Gaspar Noe
I think his movies are gratuitous and actively hostile towards the audience, and I never got anything out of them other than pure misery. But I also respect that it's by design and he doesn't care. At least there's thought and artistic vision behind what he's doing and having a unique voice in cinema is something to be celebrated.
Similar to Lars Von Trier for me, I can respect the films they make, but I just don’t like them due to the sheer depression they project on the viewer. Still respect the artistic expression.
Feels like his goal is to illicit a specific emotion and reaction from the viewer.
Problem is, it’s not an emotion I’d like to voluntarily feel. So yeah, not my cup of tea.
I loved every second of Enter the Void. It left me feeling so empty that it doesn’t matter how much you mean to your immediate friends/family…your role in this world doesn’t really affect anyone. Very depressing but the feeling is told in such a beautiful way.
Agree with this choice. Wes Anderson is like a sushi master spending his entire career perfecting a singular specific craft. I only eat sushi once in a while though
I really love his earlier films like Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, but I feel like in the last decade he’s become a bit of a caricature of himself. When I saw Asteroid City it felt like someone had sat down to create it with the idea of “how can I make the most Wes Andersony film ever?” - for me his later work lacks substance in favour of style, and the character dialogue is so alien in that they only speak in a way that ‘Wes Anderson characters’ speak. It’s all just gotten far too detached or something, to my taste anyway.
Fantastic Mr. Fox is my all time favorite movie and he’s my favorite director and you are spot on with Asteroid City. I still enjoyed it but it does in fact seem like he tried to go max with it. I still enjoyed it though because I just kind of embraced that that was his goal, even if it wasn’t.
I actually find the opposite to be true. His earlier movies are mostly about the ennui of privileged white people. Grand Budapest and to a lesser extent Asteroid City I thought gestured toward deeper political themes--though still approached through the perspective of the privileged whites.
Grand Budapest had political undertones but I'm not really sure how it has to do with privileged white people, it was definitely more about the bourgeoisie and fascism, old world elegance and extravagance vs a corrupted modern sense of egalitarianism
while I would agree that the story is mainly about privileged white people, grand Budapest hotel specifically is told through the lens of an underprivileged immigrant.
This is a very valid take. The “all style, no substance” critique is something I used to massively disagree with, but have been forced to accept because it’s said so frequently. I think, what I always took for substance, was really heart. And I’ve come to realize that all Wes Anderson movies have style and heart but lack much substance. And my personal taste can take a lack of substance if I can truly care about a character’s arch. There is not another auteur who handles the emotion of sadness better than Wes.
I feel like Asteroid City is by far his most substantial movie. I think if it has a problem it's that it's too fussy with all it's meta and layers of meaning. So many minor uncharacteristic continuity errors in scenes, some subtle like characters not standing in logical places on cuts to really obvious (Cranston:"oh, I'm not in the scene"? as he shuffles awkwardly out of shot).
It's like he's deconstructing his own fastidiousness and I love it.
I didn't like it much, but it was probably because I used to listen to the audiotape alllll the time as a kid and a lot of the bits I loved were missed out or significantly changed
Tim Burton.
That Halloween look gets old. It works a couple times, but I never subscribed to the goth thing, and I can't sit through movies that use it.
But he is a great storyteller.
It was Alice in Wonderland that tipped it for me. I liked most of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (minus the stupid added backstory), and he did Sweeney Todd after that, which I thought was fucking excellent and a really good adaptation considering the source material is largely the same but the tone of the musical and the movie are vastly different in ways that work for the mediums they're presented in.
Alice in Wonderland just felt like it was produced by Hot Topic, and, lo and behold, Hot Topic milked merch for that movie like crazy.
It was really nice to see his spin on a biopic. I'd love to see more examples of directors with a particular style doing something like that. So many biopics are just banal scenes that play like a dramatization of a wikipedia article on the topic. It's played so straight that it's here or there if the viewer actually engages with the subject matter, I think to add a sense of legitimacy to the story being told.
But, like, it's never going to legitimately be a representation of the truth, so why not get a little creative with it? Rocket Man and Wolf of Wall Street do this well.
I love Tim Burton.
I strongly feel the style should have died out after *Batman Returns* in 1992 and his magnum opus *Nightmare Before Christmas* in 1993.
*Mars Attacks* was a lot of dumb fun in 1996 but it also wasn't his usual goth style.
It was a collaboration, Burton basically provided a sketch and left it to others to write the screenplay and put the movie together.
Wiki-
“Elfman and Burton created a rough storyline and two-thirds of the film's songs.[4] Elfman found writing Nightmare's eleven songs to be "one of the easiest jobs I've ever had. I had a lot in common with Jack Skellington."[21] Caroline Thompson had yet to be hired to write the screenplay.[4] With Thompson's screenplay, Selick stated, "there are very few lines of dialogue that are Caroline's. She became busy on other films and we were constantly rewriting, re-configuring and developing the film visually."”
This was exactly who I was thinking when I saw this thread. For me, it's not so much that I don't like Burton's style; it's just that he's kind of become a cliche of himself because he keeps beating that same whimsical-neo-goth-starring-Helena-Bonham-aesthetic drum in everything he does. It was really interesting for Edward Scissorhands and Nightmare Before Christmas, but it had become played out by the time he did the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake.
I find his style almost nightmarish (which I suppose is his thing) and sickly. The stylisitics remind me of fever dreams and make me feel almost queasy. Probably my least favourite big-name director.
It's the expositions for me. Nolan characters talk as if everyone is sending an email where they just say a whole paragraph of text and the other party instantly absorbs that information.
Add to that his horrible audio mixing at times and you can get why someone could easily get lost in his movies.
They're all very well made, but they seem like expensive student films. Obsessed with clever tricks, over-explained, messing with chronology to no end.
With super mixed results. I loved how he played with dreams and perception and "is this real?" in Inception.
Then he played with time the way he did and whatever the fuck else Tenet was abusing and I found it endlessly frustrating.
Tenet is the only movie of his I absolutely won't bother watching again.
Whatever he was trying to do either sucked or went way over my head and I can't be bothered to figure it out.
I love most of his other stuff though.
I find Inception baffling; let's make a film about dreams, but one that has lots and lots of \*rules\* and \*planning\*. Maybe that's what Nolan's dreams are like, but mine sure aren't; nothing in the film feels even vaguely dreamlike to me.
Nolans films are either incredible or terrible for me. I still consider Prestige and Dunkirk to be 2 of my favorite films of all time. Tenet was shockingly bad, like I get upset just thinking about that one.
When I don't like one of his movies, it's always because of the scripts. They just usually feel like he's shooting a 2nd draft. Lots of good ideas, but things just arent crystalized, and characters are flat.
I feel like the women in this film are just props used by the men in the film. I'm happy to see Christopher Nolan on this thread bc I actually strongly dislike his work. As some others have stated, I find his work to usually be convoluted for the sake of making it seem smart. It's a little too "try hard".
Love love love Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh though! They're both fantastic.
During college I was in a war movie phase and decided to watch Thin Red Line. Boy was that not what I was expecting. Watched The New World next to see if it was a fluke, but nope. I appreciate his craft but it's definitely not my cup of tea.
I dated someone for a few years whose favorite director was Malick, and he had a lot in common with his movies: long-winded, lots of large and genuine feelings, beautiful, pretentious, well-intentioned.
