chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 1,049
|
Post by chris3 on Sept 14, 2018 19:02:17 GMT
Hahahaha hell is a theater where the only available film screenings for eternity are of J. Edgar, Jersey Boys, and The 15:17 To Paris.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 14, 2018 19:18:06 GMT
Peckinpah deserves a dishonorable mention too. I'm not gonna throw the misogynist label around, I'm just gonna say his films are exceedingly ugly and feel quite exploitative because they don't often provide any meaningful depth to the subjects they exploit. Things like rape are just a convention in a Peckinpah film, indistinguishable from any kind of genre device. His sense of style is also practically nonexistent. Even if you aren't bothered by the subject matter in his films (or more accurately how he handles that subject matter), his films feel so old, dated, and stylistically inept. They have no style at all.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,390
|
Post by Film Socialism on Sept 14, 2018 19:46:09 GMT
some more now:
agi wright garrel grandrieux bigelow denis (to an extent, have weird thoughts on her) jarman zulawski davies ffc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 20:22:47 GMT
John Ford and fucking Kurosawa are not overrated you lunatics Here's some guys that are: John Hughes - really goofy outlook in all of his stuff that I find so far removed from life as I know it that we may as well have grown up on different planets. Planes, Trains and Automobiles isn't terrible but that's about all I can say for this guy. Aronofsky - just about the epitome of the director who thinks bashing the viewer's brains in with simple, obvious allegories makes them deep and profound. This guy tries so hard to be (his idea of) a "serious artist". Blunt biblical allusions don't make your movie more interesting, nor does basic symbolism. He comes off as annoying and kind of obnoxious. Lanthimos - premises that sound interesting on paper and end up dead on screen. As with Aronofsky (although to a lesser extent here) I just feel like he's trying too hard. His work doesn't feel natural - not in the way he thinks. Really hoping The Favourite doesn't suck. Tarantino - I agree with many of the grievances Rosenbaum has expressed about this guy. I still like some of his stuff but nothing he's done is *that* good. There's no way Pulp Fiction is one of the best movies of the 1990's. Come on. Zemeckis - for fucking Forrest Gump alone. Nolan - the obvious pick, even if his rabid fan base seems to have settled down a little bit since Dunkirk. Or maybe it's just because the IMDB boards are gone and I'm not seeing it as much now. I've actually enjoyed most of his movies but he's yet to make a great one (although Interstellar comes close). There are definitely others but these are the first that popped in my head.
|
|
clunkybob2
Junior Member
clunky's posts should be locked in a cell
Posts: 262
Likes: 94
|
Post by clunkybob2 on Sept 14, 2018 20:45:30 GMT
|
|
clunkybob2
Junior Member
clunky's posts should be locked in a cell
Posts: 262
Likes: 94
|
Post by clunkybob2 on Sept 14, 2018 20:48:07 GMT
John Ford and fucking Kurosawa are not overrated you lunatics Here's some guys that are: John Hughes - really goofy outlook in all of his stuff that I find so far removed from life as I know it that we may as well have grown up on different planets. Planes, Trains and Automobiles isn't terrible but that's about all I can say for this guy. Aronofsky - just about the epitome of the director who thinks bashing the viewer's brains in with simple, obvious allegories makes them deep and profound. This guy tries so hard to be (his idea of) a "serious artist". Blunt biblical allusions don't make your movie more interesting, nor does basic symbolism. He comes off as annoying and kind of obnoxious. Lanthimos - premises that sound interesting on paper and end up dead on screen. As with Aronofsky (although to a lesser extent here) I just feel like he's trying too hard. His work doesn't feel natural - not in the way he thinks. Really hoping The Favourite doesn't suck. Tarantino - I agree with many of the grievances Rosenbaum has expressed about this guy. I still like some of his stuff but nothing he's done is *that* good. There's no way Pulp Fiction is one of the best movies of the 1990's. Come on. Zemeckis - for fucking Forrest Gump alone. Nolan - the obvious pick, even if his rabid fan base seems to have settled down a little bit since Dunkirk. Or maybe it's just because the IMDB boards are gone and I'm not seeing it as much now. I've actually enjoyed most of his movies but he's yet to make a great one (although Interstellar comes close). There are definitely others but these are the first that popped in my head. Oh thank god u posted
