tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 7:46:16 GMT
I always thought you liked Hawks. You've seen Only Angels Have Wings, Bringing Up Baby and Scarface? I'm torn on Truffaut. He makes better films than I want to give him credit for. Also: Watch more Bunuel! Which ones have you seen? to be fair i've only seen like 4 things from truffaut but his other films just look like less appealing versions of his acclaimed ones i've already seen. and "let's start the most important modern film movement to make crazy films" preceded making pretty conventional stuff just a few years into the new wave which is more a turnoff than a legitimate criticism. Un chien Andalou, L'Age d'or, Discreet Charm, Exterminating Angel, Land Without Bread, The Phantom of Paradise, Viridiana, Los Olvidados, Belle de Jour. i really like his debut and Discreet Charm and everything else i'm heavily mixed on or flat hate. it seems like he just makes really similar films over and over, usually poking fun at religion or the upper class, with a surreal sequence here or there maybe. it's just so stale by now - and i'm not blind to the irony of an antonioni fan calling it as such, but it bothers me more here because there doesn't seem to be a technical knack to bunuel's work or anything. i can't identify his style really (though it admittedly shifted a lot through the decades), his commentary seems like it's hopsin-tier a lot of the time, the pacing can be all over the place, it's not really funny, etc. i just cannot for the life of me find what people see in his films. and there's still like 6 more of these fuckers i have to see if i wanna complete TSPDT in the next couple years. You seen Stollen Kisses? You should actually watch Phantom of the Paradise aswell lol, it's better than Phantom of Liberty. These are most of Bunuels greats though, Simon of the Desert is still pretty great and so are El, Nazarin, Tristana and That Obscure Object of Desire but I wouldn't bank on you liking them. He definitely does much more than poking fun at religion and upper class though. His films have metaphysical qualities to them more than perhaps any other filmmaker (Viridiana is essentially about the same themes as Dogville and Tree of Life and I'd say it's potentially the one dealing most thoroughly with its themes, although it's hard to compare when the films approach their themes in so different styles). I find it baffling how one could loathe his films so much because personally he's one of the most purely entertaining directors to me. Even his weaker films are throughly engaging and I could see myself finishing his filmography (would only be 10 more films I think) - but one likes what one likes I guess.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 7:50:29 GMT
And I've seen lots of avant-garde art. Maybe less "off-the-wall" but I wouldn't say Straub/Huillet has an avant-garde niche all to themselves. I was referencing avant-garde art in general (or perhaps the avant-garde of the avant-garde). That's what I meant by Straub and co. I think it's very likely Nolan was inspired by Paprika when he made Inception.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 7:58:11 GMT
the smugness of The Big Sleep, [...] the poor pacing of The Thing from Another WorldNow that I can get behind. Those are the 2 worst I've seen from him. Bringing Up Baby is my favorite though.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Apr 7, 2017 8:22:02 GMT
I always thought you liked Hawks. You've seen Only Angels Have Wings, Bringing Up Baby and Scarface? I'm torn on Truffaut. He makes better films than I want to give him credit for. Also: Watch more Bunuel! Which ones have you seen? seen those and i'm kinda indifferent to em for the most part. i do like his westerns a good deal though and have a couple more i really wanna see; he's just inconsistent for me rather than bad or anything. to be fair i've only seen like 4 things from truffaut but his other films just look like less appealing versions of his acclaimed ones i've already seen. and "let's start the most important modern film movement to make crazy films" preceded making pretty conventional stuff just a few years into the new wave which is more a turnoff than a legitimate criticism. Un chien Andalou, L'Age d'or, Discreet Charm, Exterminating Angel, Land Without Bread, The Phantom of Paradise, Viridiana, Los Olvidados, Belle de Jour. i really like his debut and Discreet Charm and everything else i'm heavily mixed on or flat hate. it seems like he just makes really similar films over and over, usually poking fun at religion or the upper class, with a surreal sequence here or there maybe. it's just so stale by now - and i'm not blind to the irony of an antonioni fan calling it as such, but it bothers me more here because there doesn't seem to be a technical knack to bunuel's work or anything. i can't identify his style really (though it admittedly shifted a lot through the decades), his commentary seems like it's hopsin-tier a lot of the time, the pacing can be all over the place, it's not really funny, etc. i just cannot for the life of me find what people see in his films. and there's still like 6 more of these fuckers i have to see if i wanna complete TSPDT in the next couple years. I don't dislike Bunuel to the extent that you do, but I agree that some of his stuff does very little for me. The biggest problem with Bunuel is his lack of visual style. Maybe it's just me, but most of his movies (that I've seen) look bland as hell, very indistinguishable from each other. And many his ''intellectual'', dry attempts at surrealism are more than a little silly and outdated by now.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 8:29:41 GMT
I guess now I've been commenting so much in this thread that I might aswell answer the topic.