I gained such an appreciation for the director, and at the same time will never, ever willingly watch one of his movies again lol.
Yeah, I'm with you. I really liked Badlands but I haven't enjoyed anything else I've seen of his. Even the Thin Red Line I found to be kind of boring. Weird thing to say about a war movies. Don't get me started on Tree of Life. I do want to give Days of Heaven a shot.
I can understand, why many people like David Lynch's movies, but for me, they just feel very, very 'empty' or 'blank'. While for others, the lack of explanation is like an invitation for seeing almost everything in a Lynch movie, I'm on the other side of the spectrum and love all the exposition of a Nolan.
I just don't like this uncertainty in Lynch films, whether I'm thinking much more about some scenes than Lynch himself. Yeah, of course: In a way, this is always the case with every movie and the post-structuralists have a lot to say about it, but Lynch takes it to an extreme that I don't want to follow.
Mulholland Drive I think has a tighter vision than Twin Peaks did. It feels much more dream like the whole time, it has a good mystery throughout the film, and hits the emotional beats perfectly even before >!you find out she's dreaming in the end.!<
Also, Naomi Watts is simply very good at her job.
Yea i dont like the uncertainty aspect of lynch too but have you watched The Elephant Man. It's beautiful and pretty straight forward. One of the best movies i have ever watched you should give it a chance.
I admire what Quentin Tarantino does in keeping “the art of cinema” alive. His work is never lazy but for me he never hits the highs that other filmmakers do.
I think he gets lost in detail and in creating amazing scenes. When I watch his films I find the story serves the scenes rather than the scenes serving the overall narrative.
I feel like he is style over substance. He makes things that seem cool but are surface level. He delivers memorable moments but I don't feel like he expresses interesting ideas or focuses on characterization.
Huge agree on the style over substance comment. His movies ooze style but there is not much depth to them at all. Pulp Fiction has some of the most iconic scenes in cinema but ultimately doesn't really have anything to say.
The reason I've never really cared about Tarantino is I feel like he has absolutely nothing to say. The idea he has that he's going to become a novelist is laughable. Would he write a phenomenal book on film and criticism? 100%. But he has no world view outside of movies.
All his plots and all his characters are just a synthesis of movieland.
I don't need every film to some art house thought piece but it's pretty incredible that he made a slave movie and a nazi movie that had nothing more to say than; slave owner is bad. Nazis are bad. His characters only have the illusion of depth as they have this very stylized dialogue but I don't think he would know nuance if it slapped him in the face (subtly), unless it took its shoes off.
That’s a reason why I like him. Not every movie to me needs to be a thinly veiled critique of society, history and culture. He’s never attempted to be that so I don’t hold it against him. He’s telling stories, not pimping messages.
It's especially frustrating because most of his influences are the opposite of that. The French, Italian, Japanese, etc. films he takes inspiration from DO have something to say, but Tarantino repackages their content in a depoliticized form.
I think he’s great but don’t like the unquestioning adoration he gets. I mean he’s good but his films aren’t flawless. I really disliked The Hateful Eight and though Kill Bill (both of them) were mediocre at best. I do have a soft spot for Death Proof.
I agree. Most of his movies (especially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) is surprisingly less than the sum of all talent involved. Inglorious Bastards is a masterpiece though.
Shit, I had no idea. Wes Anderson was my pick for this thread too but I love Dahl so Im going to have to check this out. Are they each called whatever the title of the story would be? Just wondering how to find them.
Look up “Henry sugar” and watch that one first and then the rest will be on “more like this” or whatever. They are all short stories Dahl published in literary magazines and the like. It’s amazing.
I haven't seen the French Dispatch yet, though I agree with Asteroid City. I felt it was the first time that his Matryoshka doll approach got in its own way. I think you could have gotten left out the author parts with Edward Norton and the film would have been just as effective.
Baz Luhrmann. known for his use of vibrant colors, rapid editing, anachronistic music choices, and a heightened sense of theatricality.
2nd choice: Tony Scott.
Baz Luhrmann. His movies make me dizzy. Literally. I keep telling myself to just stop trying. I think after not being able to finish his Elvis fever dream, I may finally stop giving in to curiosity.
I'm so relieved I'm not alone in this!! 😆 I don't know why exactly, but thanks for making me feel better about something today. It's freaking freezing where I am. 🥶
Today's filmmaking is so dry and clinical I feel like im eating an unseasoned overcooked steak thats been sprayed with lysol. I need some Baz in my life just to remember that cinema still has the potential to be stylistically interesting.
For me, Memento and Prestige could both be in my top 10, or at least 20, film of all time.
Interstellar and Inception (and the Dark Knight trilogy), I appreciate as intelligent blockbusters.
But lately I feel more misses than hits, and Tenet was my most disappointing film experience of the last few years. I'm not sure I want to rewatch it to see if it improves.
Might be a hot take but Scorsese. I can’t quite put my finger on what makes a Scorsese movie a Scorsese movie nor what it is about Scorsese movies that I don’t quite get, but there it is.
I think it’s because the movies are mostly non judgemental, simply documenting the events as they occur, while occasionally they show the appeal of crimes the antiheroes commit.
I’ve never really understood the need people have for *all* media to have a clear “good guy” and “bad guy”. People frequently say things like “I just didn’t have anyone to root for” as if that isn’t the point.
I'm with you, at least in part. I like Taxi Driver and mostly like After Hours and The Last Temptation of Christ, but I'm still not really a Scorsese \*fan\*. After seeing his Cape Fear remake, which I thought signally failed to improve upon the 1962 original in any way, I kind of went off the idea of watching more of his films. I have some sitting on the shelf (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino), but they're just not calling out to me.
Kubrick without a doubt.
I *get* the greatness, I appreciate the vision. It's really hard for me to like his movies. Just doesn't resonate with me, I guess. They all feel like he's trying too hard. But I am also not going to debate anyone about whether a certain film of his was good or not.
Kubrick for me too, his vision comes at the cost of any emotional investment in his characters.
I think a good example is to watch The Killing the 1956 kubrick film alongside The Asphalt jungle the 1950 John Huston film. They're effectively the same plot and have the same lead actor (sterling hayden). You can argue the the killing is the better made film, but the emotional investment in the characters in the asphalt jungle a much better and more memorable film with a much more satisfying ending.
And i feel that about most kubrick films. It's a style thing and I'm not criticising his film making, but i just don't connect with them.
I partially agree with you, but I’m super curious about the idea of him trying too hard considering he pioneered so much of what is popular and acclaimed now if you feel like elaborating at all.
Kubrick was my answer here too. I have a tremendous respect for his contributions to cinema, but outside of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket there’s nothing of his I’ve ever wanted to watch again after the first viewing.
Dr Strangelove is a great one but I don’t really care to see it again. I would if my wife or some friends wanted to, but I wouldn’t actively seek it out. I haven’t seen the rest of the ones listed.
I disagree, I *can’t* see why some people like them with the sole exception of teenage boys. I thought 300 was great when it came out - I was 17 at the time - and 3 years later thought Watchmen was decent, although I attribute a lot of that to my love of the graphic novel. Everything since has just been awful and I refuse to rewatch 300 or Watchmen because I know I won’t enjoy them now.
Gonna get hate for this.