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 14, 2018 20:55:23 GMT
Peckinpah deserves a dishonorable mention too. I'm not gonna throw the misogynist label around, I'm just gonna say his films are exceedingly ugly and feel quite exploitative because they don't often provide any meaningful depth to the subjects they exploit. Things like rape are just a convention in a Peckinpah film, indistinguishable from any kind of genre device. His sense of style is also practically nonexistent. Even if you aren't bothered by the subject matter in his films (or more accurately how he handles that subject matter), his films feel so old, dated, and stylistically inept. They have no style at all.I love Peckinpah but could maybe see what you mean in his later films in the mid-70s onward but.............The Wild Bunch is basically triumphant style though - do you mean his 60s and very early 70s Western films like that also or just later?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 21:12:14 GMT
John Ford and fucking Kurosawa are not overrated you lunatics Here's some guys that are: John Hughes - really goofy outlook in all of his stuff that I find so far removed from life as I know it that we may as well have grown up on different planets. Planes, Trains and Automobiles isn't terrible but that's about all I can say for this guy. Aronofsky - just about the epitome of the director who thinks bashing the viewer's brains in with simple, obvious allegories makes them deep and profound. This guy tries so hard to be (his idea of) a "serious artist". Blunt biblical allusions don't make your movie more interesting, nor does basic symbolism. He comes off as annoying and kind of obnoxious. Lanthimos - premises that sound interesting on paper and end up dead on screen. As with Aronofsky (although to a lesser extent here) I just feel like he's trying too hard. His work doesn't feel natural - not in the way he thinks. Really hoping The Favourite doesn't suck. Tarantino - I agree with many of the grievances Rosenbaum has expressed about this guy. I still like some of his stuff but nothing he's done is *that* good. There's no way Pulp Fiction is one of the best movies of the 1990's. Come on. Zemeckis - for fucking Forrest Gump alone. Nolan - the obvious pick, even if his rabid fan base seems to have settled down a little bit since Dunkirk. Or maybe it's just because the IMDB boards are gone and I'm not seeing it as much now. I've actually enjoyed most of his movies but he's yet to make a great one (although Interstellar comes close). There are definitely others but these are the first that popped in my head. Oh thank god u posted What're your thoughts on starting a petition to get George Lucas to come out of retirement so that he can direct an adaptation of Finnegan's Wake?
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,390
|
Post by Film Socialism on Sept 14, 2018 21:27:06 GMT
does aronofsky really go for deeper truths? i was under the impression that most of his work wasn't extremely deep and that was completely fine. he himself might be pretentious tho
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 21:55:18 GMT
does aronofsky really go for deeper truths? i was under the impression that most of his work wasn't extremely deep and that was completely fine. he himself might be pretentious tho I actually felt similarly before seeing Mother. From how I read that movie and the various things I've heard Aronofsky say about it, I now see his earlier work a bit differently. A lot of the stuff in Requiem for a Dream comes off this way IMO. I guess saying he's reaching for deep truths does seem like a stretch to me when worded like that, but maybe only because I feel like he fails at...whatever he's trying to do...so badly most of the time. Even if you see it differently though (which is totally fair, these are just my impressions of a director I don't give much thought) there's plenty of other reasons why he's not all that. Black Swan is his lame attempt at making The Red Shoes, his films feel kind of hollow, etc.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 14, 2018 22:08:43 GMT
Noah is the only good Aronofsky movie
I don't give a fuck
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 14, 2018 22:10:28 GMT
Gonna ignore the Davies and Denis sacrilege for now. Do you dig any from Bigelow? I'm not that big on her unfortunate transition into POLITICAL MOVIES WITH POINTS but I think Point Break, Blue Steel, and Strange Days are all absolutely magic
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Sept 14, 2018 22:27:16 GMT
