|
What I meant was it's unusual for a name director to have made so many films where it's hard to recognise any unifying style or theme. You watch anything by Michael Mann or Christopher Nolan or Tarantino and within a few minutes you'd kinda know you were watching one of their films. Boorman seems more like, say, Ridley Scott: another big name director whose name tends to figure highly in the marketing of his films but where it becomes difficult to really say what constitutes a 'Ridley Scott film' (besides generally being pretty good). That's not a criticism of Boorman (or Ridley Scott) it's just unusual for a director as successful as either of them to have no apparent signature. (Not saying they don't have one but they're certainly not apparent to me).
|