I'd say most of the flavour of the decade/century directors are overrated, some are really good (Scorsese, Nolan, Spielberg, etc.) but made out to be deities in some circles, others get way too much credit for doing some good stuff but being incredibly inconsistent overall (Inniaritu, Cuaron, Tarantino, Leigh, Cameron, Fincher etc.)
Among the classics: Cassavettes (inconsistent, usually ideas are better than the excecution), Jean Epstein (good ideas, awful pacing), John Ford (he's such an awfully conservative director really and half of his acclaim is based on sentimentality but he's at his best when he manages to take the sentimentality to the furthest excess - My Darling Clementine - or when he deconstructs it - The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance), Sidney Lumet (he's good and very skilled in his craft but really not as good as some people make him out to be), Wong Kar Wai (his films are very personal and I almost always have trouble getting into them), D.W. Griffith (double edged sword, he was incredible at his time and his films have a distinct poetic edge but his filmography today is much weaker than his acclaim suggests), Truffaut (he's imo the best director in this category but he's the worst of the cahiers directors while generally being considered the best).
probably also Coppola but I have not actually seen the films everyone says are shit.
Otherwise there is only one answer to such a question and that's Ridley Scott.
Most of them are still pretty good and well worth attention but don't get too close to me with Scott (although he has also made some great films early in his career).
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 8:45:55 GMT
I don't dislike Bunuel to the extent that you do, but I agree that some of his stuff does very little for me. The biggest problem with Bunuel is his lack of visual style. Maybe it's just me, but most of his movies (that I've seen) look bland as hell, very indistinguishable from each other. And many his ''intellectual'', dry attempts at surrealism are more than a little silly and outdated by now. I always find his visual style very refreshing, even relaxing. It's very much in the tradition of the great classical directors (Lang, Hitchcock, Renoir) although more laid back (you can even see Bunuel do Hitchcock in Archibaldo de la Cruz and Hitchcock do Bunuel in Spellbound but I think Bunuel is more succesful - Vertigo also takes a lot of influence from Bunuel, particularly from El). I guess he doesn't so much fit into the modern age but that's only one more reason to like him for me. Modern surreal films seem silly to me when pitted up against Bunuel.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Apr 7, 2017 8:47:10 GMT
Otherwise there is only one answer to such a question and that's Ridley Scott. He made Blade Runner, that's reason enough to be considered one of the greats in my book. One-hit wonder, yes, but it's so good that I can overlook the rest of his shitty output.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 7, 2017 8:57:51 GMT
seen those and i'm kinda indifferent to em for the most part. i do like his westerns a good deal though and have a couple more i really wanna see; he's just inconsistent for me rather than bad or anything. to be fair i've only seen like 4 things from truffaut but his other films just look like less appealing versions of his acclaimed ones i've already seen. and "let's start the most important modern film movement to make crazy films" preceded making pretty conventional stuff just a few years into the new wave which is more a turnoff than a legitimate criticism. Un chien Andalou, L'Age d'or, Discreet Charm, Exterminating Angel, Land Without Bread, The Phantom of Paradise, Viridiana, Los Olvidados, Belle de Jour. i really like his debut and Discreet Charm and everything else i'm heavily mixed on or flat hate. it seems like he just makes really similar films over and over, usually poking fun at religion or the upper class, with a surreal sequence here or there maybe. it's just so stale by now - and i'm not blind to the irony of an antonioni fan calling it as such, but it bothers me more here because there doesn't seem to be a technical knack to bunuel's work or anything. i can't identify his style really (though it admittedly shifted a lot through the decades), his commentary seems like it's hopsin-tier a lot of the time, the pacing can be all over the place, it's not really funny, etc. i just cannot for the life of me find what people see in his films. and there's still like 6 more of these fuckers i have to see if i wanna complete TSPDT in the next couple years. I don't dislike Bunuel to the extent that you do, but I agree that some of his stuff does very little for me. The biggest problem with Bunuel is his lack of visual style. Maybe it's just me, but most of his movies (that I've seen) look bland as hell, very indistinguishable from each other. And many his ''intellectual'', dry attempts at surrealism are more than a little silly and outdated by now. I don't think a lack of a visual style is as important as a lack of a style in general. I mean, I don't wanna debate the auteur vs non-auteur thing, but I think you're remembered for your distinct contributions in some form or another, and that's enough to warrant Bunuel the title of someone distinct for me. I think Bunuel can be a bit mediocre... like