/film/ - FILM

FILM v 5.0


New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files50MB total
Password
[New Reply]


Welcome to /film/ discussion
Rules


Lars_Von_Trier_Cannes_2011.jpg
[Hide] (58.3KB, 508x720) Reverse
tarantino.png
[Hide] (465.6KB, 780x532) Reverse
I recreate this thread from the old site. Post directors that you dislike. There are ones whose works are considered "great" by some but don't appeal to you for some reason or you think are overrated; there are also directors who are inept at their job and make awful films. Controversial opinions are welcome.
I think these two are overrated. Lars von Tryhard is an edgy kike and so are his movies. Taratino is underwhelming to me, his films are riddled with pointless, shitty humor (or the films are the pointless, humor themselves), typical of underwhelming "American independent cinema".
Replies: >>1981 >>1982
I like Cuckantino as a director honestly, he just shouldn't be allowed to write anything.
mh.jpg
[Hide] (117.9KB, 840x741) Reverse
rc.jpg
[Hide] (105.9KB, 480x578) Reverse
ff.jpg
[Hide] (51.2KB, 474x766) Reverse
df.jpg
[Hide] (59.8KB, 648x932) Reverse
aj.jpg
[Hide] (33.9KB, 474x652) Reverse
Thread's too easy
Replies: >>1777 >>1785
jl.jpg
[Hide] (40.4KB, 474x711) Reverse
pa.jpg
[Hide] (40.6KB, 700x600) Reverse
ms.jpg
[Hide] (159.7KB, 1000x1333) Reverse
gn.jpg
[Hide] (46KB, 600x800) Reverse
jc.jpg
[Hide] (192KB, 1280x1761) Reverse
>>1776
Replies: >>1778 >>1785 >>1796
approved.gif
[Hide] (11.6MB, 449x480) Reverse
>>1777
based trips
>>1776
>>1777
Filmmakers who make weird or drug-induced shit and call it art are always a turn off to me (Jodorowsky and Noe). Scorsese, Fincher, Anderson are typical Hollywood directors, never find them particularly great. Haneke is just another celebrated director for the Europeans, he's underwhelming. Don't really have a strong opinion about the others.
Why do you have to sage the thread though bro?
Replies: >>1792
>>1785
All ""acclaimed"" modern directors are garbage and a joke tbh. For real film you have to go to pre-70 stuff, only then they could actually direct.
As for modern stuff, I value the unacclaimed B-directos like someone like Paul Verhoeven or Wolfgang Petersen, or even early Spielberg way higher than the normalfag-approved "filmmakers". They have no pretenses to farthouse and create well made entertaining films.
Replies: >>1795
>>1792
Paul Verhoeven films are interesting, but many of them are too cucky for me plot-wise (just personal bias). 
The acclaimed modern directors are more like products of the industry with all the shilling, advertising, award baits... like "if I make movies this way with this content I will surely receive a lot of praise and awards!". It really lacks of genuineness and imagination.
I only watch unpretentious stuff now and enjoy them. Sometimes I wonder if I really know what a great film is anymore; I can still call out a shitty movie, just the border of "good" and "great" is becoming blur to me. I don't even have a top 10 film list. I don't really like talking to most film fans cuz they're always like, "You have to watch this A and B (acclaimed) directors to see how fantastic the art of filmmaking is!" I just don't care.
Replies: >>1799 >>1803
>>1777
>John Carpenter
Thank you. I've never understood the hype around him. Most of the movies of his I've seen have had interesting premises but failed to live up to their potential.
Replies: >>1799
DVcircalate90s.jpg
[Hide] (63.1KB, 559x438) Reverse
DVcircalate10s.jpg
[Hide] (42.6KB, 500x593) Reverse
This fella right here, despite coming from a "similar" background as the usual denizen that lurks these golden digital lands i feel he has not really lived to the potential a creative discipline would've given him.
Because i've seen 6 of his movies, sometimes forced and sometimes a curiosity, sometimes with unknown plots or sometimes with extremely familiar settings or source material, i've grown to dislike his work for being pretentious and downright insulting to the source, either from him not having actual control of the work or not caring enough.

