10 Most Divisive Film Directors

1. Michael Bay-Sure, you loved the Transformers movie and the joys of just watching stuff blow up, but that formula runs a little thin after five films.

If you look at his list of summer blockbusters, you can see where the commercial audiences and films critics splinter and split up into camps that either love him for big-budget excess or loathe him for it.

"Armageddon." "Pearl Harbor." "The Island." You can't expect these films to be Shakespeare but one thing is for sure, it seems that for all the money that's put into the special effects, barely any of that can be seen in the quality of the writing.

When someone tells you that they love Michael Bay, you can bet that its said with a knowing smirk or a defensive look, because fanboys and haters alike know the mere mention of his name will spark a debate.

2. Tony Scott-From summer blockbusters like "Top Gun" and "Days of Thunder" to the jumpy and erratic "Domino," one thread that runs constant through his film is the emphasis of style.

His recent films haven't always recreated that box office magic. Films like "Revenge," "The Fan" and the Denzel Washington reunion "Deja Vu" received a lukewarm critical and audience response.

Like Bay, Scott has faced the standard blockbuster criticisms that the writing takes a backseat to special effects. This argument kind of falls apart when you're shooting for a 15-28 year old male demographic who mostly likes to see explosions. Don't get me wrong, I like explosions too but the jump cuts, the grainy handheld shots and flashy production either grow on you after seeing them so many times or they just grow tired.

3. Brian De Palma-Even at his best, De Palma's most ardent critics will argue that the director only got famous by stylistically riding Alfred Hitchcock's coattails. Although "Dressed to Kill" is a good film, I can see why hardcore Hitchcock fans cry foul at its "Psycho"-esque storyline.

De Palma did break away from that criticism with one film - the quintessential 80's film about the "me generation" in all its empty decadence with "Scarface." Written by Oliver Stone, who will appear on this list soon enough, it was a box office and critical failure at the time. But since then, the film has since found a second life with a cult following particularly in the hip-hop community.

De Palma made up for that with "The Untouchables," a great film whose stars included Kevin Costner, Sean Connery and Robert De Niro. That film earned its Oscar, but

With that said, most of De Palma's subsequent films, from the terrible "Snake Eyes" and "Femme Fatale" to the so-so "Black Dahlia" feel like they suffer from the same symptoms as his early films. Like Scott and Bay, there's a heavy emphasis on style.

4. Oliver Stone-Stone started as a reasonably successful screenwriter, penning films like "Midnight Express" and "Conan the Barbarian" in the late 70's to early 80's.

Stone even won an Oscar for his work on 1986's "Platoon," the semi-autobiographical tale of a green soldier sent into the jungles of Vietnam at the height of the most controversial war. Surprisingly, that movie didn't have the radical political implications of most of his other films.

"JFK" still strikes a chord to this day, but it's no surprise because some of the accusations brought up in the film has inspired so many enemies in the right wing. The film is virtually a molotov cocktail, throwing out connections to the mafia and Cuba. It's also factually inaccurate at several points that have been exhausted on Internet forums everywhere.

I feel like Stone's political leanings have made him more of a divisive figure more than his films. He has reached out an olive branch to Fidel Castro, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Columbia's radical group FARC.

When I saw "W." last year, I walked in thinking I was going to see him drag Bush's name through the mud. While it does point a finger at Bush at several points, it does so in a comedic way lacking any kind of real punch. So conservatives walking in hoping for a heavy-handed liberal treatise and liberals hoping for an indicting case against the Bush administration and the Iraq War both left empty-handed.

"W" was met with indifference at the box office and by critics. Maybe audiences thought they would be walking into a one-sided smear campaign against the 41st president. I saw the film in theaters and what I got ended up making me feel more sorry for the man than anything.

5. Blake Edwards-Edwards is known to most as the man who directed the original "Pink Panther" movies, but Edwards' track record is just as dotted with highs and lows as that series itself.

Edwards stepped into the spotlight with the slapstick Cary Grant film "Operation Petticoat" before the much more mature "Breakfast at Tiffany's." He also directed Dudley Moore in "10," and a lot of his films seem to have their bumbling protagonists but "Pink Panther" has to be the best example.

While "A Shot In the Dark" remains my favorite in the series, the others range from mediocre (Revenge of the Pink Panther) to the downright awful (Trail of the Pink Panther). It seems that Edwards just didn't know when to stop flogging a dead horse. Even after Sellers died, Edwards would go that creative well a few times more for what can easily be seen as a quick cash route.

6. David Lynch-When one looks for some words to describe David Lynch's films, the one that probably comes to mind instantly is "eccentric." Lynch's penchant for the bizarre tends to either turn people off immediately or draw them into a world that's littered with the broken dreams of Hollywood starlets, severed ears and a generous helpings of coffee and cherry pie.

