Worst director of the 00’s? Probably Uwe Boll. He kind of has that Ed Wood thing going for him though, loves making films but will never be good at it even if someone gave him a billion dollars. Michael Bay isn’t good, but he can make large amounts of profit, however I don’t see his passion as film-making but as making money. Same goes with Roland Emmerich and whoever else puts out generic, cookie-cutter pictures.
1890´s: Lumière brothers
1900´s: Georges Méliès
1910´s: D. W. Griffith
1920´s: F. W. Murnau and Sergei Eisenstein
1930´s: Jean Renoir and Fritz Lang
1940´s: Orson Welles and Howard Hawks
1950´s: Tough one – Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, Billy Wilder, Elia Kazan and Alfred Hitchcock
1960´s: Stanley Kubrick, Frederico Fellini, and Sergio Leone – possibly Godard
1970´s: Andrei Tarkovsky, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese
1980´s: David Lynch and maybe either John Woo or Milos Forman – The 80’s were possibly one of the worst times in cinema
1990´s: Quentin Tarantino, Coen brothers, and possibly Steven Spielberg
2000´s: Paul Thomas Anderson and Todd Field
I know he didn’t want to mention Uwe Boll, but he basically made a list of some of the great directors who had a slump or dry period. I believe Boll should be on the list because not one of his films is significant to the progression of cinema. Half of his list is comprised of directors who have made significant contributions, he either doesn’t like them or wanted to gain attention by listing their not-so bright moments.
To be honest, I don’t see one director that was listed who hurt cinema other than Brett Ratner and even he had one film that contributed.
Cinema has really gone downhill since the millennium. The 80’s were bad, but the 90’s made up for it with directors involving their own uniqueness again, and the independent movement which really led to people that love to make films. In the 00’s you get these generic directors who resort back to the idea of making everything a blockbuster action flick just so they can make some money. There are very few filmmakers (especially mainstream) left that actually do it for the love of cinema and making pictures. People can talk all they want about QT stealing from other films but at least he does it extremely well and has a passion for classical cinema. These Michael Bay’s or whoever directed Christmas with the Cranks just do it for the money. These films may be entertaining to some, but you can also make something artistically entertaining.
I preach this same thing basically everyday in film class, and there are very few pictures coming out within the next year that I’m looking forward to.
Done and done, there are maybe a few exceptional films but nothing compared to the 50’s. Nobody seems to care about developing new ways of storytelling or new techniques. They pretty much stay to the standard, conventional stuff. Which even independent and foreign films have been doing. Sure you can list 20 films that were great last year but is one truly exceptional, and longstanding as The Seven Samurai or Psycho.
For example, John Woo’s new masterpiece Red Cliff is one of the best in 2008 and same with Let the Right One In. Both were breathtaking and breathe of fresh air, but when you compare them to the films I listed above you feel like they’re missing certain ingredients. Maybe it is because I have an extreme hard on for older pictures (non-literal expression). I don’t know.
QT was like the grunge music of the 90’s. You either love him or hate him. But beyond the obvious references to other films and supposed copying, his films made an impact. He certainly knows how to make a good film and he’s shown it on multiple occasions. He basically teaches the audience of the older films which I think that’s what it is more than ‘stealing’. Every director takes material from another. Kurosawa’s screenplays were based on lots of what Shakespeare wrote so he’s stealing right? I think both are celebrating and paying homage to some of the best writers and filmmakers of all time. He didn’t hurt cinema but basically made everyone forget the horrid films of the 80’s, but maybe the people who wanted to be him did hurt cinema.
Spielberg kind of did hurt cinema in a way, but not with anything you mentioned. He’s been on a downhill track in the last decade, but he’s put out some pretty significant pictures that made a staple in cinema. I don’t know what’s wrong with Jaws and The Sugarland Express, I think those are some of his best films. Jaws may have started a blockbuster trend but you need to position yourself back in the 70’s before all of these summer blockbuster’s came out. Jaws celebrated a new chapter in cinema, Spielberg didn’t destroy or hurt anything cinematic, but the directors who now constantly put out blockbuster after blockbuster hurt why Jaws is such a significant film. Plus his obstacles of making the picture were beyond remarkable, I thought hardly showing the shark because of the technical problems was one of the best things he could have done. And I don’t think he hurt Kubrick’s rep at all. Kubrick wanted him to make A.I. Kubrick is one of the best filmmakers because of his artistic perfection and consistency. How did Spielberg hurt Kubrick’s reputation? Spielberg will never be Kubrick if that means anything. Also, I agree with 1971, but to be honest, that film really wasn’t any big hit on such a large subject such as cinema.
