Do many people actually hunt down films purely because of the director? While Pedro Almodovar and Alfred Hitchcock are distinctive directors, do people actually view films purely on the director? There are so many other factors, such as cast and story.

I Wiki it sometimes, but more often than not I don't go and get anything else of their work*. I'd guess it's quite common, like your favourite comic book artist/writer

* I'm interested in seeing the other work of Ironclad's director though

If I know it's by one of the directors I listed, I'll actively try to get to see it at the cinema (which doesn't always happen).
If I'm interested in the film before I know who the director is, all the better.
There's no one actor that I would go out of my way to watch their films.

Mark

Indeed. There's more of them that I'd avoid going to see their movies.

Jim Carrey, for example. Or Jennifer Aniston.

Indeed.
Every film with Will Ferral in sucks.
The exception being Megamind, but that doesn't count as it's animated.

Well they might not suck enough to stop making another Ron Burgundy movie.

Favourite directors:
Coen Brothers
Kevin Smith
Quentin Tarantino
Stanley Kubrick
Martin Scorsese
Spike Jonze
David Cronenburg
David Lynch
Steven Spielberg
Sam Mendes
Tim Burton
Akira Kurosawa
Luc Besson
Guillermo Del Toro
Peter Jackson
Steven Soderbergh

I'm really not sure about Kevin smith anymore.

History may judge him harshly, but I love Clerks and Mallrats. I just get the feeling that these days he's made enough cash to never need shoot anything again, and he's just trying to fill his time.
Which is a shame.

I'd like to say James Cameron, but he's really started to fail during and after Titanic, which is a shame as he was pretty good at making pretty cheap tricks look expensive. He also had a good eye for a story, back in the day. So I can't.

Would also like to say Ridley Scott. Again, some retry good early material, some fair to middling mid career material, and more recent bewildering output. I am hoping that he can pul, the rabbit out of the had with the Blade Runner sequel, and can redeem/solve the Prometheus conundrum. So I can't.

I'd love to say Stanley Kubrick, but even monkeys fall out of trees. So I can't.

Steven Spielberg? He's certainly had a varied output from bubblegum sci-if and adventures to more serious material. However, he always manages to get some schmaltz in there, and I'm afraid that to me that's as bad as Michael Jackson grabbing his crotch and going "eee-eeee". So I can't.

We are entering Terry Gilliam territory, really. An animator who shared a desk with Bob Godfrey, who somehow managed to make a film so intricate that it could not be edited down to the studio's desired length. He's managed to go over budget, make wild and crazy films which aren't always commercially successful and, somehow, keeps on working. He's got to be doing a lot of things right.

Thing about Kubrick is that he was, undeniably, someone with a complete understanding of the process and the elements within it.
Now, certainly I don't love everything he made (there's writers and actors influence to be considered too), but I can look at everything he made and go 'Wow, he really knew what he was doing.'
Same goes for Spielberg - yes he tends towards schamltz sometimes, but Jaws is brilliant. So is Saving Private Ryan. Schindler's List. All the Indiana Jones (apart from that one).

Fair comment. Of course clerks was good and I absolutely love mallrats, I think it's his greatest work. Dogma's great too. Every interview I read with him however makes it sound like he has too high an opinion of himself, especially lately makes it seem like he's lost his way. He is not a consistent director at the very least.

Dogma was also awesome!

+1

Add Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler to the list.

If it's a director I really like then yes I'll make sure I see as many films as possible.



With Clerks he might have peaked early but I did enjoy Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Red State is on my watch list.