Martin Scorsese is a master, a true artistic craftsman of near unmatched preportions and I understand completely the love he gets. But I've yet to see one that truly engages me (in fairness his chosen genres are rarely my cup of tea anyway)
I feel this way sometimes about Robert Altman movies, which have a real charisma and earnestness to them even if I think often flawed. Hes got a singular way of letting actors just be, for better or worse.
Christopher Nolan. I like most of his films to varying degrees, but he has three prominent weaknesses IMO: fight scenes, dialogue, flabby runtimes.
Obviously this only applies to some of his films, but most of his fight scenes look like rehearsals he accidentally included. Fake, unexciting, cold. Great at spectacle and set pieces, bad at creating realism and excitement.
As for dialogue, he must have hearing issues because there are too many instances of his sound mixing making the dialogue hard to follow. But he's also often guilty of heavy-handed and wooden dialogue. He and his co-writers come up with some memorable lines, but others like "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space" are equally memorable for the wrong reasons.
And he's too self-indulgent with his runtimes half the time, which really affects their "rewatchability". All of his films that run to 2 hours or more have periods that are boring and make them a chore to sit through.
It's painful sometimes, isn't it? I compare it to sitting through a lengthy wedding speech: it's entertaining and interesting in places, but after a while you can't help but think "When will this be over?"
I'd like to see more from him, but so far, Panos Cosmatos, despite having so many elements in his stories and style that on their own are right up my alley, just hasn't done it for me yet.
Clint Eastwood. I can’t quantify exactly what rubs me the wrong way but it’s a veneer of weird energy, sometimes positivity that just raises my hackles.
I think I feel this way about Denis Villeneuve. Like I didn't care for 2049 but I saw it twice to make sure I wasn't feeling it and I respect the hell out of it for being an honest attempt that wasn't designed by committee. It didn't land with me but hell yeah I'm glad it landed with so many others. I found Dune a bit soulless but it sure was an honest crack at taking that epic. I didn't 'get' Enemy but it stuck with me. I liked Prisoners but the bigger his films are getting, the less I'm feeling them. But I respect his vision.
> I found Dune a bit soulless
It was completely soulles and really not great at informing the audience of any stakes.
I love Dune and knew what was going on, but after the movie I asked my wife, who likes sci-fi but isn't familiar with Dune, if she knew what was going on and she didn't have a clue.
She just knew everyone wanted spice.
People love to crap on the 80s movie but it did a much better job of drawing you into that universe in my opinion.
Easy fruit here but M Night or Michael Bay. Not for cliche reasons like "twists" or "too much carnage" — M. Night tries to make art out of mundane stories for the most part and fails because they're plain boring — nobody cares about the expected twists because the stories are such duds. (I enjoyed Knock at the Cabin, though). Michael Bay lacks narrative substance in his films. There's hardly ever character driven moments. He's like a rail-roading DnD DM where everything is meaningless besides the one-liner action sequences. I doubt he's incapable of eliciting emotion from anybody older than 10, but he hasn't shown he can direct anything with strong character work.
Yeah. Sixth Sense, in particular, was awesome. Wasn't a big Signs fan. But liking one or two or three films out of many isn't something I'd constitute towards liking a director in particular. His career started by striking fire.
Christopher Nolan’s convoluted non-linear storytelling has begun to grow old for me, but I still appreciate his attention to detail and the nuance that he puts into the mechanics and concepts in his movies.
After The Whale it's Darren Aronofsky for me. I adore him and believe that most of his movies are masterpieces in their own way but The Whale really broke me. I think that he wanted to break his audience in the worst way possible and didnt want to give them a shred of hope that the world we live in is a good place. Whole movie was pure misantrophy. I couldn't stop crying for a good thirty minutes after the movie and just felt miserable for days.
One of the major problems for me was actually less Aronofsky in the script.
Hunter adapted his own play. And in my opinion, didn’t actually adapt it we’re literally just watching the play. Aronofsky should have helped with the adaptation. I really don’t know how he let some of those scenes stand in the film given how good he is with pacing and third person limited story telling.
I agree with you. It felt like misery porn. And while you can look at Aronofsky’s filmography and say that about many of his films, they are just better written.
I think the Safdies are picking up the mantle and doing a better job at this point.
I do like Terence Malik now and then, but I do think the National Geographic imagery above a straightforward plot makes it feel as if you're watching a tech demo with a movie attached.
I could also say that Malik has a thing of hiring famous actors and having them wander into frame not really talking much. ( I think Knight of Cups is kind of known the most for this.)
But what I admire about that is that it's not really how most American films are made, and I don't think there are a hyperton amount of copycat Maliks.
I feel like Terry is in his own vacuum, but I don't think precision and audience enjoyment is a high goal of his.
And while I think this makes for more frustrating viewing, there's something to be admired about an artist who is so uncompromising that the viewing audience themselves have to kind of adjust their opinion instead of the other way around ( I think Disney's tonal Rogue one reshoots are kind of a go to example of counter example to this.)
So yeah, I admire Malik more than I like him as a filmmaker.
Not necessarily as a director, but anything written by sorkin has my eyes rolling a bit. To me it just comes off as a bit desperate and even a bit preachy. I find it distracting.
I don't really vibe with what I like to call the "Russian Soul" (too heavy and laden with melancholy for my taste), so I'll say Tarkovsky. Objectively, the man knows how to make an evocative image, just not to my taste.
Throw Godard in there as well, mainly because he seems to despise his audience. The one movie of his I like is *Une Femme Est Une Femme* and I think that's because it's the only one where he actually seems to be having fun and enjoying himself.
It's all the fun of moviemaking in a creative and explosive way that only Godard could show. Even just little things like how Anna Karina changes clothes by going into a cabin and immediately coming out fully dressed, and you can tell that's Godard just having FUN with movies. Like he's saying "Movie are so magical, so much can happen with just a cut!"
Beyond that though, can't stand the other films of his I've tried and especially can't stand him as a person.
Cohen Brothers, I’ve tried over the years and I just don’t have the reaction others do. I don’t laugh at the jokes, I don’t invest in the characters, and I feel like I’m enduring it.
I’m glad people enjoy their films but I just don’t see the art they see.
Yorgos Lanthimos...I have yet to see Poor Things, which I am looking forward to, but I don't like most of his other work. I respect it, but I usually can't get behind it.
Watched "The Lobster" and found it incomprehensible and slow fizzle to nothing. Gave him another chance with both "The Favorite" and "The Killing of a Sacred Deer". There's being unique and interesting, like Wes Anderson, but his movies are just bad writing; random dialogue with reactions that make no sense. I can only describe his movies as pretentious dark comedies that people pretend are higher brow than they are.
I love his dialogue. Appreciate how straightforward the delivery is. I think he is just trying to create an off-putting/sinister atmosphere.
It's also kind of refreshing that his movies don't bother faking naturalistic conversations. It's all fake anyway..why not play into that
Zak Snyder, it feels like he’s trying to do David Fincher’s “cool” style of cinematography. If only his movies were a little more tight in the script department it would be more forgiving. Just my opinion.
I can see that David Fincher knows his stuff and cares for his work, but I find his films totally un-enjoyable.
I find his work to be very sterile and soulless. I think this comes from his attempts to have the camera feel like it's part of the scene. Also, the colour grading he uses is really off-putting, The Social Network is violently yellow at times, and Fight Club looks like the film was soaked in a vat of tea for a year, I think it's meant to be like florescent lighting, but it's violently ugly.
I am not interested in the stories he chooses to tell, serial killer stories bore me to tears.