in Diary of a Chambermaid, but I think everyone really can. And I agree the Exterminating Angel in particular might be a bit outdated - relying solely on implication but not really expanding beyond a general absurd idea. But he does simple drama really well, and I don't think he's so much an intellectual as he is just a farcicist, and I think there's a sense of nostalgia and of the historical era in his movies - much like Tarkovsky at doing that, but I think Bunuel did it better since Tarkovsky can get a bit overbearing with dream sequences, but I think Bunuel largely avoids that in general, so his visuals don't look like they're as far-reaching out of the necessary element. I definitely feel like I need to pump him up a little, as he seems short of fans on this board. That's my take. And I think the first 30 minutes of Viridiana is as good as it gets. No, none of his movies ever feel the same. Definitely not. Him being visually beautiful or not, he definitely doesn't make the same films again and again. I think the interesting thing about him is that there's a dominant element in every one of his films. Probably a stand-out element in Viridiana that differs from the one in Phantom of Liberty and that differs from the one in Obscure Object of Desire and that differs from Simon of the Desert and that differs from L'Age D'or (though that's definitely among my personal least favorites from him), and so on. I feel like the Kubrick and Tarkovsky fanboys often dismiss him or push him to the back because they prefer bigger and more beautiful. There was that IntellectualEveryMan guy from a while back that seems to really hate Bunuel, but he seemed to show bias towards higher production values and the more grandiose movies from Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Fellini, and Malick and the likes.But if you ask me, with the exception of Kubrick.... those other 3 are the ones more guilty of having films coming off feeling like the same. Lol. I agree with Malick. But I like what he does at times. The only thing I would say is that he's overpraised as being deeply complex or philosophical. But if I don't see his films like that, The Thin Red Line is a very strong war film..... it's the textbook example of a war film with strong production behind it. To the Wonder has that Rohmer simplicity that I like. So lovely, and "that love affair while at times of being apart" rang true to me. But I realize I like it for more simpler reasons than what the other Malick fans like of him. And I feel The Tree of Life does take me places, and has some superb ideas, and the stories are less superficially tied together than something like Three Times (from Hou). I don't know much of Tarkovsky so I'll abstain. But before any pedant wants to get on me for saying his films feel similar.... that's not what I'm saying. Just saying more similar than Bunuel. I like Fellini a lot. He's a good experimentalist. Maybe I like his style more than his substance, and I feel he's definitely aided greatly by the standards of his time, his peak being the 60s in that European boom and such.... but I think he sometimes schools other directors, like Malick for instance. His approach is unique at least, and original for his keepsakes. Malick's The Tree of Life wants to be 8 1/2, but it doesn't have the Fellini experimental uniqueness or innovation, or claim on being the first to do that type of film like that. Fellini is innovative, that's one thing going for his claim to greatness. Not one of my very favorite filmmakers of all time, but certain directors I find overrated are dragged down by something. Welles dragged down by his filmography not holding up as well, and even his most common classics (Touch of Evil, The Magnificent Ambersons) aren't that spectacular to me. Kurosawa dragged down by kinda the same reason, a few great classics but the rest aren't so spectacular (some sentimentality, some pretty average genre films), though I have more to see from him. I've seen like only 12. And then Hawks because, in my opinion, his formula is just so apparent in his work. It's not much more than Hollywood products imo, because they seem to just fall into some genre or another and it's the usual way those films are done. Eh, I dunno. I'm ranting. Just giving an overview of where I rank directors in the grand scheme of things. Agree with me or not.... that goes for anyone reading this.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Apr 7, 2017 9:24:45 GMT
I don't dislike Bunuel to the extent that you do, but I agree that some of his stuff does very little for me. The biggest problem with Bunuel is his lack of visual style. Maybe it's just me, but most of his movies (that I've seen) look bland as hell, very indistinguishable from each other. And many his ''intellectual'', dry attempts at surrealism are more than a little silly and outdated by now. I don't think a lack of a visual style is as important as a lack of a style in general. I mean, I don't wanna debate the auteur vs non-auteur thing, but I think you're remembered for your distinct contributions in some form or another, and that's enough to warrant Bunuel the title of someone distinct for me. I think Bunuel can be a bit mediocre... like in Diary of a Chambermaid, that's one detriment. And I agree the Exterminating Angel in particular might be a bit outdated - relying solely on implication but not