Gyp Rosetti
Banned
PTA > QT but that's just like my opinion, man.
Inception **^^**
- Thread starter Safetydan
- Start date
PTA > QT but that's just like my opinion, man.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
How do you not want to see a movie after a trailer like that? The audio was brilliant and suspenseful leaving the viewer with tons of questions and begging for more. Genius!
I've been hurt before... I'm not so trusting the second time around.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Harry's lookin' old. They should call him Harold Potter.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Harold Potter along with Hemorrhoid Granger and Ronald Weasley.
I think that goes under reasonable people can disagree. It's pretty hard to argue against PTA's body of work. In any event I think those two are alone in Tier 1 of their generation of directors with a pretty steep drop-off thereafter.
It's like trying to argue Magic vs. Bird.
Rupert Grint actually looks like he might have a decent career as an adult. There's some indications Scorsese's planning on using him in the future.
Who cares about Rupert? I want to see some more Hermione. Naked. (seriously)
prodigy
Well-Known Member
It's a bit premature( MacGruber had a 100% RT rating after like it's first 5 reviews but than dropped considerably afterwards). In that sense RT's method of review fails. RT forces critics to divide their opinions into either "I liked it" (fresh) or "I didn't like it" (rotten). So you can end up with a movie that people kind of like get a higher rating than on a site that gives movies grades.
But it's Chris Nolan, the guy produces great movies. So I don't expect a big dropoff.
But it's Chris Nolan, the guy produces great movies. So I don't expect a big dropoff.
Last edited:
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Different generations and apples to oranges but how does Spielberg compare to these two in your opinion?
Obviously he doesn't write his own stuff so there's that, but purely as a director, what's your take?
PM me.
PM me.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty neutral about Nolan, myself. I enjoyed The Prestige and The Dark Knight. They're both a bit overrated by the fans, but I enjoyed them. You want to talk about cheap gimmicks, we can talk about Memento. Decent flick. Deserving of the praise it gets? No.
I would agree that Tarantino and P.T. Anderson are both great filmmakers, but I do think there are other directors of their generation who are in their league. Alfonso Cuaron, for instance, as well as Darren Aronofsky and, if you'll permit me to include guys who have made fewer films, I'd add Andrew Dominik and Todd Field to that list, *based upon the work they've done so far.
And I wanted to nitpick this...
a) Why is being reminiscent of Philip K. Dick stories a bad thing?
b) It doesn't look anything like Minority Report, and if it did
c) Minority Report bore little resemblance to Philip K. Dick's story, and
d) (this has nothing to do with anything you said) nobody's ever made a good Philip K. Dick movie, so let's embrace it when people make movies that are reminiscent of Philip K. Dick stories, because in the past, when that has happened,
e) movies that have seemed derivative of Philip K. Dick stories have tended to be far better than actual adaptations of Philip K. Dick stories (see The Truman Show or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and
f) before you tell me that Bladerunner was a good movie, I will preemptively agree with you (whoever you are, if there are any sci fi nerds in here who would actually argue such things with me) and say that, yes, Bladerunner is a great movie, but it's a terrible Philip K. Dick movie.
And just to add something new to the conversation about filmmakers, Stephen Spielberg isn't a very good director. I'll throw that in since somebody mentioned him somewhere.
I would agree that Tarantino and P.T. Anderson are both great filmmakers, but I do think there are other directors of their generation who are in their league. Alfonso Cuaron, for instance, as well as Darren Aronofsky and, if you'll permit me to include guys who have made fewer films, I'd add Andrew Dominik and Todd Field to that list, *based upon the work they've done so far.