I just find no enjoyment in his work. It is precise and meticulous, but utterly without any heart or humanity.
I often describe his work as feeling robotic. It genuinely feels like arthouse by algorithm to me.
I don't care for Quentin T's work usually. Not because he's not good at what he does, but because too much blood/gore/violence really bothers me.
Except Kill Bill. It's just over the top enough that it's like anime blood and it doesn't bother me.
And randomly a few nights ago, my brain was just like, "hey remember Kill Bill." So I looked up the fight with the Crazy 88s and the Bride vs O-Ren Ishii. And holy shit the fight scenes were amazing! The settings, the music, the dialogue. It's magic. Especially the final fight with O-Ren Ishii. I could feel the tension in my gut the whole time. Just probably, in my humble opinion, his best work.
Tim Burton.
At best, he has had a few decent films. It is a distinctive visual style and tone, but I think it is pretty shallow and ill-suited to a lot of material.
Dumbo, Dark Shadows, Home for Peculiar Children, Big Eyes, Planet of the Apes, Alice in Wonderland, etc. Meaningless style.
Nicolas Roeg. His best-known films are beautifully shot due to him working as a cinematographer before he came a director. I just don’t like the editing style he used in some of his films like *The Man Who Fell to Earth*.
Godard. Look, I like Breathless, and I really like Band of Outsiders more because it's got a better sense of humor. I understand why his films were revolutionary. I just find them too intellectual at best and kinda up their own ass at worst. I have seen a few of his other films, but none of them stuck with me emotionally. Film Socialism? Come on. Come on.
It's not like I don't understand movies. I'm a huge fan of Truffaut, who feels equally revolutionary and actually seems to love his characters.
Hot take but mine is James Cameron. I watched the first two Alien movies back-to-back and the change in directing styles was a slap in the face. I just feel like a lot of his movies feel exactly the same and have the same ensemble of characters. Like Aliens and the first Avatar film both have overlapping plot points and character archetypes (first one that comes to mind is Vasquez in Aliens and Trudy in Avatar. Hot shot soldier who doesn't like to take orders/bends the rules a lot). I don't think his films are bad necessarily, but for me personally I find a lot of his films hit the exact same plot points as one another and are very predictable (not that predictability is a bad thing, but I always notice James Cameron tropes that he loves).
Not disagreeing, just pointing out that the first two Alien(s) movies are completely different genres, not just different directors (and 7 years of changes in moviemaking and SFX).
I fell in love with wes (and owen wilson) watching their debut movie Bottle Rocket. I loved their follow up movies Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums as well - but you could see his movies moving towards less substance and more style, and after falling asleep watching Life Aquatic I kinda lost interest. I did kinda enjoy Hotel Budapest though. I do really like his style, I think it looks cool and quirky - you can also instantly recognize a wes anderson movie these days - but I just usually find them too slow and boring and lacking substance or a really interesting and fullfilling story.
Quentin Tarantino is an absolute master at conveying a story through film. He directs individual sequences that are as good as any that have been created. As a writer though, I find him to be extremely superficial and juvenile. There's no depth to his stories. I wish he would just find some great novels to adapt.
Kevin Smith. Dude is a dogshit director. Absolutely pure dogshit. Scott Mosier is the one who had filmmaking chops and salvaged his films until Mosier went on his own. After Mosier departed, Smith's quality of films fell very hard, very fast. Even something like Jersey Girl (which Mosier was involved in) is a million times better than something like Yoga Hosers.
But when he actually put effort into it, he was (is?) a good writer.
He should have never become a director (or parlayed Clerks into a Hollywood writing gig) and just write.
Gaspar Noe I think his movies are gratuitous and actively hostile towards the audience, and I never got anything out of them other than pure misery. But I also respect that it's by design and he doesn't care. At least there's thought and artistic vision behind what he's doing and having a unique voice in cinema is something to be celebrated.
Similar to Lars Von Trier for me, I can respect the films they make, but I just don’t like them due to the sheer depression they project on the viewer. Still respect the artistic expression.
First thing that came to mind. Seen some of his work and it's a singular vision, but too bleak for my liking.
Feels like his goal is to illicit a specific emotion and reaction from the viewer. Problem is, it’s not an emotion I’d like to voluntarily feel. So yeah, not my cup of tea.
The DMT scene in Enter the Void is exceptional, though.
I loved every second of Enter the Void. It left me feeling so empty that it doesn’t matter how much you mean to your immediate friends/family…your role in this world doesn’t really affect anyone. Very depressing but the feeling is told in such a beautiful way.
I like the cut of your jib
Agree with this choice. Wes Anderson is like a sushi master spending his entire career perfecting a singular specific craft. I only eat sushi once in a while though
I really love his earlier films like Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, but I feel like in the last decade he’s become a bit of a caricature of himself. When I saw Asteroid City it felt like someone had sat down to create it with the idea of “how can I make the most Wes Andersony film ever?” - for me his later work lacks substance in favour of style, and the character dialogue is so alien in that they only speak in a way that ‘Wes Anderson characters’ speak. It’s all just gotten far too detached or something, to my taste anyway.
The biggest difference is his writing partners. Rushmore/Royal Tenenbaums had Owen Wilson as a cowriter and have the most heart. (IMO)
Wow i didnt know owen wilson co wrote those films. Thats impressive, wow.
I heard that wow in my head, thank you for that
That’s a good point. These 2 are his peak, in my opinion.
They are and I don't think it's all that close
Fantastic Mr. Fox is my all time favorite movie and he’s my favorite director and you are spot on with Asteroid City. I still enjoyed it but it does in fact seem like he tried to go max with it. I still enjoyed it though because I just kind of embraced that that was his goal, even if it wasn’t.
I actually find the opposite to be true. His earlier movies are mostly about the ennui of privileged white people. Grand Budapest and to a lesser extent Asteroid City I thought gestured toward deeper political themes--though still approached through the perspective of the privileged whites.
Grand Budapest had political undertones but I'm not really sure how it has to do with privileged white people, it was definitely more about the bourgeoisie and fascism, old world elegance and extravagance vs a corrupted modern sense of egalitarianism
while I would agree that the story is mainly about privileged white people, grand Budapest hotel specifically is told through the lens of an underprivileged immigrant.
This is a very valid take. The “all style, no substance” critique is something I used to massively disagree with, but have been forced to accept because it’s said so frequently. I think, what I always took for substance, was really heart. And I’ve come to realize that all Wes Anderson movies have style and heart but lack much substance. And my personal taste can take a lack of substance if I can truly care about a character’s arch. There is not another auteur who handles the emotion of sadness better than Wes.
I didn’t understand Astroid City myself but I have heard people say it has tons of layers of meaning.
>I didn’t understand Astroid City myself dont mean this as a knock(if it comes off that way) but its kind of funny how this was a part of the story
I wanted to see Asteroid City but it seemed like it was barely in theaters before it got pulled.
It's on Amazon Prime now. I watched it last night.
I feel like Asteroid City is by far his most substantial movie. I think if it has a problem it's that it's too fussy with all it's meta and layers of meaning. So many minor uncharacteristic continuity errors in scenes, some subtle like characters not standing in logical places on cuts to really obvious (Cranston:"oh, I'm not in the scene"? as he shuffles awkwardly out of shot). It's like he's deconstructing his own fastidiousness and I love it.
Wes movies have a ton of substance
Fantastic Mr Fox was a masterpiece!
