Here's the SoulHonky rankings:

NR. Stephen Daldry: People might scoff at his inclusion here but the guy has made three films and gotten nominated for Best Director three times. I have to give Daldry the NR (not rated) because I actually haven't seen any of his movies: The Reader, The Hours, and Billy Elliot.

5. Gus Van Sant: Gus Van Sant fans will probably cry foul but since I can not count myself amongst their lot, I think Guys gets the #5 spot. Yes, I loved "Good Will Hunting" but I also think "Elephant" is one of the worst movies ever made. It's in a tight race with "Baby Boy" (a discussion for another day). While I enjoyed "Milk" and some of his other films, his missteps outnumber his great films and when he's bad, he's basically unwatchable.

4. Ron Howard: I was recently told that to understand the problem with 21st Century Hollywood all one has to do is look at USC. At USC, I was informed, almost everyone wants to be Ron Howard. They want to make mainstream movies, completely inoffensive and predictable, that are aimed at making money. There's a lack of passion, daring, innovation, etc. For the most part, I think it's a decent call when it comes to Howard. His films are fairly formulaic. He got his start on fun trifles like "Splash", "Cocoon", "Night Shift", and "Parenthood". He then moved onto bigger budgeted popcorn films like "Apollo 13", "The Beautiful Mind", and "The DaVinci Code". While I know he won awards for "Mind", I was never a huge fan of that film and I don't think it's a very memorable movie.

However, I would argue that the problem isn't that people want to be like Ron Howard, it's that they are failing. Sure, "Gung Ho" and "Backdraft" look pretty silly today but they were well made, very engaging popcorn films. They actually coupled characters with the action scenes. Personally, too many films today rely on effects to give the films any heft or the audience any reason to keep watching. So while he might be at the #4 spot, this isn't a slight. Ron Howard is a great Hollywood director. But, in my opinion, he's also unquestionably behind the Top 3 of his list.

Now it gets tough.

3. Christopher Nolan: I have to be honest, I wasn't really blown away by either Batman film. Now don't get me wrong, they are both very good films but they aren't films that I would put on my All-Time Favorites list. Personally, I'd only put both a notch above The Prestige. Some people will take that as hate but I really liked The Prestige and think all the films are expertly crafted. Still though, if you are talking the best of Nolan, I go with Memento. Nolan is one of the best director to emerge this decade (if we overlook his little seen first film "The Following" which was from the late 90's), but right now he's #3 on this list.

2. David Fincher: Fincher BARELY sneaks past Nolan and that's primarily because (unlike most people) I don't consider The Dark Knight and Batman Begins to be "great" films. I've had my issues with Fincher's films but I think "Se7en" is an undeniable All-Time Classic, "Fight Club" is up there, and I personally think "The Game" is a forgotten gem. I didn't love "Zodiac" but it was very effective and was probably the best telling of a story that is filled with ancillary characters and no satisfying conclusion. "Benjamin Button" is vastly overrated but I think that movie is absolutely carried by Fincher's direction. The story isn't really all that great; if the film wasn't crafted masterfully, it would have been panned. But that's basically my biggest beef with Fincher; he keeps choosing scripts that aren't really that strong and he doesn't really improve them. He does an amazing job turning them into films but "Button", "Panic Room", "Zodiac", and "Alien3" were all somewhat hollow. Techinically amazing but incomplete filmgoing experiences.

1. Danny Boyle: Many people might disagree with my #1 selection (hell, I could wake up tomorrow and chage my mind) but as of right now, I have to go with Danny Boyle as my choice for the #1 spot. For starters, I give him a lot of credit for versatility. He's pretty much stayed away from typecasting himself by venturing into almost every genre available. Granted, sometimes he reaches out and misses badly ("A Life Less Ordinary" and "Sunshine") but even those were somewhat interesting messes. "Sunshine" in particular was extremely well made but then suffered from a shockingly odd third act twist that turned the sci-fi film into a slasher flick. I'm not a huge fan of "The Beach" but it has its moments. Still, his successes more than overshadow those missteps.

"Shallow Grave" is a terrific thriller that is a throwback to the day when emotions trumped explosions. "Trainspotting" captured an era and the drug culture almost perfectly. "28 Days Later" not only revived the zombie genre but brought it to the mainstream. Again, it took the usually blood soaked genre and added some humanity to it. I have yet to see Millions so I didn't count it but I've heard nothing but good things about it as well. Finally "Slumdog Millionaire" was a film about destiny that I actually enjoyed. When I saw "It was Written" as one of the options at the start of the film, I immediately groaned. I will readily admit that it's a personal issue but I see destiny in films as a cop-out more than inspiring. I almost groaned out loud when I saw the butterfly tattoo during "I Am Legend". "Slumdog", however, had me hook, line, and sinker and I happily went along for the bumpy ride. Now, I don't think it was a perfect movie and would put it in the same "very good but not great" column as "The Dark Knight" but considering the story line, the setting, and use of non- or new actors, it was an amazing directorial feat.

Maybe you agree, maybe you hate me, but if you ever come up dry in a conversation this weekend, don't be afraid to toss this question out and see if it can spark up a discussion.