He went into the status quo via a dishonest propaganda hit piece, Polytechnique, then made a decent one called Incendies which used state funds in bad faith to promote a national canadian movie, the production is about arab twins wanting to kill an arab dude in an arab country (based on a real life story of an israel-backed general being hit by a girl but they changed his background from muslim commander to christian terrorist), then he made Enemy which is, in my opinion, a poor adaptation from a magical realist work which is tricky to do and results might end up in the realms of the weird, the unexplained and the pretentious, all three falling into this work of only 70 minute IIRC.
Then Sicario, a movie that bends and misinterprets all the well known facts about cartel activity in the US border which the production ignored in pro to make a consumer-grade action movie, then the alien flick Arrival which is unnecessarily convoluted to add some edge and jumps into many plot conveniences to have the US and a rando girl be the center of attention.
Blade Runner 2049 was the last straw, being a production nightmare that did every move wrong, i shamefully paid to see it despite all evidence pointing i was a retard to believe in it.

This is a director that seems to always ignore the setting context's notes to see how to portray it at least semi-realistically like weather, accents, etc (or production doesn't let him add them) this is also a director who cannot direct his actor's performances at all as they vary greatly in tone and quality throughout a production with the constant being deadpan "realistic" expressionless-tism that contemporary north american works tend to lean towards, which also makes his casting decisions poor (or production doesn't let him grab his choices). This ends up, for example, with close-up shots of a face almost useless due to lack of discernible emotions and only an exercise in aesthetics.
And regarding that, this is a director who is almost completely all style and no substance which isn't that bad of a thing yet his style itself is monotonous after a while in his works, it depends on a restricted colour palette that shifts in variants close to it (rarely contrasting to it) that are also applied in contexts and scenarios where it doesn't make sense and no narrative explanation is given to them, a yellow-palette movie will have a yellow interior of an office building lobby decorated in cold masonry for some reason, giving a movie (namely Enemy) an eternal cloudy sunset look even at night or inside rooms with no windows. We cannot really blame the production here as he supervises cameras due to being a cameraman himself and overlooking, by his own admission, the editing process; so you have here a director who cannot find a consistent look into his work without overriding normal sceneries and without being explicit with his tonal editing.
And i don't want to jump into the scripts because that's where production can actually meddle their greasy saurian claws into it, but in his own written work one can see dishonesty and short but self-masturbatory digressions. 

Here i present you with a director who either peddled favors as an intelligent crew member in return of being an industry's whore or someone good enough who hasn't realized where he is and never further prepared himself to perform his duties well and just keeps winding it while adding tons of digital corrective makeup into his sterile products. Seeing his apologetic behavior towards his work spaces and executive decisions, and seeing that he ignored widely established popular wishes in legacy series to the point of doing so even when one of his appointed associates left a vacant after being poisoned in a party, makes me believe he is the former description of a "man" or, dare i say it, a leaf, called Denis Villeneuve.
Replies: >>1803
>>1795
>but many of them are too cucky for me plot-wise
That's an interesting take, i can see that in Turks Fruit but i don't recall where else in explicit fashion, he does have women usually cheat or go away from the man but that usually is carried to empathize loss or bygone eras. Robocop lost his family due to them believing he's dead, Soldat van Oranje has the jewish girl cheat on the dude who saved her from being catalogued as a jew by selling his friends to make way for the main character to see they both were trashy persons, Basic Instinct has the girl cheat on her girlfriend to make them look like complete degenerates, in Total Recall the dude's wife is turned unscrupulous undercover agent with the "unscrupulous" being added for kissing the hitman sent to kill the dude... now that i think of it Verhjs does have tons of women cheating and abandonment in his movies.
>acclaimed modern directors are more like products of the industry 
Well said, it's as easy as seeing the industry selling their own product makers via festivals and award shows sponsored by themselves where they themselves are the sole participants. I think we will really see what was the constant good stuff nowadays only after many years have passed and the cream comes right to the top in valuable people's memories... if there's still people watching most movies from nowadays, and by movies i mean the stuff nobody learns about by seeing trailers or reading the latest productions in popular sites.

>>1796
>Most of the movies of his I've seen have had interesting premises but failed to live up to their potential.
That's Carpenter for me alright, i have yet to see They Live and Big Trouble in Little China despite being my favorite premises because i've been letdown by all the movies i've seen from him, most notably The Thing, Halloween and Escape from Jew York (along with Escape from L.A.)
Replies: >>1803 >>1816
How am i supposed to tell who are my least favorite directors if i don't care enough about them to learn or remember their names? With the exception of Tarantino, because i used to like his movies when i was a kid.
zahler.jpg
[Hide] (19.7KB, 353x478) Reverse
refn.jpg
[Hide] (11.9KB, 474x266) Reverse
iskanov.jpg
[Hide] (224.1KB, 800x950) Reverse
>>1795
>The acclaimed modern directors are more like products of the industry with all the shilling, advertising, award baits
The definition of art has been changed. Any real artist wouldn't last for any duration of time in hollywood or in most production environments. They have to fill the void somehow. 

