It's a good question, because a movie isn't good or bad based on its politics. It's usually good or bad for other reasons, though you might agree or disagree with its politics.
I believe there's only good cinema and bad cinema.
I watched 'My Girl' as an adult pretty recently, and it's a good movie.
My motto: 'No good movie is depressing. All bad movies are depressing.'
In my mind, there isn't as much of a distinction between documentary and fiction as there is between a good movie and a bad one.
I don't know if it's fair to say that it's a bad time for movies. It seems to me that throughout the entire history of filmmaking, every year there have been about two really wonderful movies, about 10 others that are pretty good, and a whole pile of garbage.
I think that there's good movies and there's bad movies, and sometimes the bad movies spoil it for the rest of us, and we focus on them, but in the long run, all that matters are the good movies. Those are the ones that we will remember.
I think a good movie is a good movie whether that falls into a genre or not.
I don't really say much about reviewers. It's a very tough job to get all of the depth of a movie all at once.
And as a filmmaker, I'm trying to unhook myself from this idea that unless you have a brilliant, long, enormously lucrative theatrical run, that your movie somehow failed. And I don't believe that.
There are only two types of cinema - good or bad.
I'm proud of 'Miracle at St. Anna' and I loved it; there's no question in my mind it's as good as any movie that came out in 2007.
I think there are just bad films and good films. Period.
But time has caught up with it and I think vindicated it. Shampoo, too: very dark, very ambitious movie.
Directing is monumentally complicated and it's a function of all the time you pay to it. I think it would be great to do a movie I'm not in, I could just eat Fritos and just say, 'yeah, it's good!' Some day.
All I mean is, I'm not the kind of audience comedy directors want at a test screening because I seldom laugh, and if I do, it's not very loud. That doesn't mean I don't like the movie.
I know there is one kind of cinema that exists in the world, that is good or bad cinema.
I don't ever see movies by myself. I always see them with other people because I want to know what works. I want to know where they laugh. I want to know where they don't laugh. I want to know what they think about it afterwards because in the end that's what the art that I'm working with is.
We actually try our best to be non-biased, but for me, that was the best movie ["Sicario"], filmmaking-wise and storytelling-wise, and connected to me the most. I thought it was great.
But the truth is, at some point, our films - almost every single one of them - are really bad. And it's largely hats off to John Lasseter and Ed Catmull who have set up a system whereby they're expecting it.
What I tried to do is deliver movies that have worked for me more than once.
I have made a lot of movies, but I don't see any point in talking about films I don't think are terribly good. I have been in a few. I don't know any actor that hasn't.
I've made six or seven good films. The others, not so good.
What I admire about Ranbir is his choice of films. Sometimes he will be bad; sometimes he will be good.
You can do a movie and hope it may be great, but until you have seen it, you don't know. I loved 'Rampart.' I love that one called 'The Hi-Low Country' that Steven Frears shot.