I don’t know much about Walter Lang or Shirley Temple, other than the latter was a popular American icon that my grandmother loves. I think cinema that far back should be celebrated more so than broken apart. Fritz Lang, Jean Renoir, Howard Hawks were the big names you hear in film classes about cinema in the 1930’s, so I feel drawing older decades to the cinema of today is almost irrelevant other than the techniques that were produced.
Cecil B. DeMille may have been going through a slump. I have not seen either picture you mentioned, but Cleopatra (1934) starring Claudette Colbert is a film that is highly significant for its use of risque imagery and nudity when the Hays Code was brought into effect. I certainly don’t consider him one of the greatest filmmakers, but he did have some revolutionary cinematic moments. I don’t think his films in anyway hurt cinema of the 50’s. I know you think this is obvious, but Ed Wood did that, which is probably why it is obvious.
I don’t honestly know if Kubrick could have made A.I. any better than Spielberg. Apparently Spielberg stayed true to the Kubrick script treatment, but he is lacking the Kubrick visuals. I think the film would have been a lot different visually, but Spielberg did basically everything right that Kubrick was having problems with (which was one of the reasons he handed it over). I thought Osment was an excellent choice for David when Kubrick very well stated that he thought no actor of that age could play the part. I’m a huge fan of Kubrick, I think he’s the best consistent director and one of the best overall, but even the best can’t do everything and have trouble. I wish that Kubrick was alive to make another picture and if that would have been A.I. than great, but unfortunately the Spielberg A.I. is the one that was made and I don’t think it was bad. I do feel, however, that the living up to Kubrick task, and people saying that Kubrick’s version would have been better has put a downfall of Spielberg’s film-making. The only film I moderately cared for after he made A.I. was Munich. Other than that, I think Spielberg needs to go back to the way he used to make pictures before he started fooling around with CGI and other modern technology to make more money.
And by irrelevant, I meant the ‘hurting’ effect of those pictures on cinema today. I think they are extremely relevant learning and entertainment tools.
“Weerasethakul was the kind of director I had in mind, not John Woo (thought I admittedly have not seen Red Cliff), nor Thomas Alfresson (though I liked LtROI ).”
The only Weerasethakul film I found decent was Syndromes and a Century. And I wouldn’t put it up there with the other two I listed. However, I do think it would be on a list for certainly the best films of the decade.
No because it takes away the cultural aspect of the film.
Except in the Leone films as Brad mentioned. It seems too be done in more of an artistic way rather than just thrown in there so Hollywood could understand it.
1. Favorite 2009 film – Moon and Inglourious Basterds
2. 2009 film(s) that you strongly recommend to other people on this site – Moon, Antichrist, The Hurt Locker
3. Favorite non-2009 film(s) that you saw in 2009 – Lots to list so I’ll skip
4. Non-2009 films that you would strongly recommend to other people on this site – John Woo’s Red Cliff as he clearly is back to form and past making high-budget, generic Hollywood action flicks. Even though the film has a reported budget of $80 million apparently. Also I would recommend Let the Right One In, but I know a lot of people have seen it here.
5. Mainstream film that deserves more attention – This year? Tetro
I could see Quentin doing a Wild Bunch type western in the future, but I don’t know if Day-Lewis would be the best choice to work with him. I know both are talented, but I don’t see it.
“If you had to choose one or two non-2009 films you saw this past year, which would you choose?
Was Red Cliff that good? I think my wife would be interested in that, too. Would you say it’s a solid action film?"
I would probably choose Linklater’s Slacker which I saw in an independent film class. It is certainly not my favorite (like you said to list) but the narrative structure is so unique that I was thoroughly impressed.
Red Cliff is basically John Woo returning to his root of Hong Kong cinema. If you saw Hard Boiled and The Killer, than this will be enjoyable. He was always a master at creating action sequences, but the bland action he put in his Hollywood films are what gave him a bad name. Red Cliff is an epic film about the Battle of the Red Cliffs in China during the Han Dynasty, and Woo certainly doesn’t disappoint with keeping it interesting. Minus the philosophical input of Akira Kurosawa, it kind of reminds me of something he would do if he were alive today. To that, I have to compliment John Woo.