terence davies is absolutely one of the best alive, wth!! a quiet passion makes my top 10 of the decade maybe, dude's really an unsung great
strongly agree with the lanthimos mention above, dogtooth is one of the most meaningless, excruciating films i've seen and i hate the sterile, one-perfect-shotty look of his other two.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 14, 2018 22:53:23 GMT
Noah is the only good Aronofsky movie I don't give a fuck I thought it was just me! I mean, I really dig the conquistador scenes in The Fountain, but the rest of the film doesn't cohere. The rest of his movies are pretty rank as well, but Noah is dope, especially if you view it as being set in the far, far future.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Sept 14, 2018 23:19:56 GMT
nolan aronofsky (a lot of crap lately) baumbach
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 15, 2018 1:41:31 GMT
Even if you aren't bothered by the subject matter in his films (or more accurately how he handles that subject matter), his films feel so old, dated, and stylistically inept. They have no style at all.I love Peckinpah but could maybe see what you mean in his later films in the mid-70s onward but.............The Wild Bunch is basically triumphant style though - do you mean his 60s and very early 70s Western films like that also or just later? That's how I felt about the last three Peckinpah films I've seen ( The Getaway, The Ballad of Cable Hogue, Ride the High Country). They all just borrowed from whatever genre they inhabited without doing anything interesting with those conventions. Based on what I've seen so far, the traits that distinguish Peckinpah's films are violence, rape, an acute lack of self-awareness (the three films I mentioned have undercurrents of goofball comedy that are insufferable on their own but especially so in the contexts of his films) and his drab ideas about masculinity and heroism. He comes off as a very vulgar filmmaker, but not in a fun or stylish way like De Palma or Greenaway, more in a way where you want to take a shower afterwards. That's my opinion anyways. I still intend to see a few more of his films ( Wild Bunch for example), but so far my experience outside of Straw Dogs (which is problematic in its own right) has been decidedly negative.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 15, 2018 1:44:17 GMT
Claire Denis overrated? Where did that come from? Maybe Beau Travail, but what about Friday Night, Trouble Every Day, and White Material? The first 2 are the primes of the new-goth movement.
Ford and Kurosawa are overrated. They're not bad, but they're not GOAT. I've also ran into some really bad and grumpy Ford and Kurosawa fanboys, altered my perception of them. Something about them gets some young zealots raging.
I haven't seen a lot of Davies, but based on The House of Mirth - s'cool. And his filmography looks really interesting.
Ron Howard has some good movies. So does Eastwood. Aronofsky has The Wrestler. Straw Dogs is one of the most boring films of the 70s.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 15, 2018 1:55:14 GMT
Claire Denis overrated? Where did that come from? Maybe Beau Travail, but what about Friday Night, Trouble Every Day, and White Material? The first 2 are the primes of the new-goth movement. Ford and Kurosawa are overrated. They're not bad, but they're not GOAT. I've also ran into some really bad and grumpy Ford and Kurosawa fanboys, altered my perception of them. Something about them gets some young zealots raging. I haven't seen a lot of Davies, but based on The House of Mirth - s'cool. And his filmography looks really interesting. Ron Howard has some good movies. So does Eastwood. Aronofsky has The Wrestler. There are just so many hot takes in here I don't know where to start. Though I definitely agree about Kurosawa, no idea what drives people so wild for his stuff but I have some big ones still to check out. That being said, of all the stuff I want to disagree with in here, perhaps the most egregious comment is the notion that Ron Howard has ever directed anything that wasn't absolute dogshit. Parenthood is okay I guess. Mostly for god Keanu Reeves though.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 15, 2018 2:26:35 GMT