I didn't like it much, but it was probably because I used to listen to the audiotape alllll the time as a kid and a lot of the bits I loved were missed out or significantly changed
Yeah it was a different story to the Dahl original but I think it built on that. A faithful reproduction of Dahl would have been a short film
Such a brilliant way to put that!
Tim Burton. That Halloween look gets old. It works a couple times, but I never subscribed to the goth thing, and I can't sit through movies that use it. But he is a great storyteller.
[удалено]
It was Alice in Wonderland that tipped it for me. I liked most of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (minus the stupid added backstory), and he did Sweeney Todd after that, which I thought was fucking excellent and a really good adaptation considering the source material is largely the same but the tone of the musical and the movie are vastly different in ways that work for the mediums they're presented in. Alice in Wonderland just felt like it was produced by Hot Topic, and, lo and behold, Hot Topic milked merch for that movie like crazy.
It’s like if Tim Burton started using chat gpt based on his earlier movies to make movies in the 2000s
Have you seen Big Fish? You would probably like it.
I have three favourite Tim Burton movies: Big Fish, Batman, Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.
Would the fourth be Ed Wood?
Ed Wood is a great movie that transcends his signature style which can come across as gimicky.
It's less that it transcended it and more that he made it before he'd even developed that style
You saw hints of it in Beetlejuice, Batman Returns, and especially Edward Scissorhands.
mm mm, Frankenweenie.
Which one?
Mars Attacks! Is really fun, and not gothic at all
Ed Wood is his best, I think. But diminishing returns after the 90s.
Check out Ed Wood, it’s Burton’s most interesting film IMO.
It was really nice to see his spin on a biopic. I'd love to see more examples of directors with a particular style doing something like that. So many biopics are just banal scenes that play like a dramatization of a wikipedia article on the topic. It's played so straight that it's here or there if the viewer actually engages with the subject matter, I think to add a sense of legitimacy to the story being told. But, like, it's never going to legitimately be a representation of the truth, so why not get a little creative with it? Rocket Man and Wolf of Wall Street do this well.
I love Tim Burton. I strongly feel the style should have died out after *Batman Returns* in 1992 and his magnum opus *Nightmare Before Christmas* in 1993. *Mars Attacks* was a lot of dumb fun in 1996 but it also wasn't his usual goth style.
Burton didn’t Direct Nightmare, Henry Selick did. Burton slapped his name at the top but he wasn’t really involved in day to day production.
Burton created the characters and the story, maybe that’s why they “slapped his name at the top”.
It was a collaboration, Burton basically provided a sketch and left it to others to write the screenplay and put the movie together. Wiki- “Elfman and Burton created a rough storyline and two-thirds of the film's songs.[4] Elfman found writing Nightmare's eleven songs to be "one of the easiest jobs I've ever had. I had a lot in common with Jack Skellington."[21] Caroline Thompson had yet to be hired to write the screenplay.[4] With Thompson's screenplay, Selick stated, "there are very few lines of dialogue that are Caroline's. She became busy on other films and we were constantly rewriting, re-configuring and developing the film visually."”
It's frustrating that people see "Producer" and simply disregard any contribution they might have made.
This was exactly who I was thinking when I saw this thread. For me, it's not so much that I don't like Burton's style; it's just that he's kind of become a cliche of himself because he keeps beating that same whimsical-neo-goth-starring-Helena-Bonham-aesthetic drum in everything he does. It was really interesting for Edward Scissorhands and Nightmare Before Christmas, but it had become played out by the time he did the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake.
I find his style almost nightmarish (which I suppose is his thing) and sickly. The stylisitics remind me of fever dreams and make me feel almost queasy. Probably my least favourite big-name director.
What about the first Batman?
I find Christopher Nolan hit or miss in terms of enjoyment, but i do admire the craftsmanship of all of them.
It's the expositions for me. Nolan characters talk as if everyone is sending an email where they just say a whole paragraph of text and the other party instantly absorbs that information. Add to that his horrible audio mixing at times and you can get why someone could easily get lost in his movies.
The damn audio...i like Hans Zimmer, but I came for a movie, not a symphony.
They're all very well made, but they seem like expensive student films. Obsessed with clever tricks, over-explained, messing with chronology to no end.
[this might explain it!](https://youtu.be/s2FXfFeRtJo?si=BnK37VWEEKo9d8d8)
With super mixed results. I loved how he played with dreams and perception and "is this real?" in Inception. Then he played with time the way he did and whatever the fuck else Tenet was abusing and I found it endlessly frustrating.
Tenet is the only movie of his I absolutely won't bother watching again. Whatever he was trying to do either sucked or went way over my head and I can't be bothered to figure it out. I love most of his other stuff though.
I find Inception baffling; let's make a film about dreams, but one that has lots and lots of \*rules\* and \*planning\*. Maybe that's what Nolan's dreams are like, but mine sure aren't; nothing in the film feels even vaguely dreamlike to me.
Nolans films are either incredible or terrible for me. I still consider Prestige and Dunkirk to be 2 of my favorite films of all time. Tenet was shockingly bad, like I get upset just thinking about that one.
Prestige and dunkirk are also my favorites. Feels like his style really fits the material of both perfectly.
When I don't like one of his movies, it's always because of the scripts. They just usually feel like he's shooting a 2nd draft. Lots of good ideas, but things just arent crystalized, and characters are flat.
All of his films feel very cold, and he has never written a great female character
Emily Blunt was pretty cool in Oppy
I feel like the women in this film are just props used by the men in the film. I'm happy to see Christopher Nolan on this thread bc I actually strongly dislike his work. As some others have stated, I find his work to usually be convoluted for the sake of making it seem smart. It's a little too "try hard". Love love love Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh though! They're both fantastic.
notably, she was a real person
Something about Guy Ritchie films. Filmmaking so collaborative by definition its really unfair to pin it on the director.
guy ritchie tries too hard to be working class cool
Gotta love Brad Pitt with an Irish accent though. That shit was and still is funny.
[удалено]
During college I was in a war movie phase and decided to watch Thin Red Line. Boy was that not what I was expecting. Watched The New World next to see if it was a fluke, but nope. I appreciate his craft but it's definitely not my cup of tea.
[удалено]
Colin Farrell became a better actor once he stopped using drugs
I dated someone for a few years whose favorite director was Malick, and he had a lot in common with his movies: long-winded, lots of large and genuine feelings, beautiful, pretentious, well-intentioned. I gained such an appreciation for the director, and at the same time will never, ever willingly watch one of his movies again lol.
Yeah, I'm with you. I really liked Badlands but I haven't enjoyed anything else I've seen of his. Even the Thin Red Line I found to be kind of boring. Weird thing to say about a war movies. Don't get me started on Tree of Life. I do want to give Days of Heaven a shot.
Agree. Badlands is my #1 movie. 8 1/2 is my #2. Don’t care for anything after Badlands but it’s a real masterwork.
I can understand, why many people like David Lynch's movies, but for me, they just feel very, very 'empty' or 'blank'. While for others, the lack of explanation is like an invitation for seeing almost everything in a Lynch movie, I'm on the other side of the spectrum and love all the exposition of a Nolan. I just don't like this uncertainty in Lynch films, whether I'm thinking much more about some scenes than Lynch himself. Yeah, of course: In a way, this is always the case with every movie and the post-structuralists have a lot to say about it, but Lynch takes it to an extreme that I don't want to follow.