Also, I kind of agree and disagree with Dimitris about Bigelow. I love her earlier b-movie styled flicks, but i don’t she ruined herself with making The Hurt Locker. I’m kind of happy she got a little serious and she is still the only female director who shows a great deal of violence and explicit themes to my knowledge. Obviously I want someone to state another female director who does that to expand my knowledge.
Daniel Day-Lewis is probably better than the film. I have never cared for Rob Marshall and I thought Chicago was just too showy more than anything else. Perhaps that is why musicals were created though.
Hey if you want to message me, go ahead. Bigelow has always stood in my mind as a female director who takes on male-oriented subject matter but still finds away to be a sentimental female. I’m not trying to be sexist, but saying I rather admire that skill of hers.
Does anyone know of any great foreign sci-fi releases recently (last 2-3 years) that use minimal computer technology? I want to broaden a knowledge of some foreign sci-fi films. I know of The Clone Returns Home directed by Kanji Nakajima which is probably one of the more popular foreign sci-fi releases being shown at Sundance. So suggestions or recommendations of filmmakers and films would be great.
Grafton, I was about to post Cannibal Holocaust as I didn’t see it posted lol. I agree with the thread starter about Salo and Sweet Movie. And those who said Antichrist.
I want to add The Holy Mountain if that hasn’t been said.
Thanks for all the recommendations Sleep Dealer and Timecrimes look like good flicks. Dante 01 seems a little weird for me, but I will check it out and same with the other two mentioned, Eden Log and The Headless Woman.
Eyes Wide Shut
The Loss of Sexual Innocence
Desperado
Antichrist
A.I. (I thought Spielberg was tortured for apparently “fucking up” a Kubrick film)
Miami Vice
Nathan, I agree with you about Spielberg now. But I think when he first started he actually cared about making good films rather than making money. You could see some art in it, although I don’t think he was ever an artistic kind of director. I do think making all of those blockbusters have consumed him into making films just for money because his better films when he began hardly made any money.
To respond to the topic, I think Danny Boyle’s Sunshine started off exceptional, but ended so weak that I literally want to edit and cut out most of the third act.
Apursansar, the Lars von Trier is the most accurate but that is because I’m a fan.
And I’ll be gladly to start the Peter Jackson thread, after all the man who apparently changed the way of filmmaking at the beginning of the decade deserves a honorable thread. His best cinematic moment was the credits of King Kong imo.
@ Zachary “But wait: Say a studio is almost going under, and they have one chance, one film, that will make or break the entire studio. Are you saying that it wouldn’t be ballsy for them to finance it?”
United Artists with Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate, although I don’t think they were going under at the time.
Also I’m going to say von Trier’s Dogville as that hasn’t been mentioned I don’t think. On the production value, the way the film was made is extremely unconventional for mainstream audiences. I know the staging and minimalist set was done before by Louis Malle and I think in a film before that, but von Trier introduced it to mainstream audiences and I think that was extremely courageous because in an quick-action period of cinema we live in. I’m sure many people didn’t like the film or didn’t have the patience to like the film.
worst directors of the decade over 3 years ago
Worst director of the 00’s? Probably Uwe Boll. He kind of has that Ed Wood thing going for him though, loves making films but will never be good at it even if someone gave him a billion dollars. Michael Bay isn’t good, but he can make large amounts of profit, however I don’t see his passion as film-making but as making money. Same goes with Roland Emmerich and whoever else puts out generic, cookie-cutter pictures.