And I wanted to nitpick this...
sirkickyass said:
a) Why is being reminiscent of Philip K. Dick stories a bad thing?
b) It doesn't look anything like Minority Report, and if it did
c) Minority Report bore little resemblance to Philip K. Dick's story, and
d) (this has nothing to do with anything you said) nobody's ever made a good Philip K. Dick movie, so let's embrace it when people make movies that are reminiscent of Philip K. Dick stories, because in the past, when that has happened,
e) movies that have seemed derivative of Philip K. Dick stories have tended to be far better than actual adaptations of Philip K. Dick stories (see The Truman Show or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and
f) before you tell me that Bladerunner was a good movie, I will preemptively agree with you (whoever you are, if there are any sci fi nerds in here who would actually argue such things with me) and say that, yes, Bladerunner is a great movie, but it's a terrible Philip K. Dick movie.
And just to add something new to the conversation about filmmakers, Stephen Spielberg isn't a very good director. I'll throw that in since somebody mentioned him somewhere.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Mono-
Some fair points regarding Dick. Regarding your comparison of those other directors to PTA/QT, laughable. I LOOOOVE Chopper. The Assassination of JJ is very solid... but Dominick's work is nowhere near the caliber of the former two. Ditto that with DA. The Wrestler? Very solid movie but one with great performances that helped carry it. Pi, which I think he did, I loooved but still, nowhere near the caliber of the others. Todd Field? C'mon. I LOOOOOVE In the Bedroom. Absolutely haunting. But what else has he done? Not enough of a resume. I forget who Cauron is and at 4:30am don't feel like looking him up.
Your comment on Spielberg? So far off I don't know where to begin. Has he had some major stinkers? Yes, more than just a couple, but that'll happen when he does about a movie a year over 35 years or so. Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, Schindler's (yes, yes Kicky, I know it's overrated), The Color Purple, Minority Report...must I go on?
Some fair points regarding Dick. Regarding your comparison of those other directors to PTA/QT, laughable. I LOOOOVE Chopper. The Assassination of JJ is very solid... but Dominick's work is nowhere near the caliber of the former two. Ditto that with DA. The Wrestler? Very solid movie but one with great performances that helped carry it. Pi, which I think he did, I loooved but still, nowhere near the caliber of the others. Todd Field? C'mon. I LOOOOOVE In the Bedroom. Absolutely haunting. But what else has he done? Not enough of a resume. I forget who Cauron is and at 4:30am don't feel like looking him up.
Your comment on Spielberg? So far off I don't know where to begin. Has he had some major stinkers? Yes, more than just a couple, but that'll happen when he does about a movie a year over 35 years or so. Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, Schindler's (yes, yes Kicky, I know it's overrated), The Color Purple, Minority Report...must I go on?
I somewhat (i.e. completely) arbitrarily was comparing directors in decade-long generations to define competitive contemporaries. Anderson, Nolan, and Tarantino all fit the 90s as a time-frame for directorial debuts which is why I think the discussion went around them. I think those (again, entirely artificial) limitations moot out Andrew Dominik and Todd Field from the discussion.
I just don't think Cuaron is in the same league. Then again, I hated Children of Men (oooooooohhh we have desaturated color it's sooooo distopian) and some of his other work has clearly been mediocre (i.e. Great Expectations), so of course I'm not going to put him as top tier. I just don't accept that Y Tu Mama Tambien is competitive with Pulp Fiction/Kill Bill/etc or Magnolia/Boogie Nights/ etc. To extend the Bird-Magic/Anderson-Tarantino analogy, Cuaron can be Michael Cooper or Danny Ainge. Very good and certainly appreciated by many of those "in the know" but hardly a Hall of Famer.
It's not, but a lot of Nolan's interviews on the film seem to be obsessed with the idea that he's got a novel concept. I'm going after that notion.
No one REALLY knows what the film is about, but I believe it has something to do with either harvesting ideas or planting ideas in people's minds using the subconcious. It's also intimated in the previews this might have something to do with crimes being committed or gathering evidence from people's dreams. If I'm correct (and I might not be) this is clearly similar in concept to the type of thought or psychic investigation contemplated in Minority Report where present action is predicated on the belief that future actions will occur.