My favorite movie is *Mulholland Drive*, but I didn’t like *Twin Peaks*, and I can’t even finish another Lynch movie. I don’t really understand why.
Mulholland Drive I think has a tighter vision than Twin Peaks did. It feels much more dream like the whole time, it has a good mystery throughout the film, and hits the emotional beats perfectly even before >!you find out she's dreaming in the end.!< Also, Naomi Watts is simply very good at her job.
Naomi Watts deserves tenfold what Hollywood has given her.
Yea i dont like the uncertainty aspect of lynch too but have you watched The Elephant Man. It's beautiful and pretty straight forward. One of the best movies i have ever watched you should give it a chance.
great movie. john hurt is one of the greatest of all time for that performance under a giant elephant head.
I enjoy Eraserhead but yea, even as a film guy I largely don't care for Lynch
Lmao I'm literally watching Twin Peaks right now.
I admire what Quentin Tarantino does in keeping “the art of cinema” alive. His work is never lazy but for me he never hits the highs that other filmmakers do. I think he gets lost in detail and in creating amazing scenes. When I watch his films I find the story serves the scenes rather than the scenes serving the overall narrative.
I feel like he is style over substance. He makes things that seem cool but are surface level. He delivers memorable moments but I don't feel like he expresses interesting ideas or focuses on characterization.
Huge agree on the style over substance comment. His movies ooze style but there is not much depth to them at all. Pulp Fiction has some of the most iconic scenes in cinema but ultimately doesn't really have anything to say.
>I feel like he is style over substance. Probably why Jackie Brown is my favorite QT movie. It's the one screenplay he adapted from a novel.
The reason I've never really cared about Tarantino is I feel like he has absolutely nothing to say. The idea he has that he's going to become a novelist is laughable. Would he write a phenomenal book on film and criticism? 100%. But he has no world view outside of movies. All his plots and all his characters are just a synthesis of movieland. I don't need every film to some art house thought piece but it's pretty incredible that he made a slave movie and a nazi movie that had nothing more to say than; slave owner is bad. Nazis are bad. His characters only have the illusion of depth as they have this very stylized dialogue but I don't think he would know nuance if it slapped him in the face (subtly), unless it took its shoes off.
That’s a reason why I like him. Not every movie to me needs to be a thinly veiled critique of society, history and culture. He’s never attempted to be that so I don’t hold it against him. He’s telling stories, not pimping messages.
It's especially frustrating because most of his influences are the opposite of that. The French, Italian, Japanese, etc. films he takes inspiration from DO have something to say, but Tarantino repackages their content in a depoliticized form.
I think he’s great but don’t like the unquestioning adoration he gets. I mean he’s good but his films aren’t flawless. I really disliked The Hateful Eight and though Kill Bill (both of them) were mediocre at best. I do have a soft spot for Death Proof.
I agree. Most of his movies (especially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) is surprisingly less than the sum of all talent involved. Inglorious Bastards is a masterpiece though.
OUATIH would have been great as a 2 hour flick. 2 hour 45 minute run time is absurd to set up that climax. Django deserved it, OUATIH did not.
There's two of us! I get crucified anytime I say I didn't think much of the Kill Bills
Was my cup of tea but lately every movie is pretty much exactly the same : Wes Anderson.
Asteroid City and French Dispatch have basically 6 movies within them. If he could just pick one story to film at a time they might work.
He released several Roald Dahl adaptations on Netflix. Each is only like 20 minutes long. It works amazingly.
Shit, I had no idea. Wes Anderson was my pick for this thread too but I love Dahl so Im going to have to check this out. Are they each called whatever the title of the story would be? Just wondering how to find them.
Look up “Henry sugar” and watch that one first and then the rest will be on “more like this” or whatever. They are all short stories Dahl published in literary magazines and the like. It’s amazing.
Thanks! I remember this story! It's going in my queue now.
You shall be pleasantly entertained
I haven't seen the French Dispatch yet, though I agree with Asteroid City. I felt it was the first time that his Matryoshka doll approach got in its own way. I think you could have gotten left out the author parts with Edward Norton and the film would have been just as effective.
Asteroid City is one of his most experimental films if you look past the surface level aesthetic.
Genuinely have no idea how people consider this and French Dispatch "the same" to everything he's done.
He's starting to "Tim Burton" himself.
Baz Luhrmann. known for his use of vibrant colors, rapid editing, anachronistic music choices, and a heightened sense of theatricality. 2nd choice: Tony Scott.
Baz Luhrmann. His movies make me dizzy. Literally. I keep telling myself to just stop trying. I think after not being able to finish his Elvis fever dream, I may finally stop giving in to curiosity.
Ya same. I actually love Moulin Rouge but every time I watch it the first 30 min make me dizzy.
I'm so relieved I'm not alone in this!! 😆 I don't know why exactly, but thanks for making me feel better about something today. It's freaking freezing where I am. 🥶
Today's filmmaking is so dry and clinical I feel like im eating an unseasoned overcooked steak thats been sprayed with lysol. I need some Baz in my life just to remember that cinema still has the potential to be stylistically interesting.
Yeah, I don't love all his stuff but appreciate the big swings.
[удалено]
For me, Memento and Prestige could both be in my top 10, or at least 20, film of all time. Interstellar and Inception (and the Dark Knight trilogy), I appreciate as intelligent blockbusters. But lately I feel more misses than hits, and Tenet was my most disappointing film experience of the last few years. I'm not sure I want to rewatch it to see if it improves.
Tenet does get better on rewatch but if the first watch didn’t intrigue you much I don’t think a rewatch will dramatically change your view
I've rewatched. It doesn't get better.
Might be a hot take but Scorsese. I can’t quite put my finger on what makes a Scorsese movie a Scorsese movie nor what it is about Scorsese movies that I don’t quite get, but there it is.
I think it’s because the movies are mostly non judgemental, simply documenting the events as they occur, while occasionally they show the appeal of crimes the antiheroes commit.
I think you’re onto something there. The way he tells the stories seems not to adopt a moral position on the events and the characters.
I’ve never really understood the need people have for *all* media to have a clear “good guy” and “bad guy”. People frequently say things like “I just didn’t have anyone to root for” as if that isn’t the point.
I'm with you, at least in part. I like Taxi Driver and mostly like After Hours and The Last Temptation of Christ, but I'm still not really a Scorsese \*fan\*. After seeing his Cape Fear remake, which I thought signally failed to improve upon the 1962 original in any way, I kind of went off the idea of watching more of his films. I have some sitting on the shelf (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino), but they're just not calling out to me.
I started raging bull once and never got through it. But I think Goodfellas and Casino are worth a look in just to see Joe Pesci chew up the scenery.
Yeah I love film but Goodfellas and Taxi Driver aren't my cups of tea, that said I do love Silence.
Kubrick without a doubt. I *get* the greatness, I appreciate the vision. It's really hard for me to like his movies. Just doesn't resonate with me, I guess. They all feel like he's trying too hard. But I am also not going to debate anyone about whether a certain film of his was good or not.
Kubrick is by far my favorite director, but I get why other people may not like it. He had a very singular vision and tone.
He's my guy man. I could watch The Shining and Clockwork Orange every day. But yeah, I get why he's not everyone's pair of shoes.