Go to Comment
Greatest Director of Each Decade over 3 years ago
1890´s: Lumière brothers
1900´s: Georges Méliès
1910´s: D. W. Griffith
1920´s: F. W. Murnau and Sergei Eisenstein
1930´s: Jean Renoir and Fritz Lang
1940´s: Orson Welles and Howard Hawks
1950´s: Tough one – Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, Billy Wilder, Elia Kazan and Alfred Hitchcock
1960´s: Stanley Kubrick, Frederico Fellini, and Sergio Leone – possibly Godard
1970´s: Andrei Tarkovsky, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese
1980´s: David Lynch and maybe either John Woo or Milos Forman – The 80’s were possibly one of the worst times in cinema
1990´s: Quentin Tarantino, Coen brothers, and possibly Steven Spielberg
2000´s: Paul Thomas Anderson and Todd Field
Go to Comment
worst directors of the decade over 3 years ago
I know he didn’t want to mention Uwe Boll, but he basically made a list of some of the great directors who had a slump or dry period. I believe Boll should be on the list because not one of his films is significant to the progression of cinema. Half of his list is comprised of directors who have made significant contributions, he either doesn’t like them or wanted to gain attention by listing their not-so bright moments.
To be honest, I don’t see one director that was listed who hurt cinema other than Brett Ratner and even he had one film that contributed.
Go to Comment
worst directors of the decade over 3 years ago
Cinema has really gone downhill since the millennium. The 80’s were bad, but the 90’s made up for it with directors involving their own uniqueness again, and the independent movement which really led to people that love to make films. In the 00’s you get these generic directors who resort back to the idea of making everything a blockbuster action flick just so they can make some money. There are very few filmmakers (especially mainstream) left that actually do it for the love of cinema and making pictures. People can talk all they want about QT stealing from other films but at least he does it extremely well and has a passion for classical cinema. These Michael Bay’s or whoever directed Christmas with the Cranks just do it for the money. These films may be entertaining to some, but you can also make something artistically entertaining.
I preach this same thing basically everyday in film class, and there are very few pictures coming out within the next year that I’m looking forward to.
Go to Comment
worst directors of the decade over 3 years ago
Done and done, there are maybe a few exceptional films but nothing compared to the 50’s. Nobody seems to care about developing new ways of storytelling or new techniques. They pretty much stay to the standard, conventional stuff. Which even independent and foreign films have been doing. Sure you can list 20 films that were great last year but is one truly exceptional, and longstanding as The Seven Samurai or Psycho.
For example, John Woo’s new masterpiece Red Cliff is one of the best in 2008 and same with Let the Right One In. Both were breathtaking and breathe of fresh air, but when you compare them to the films I listed above you feel like they’re missing certain ingredients. Maybe it is because I have an extreme hard on for older pictures (non-literal expression). I don’t know.
Go to Comment
worst directors of the decade over 3 years ago
QT was like the grunge music of the 90’s. You either love him or hate him. But beyond the obvious references to other films and supposed copying, his films made an impact. He certainly knows how to make a good film and he’s shown it on multiple occasions. He basically teaches the audience of the older films which I think that’s what it is more than ‘stealing’. Every director takes material from another. Kurosawa’s screenplays were based on lots of what Shakespeare wrote so he’s stealing right? I think both are celebrating and paying homage to some of the best writers and filmmakers of all time. He didn’t hurt cinema but basically made everyone forget the horrid films of the 80’s, but maybe the people who wanted to be him did hurt cinema.
Spielberg kind of did hurt cinema in a way, but not with anything you mentioned. He’s been on a downhill track in the last decade, but he’s put out some pretty significant pictures that made a staple in cinema. I don’t know what’s wrong with Jaws and The Sugarland Express, I think those are some of his best films. Jaws may have started a blockbuster trend but you need to position yourself back in the 70’s before all of these summer blockbuster’s came out. Jaws celebrated a new chapter in cinema, Spielberg didn’t destroy or hurt anything cinematic, but the directors who now constantly put out blockbuster after blockbuster hurt why Jaws is such a significant film. Plus his obstacles of making the picture were beyond remarkable, I thought hardly showing the shark because of the technical problems was one of the best things he could have done. And I don’t think he hurt Kubrick’s rep at all. Kubrick wanted him to make A.I. Kubrick is one of the best filmmakers because of his artistic perfection and consistency. How did Spielberg hurt Kubrick’s reputation? Spielberg will never be Kubrick if that means anything. Also, I agree with 1971, but to be honest, that film really wasn’t any big hit on such a large subject such as cinema.
I don’t know much about Walter Lang or Shirley Temple, other than the latter was a popular American icon that my grandmother loves. I think cinema that far back should be celebrated more so than broken apart. Fritz Lang, Jean Renoir, Howard Hawks were the big names you hear in film classes about cinema in the 1930’s, so I feel drawing older decades to the cinema of today is almost irrelevant other than the techniques that were produced.