Claire Denis overrated? Where did that come from? Maybe Beau Travail, but what about Friday Night, Trouble Every Day, and White Material? The first 2 are the primes of the new-goth movement. Ford and Kurosawa are overrated. They're not bad, but they're not GOAT. I've also ran into some really bad and grumpy Ford and Kurosawa fanboys, altered my perception of them. Something about them gets some young zealots raging. I haven't seen a lot of Davies, but based on The House of Mirth - s'cool. And his filmography looks really interesting. Ron Howard has some good movies. So does Eastwood. Aronofsky has The Wrestler. There are just so many hot takes in here I don't know where to start. Though I definitely agree about Kurosawa, no idea what drives people so wild for his stuff but I have some big ones still to check out. That being said, of all the stuff I want to disagree with in here, perhaps the most egregious comment is the notion that Ron Howard has ever directed anything that wasn't absolute dogshit. Parenthood is okay I guess. Mostly for god Keanu Reeves though. oneflyr - I don't think so. I've heard some people say good things about the former though. But it's film-noir, so there's how that goes. The people who did movies that were kinda film-noirs but not really film-noirs are the only ones saving that *beep* formulaic genre. Bogart, Hitchcock, and some others. Fritz is definitely the one I'm least confident about here. It's about how little I know of him. His filmography doesn't look like anything I'm too interested in. My opinion is mostly based on M (though I've definitely seen others), but then maybe I just lumped it together with the film-noir genre and can't see how it stands out above a pretty decent thriller. And watching 30s movies featuring some town mobs is just..... I dunno... trope-y. moonman157 stephen - Sorry, guys. But I'm trying. I've even checked out The Searchers (for next week).... trying to digest him a little. His movies can be solid dramas, and there's a sense of bygone-era in his films for sure, but I don't think he does enough great things to deserve the high rankings that he sometimes get. I usually don't hear him talked about a lot, but my list is based on browsing theyshootpictures from 1 to 100. I think the appeal of Kurosawa comes largely from the fact that he's foreign arthouse and he's accessible. Hitchcock was accessible but not foreign arthouse. Kubrick is arthouse but not foreign enough for some people. Bergman and Fellini are arthouse but not as accessible. So Kurosawa has two shields he can use. I don't know of anyone that has that and mass appeal. Film General is loaded with Kurosawa/samurai/Japanese film nutheads..... it's insane. I think Apollo 13, Rush, Far and Away, and A Beautiful Mind are good movies. He can be really bad too (that run in the mid-00s was me saying he should've just given up right there). But he's very watchable, and there is some solid pathos in his movies, and his characters have some inner turmoil going on that engages me. He made Kidman show her first glimpse of greatness. Made Chris Hemsworth look like a star leading man (Mann cast him as a cool and savvy tech guy 2 years later), and A Beautiful Mind I think really gave him a reputation at the time as one of the better actors' directors. I'd say he's not worthless.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,390
|
Post by Film Socialism on Sept 15, 2018 2:52:03 GMT
Gonna ignore the Davies and Denis sacrilege for now. Do you dig any from Bigelow? I'm not that big on her unfortunate transition into POLITICAL MOVIES WITH POINTS but I think Point Break, Blue Steel, and Strange Days are all absolutely magic i think her war films are low on actual political energy and high on entertainment and her earlier work is low on entertainment and high on bigger ideas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 3:00:18 GMT
Claire Denis overrated? Where did that come from? Maybe Beau Travail, but what about Friday Night, Trouble Every Day, and White Material? The first 2 are the primes of the new-goth movement. Ford and Kurosawa are overrated. They're not bad, but they're not GOAT. I've also ran into some really bad and grumpy Ford and Kurosawa fanboys, altered my perception of them. Something about them gets some young zealots raging. I haven't seen a lot of Davies, but based on The House of Mirth - s'cool. And his filmography looks really interesting. Ron Howard has some good movies. So does Eastwood. Aronofsky has The Wrestler. Though I definitely agree about Kurosawa, no idea what drives people so wild for his stuff but I have some big ones still to check out. He's a really, really good filmmaker. He has an excellent grasp of pacing and employs downright fantastic mise-en-scene (I mean, High and Low has some of the best blocking...ever). Underrated narrative range as well. My two favorite films from him are wayyy different - the deeply warm and compassionate, softly reflective Dreams versus the relentlessly bleak epic Ran, which is practically dripping with despair. No one does Shakespeare better than Kurosawa. Some of his work is take it or leave it, but the ones I mentioned earlier plus stuff like Derzu Uzala, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Rashomon...no way is he overrated.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 15, 2018 13:41:14 GMT