really expanding beyond a general absurd idea. But he does simple drama really well, and I don't think he's so much an intellectual as he is just a farcicist, and I think there's a sense of nostalgia and of the historical era in his movies - much like Tarkovsky at doing that, but I think Bunuel did it better since Tarkovsky can get a bit overbearing with dream sequences, but I think Bunuel largely avoids that in general, so his visuals don't look like they're as far-reaching out of the necessary element. I definitely feel like I need to pump him up a little, as he seems short of fans on this board. That's my take. And I think the first 30 minutes of Viridiana is as good as it gets. Yeah I get what you're saying, I just don't particularly care for his brand of surrealism, which to to me is more on the traditional, classical, formal side, often attached to an idea or specific purpose (Exterminating Angel is the quintessential example of that), widely opposed to Tarkovsky and Lynch's idea of surrealism, which steers much more towards ''surrealism for surrealism's sake'', all logic and reason completely abandoned, dream-like, oneiric (non) structure fully embraced, and that's the way I prefer it.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 7, 2017 9:35:17 GMT
I don't think a lack of a visual style is as important as a lack of a style in general. I mean, I don't wanna debate the auteur vs non-auteur thing, but I think you're remembered for your distinct contributions in some form or another, and that's enough to warrant Bunuel the title of someone distinct for me. I think Bunuel can be a bit mediocre... like in Diary of a Chambermaid, that's one detriment. And I agree the Exterminating Angel in particular might be a bit outdated - relying solely on implication but not really expanding beyond a general absurd idea. But he does simple drama really well, and I don't think he's so much an intellectual as he is just a farcicist, and I think there's a sense of nostalgia and of the historical era in his movies - much like Tarkovsky at doing that, but I think Bunuel did it better since Tarkovsky can get a bit overbearing with dream sequences, but I think Bunuel largely avoids that in general, so his visuals don't look like they're as far-reaching out of the necessary element. I definitely feel like I need to pump him up a little, as he seems short of fans on this board. That's my take. And I think the first 30 minutes of Viridiana is as good as it gets. Yeah I get what you're saying, I just don't particularly care for his brand of surrealism, which to to me is more on the traditional, classical, formal side, often attached to an idea or specific purpose (Exterminating Angel is the quintessential example of that), widely opposed to Tarkovsky and Lynch's idea of surrealism, which steers much more towards ''surrealism for surrealism's sake'', all logic and reason completely abandoned, dream-like, oneiric (non) structure fully embraced, and that's the way I prefer it. Exterminating Angel is absolutely the quintessential example of that... lol, and I understand your preference and I believe lots of people feel the same way you do. Tarkovsky a surrealist? Eh. I don't wanna be a pedant - I don't think of him as surreal. I think he's just a rather far-reaching, celestial director with lots of different types of poetic elements in his movies. I think you can get burned on describing the different types of poetry for his movies. And while Lynch is surreal in literal terms, I actually don't find that the most appealing thing in his movies. I think it's just the "evil" characters in his movies - they seem to take on the form of a myraid of literary fictitious demons and monsters - it's just a delightful mesh of indulgence in that form. Lol... my take is so strange for everything.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Apr 7, 2017 10:39:49 GMT
* Paul Verhoeven (omg look it's satire, how profound!) ugh get out on a serious note i think he indulges in the things he's satirizing but there's a self-awareness and self-seriousness to his work, which is a very hard cable to walk. that's the big reason why i love him. I think the self-awareness is evident for sure in most of his work I have seen, leaving most of the Showgirls detractors appearing insane and missing the point. That said, I think he is an incredibly boring film maker, nothing he comments on is that particularly interesting. He is too obvious for his social commentary to work for me. Indulging in the things he satirizes is so counter productive. So he is indulgent but self-aware... so? Basic Instinct is among my least favorite films in general, and Total Recall is pretty painfully bad to me. RoboCop would work much better had the OTT social commentary been downplayed, but that film still works. Starship Troopers probably has the best commentary in terms of being executed in an entertaining manner, but ultimately it still remains shallow and OTT. I just think he is more boring than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Apr 7, 2017 12:21:40 GMT
truffaut hawks (particularly) bunuel weerasethekul (michael) mann spielberg scorsese mizoguchi allen (satyajit) ray these range from "i've seen a couple films and didn't really vibe with them at all" to "literally how can people stand this guy" Oh honey, particularly bunuel? Are you crazy? The man practically revolutionized cinema by introducing the surreal, absurd and bizarre while satirizing religion & politics.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Apr 7, 2017 12:25:16 GMT
