KM32MVP
Well-Known Member
(*sneeze*) Lady In The Water (*sneeze*)
Tarantino or Nolan?
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
(*sneeze*) Lady In The Water (*sneeze*)
I do too, it possesses a rare five star rating in my personal netflix recommendation engine.
I have a severe weakness for the entire "that's that, mattress man" scene as well.
I also think PTA does some of his most daring and effective camera work in PDL, including an almost-never-seen unsettling and slow move backwards while Adam Sandler is on the phone with the phone sex operator while he realizes that she's not actually going to just talk to him. The effect is to subtlely make Sandler smaller and smaller in his own apartment.
Nolan probably would have had something explode.
prodigal punk
Member
The romantic in me likes it because the feelings he has toward the girl are so unbelievably weird, but they don't seem forced or contrived.
I also like the shot where he's looking clear down the alley at the piano-thing (forgot what its called), then the truck drives by and startles him.
Of course, the "that's-that" scene is great, but I also like how good they (Sandler/ PTA) did at making you feel as awkward and nervous as he is. Have you tried watching it with the color turned all the way up on the TV? I read something about that being the intended way of watching it.
Sloanfield
New Member
Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.
I love Punch Drunk Love. For several reasons, but mostly because I feel like Adam Sandler is playing me in that film. One of my top 5.
JJ Rage
Active Member
This thread is tremendously retarded, although I should expect nothing less from the OP. There are dozens of great directors who make consistently great films, that fact alone makes this poll completely irrelevant. Not only that, but Nolan and Tarantino have completely different styles and make completely different types of movies. To be asked to chose between then in some arbitrary poll would sell both of them short.
Both of their most recent films (Inception and Inglourious B*sterds) I've seen twice in theaters, and enjoyed them immensely. Inception is my favorite film of the year so far, and B*sterds was hands-down my favorite film from 2009.
They're both great, Shyamalan is the biggest hack in Hollywood, and Dutch is an idiot. The End.
Both of their most recent films (Inception and Inglourious B*sterds) I've seen twice in theaters, and enjoyed them immensely. Inception is my favorite film of the year so far, and B*sterds was hands-down my favorite film from 2009.
They're both great, Shyamalan is the biggest hack in Hollywood, and Dutch is an idiot. The End.
Last edited:
DutchJazzer
Banned
so what rating should we use robert egbert?
imdb rating is imho one of the ebst ratings. only flaw i have is with the top 250 list. that new movies hould not be in it. but should have a waiting list of 2 or 3 years. for example transformers movie was in top 250 for a while now its nowhere near it.
DutchJazzer
Banned
Well, I think among film aficionados the most influential top 10 film list is the Sight and Sound poll that comes out every ten years. The most recent version of that list (from 2002) is here:
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html
On balance there's a lot of lists that have significantly more crediblity.
The AFI list (which only ranks American films) comes to mind. I don't like every movie on that list but I think it comes a lot closer to achieving critical consensus on metrics of quality than the imdb top 250 does. Here's the difference: While I may not think Lawrence of Arabia is a good movie, it's a lot easier for me to swallow it's inclusion than it is for me to accept that Fight Club is one of the top 20 films of all time, as the imdb top 250 claims. Lawrence of Arabia is in the conversation given its history, legacy, and reputation. Fight Club is not only not in the conversation, it's several states away from the conversation.
IMDB rating is absymal because a) you have no idea who is voting, b) there are no minimum qualifications to vote, c) it tends to significantly overrate popular franchises due to fanboy tendencies and d) there is no accountability for relative vote measurements.
With respect to a: A 6 year old that has seen 200 movies has as much say as I do even though I've seen upwards of 3,000 films. The flaw is obvious.
With respect to b: Dutchjazzer has as much pull as Peter Bogdanovich even though one is clearly an accepted film scholar and the other is dutch. Simply reading Pauline Kael's essays on film is a lot more informative than looking at the imdb 250 list.
With respect to c: Fanboy franchises such as Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings (and now Batman) are vastly over-represented. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings comprise 20% of the top 20 films. That's indefensible. A similar and related point is that the imdb ratings, because they are a popular ranking, tend to heavily correlate with box office success which also measures popularity.
A third related point is that this tends to highly conflate recency with success on the top 250. Four movies from 2010 are already on the list. Sixty-four of the top 250 have come out between 2000 and the present. An additional 40 come from the years between 1990-1999. So greater than 40% of the list is comprised of films that make up only the most recent 18% of film history. By comparison, the 1940s, which many critics and film scholars consider the best decade for film, has about 20 entries. This recency bias is most glaring near the bottom of the list where popular voters have rated Shaun of the Dead above The Philadelphia Story. You might as well smear ***** all over Hollywood's golden age.
The last point, relating to accountability, is minor. The real issue is that if I rated Casablanca a 1 and Twilight Eclipse a 10 you'd all know my opinions can't be trusted. Those people count in the IMDB 250 and there's no way to exclude them.
So yes, the IMDB 250 sucks dutch. It is a measure of popularity only, not actual quality.
When you take the elitism out of the equation, popularity= quality.
The thing about having the six year old and the elitist prick both giving their recommendation is that the result is going to be the average.The average viewer thinks this movie is a 9, and thinks this movie is a 5 and this movie is the GOAT. I find it easier to relate to the 'average' viewer than the movie nazi. You think citizen kane was one of the greatest movies of all time... I think citizen kane is boring as ****, and you couldn't pay me to watch it. I recognize the cinematrographical elements that make the elitist's lip quiver, and can understand it being there. But I'm gonna reach for "fight club" at the movie store before i reach for "citizen kane".
I like the IMDB ratings, because they give me a ball park rating of what to expect. I'm probably not gonna think that a 4 movie is worth shelling out the money to go to because the general public didn't like it, whereas a 9 I'll probably shell out the dollars to see, and if I didn't like it than I'm the minority and it was a freak happen stance based on a conflict of preference. Its overall a good rating for the average joe, a good "what to expect meter". Maybe you get all stuffy because inception has beat almost every movie ever made from a broadbased stand point, but I can accept that.
I appreciate it.In related news:
chemdude1232
Active Member
Hitchcock. 'Nuff said. I don't think he ever missed a beat.
Hitchcock has a solid case in the "best directors of all time argument." Absurdly he never won a Best Director Oscar and had only one Best Picture win: for Rebecca which I don't think is usually short-listed as among his best films.
The IMDB 250 voters, in their wisdom, have rated his top two movies on the rankings (Rear Window and Psycho) below at least two movies by the following directors: Francis Ford Coppola, Christopher Nolan, George Lucas, Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg.
But hey, popularity=quality I've heard.
chemdude1232
Active Member
So Kubrick wasn't on this IMDB 250 list in the same grouping as FFC, Nolan, lucas, Jackson (yea right), Spielberg, and Hitch? That's absurd. He might not have had the quantity that the others had (he did only one movie a decade or so) but his movies are widely regarded as being pretty high up there on the quality meter.
Let's just say that out of that grouping of 6, Nolan is closer to Lucas and Jackson than he is to Coppola and Hitchcock.
popularity= quality, but quality can be popular or unpopular. The general "average joe" agreement is that popularity= quality.
chemdude1232
Active Member
I see what you're saying, Joker, but as with any argument, there are exceptions. Britney Spears has sold millions of albums, but I would be hard pressed to say that her music has the same quality as Beethoven's. That's why I don't like the "average joe" equation that popularity = quality. Art is just too subjective for that imho.
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
You selfish *******.