People kind of expect weirdness from him, so much so that when critics talk about Lynch's career, they note the anomalies in it like "The Straight Story" and "The Elephant Man" are the strangest because they don't seem weird at all.

7. Stanley Kubrick-This one may seem like a stretch, but stick with me. Kubrick is one of my favorite filmmakers, but even at his best he can be described as an acquired taste.

Critics love that Kubrick's films take their time, building up characters and tension. The same is true of the Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, whose films like the original "Solaris" and "Stalker" also have running times that can test a viewer's endurance. Others find Kubrick's films like "2001," "Full Metal Jacket" and even "The Shining" too slow. The lulls in the action, the lack of dialogue in parts and the overall pace of the film turns many people off.

Maybe it's a question of a viewer's patience. Not everyone can stick around for "2001"s two and a half hour running time. Not everyone can watch the violent "A Clockwork Orange" without cringing and inching toward the "stop" button.

Sometimes when I see someone who is new to Kubrick watching one of his films, it's like in "Clockwork Orange" when Alex is being forced to watch propaganda while having his eyelids held open.

8. Kevin Smith - If you have the same kind of humor as Kevin Smith, his films can serve as a good litmus test for a first date. If she laughs a little, watch out. If she laughs alot, you should be fine.

This type of "you get it or you don't" humor definitely divisive. One day I watched "Clerks 2" with a group of friends and we laughed the whole way through. Later that day, my girlfriend had taken me over to see some of their friends and when we suggested "Clerks 2" and started watching it, the look on her friends' faces were like I had just ran over all their dogs.

I seem to remember her saying after her friends took the DVD out of the player mid-way through the film that she remembers it was funnier the first time.

Whether it's the crude humor or the pop-culture monologues, Smith's comedy generally tends to skew towards those with a Y chromosome. Critics point to a lack of diversity among Smith's male characters, arguing that sometimes the rants about Transformers or Star Wars are just Kevin Smith monologues spread out about 6 characters thin.

Honestly, I like Smith's films. "Dogma," "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" and "Chasing Amy" are all really great movies, but he has had his share of misses like "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" and the okay-if-it-wasn't-Kevin-Smith rom-com "Jersey Girl."

I wouldn't recommend "Clerks" to a Smith newbie. That film divides audiences like a hot knife through butter due to a lack of action and a dialogue-driven plot.

The same argument can apply to Judd Apatow's film to a lesser extent. Even "Knocked Up" star Katherine Heigl thought the film was a little sexist, but what else can you expect for a film about men who are learning to grow up?

9 & 10. George Romero and George Lucas - Both of these directors have the distinction of having a split even in the group of their most ardent admirers. Both have pioneered what was previously seen as a cliched niche market, whether it's Romero with the horror film or Lucas with the sci-fi epic. Both elevated their genres to an art form.

But at the same time, both have never really lived down their first accomplishments. Worse, both can be seen as fine with drawing new ideas from their landmark series rater than branching out.

Romero, who started with the classic "Night of the Living Dead" and made a series of it, has fans who respect him for the early "Dead" films. That doesn't necessarily mean they are chomping at the bit to talk about his later films like "Land of the Dead" or last year's "Diary of the Dead."

The same can be said for most directors but with Romero, the divide starts after "Dawn of the Dead." Romero has some good films outside of the series with the underrated "Monkey Shines" and modern vampire story "Martin."

But Romero has faced the same problems another classic horror director John Carpenter has faced. He has directed a landmark film which in Carpenter's case had to be the proto-slasher "Halloween" and has had most of his films compared to that as the standard he is judged upon. Carpenter has had his hits ("Escape From L.A." and "The Thing") and misses ("Escape from New York" and "Ghosts of Mars") but when it comes to discussing him, "Halloween" will never escape him. "Night of the Living Dead" can exist as a blessing or a curse for Romero.

With Lucas, it's safe to say that the "Star Wars" series have become more of a property that fans think they own more than Lucas himself. With the constant re-releasings in theaters and DVD with new additional content of like 3 minutes worth of scenes, the new TV shows like the "Clone Wars" on Cartoon Network, the new videogames, the collector's editions of damn near anything slapped with the "Star Wars" license, the series is a cash cow.

The problem lies in that fans want a steady stream of new content but have unrealistic expectations based on the first trilogy. It's not just their fault. Lucas shares some if not most of the blame as well. A good example can be found when Lucas and Steven Spielberg decided to put Indiana Jones back in the saddle again for a fourth film in the series last year.

The camps were divided just like "Star Wars." One side wants Lucas to stop adding more to series and further tarnishing their childhood and the other wouldn't mind paying the inflated ticket price to see Harrison Ford crack the bullwhip once again. The former has this mindset that the series is bigger than Lucas and that he should look out for the integrity of the films.

But this is Hollywood after all and what primarily divides these directors from the fans who adore them is the opportunity to make money.