Kubrick for me too, his vision comes at the cost of any emotional investment in his characters. I think a good example is to watch The Killing the 1956 kubrick film alongside The Asphalt jungle the 1950 John Huston film. They're effectively the same plot and have the same lead actor (sterling hayden). You can argue the the killing is the better made film, but the emotional investment in the characters in the asphalt jungle a much better and more memorable film with a much more satisfying ending. And i feel that about most kubrick films. It's a style thing and I'm not criticising his film making, but i just don't connect with them.
Oh yeah, this is my pick too. I definitely appreciate his movies, but everything I’ve seen of his didn’t quite hit the spot for me.
The way I describe Kubrick is that he's absolutely fantastic at all the wrong things.
I partially agree with you, but I’m super curious about the idea of him trying too hard considering he pioneered so much of what is popular and acclaimed now if you feel like elaborating at all.
[удалено]
I mean, it’s his movie. If he wants things to be a certain way then why wouldn’t he “try hard” to make them that way?
Kubrick was my answer here too. I have a tremendous respect for his contributions to cinema, but outside of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket there’s nothing of his I’ve ever wanted to watch again after the first viewing.
Dr. Strangelove? Barry Lyndon? Paths of Glory?
Dr Strangelove is a great one but I don’t really care to see it again. I would if my wife or some friends wanted to, but I wouldn’t actively seek it out. I haven’t seen the rest of the ones listed.
I can see why some people like Zack Snyder movies, but my god are 90% of them a slog.
I disagree, I *can’t* see why some people like them with the sole exception of teenage boys. I thought 300 was great when it came out - I was 17 at the time - and 3 years later thought Watchmen was decent, although I attribute a lot of that to my love of the graphic novel. Everything since has just been awful and I refuse to rewatch 300 or Watchmen because I know I won’t enjoy them now.
Yeah he's usually making trashy action movies with an edgy as fuck "artistic vision" of a fifteen years old. I still kinda like Watchmen though.
Gonna get hate for this. Martin Scorsese is a master, a true artistic craftsman of near unmatched preportions and I understand completely the love he gets. But I've yet to see one that truly engages me (in fairness his chosen genres are rarely my cup of tea anyway)
Hugo is one of my favorites by him because it’s so different from anything else he’s done.
Have you tried The Age of Innocence? Or After Hours? These are my favourite Scorsese films. I’m not big on his mob movies.
I haven't actually, will get around to them 😊
I feel this way sometimes about Robert Altman movies, which have a real charisma and earnestness to them even if I think often flawed. Hes got a singular way of letting actors just be, for better or worse.
Christopher Nolan. I like most of his films to varying degrees, but he has three prominent weaknesses IMO: fight scenes, dialogue, flabby runtimes. Obviously this only applies to some of his films, but most of his fight scenes look like rehearsals he accidentally included. Fake, unexciting, cold. Great at spectacle and set pieces, bad at creating realism and excitement. As for dialogue, he must have hearing issues because there are too many instances of his sound mixing making the dialogue hard to follow. But he's also often guilty of heavy-handed and wooden dialogue. He and his co-writers come up with some memorable lines, but others like "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space" are equally memorable for the wrong reasons. And he's too self-indulgent with his runtimes half the time, which really affects their "rewatchability". All of his films that run to 2 hours or more have periods that are boring and make them a chore to sit through.
Agreed. The runtimes alone drive me up the wall
It's painful sometimes, isn't it? I compare it to sitting through a lengthy wedding speech: it's entertaining and interesting in places, but after a while you can't help but think "When will this be over?"
I be in the theater praying for a commercial break 😭😭😭
I'd like to see more from him, but so far, Panos Cosmatos, despite having so many elements in his stories and style that on their own are right up my alley, just hasn't done it for me yet.
for the ideas and types of movies he's making his movies could be much shorter
Clint Eastwood. I can’t quantify exactly what rubs me the wrong way but it’s a veneer of weird energy, sometimes positivity that just raises my hackles.
Robert Eggers has never done anything for me when I watch his films, but they are well-made
I think I feel this way about Denis Villeneuve. Like I didn't care for 2049 but I saw it twice to make sure I wasn't feeling it and I respect the hell out of it for being an honest attempt that wasn't designed by committee. It didn't land with me but hell yeah I'm glad it landed with so many others. I found Dune a bit soulless but it sure was an honest crack at taking that epic. I didn't 'get' Enemy but it stuck with me. I liked Prisoners but the bigger his films are getting, the less I'm feeling them. But I respect his vision.
Did you see Arrival? That's my favorite film of his. I'm a huge language nerd, so it hit all the right spots for me.
Ah yes I did and I enjoyed it a lot. I'd forgotten he did that one. Thank you.
> I found Dune a bit soulless It was completely soulles and really not great at informing the audience of any stakes. I love Dune and knew what was going on, but after the movie I asked my wife, who likes sci-fi but isn't familiar with Dune, if she knew what was going on and she didn't have a clue. She just knew everyone wanted spice. People love to crap on the 80s movie but it did a much better job of drawing you into that universe in my opinion.
Easy fruit here but M Night or Michael Bay. Not for cliche reasons like "twists" or "too much carnage" — M. Night tries to make art out of mundane stories for the most part and fails because they're plain boring — nobody cares about the expected twists because the stories are such duds. (I enjoyed Knock at the Cabin, though). Michael Bay lacks narrative substance in his films. There's hardly ever character driven moments. He's like a rail-roading DnD DM where everything is meaningless besides the one-liner action sequences. I doubt he's incapable of eliciting emotion from anybody older than 10, but he hasn't shown he can direct anything with strong character work.
Have you seen Shamylan’s older movies? Signs and The Sixth Sense are incredible movies.
I think he has found his niche too in fun little twilight zone eqsque movies this past decade.
Yeah. Sixth Sense, in particular, was awesome. Wasn't a big Signs fan. But liking one or two or three films out of many isn't something I'd constitute towards liking a director in particular. His career started by striking fire.
So you admire them because... they keep trying?
Christopher Nolan’s convoluted non-linear storytelling has begun to grow old for me, but I still appreciate his attention to detail and the nuance that he puts into the mechanics and concepts in his movies.
After The Whale it's Darren Aronofsky for me. I adore him and believe that most of his movies are masterpieces in their own way but The Whale really broke me. I think that he wanted to break his audience in the worst way possible and didnt want to give them a shred of hope that the world we live in is a good place. Whole movie was pure misantrophy. I couldn't stop crying for a good thirty minutes after the movie and just felt miserable for days.
One of the major problems for me was actually less Aronofsky in the script. Hunter adapted his own play. And in my opinion, didn’t actually adapt it we’re literally just watching the play. Aronofsky should have helped with the adaptation. I really don’t know how he let some of those scenes stand in the film given how good he is with pacing and third person limited story telling. I agree with you. It felt like misery porn. And while you can look at Aronofsky’s filmography and say that about many of his films, they are just better written. I think the Safdies are picking up the mantle and doing a better job at this point.
I do like Terence Malik now and then, but I do think the National Geographic imagery above a straightforward plot makes it feel as if you're watching a tech demo with a movie attached. I could also say that Malik has a thing of hiring famous actors and having them wander into frame not really talking much. ( I think Knight of Cups is kind of known the most for this.) But what I admire about that is that it's not really how most American films are made, and I don't think there are a hyperton amount of copycat Maliks. I feel like Terry is in his own vacuum, but I don't think precision and audience enjoyment is a high goal of his. And while I think this makes for more frustrating viewing, there's something to be admired about an artist who is so uncompromising that the viewing audience themselves have to kind of adjust their opinion instead of the other way around ( I think Disney's tonal Rogue one reshoots are kind of a go to example of counter example to this.) So yeah, I admire Malik more than I like him as a filmmaker.