truffaut hawks (particularly) bunuel weerasethekul (michael) mann spielberg scorsese mizoguchi allen (satyajit) ray these range from "i've seen a couple films and didn't really vibe with them at all" to "literally how can people stand this guy" Oh honey, particularly bunuel? Are you crazy? The man practically revolutionized cinema by introducing the surreal, absurd and bizarre while satirizing religion & politics. What do you think of my idea of an Exterminating Angel remake? People are stuck at a Kidman awards gala and have no way of being able to leave.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Apr 7, 2017 12:35:16 GMT
Oh honey, particularly bunuel? Are you crazy? The man practically revolutionized cinema by introducing the surreal, absurd and bizarre while satirizing religion & politics. What do you think of my idea of an Exterminating Angel remake? People are stuck at a Kidman awards gala and have no way of being able to leave. With repeat scenes of her clapping like a seal? I like it, honey. Oh and instead of the bear we could have a huge Marlin flopping about. All the cast should wear wigs (a la Kidman) and remove them as they deteriorate... and for some inexplicable reason everyone speaks in breathy whispers with emotionless faces... I love it!
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Apr 7, 2017 13:02:04 GMT
Spike Jonze Quentin Tarantino (though I still love Pulp and Jackie) John Huston (I like a number of his movies, but for an all-time great he sure had a lot of duds) Howard Hawks (same as Huston) Damien Chazelle good picks
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 7, 2017 13:24:21 GMT
i've been hating on fincher for years, would say FC is stronger than any of those films I think he's coasting on formula a little bit (his films seem like critics bait at this point), but Se7en is definitely a great. Zodiac I can see the stuff, but it's personally not a favorite. Alien 3 is wildly underrated. I think The Social Network is a bit overrated but still legit (8.5/10). Fight Club is amusing and comes off kinda wacky, but I don't actually relate to anything about it. I'm still a fan of the man though, I'm just saying the general consensus on movie awards can't wait to praise him, and there are only a few real haters. I basically think everything he's done is mediocre except for Zodiac which is so good that I am always surprised Fincher made it.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 14:40:52 GMT
Otherwise there is only one answer to such a question and that's Ridley Scott. He made Blade Runner, that's reason enough to be considered one of the greats in my book. One-hit wonder, yes, but it's so good that I can overlook the rest of his shitty output. Yes, Alien is really good, too, Duell looks really good and I've heard good things about Thelma and Louise. However that's just not enough for me to justify the acclaim he is usually attributed.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 7, 2017 14:46:10 GMT
Total Recall is pretty painfully bad to me. Damn, that's my favorite of Verhoeven's American films.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 14:53:18 GMT
I guess now I've been commenting so much in this thread that I might aswell answer the topic. Jean Epstein (good ideas, awful pacing), John Ford (he's such an awfully conservative director really and half of his acclaim is based on sentimentality but he's at his best when he manages to take the sentimentality to the furthest excess - My Darling Clementine - or when he deconstructs it - The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance), I think Epstein's poetic aura is a bit dated. And as much as it may hurt me to say, I believe Jean Vigo falls under a similar trap. I think L'Atalante is symphonic poetry and it's definitely better than the Epstein that I've seen, but.... eh, dunno. Maybe they were too early, and age was truly the detriment, but I feel like there are greater innovators of the avant-garde a few years later.... Maya Deren for example. Didn't know My Darling Clementine is the most sentimental from his filmography. I'd say that's one of the ones whose sentimentality is more tolerable. In a way his John Wayne westerns and How Green Was My Valley are more sentimental but I feel that in My Darling Clementine all the sentimentality is firmly contained in and focussed on the story, it's its own little universe. Epstein had some brilliant ideas that were way ahead of his time. I don't necesarily think it's dated as much as his excecution just never was that great (I do like him a fair deal though) - perhaps you could even call it sloppy. I don't think Vigo is dated, zero de conduite is dated but the other 3 films are very modern. The biggest problem about Vigo is simply that he died at 29. There isn't that much to say about him as his entire ourve is only about as long as The Godfather. In that sense he is definitely overrated but his potential was enourmous (much unlike Epstein who I doubt could have made a better film than Couer Fidele which is even worse than 2 of Vigo's films in my book).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 14:53:21 GMT
SPIELBERGtake that, but he just doesn't do it for me.
