It had BEAUTIFUL cinematography, just as all of his films do, but you're not a great director because you choose a great cinematographer.

My criticism of The Passion was simple: I didn't care about Jesus until about 2/3rds of the way through when he started using flashbacks to show us who this guy was. He assumed we all knew who Jesus was and automatically cared deeply about his character. He didn't flesh him out, he just ripped the flesh off of him.

Braveheart is better storytelling than The Passion, but again, it's too damn long. I refuse to believe that that movie couldn't have been better if it were 20 minutes shorter.

The guy has fantastic cinematography, and he loves to fetishize violence, which is interesting and gives him his own unique stamp as a director. But it doesn't make him Top 5. There are at least 10 or more better directors at telling a story. There are several who get better performances out of their actors. Mel just paints a pretty picture of violence. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just doesn't automatically make you Top 5.