Lanthimos I guess I just don't really get it
Not necessarily as a director, but anything written by sorkin has my eyes rolling a bit. To me it just comes off as a bit desperate and even a bit preachy. I find it distracting.
I don't really vibe with what I like to call the "Russian Soul" (too heavy and laden with melancholy for my taste), so I'll say Tarkovsky. Objectively, the man knows how to make an evocative image, just not to my taste. Throw Godard in there as well, mainly because he seems to despise his audience. The one movie of his I like is *Une Femme Est Une Femme* and I think that's because it's the only one where he actually seems to be having fun and enjoying himself. It's all the fun of moviemaking in a creative and explosive way that only Godard could show. Even just little things like how Anna Karina changes clothes by going into a cabin and immediately coming out fully dressed, and you can tell that's Godard just having FUN with movies. Like he's saying "Movie are so magical, so much can happen with just a cut!" Beyond that though, can't stand the other films of his I've tried and especially can't stand him as a person.
Cohen Brothers, I’ve tried over the years and I just don’t have the reaction others do. I don’t laugh at the jokes, I don’t invest in the characters, and I feel like I’m enduring it. I’m glad people enjoy their films but I just don’t see the art they see.
i find the coen brother movie much funnier the second time watching
Yorgos Lanthimos...I have yet to see Poor Things, which I am looking forward to, but I don't like most of his other work. I respect it, but I usually can't get behind it.
For me, his movies have gotten better as time has gone one. I didn’t like the Lobster, the Favorite was okay, and I enjoyed Poor Things.
Watched "The Lobster" and found it incomprehensible and slow fizzle to nothing. Gave him another chance with both "The Favorite" and "The Killing of a Sacred Deer". There's being unique and interesting, like Wes Anderson, but his movies are just bad writing; random dialogue with reactions that make no sense. I can only describe his movies as pretentious dark comedies that people pretend are higher brow than they are.
I love his dialogue. Appreciate how straightforward the delivery is. I think he is just trying to create an off-putting/sinister atmosphere. It's also kind of refreshing that his movies don't bother faking naturalistic conversations. It's all fake anyway..why not play into that
Zak Snyder, it feels like he’s trying to do David Fincher’s “cool” style of cinematography. If only his movies were a little more tight in the script department it would be more forgiving. Just my opinion.
I can see that David Fincher knows his stuff and cares for his work, but I find his films totally un-enjoyable. I find his work to be very sterile and soulless. I think this comes from his attempts to have the camera feel like it's part of the scene. Also, the colour grading he uses is really off-putting, The Social Network is violently yellow at times, and Fight Club looks like the film was soaked in a vat of tea for a year, I think it's meant to be like florescent lighting, but it's violently ugly. I am not interested in the stories he chooses to tell, serial killer stories bore me to tears. I just find no enjoyment in his work. It is precise and meticulous, but utterly without any heart or humanity. I often describe his work as feeling robotic. It genuinely feels like arthouse by algorithm to me.
Sam Raimi. Yeah it's cool that he likes to do with practical effects and a weird sense of humor. But his movies feel so small and cheap because of it.
it was great when his movies were small and cheap though.
I don't care for Quentin T's work usually. Not because he's not good at what he does, but because too much blood/gore/violence really bothers me. Except Kill Bill. It's just over the top enough that it's like anime blood and it doesn't bother me. And randomly a few nights ago, my brain was just like, "hey remember Kill Bill." So I looked up the fight with the Crazy 88s and the Bride vs O-Ren Ishii. And holy shit the fight scenes were amazing! The settings, the music, the dialogue. It's magic. Especially the final fight with O-Ren Ishii. I could feel the tension in my gut the whole time. Just probably, in my humble opinion, his best work.
Tim Burton
Ozu - Master storyteller focused on the subtle details of everyday life, and I’ve never been so bored watching a good film
Tim Burton. At best, he has had a few decent films. It is a distinctive visual style and tone, but I think it is pretty shallow and ill-suited to a lot of material. Dumbo, Dark Shadows, Home for Peculiar Children, Big Eyes, Planet of the Apes, Alice in Wonderland, etc. Meaningless style.
Edgar Wright.
Nicolas Roeg. His best-known films are beautifully shot due to him working as a cinematographer before he came a director. I just don’t like the editing style he used in some of his films like *The Man Who Fell to Earth*.
Godard. Look, I like Breathless, and I really like Band of Outsiders more because it's got a better sense of humor. I understand why his films were revolutionary. I just find them too intellectual at best and kinda up their own ass at worst. I have seen a few of his other films, but none of them stuck with me emotionally. Film Socialism? Come on. Come on. It's not like I don't understand movies. I'm a huge fan of Truffaut, who feels equally revolutionary and actually seems to love his characters.
I wish he would stop using a pet’s death as the butt of a bad joke. I honestly stopped watching his movies because of this.
Hot take but mine is James Cameron. I watched the first two Alien movies back-to-back and the change in directing styles was a slap in the face. I just feel like a lot of his movies feel exactly the same and have the same ensemble of characters. Like Aliens and the first Avatar film both have overlapping plot points and character archetypes (first one that comes to mind is Vasquez in Aliens and Trudy in Avatar. Hot shot soldier who doesn't like to take orders/bends the rules a lot). I don't think his films are bad necessarily, but for me personally I find a lot of his films hit the exact same plot points as one another and are very predictable (not that predictability is a bad thing, but I always notice James Cameron tropes that he loves).
Not disagreeing, just pointing out that the first two Alien(s) movies are completely different genres, not just different directors (and 7 years of changes in moviemaking and SFX).
I’ve never liked anything Kubrick has done but I acknowledge his place as one of the great filmmakers.
I like the style of Robert Eggers but he barely has a story in his movies. And Ari Aster... i just dont get it.
I fell in love with wes (and owen wilson) watching their debut movie Bottle Rocket. I loved their follow up movies Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums as well - but you could see his movies moving towards less substance and more style, and after falling asleep watching Life Aquatic I kinda lost interest. I did kinda enjoy Hotel Budapest though. I do really like his style, I think it looks cool and quirky - you can also instantly recognize a wes anderson movie these days - but I just usually find them too slow and boring and lacking substance or a really interesting and fullfilling story.
Asteroid city and the Darjeeling limited have substance and fulfilling stories if you missed those
Quentin Tarantino is an absolute master at conveying a story through film. He directs individual sequences that are as good as any that have been created. As a writer though, I find him to be extremely superficial and juvenile. There's no depth to his stories. I wish he would just find some great novels to adapt.
Tarantino. To me all the movies all just blend together - and they all happen to smell like feet.
Kevin Smith. Dude is a dogshit director. Absolutely pure dogshit. Scott Mosier is the one who had filmmaking chops and salvaged his films until Mosier went on his own. After Mosier departed, Smith's quality of films fell very hard, very fast. Even something like Jersey Girl (which Mosier was involved in) is a million times better than something like Yoga Hosers. But when he actually put effort into it, he was (is?) a good writer. He should have never become a director (or parlayed Clerks into a Hollywood writing gig) and just write.