>>1797
>this is also a director who cannot direct his actor's performances at all as they vary greatly in tone and quality throughout a production with the constant being deadpan "realistic" expressionless-tism that contemporary north american works tend to lean towards
Just like with most things, acting and directing have declined in quality. Instead of actors becoming more natural, the hacks have taken over and declared their xanax stares as a sublimation. Glib filmmaking at its finest. 

>>1799
>The Thing
Supposedly, some of the best sequences in The Thing weren't even directed by Carpenter but were instead helmed by Rob Bottin. The movie was also faulted because it's more of a showcase for f/x than anything else.
Replies: >>1804 >>1806 >>1816
>>1803
>a showcase for f/x than anything else
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Chaplin's films are a showcase of slapstick than anything else.
If you're good and passionate about something, you can make a film about that and it becomes just as much of an artform as the whatever conventional beliefs about "film art" are.
Replies: >>1806 >>1812
>>1803
>the hacks have taken over and declared their xanax stares as a sublimation
Love that wording, yes and it bothers me because it is a TV & Film thing only, classically trained actors need some exaggeration and/or full body performance because they need to convey a feeling to someone sitting 30m from them, i get it gets toned down for cameras but the technique of the intention is there. 
Acting classes from scratch taking into consideration the camera from the beginning seems like a mistake unless it gets real technical with "micro-expressions" and body language and those can be read only by cunning people or experts at that so it's niche anyways, only meant spies and politicians or something.

>because it's more of a showcase for f/x than anything else.
Felt like that, and didn't know that Bottin aspect. I respect Carpenter for his seemingly-rare status in the Hollywood scene as the closest thing to an "auteur" as he composes, writes and directs his own stuff but they seem incomplete or cool ideas taken to very long lengths due to lack of solid attributes to avoid being ran thin.
Needing tons of FX to hold together the movie is one of the sickness of big-budget movies.

>>1804
>Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Not at all, FX just like animation can be art, but both need narrative justifications if they are going to be in a narrative-driven product, technically-advanced animators needed a war in a future urban setting to animate a helicopter fighting against a big bipedal suit, and FX needs an outer world thing to create such thing but if it is 90 minutes long then one needs more than a sturdy premise.
Constant (and interesting but that falls into the subjective) plot and character movements are needed in every type of feature length projects and Carpenter seems to miss that aspect, most notably in Escape from NY. To me his ideas are grander than his abilities to conceptualize them fully and i think he didn't want help to complete them either, like for example George Lucas who got tons of support (and some "loaned" aspects) from other people to the point of entire books being written and illustrated by specialists without him meddling.

>it becomes just as much of an artform as the whatever conventional beliefs about "film art" are.
It would fall into the experimental/conceptual field which is not wrong at all, but you certainly wouldn't feel good if someone sold that to you as otherwise. 
I got mad as fuck for downloading an album once (using private tracker credit) and realizing it was a conceptual project about a "what-if", in that case a drummer and a bassist who didn't have hands and the trumpeter was out of air all the time. It's a cool experiment if watched live but fuck their jewish existence for trying to peddle it as a 40-minute jazz album.
Replies: >>1807
>>1806
>but both need narrative justifications
Not really. A film doesn't have to have any narrative to be "good", and there are many films like that. But certainly The Thing has a perfect narrative to justify any and all number of vfx on display.
Replies: >>1810 >>1812
>>1807
>A film doesn't have to have any narrative to be "good"
That's an interesting take, maybe i use narrative as a wild umbrella for another term i don't know the name for. 
Can i get an example of a "good" non-narrative film to try and get to understand it?
the-thing.jpg
[Hide] (169.7KB, 1200x775) Reverse
>>1804
>Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If you prefer smoked brisket to a hot dog then there is definitely something wrong with it.

>Chaplin's films are a showcase of slapstick than anything else.
I was never fond of Chaplin so this example isn't doing much for me. 