We might agree to disagree on this point, but it appears to me that the concept will not be as original as pitched by Nolan. I have a suspicion that if he attempts to go deeply psychological with the film in the nature of the artificiality of memories that his action bent to the film is going to necessarily make it feel like a cheap thrill version of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
EDIT: I read farther down and you cited ESSM as well. Alas, even this idea regarding Nolan's originality was not totally original.
I actually find it difficult to opine on Blade Runner. I've only ever seen the "director's cut" and found large segments of it to be completely bewildering. I've heard there's a more noirish voice-over in the theatrical cut that makes the plot significantly more comprehensible and that the directors cut only feels right if you have a basic grasp of the film beforehand. In any event, I've never felt compelled to go back and try and get the movie done right a task that's complicated by the seemingly endless cuts of the film that are available.
And just to add something new to the conversation about filmmakers, Stephen Spielberg isn't a very good director. I'll throw that in since somebody mentioned him somewhere.
I'll answer KEK's question about my impressions of Spielberg here:
I think there's two different Spielbergs: One is very good and the other is a total schmaltz artist that would make Frank Capra die of a sugar overdose. His early stuff like Duel and Jaws are fantastic. His message pictures (The Color Purple, anything involving WWII in any way that isn't Saving Private Ryan) are frankly aimed at the lowest common denominator. His most famous sci-fi pictures (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T.) are frankly really overrated. I think he has a talent for making kids movies and family films.
He's remarkable only for his box office success. So was Vincente Minelli and we don't exactly think of him as one of the greatest of all time anymore. History will likely accord Spielberg the same fate.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is just as good as There Will Be Blood. I liked Children of Men better than either of those films. I think we're overrating Tarantino and Anderson a bit, if we're holding them in such high regard that filmmakers whose work we looooooove deserves a "C'mon" for even being mentioned alongside them. Do you think their best films -- their *very best* films (Pulp Fiction and There Will Be Blood, for the record) are better than 'In The Bedroom,' 'The Assassination of Jesse James,' 'Children of Men,' and 'Requiem for a Dream'? You might, for all I know. But I don't. I'd lump those movies right together, in terms of quality. Different kinds of films. But I do think the work of those other directors stands up to any comparison. Now, when you argue that Dominik and Field haven't made enough movies yet -- I can't disagree. That's the caveat; they've only made two films apiece. But what great films!
About Spielberg.... I mean.. you LIKED Minority Report? It was utterly illogical and awful. Spielberg directed one of my favorite films of all time, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Phenomenal movie. When I was a kid his movies were sacrosanct. If you were a kid who liked movies, you lived and breathed Spielberg, that's all there was to it. I've seen Indiana Jones and E.T. and Jaws, and Jurassic Park, you know, about a million times. But he hasn't made a movie I liked since Schindler's List. And he's made several that I just hated. Real saccharine, cornball stuff. And when he makes movies that seem like they're going to be good (Saving Private Ryan, Catch Me If You Can) when you start watching them, they never fail to devolve into total cheese by about the halfway point. He's always been a kind of Americana-style director, but man, it's like now he's a parody of himself. The Chris Rock robot in A.I.? If anything was dumber than that in the history of movies, you'd have to tell me what it was....
About Spielberg.... I mean.. you LIKED Minority Report? It was utterly illogical and awful. Spielberg directed one of my favorite films of all time, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Phenomenal movie. When I was a kid his movies were sacrosanct. If you were a kid who liked movies, you lived and breathed Spielberg, that's all there was to it. I've seen Indiana Jones and E.T. and Jaws, and Jurassic Park, you know, about a million times. But he hasn't made a movie I liked since Schindler's List. And he's made several that I just hated. Real saccharine, cornball stuff. And when he makes movies that seem like they're going to be good (Saving Private Ryan, Catch Me If You Can) when you start watching them, they never fail to devolve into total cheese by about the halfway point. He's always been a kind of Americana-style director, but man, it's like now he's a parody of himself. The Chris Rock robot in A.I.? If anything was dumber than that in the history of movies, you'd have to tell me what it was....