Any praise for AGI's non Birdman-or-Amores Perros movie which isn't for performances baffles me.
Also, I really like PTA, but he's kinda overrated as a director here, but he's a GOAT level screenwriter, so he's kinda forgiven.
Payne (similar as PTA, bar Sideways, his only actual directorial acheivement)
I love Pulp, but Tarantino is also really overrated as a director.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 15:00:21 GMT
ugh get out on a serious note i think he indulges in the things he's satirizing but there's a self-awareness and self-seriousness to his work, which is a very hard cable to walk. that's the big reason why i love him. I think the self-awareness is evident for sure in most of his work I have seen, leaving most of the Showgirls detractors appearing insane and missing the point. That said, I think he is an incredibly boring film maker, nothing he comments on is that particularly interesting. He is too obvious for his social commentary to work for me. Indulging in the things he satirizes is so counter productive. So he is indulgent but self-aware... so? Basic Instinct is among my least favorite films in general, and Total Recall is pretty painfully bad to me. RoboCop would work much better had the OTT social commentary been downplayed, but that film still works. Starship Troopers probably has the best commentary in terms of being executed in an entertaining manner, but ultimately it still remains shallow and OTT. I just think he is more boring than anything else. You really need to watch his European films. I don't think any of the films you mentioned are particularly great, although I do enjoy his Sci-Fi trifecta. Basic Instinct is at times pretty awful but it is interesting how cold and cynical it is (still his worst from what I've seen).
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Apr 7, 2017 15:26:01 GMT
He made Blade Runner, that's reason enough to be considered one of the greats in my book. One-hit wonder, yes, but it's so good that I can overlook the rest of his shitty output. Yes, Alien is really good, too, Duell looks really good and I've heard good things about Thelma and Louise. However that's just not enough for me to justify the acclaim he is usually attributed. Ehhh, Thelma and Louise kind of blows, The Duellists has gotten its fair share of acclaim but I don't think it's anything to write home about.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Apr 7, 2017 15:27:02 GMT
Jar Jar Abrams. Not only is he very overrated, imo he's a hack. All he does is reboot franchises . laaaaame .
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 15:51:08 GMT
Yes, Alien is really good, too, Duell looks really good and I've heard good things about Thelma and Louise. However that's just not enough for me to justify the acclaim he is usually attributed. Ehhh, Thelma and Louise kind of blows, The Duellists has gotten its fair share of acclaim but I don't think it's anything to write home about. Damn, that sucks. I hoped Duelists would be a (very) poor man's Barry Lyndon (similarities are obvious at least) and that Thelma and Louise would be a fun little romp.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Apr 7, 2017 16:01:43 GMT
I think the self-awareness is evident for sure in most of his work I have seen, leaving most of the Showgirls detractors appearing insane and missing the point. That said, I think he is an incredibly boring film maker, nothing he comments on is that particularly interesting. He is too obvious for his social commentary to work for me. Indulging in the things he satirizes is so counter productive. So he is indulgent but self-aware... so? Basic Instinct is among my least favorite films in general, and Total Recall is pretty painfully bad to me. RoboCop would work much better had the OTT social commentary been downplayed, but that film still works. Starship Troopers probably has the best commentary in terms of being executed in an entertaining manner, but ultimately it still remains shallow and OTT. I just think he is more boring than anything else. You really need to watch his European films. I don't think any of the films you mentioned are particularly great, although I do enjoy his Sci-Fi trifecta. Basic Instinct is at times pretty awful but it is interesting how cold and cynical it is (still his worst from what I've seen). I will probably check out Elle soonish.
|
|