. Nicolas Cage is a good example of that.

I know it is "cool" to hate some movies, directors and actors, and that usually results in overly low scores, or in some cases, perceptivley low scores (example: based upon Pop Culture and message boards, you'd think everybody hated "Star Wars: Episode I", but the IMDB score for that movie is 6.4, quite positive by IMDB standards for a controversial movie). This is completely wrong. You should see each movie as an individual movie. Sequels, prequels, and remakes can and will be compared to others in the series, but that is not necessary (simply because "Spider-Man 3" didn't meet expectations doesn't mean "Spider-Man 2" no longer exists).

no, i only judge a movie .I don't care on all that sort of things.

as long as its about michael bay its fine by me

Look up Rex Reed's review of Synechdoche, New York for a very good example of this problem. He literally called it the worst film of all time, and spent most of the review not only not defending this claim, but basically ignoring the film in favor of attacking Charlie Kaufman, and doing so viciously. I've seen it done in less cruel means, more for the sake of comedy (for example, Dustin Rowle's review of Transformers 2 which is entirely about Michael Bay's penile compensation, and which is admittedly hilarious). But really, it's unprofessional, and it undermines the entire industry of entertainment journalism and criticism.