>If you're good and passionate about something, you can make a film about that and it becomes just as much of an artform as the whatever conventional beliefs about "film art" are.
Not necessarily. It can more readily become entertainment and a roughly 2 hour distraction. The Thing is nothing more than a well-lit monster movie (Bottin, not Carpenter, lit the best scenes). It's not great art, but there's well made, albeit revolting, art inside of it (the effects). Take away the effects, replace them with half-budget knock-offs and the movie would quickly become just another monster movie that shows the monster too much. On the other hand, if the movie did have an excellent narrative and complex characters that made sense, the monster wouldn't need to be anything short of mildly convincing. It could've easily been Carpenter's greatest fear, just another guy in a rubber suit. It's easier to make a spectacle than to make something great. 
I couldn't care less about conventional beliefs regarding film art. Just as I eagerly anticipate the collapse of global civilization, I await the next great era in film.

>>1807
>A film doesn't have to have any narrative to be "good"
What are some narrative-less films that are good? 

>The Thing has a perfect narrative to justify any and all number of vfx on display
That doesn't mean that its narrative is any good. It makes it the best special effects advertisement for Rob Bottin's work ever made. Legend coming in at a second close, beaten only by quantity and originality. Both narratives are as thin as a broke salesman's pitch. The Thing is more like an extended music video set to the soundtrack of Bottin's LSD-ravaged mind than a really great film. Even though it makes some sense for the plot, the characters aren't all that different from watching a bunch of whipped dogs barking at each other while trapped in a tight cage. I don't even remember one scene where someone actually behaves like a human going through the ebbs and violent flows of such an unimaginably traumatic and life changing situation. Some critics praise the supposed complexities of the character interactions, but I argue that the characters and their interactions are grossly simplified. 

I don't think that The Thing is an outright terrible movie, but it receives more praise than it deserves.  Evaluating it as a work of science fiction shows how shallow it really is. There's nothing about this movie that's especially interesting, except for the creature. Many episodes of the old Outer Limits were superior as science fiction, and their effects are laughable compared to Bottin's. 

These kinds of movies aren't necessarily worthless, they're just lurid entertainment, not much different from shocking comics and pulp novels from the '30s and '40s. I don't think that every movie made needs to be high, true art. That's a stupid demand. But The Thing as a movie, is overrated, and Carpenter is no master.
>>1799
>That's Carpenter for me alright, i have yet to see They Live and Big Trouble in Little China despite being my favorite premises because i've been letdown by all the movies i've seen from him, most notably The Thing, Halloween and Escape from Jew York (along with Escape from L.A.)
They Live is a movie I've watched like three times and hardly remember anything past the earlier scenes.

Halloween might be the only movie of his I wasn't let down by. I remember liking Big Trouble in Little China the one time I watched it, but everything else I've seen from him has been alright at best. I plan on watching Starman at some point, but there's a good chance I'll be let down by that too.
>>1803
>The movie was also faulted because it's more of a showcase for f/x than anything else.
I'll give it credit for its fantastic special effects, although I don't find the movie compelling at all. I'd easily rather watch The Thing from Another World if it wasn't for how good the effects were.
easier to make a list of favorite modern directors
Jodorowsky
Lanthimos
>>1771 (OP) 
Godard
>>1771 (OP) 
I never like Lars Vor Trier. Even as a dumb teenager I thought his films were pretentious as fuck with little to no meaningful substance.
Replies: >>1985
>>1982
I like Europa and I thought The Element of Crime was at least visually impressive, but yeah everything else is fucking terrible
Don't hate him but Clint Eastwood.  Lot of self-insertion or playing himself in movies he directs, blatant diet conservatism that feel like a necessity on his part to stuff into the film to personally counter-balance Hollywood's leftism (though that could just be me), the facade he carries of being a rural tough guy who fought in Korea when he's really a well-mannered guy who grew up in suburbia and was a lifeguard during that war.  Films he directed weren't "captivating" or original, and were made to tell a political moral or something of his own interest.
Replies: >>1987
>>1986
I actually like him for that. His movies, albeit political, are subtler than the "left-wing" counterparts for sure.
Replies: >>1990
>>1987
Yes, they aren't horrible and function better than anything Hollywood puts out but it feels like virtue signaling and playing the role of the token conservative.  A good portion of his directorials are self-serving personal projects for the sake of himself wanting to make a film for fun and not for "high art", and not that there's anything loathsome or narcissistic with having the money to make your own movies and star in them because you can, but it doesn't make for a good or relevant film so-to-say.
[New Reply]
26 replies | 19 files
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.6.2