Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Tarantino "doesn't know how to tell a story"
I nearly posted EXACTLY that. And then re-read the actual thread's name.
I'm so glad we think alike.
but if Oliver Stone and Brian De Palma don't top the list, then it's wrong...
I like his one word dismissal of Alien.
i also like what i've seen of brian de palma.
what with it being one of my favourite films, an' all.
this guy's a 25-year-old know-nothing given his own column.
The only thing he's correct on is Tarantino, and even then he's got the reason wrong.
It's not as if there's a shortage of reasons why he's over-rated...
A good director improves a film but so does as a damn good script, good actors etc. This whole myth that the Director is the single most important person on a film that started in the sixties is a pile of horseshit in my view.
So I can tell you what films I like but I find the question of what directors I like a bit of an irrelavence.
Ten films I really like off the top of my head are It's a Wonderful Life, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Groundhog Day, Wonder Boys, A Very Long Engagement, Up, Casablanca, The Resurrection of the Little Match Girl (I've only ever seen this once and never been able to subsequently get hold of it so I've no idea of I'd still like it a second time), The Dark Knight and Edward Scissorhands.
for the simple reason that a lot of directors tend to stick to one type of films. like tarantino, with a couple of exceptions of course. and i just find it incredible that anyone who claims to care about films can at the same time think that tarantino is pointless and has nothing going for him, just for the sheer love of cinema and other cliche filled things that are expressed through his films. then again, i think the best genre in the world is slasher films, so i see we're not exactly on the same page here.
and it's the same reason that I don't like De Palma, is that they display nothing more than their influences, and what they produce is considerably less than the sum of their favourite scenes from other movies.
I want something a little more than that.
are you mental? like with how de palma constantly references/remakes (scenes) hitchcock films, are you saying he adds nothing, does nothing that is decidedly non-hitchcock despite being clearly influenced by him? are you saying there is nothing there that's just de palma's input? if that's what you're saying, i'd like to see you justify that view with regards to dressed to kill, and for that matter carrie
Carrie's brilliant. Might be the best opening scene of any film ever.
and it's the only film of his that I can stomach. The rest of his films though, I find to be shallow trash that use homages and spoofs to cover up a lack of talent.
Although Hitchcock is De Palma's biggest influence, there are plenty more in there (especially Godard), which is why it's so frustrating to watch one of his films - he (and Tarantino) obviously love cinema, and love great directors, but they don't seem to appreciate exactly what it was that made them great.
Also I probably don't have many favourite directors precisely because directors tend to stick to certain types of films and I tend to prefer not to. There's exceptions - I like the vast majority of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Tim Burton and Pixar's output so I do have preferences.
With Tarantino I think he's made and written some very good films. Pulp Fiction's structurally brilliant for example but I think since his first two films he's just been dull and I'm not convinced that two good films make a brilliant director.
The sheer love of cinema and cliche is exactly what puts me off. To be honest I see him (or certainly his recent output) as inferior homages to genres he obviously really likes but lacks the understanding of and passion for to make a brilliant film in that genre (unlike, say, Billy Wilder who could go into pretty much any genre of film and make one of the best films in that genre). Yeah, he's made a mediocre martial arts film, a mediocre grindhouse film etc. but what's that achieved? To me he (recently) just sums up unoriginal, uninspired film-making.
name tim burton as one of your preferred directors.
I think it would only be interesting if I was the first person in the world who could possibly be accused of never contradicting themselves.
And I do take your point on some Burton films but in my view he's
a) steals far less blatantly than Tarantino.
b) actually does something interesting with the influences.
My problem with Tarantini isn't so much that he's influenced as that I don't see him as actually being able to use or do anything with the influences beyond just recycling on the scene in pretty much exactly the same form. I think my use of "homages" was generous in fact. It's just sheer ripping off.
I see Tarantino as an immature film geek who constantly tries to copy films he love without understanding what made them great in the first place. I am not convinced he really has anything to say.
Burton on the other hand, is mainly referencing himself, I would argue he is artistically superior in the sense that his influences are filtered though his own vision and he clearly has something to communicate, that said, majority of his films are adaptations, Scissorhands being a quite rare example of an original, and for the last decade or so he has been coasting and painting himself in a corner.
Tarantino is very uneven but at least his films don't all look exactly the same.
It's more apparent visually with Burton because I'd argue he's a much more visual director. Tarantino, in my view, doesn't especially excel at visual flair and most of his films are visually unremakable, whcih is why there's not the same obviousl visual identikit-ness to them.
But Tarantino's films have as many stylistic similarities as Burton's. It's like the entirely ludicrous bit in Kill Bill where Bill starts talking about Superman. It makes absolutely no sense to the character or the story for him to do that and it's got everything to do with the director's style and nothing to do with the film.
I mean this discussion pretty much emphasis my main point though about why I don't particularly covet directors. Of course Burton's a deeply flawed film-maker but he's made enough very very good films with good enough scripts for me to actually like a fair number of them. I wouldn't defend the films of his I don't like or him as a concept though. I just happen to like a few of his films.
when the facehugger banged John Hurt in the face.
having a cast of men in the same age bracket, all wearing helmets. It's a war movie, duh!
But he very noticeably doesn't mention The Wrestler which is an absolute masterpiece
Too content to stick with the same genres, actors and themes.
if only for its wanton contrariness.
'Thelma and Louise is liberal tripe, although it does provide the best imagistic summary of modern feminism: two irritating “independent” women driving themselves off a cliff.' :')
Oh hang on, what's that?
The Age Of Innocence?
The Last Temptation Of Christ?
Alice Doesn't Live Here Any More?
The King Of Comedy?
New York, New York?
Yeah how one-dimensional.