Gonna ignore the Davies and Denis sacrilege for now. Do you dig any from Bigelow? I'm not that big on her unfortunate transition into POLITICAL MOVIES WITH POINTS but I think Point Break, Blue Steel, and Strange Days are all absolutely magic i think her war films are low on actual political energy and high on entertainment and her earlier work is low on entertainment and high on bigger ideas I mean it's pretty inarguable that her earlier films are of far more significance, I assumed you'd understand the caps lock mockery to capture the fact that Bigelow has shifted into making on-the-nose films ripped from the headlines with the intent of assuming political import
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 1,628
|
Post by Javi on Sept 15, 2018 15:18:48 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. Well said. Buñuel would vomit at the thought of having a "style" at all. He actively ridiculed technical virtuosity and all the stuff that makes a certain kind of cinephile wet their pants. He detested that kind of thing. What he had was something a lot more interesting: a distinct, inimitable vision of the world. No one can think like Buñuel. He satirizes but sometimes falls in love with the subject of his satire, to hilarious effect. Maybe I've got a warped sense of humor but he is imo the funniest of all great directors, even when the material has no right to be funny at all, like Land Without Bread (with pretty much inaugurates and rapes "social realism" at the same time). A lot of his stuff is truly genius... there are no words to describe something like Simon of the Desert for example. It's true that he only has one or two major obsessions (like almost great director ever), but none of his movies feel the same to me. And his filmography is indeed full of crap... Diary of a Chambermaid being one example. That happens when you do like 60 movies. Anyway, I think post-60s sexual freedom and the decline of the Catholic Church even in Europe, plus his lack of "visual style", maybe makes him less hip to contemporary audiences. Their loss though. Still an obvious all-timer to me.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 1,628
|
Post by Javi on Sept 15, 2018 15:58:42 GMT
Well said. Buñuel would vomit at the thought of having a "style" at all. He actively ridiculed technical virtuosity and all the stuff that makes a certain kind of cinephile wet their pants. He detested that kind of thing. What he had was something a lot more interesting: a distinct, inimitable vision of the world. No one can think like Buñuel. He satirizes but sometimes falls in love with the subject of his satire, to hilarious effect. Maybe I've got a warped sense of humor but he is imo the funniest of all great directors, even when the material has no right to be funny at all, like Land Without Bread (with pretty much inaugurates and rapes "social realism" at the same time). A lot of his stuff is truly genius... there are no words to describe something like Simon of the Desert for example. It's true that he only has one or two major obsessions (like almost great director ever), but none of his movies feel the same to me. And his filmography is indeed full of crap... Diary of a Chambermaid being one example. That happens when you do like 60 movies. Anyway, I think post-60s sexual freedom and the decline of the Catholic Church even in Europe, plus his lack of "visual style", maybe makes him less hip to contemporary audiences. Their loss though. Still an obvious all-timer to me. 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. Completely agree. You could probably insert like 30 minutes of The New World in the middle of Tree of Life or The Thin Red Line and no one would even find out. They're interchangeable. Malick doesn't seem to have much on his mind imo. And his expressions of deep, "profound" mysticism all feel the same to me. But people find pleasure in that sort of thing and that's fine. I love my visual poets alright - just not Malick. Too airy, too evangelical for me. I've only seen 3 movies from Tarkovsky and while they didn't seem the same, they're just not for me. Fellini is just the devil incarnate imo. He's like a circus clown who gives sermons and tries to make you a better person. I wouldn't trust anyone who loves that guy and hates Buñuel
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Sept 15, 2018 18:52:35 GMT
Kurosawa is overrated now?
|
|