Making the Movies has a good piece up called "The Four Types of Filmmaker". On first impression it feels spot on, apart from some arguable placements once they get around to naming names. They divvy filmmakers up into four groups: The Meticulous Master (obsessive, detailed... sometimes they take forever), The Prolific Pro (wide range of quality but constantly filming), The Irrepressible Entertainer (uneven but always serving the audience first), and the Reverent Referentialist (mashing up recycling and reconfiguring all their favorite movies and movie tropes). I'm simplifying -- it's worth reading for fuller explanations.
Masters, Pros, Entertainers, Referentialists
You could and I think should argue for a Fifth Type, "The Hired Hand", the men and women who work but aren't regularly labelled as "auteurs". This type only wows when the project feels just right for them in a way, or when the project itself has so much else going for it. But they can "wow" nonetheless. The thing that I found most surprising about the four categories once I stopped to look at the people falling under each umbrella -- and there are a few who seem like they could flip categories with ease -- is how much there is to love in each group. Maybe I don't have a type. Maybe that means I'm a big whore for the movies?
Do you have a type?