Imagine him arguing with you in the pub about this.
You'd just want to punch him repeatedly
*insanely smug/sly smile* PLEASE HURT ME.
He may or may not be accurate on Lynch. Pretty close to my view of the Lynch films I've seen but then I've not seen many Lynch films due to not liking the Lynch films I've seen so maybe he's better than I think he is. If that makes sense?
Lean! Lynch! Hitchock! HITCHCOCK! He probably loves Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow. What a loser. Who is he anyway? Why are people paying attention to him?
That's wrong because the Woody Allen films that are "rated" ARE amazing. The ones which people say are rubbish *are* rubbish. In that sense he is rated correctly, not overrated.
Also this geek seems to have too many objections about hot actresses getting it on with each other. What does that say about him?
"Whom would you nominate?"
Usually she does fuck-all for me but she does look damn good there.
but hope scorseceseseeee is on there.
and while a desire to push boundaries and reinvent himself may not be quite as important, they are certainly admirable. For that reason, I find it difficult to look at Scorsese with any great amount of respect. Contrast him with someone like Kubrick, who, despite being significantly less prolific, directed just about every type of film there is, and did so brilliantly almost every time. Surely that says more about a director's ability than the production of dozens of very good but similar films does?
As for other film-makers behaving similarly, that may be the case, but with Scorsese, it's something I just can't get away from thinking. Every time I hear he has a new film, I instantly assume it's a gangster movie starring Leo DiCaprio. I don't think there's another another director I react to in the same way.
Hitchcock - "He never made a great film."
North By Northwest because it's one of my favourite films! "...relies on the tried-and-true random helpful coincidence to save our hero, time and again." - That's what makes it so brilliant, the absurd nature that Cary Grant's bumbling hero actually manages to survive the entire movie, whilst having so many narrow escapes - it's a thriller!
Sure, if Alien came out now it'd be trite and dull. But no-one had ever had the bad guy looking so badass, a space station so run down, an enemy that grows inside the hero.
There are a whole heap of people in that list who I do think are a bit overrated. But then, I guess, who isn't?
This automatically voids everything he's said. Phew. I thought he was a real film fan for a second.
DDL in Gangs of New York
Leonard Nimoy. Three Men and a Little Lady = the man's a genius.
I am sure I typed that :(
We were watching it the other week and I was curled up on the floor by the fire with a blanket, and my three housemates were all sat on the chairs like grown ups...then it hit me...Three Men and a little Hayley. It'll be a hit.
Vikram. Do you know that?
Don't make me laugh when I'm trying to be angry at Vikram
Your appalling typing whilst drunk.
Your insistence I come to tiny chat. I NEVER WILL.
I hate you, etc.
something along the lines of "all directors are rubbish. anyone could direct a movie" would've done very nicely
It's *just* articulate and knowledgeable enough not to be obvious.
Talking about how writers don't get the credit they deserve. Then saying Tarantino can't tell a story in spite of him writing True Romance
even if I think that it's motivated by the fact that he's a writer who has no concept of invention, non-linear storytelling and visual spectacle.
Writers don't get enough credit, not in films anyway - television is a slightly different matter.
He bemoans the fact writers don't get enough credit.
And he then subsequently fails to give a writer credit
he disagrees with Auteur theory, and then he spends the rest of the article effectively trying to justify it.
written by a gaping twat.
this guy hasn't learned the difference between a writer and a director, for example.
I enjoy a good trashing of holy cow as much as the next man, this good trashing this is not.
Hitchcock "never made a great film" with no additional analysis . . . he says Rebecca is the same film as Notorious, which it clearly is not, both have a big house and dominating older woman. He could have just said Hitchcock was picked and adapted material that had the same resurring themes without embassing himself.
The Birds is inane in my opinion as well, but I don't get paid to write articles and if I did I would put some more effort and research into it.
considering the stunning pieces he thinks are so bad
perhaps that he learnt about them from the comments section on IMDB or saw a trailer on youtube, perhaps one of them was on in the background once with the sound down.
he certainly doesn't appear to have paid any attention to them.
Goodfellas? Dirt. Requiem for a Dream? Dirt. Mulholland Drive? Dirt. Dirt dirt dirt. A lesbian sex scene is enough for outright condemnation of the director, never mind the film. Which, let's give the lad credit, makes him entirely unique in the history of 20 something male film buffs.
just a republican blogger that is both repulsed and infatuated with the seamier side of tinseltown.
I've got to remember that for parties
He's wrong about Scorcese but everyone else he pretty much nails.
But I know a good list when I see one. This one is good. Scratch Scorcese (and Hitchcock, come to think about it) and replace with De Palma and Oliver Stone, and it's perfect.
That, 'sters, is mine.
I like you rabbit but you have some craaazy and downright incorrect opinions on films.
I agree the directors are overrated - don't think that makes them bad. Everyone's overrated, really.
having a go at people who could acheive more in their sleep creatively than he ever will. The only people who will agree with him are mean spirited people with the same bad attitude of critics who put nothing on the table themselves to be judged by
I think this is a little tongue in cheek. And who cares anyway? We all know the directors up there are either good or great, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
And there is such a thing as Auteur theory, and it works fine.
was looking forward to seeing that, too. Nob.
"Scorsese has never seen a main character he liked, a villain he hated"
Surely blurring the lines between good and evil is one of the most interesting things about the whole notion of film?
And he's got Tarantino the wrong way around. He's probably the director who's most explicit in referencing his influences, especially in his post-2000 work. Does it well, mind, but it's wrong to say he's a genius when it's more than evident he is just very very good at putting old wine in new bottles (is that how that turn of phrase goes? idk).
Also, his stories are more about piecing together individual narratives, no? Again, idk.