Cecil B. DeMille may have been going through a slump. I have not seen either picture you mentioned, but Cleopatra (1934) starring Claudette Colbert is a film that is highly significant for its use of risque imagery and nudity when the Hays Code was brought into effect. I certainly don’t consider him one of the greatest filmmakers, but he did have some revolutionary cinematic moments. I don’t think his films in anyway hurt cinema of the 50’s. I know you think this is obvious, but Ed Wood did that, which is probably why it is obvious.
Go to Comment
worst directors of the decade over 3 years ago
I don’t honestly know if Kubrick could have made A.I. any better than Spielberg. Apparently Spielberg stayed true to the Kubrick script treatment, but he is lacking the Kubrick visuals. I think the film would have been a lot different visually, but Spielberg did basically everything right that Kubrick was having problems with (which was one of the reasons he handed it over). I thought Osment was an excellent choice for David when Kubrick very well stated that he thought no actor of that age could play the part. I’m a huge fan of Kubrick, I think he’s the best consistent director and one of the best overall, but even the best can’t do everything and have trouble. I wish that Kubrick was alive to make another picture and if that would have been A.I. than great, but unfortunately the Spielberg A.I. is the one that was made and I don’t think it was bad. I do feel, however, that the living up to Kubrick task, and people saying that Kubrick’s version would have been better has put a downfall of Spielberg’s film-making. The only film I moderately cared for after he made A.I. was Munich. Other than that, I think Spielberg needs to go back to the way he used to make pictures before he started fooling around with CGI and other modern technology to make more money.
And by irrelevant, I meant the ‘hurting’ effect of those pictures on cinema today. I think they are extremely relevant learning and entertainment tools.
Go to Comment
worst directors of the decade over 3 years ago
“Weerasethakul was the kind of director I had in mind, not John Woo (thought I admittedly have not seen Red Cliff), nor Thomas Alfresson (though I liked LtROI ).”
The only Weerasethakul film I found decent was Syndromes and a Century. And I wouldn’t put it up there with the other two I listed. However, I do think it would be on a list for certainly the best films of the decade.
Go to Comment
Is dubbing ever okay over 3 years ago
No because it takes away the cultural aspect of the film.
Except in the Leone films as Brad mentioned. It seems too be done in more of an artistic way rather than just thrown in there so Hollywood could understand it.
Go to Comment
2009 Movie Questionnaire over 3 years ago
1. Favorite 2009 film – Moon and Inglourious Basterds
2. 2009 film(s) that you strongly recommend to other people on this site – Moon, Antichrist, The Hurt Locker
3. Favorite non-2009 film(s) that you saw in 2009 – Lots to list so I’ll skip
4. Non-2009 films that you would strongly recommend to other people on this site – John Woo’s Red Cliff as he clearly is back to form and past making high-budget, generic Hollywood action flicks. Even though the film has a reported budget of $80 million apparently. Also I would recommend Let the Right One In, but I know a lot of people have seen it here.
5. Mainstream film that deserves more attention – This year? Tetro
Go to Comment
what would you like to see actors and directors working on over 3 years ago
I could see Quentin doing a Wild Bunch type western in the future, but I don’t know if Day-Lewis would be the best choice to work with him. I know both are talented, but I don’t see it.
Go to Comment
2009 Movie Questionnaire over 3 years ago
“If you had to choose one or two non-2009 films you saw this past year, which would you choose?
Was Red Cliff that good? I think my wife would be interested in that, too. Would you say it’s a solid action film?"
I would probably choose Linklater’s Slacker which I saw in an independent film class. It is certainly not my favorite (like you said to list) but the narrative structure is so unique that I was thoroughly impressed.
Red Cliff is basically John Woo returning to his root of Hong Kong cinema. If you saw Hard Boiled and The Killer, than this will be enjoyable. He was always a master at creating action sequences, but the bland action he put in his Hollywood films are what gave him a bad name. Red Cliff is an epic film about the Battle of the Red Cliffs in China during the Han Dynasty, and Woo certainly doesn’t disappoint with keeping it interesting. Minus the philosophical input of Akira Kurosawa, it kind of reminds me of something he would do if he were alive today. To that, I have to compliment John Woo.
Also, I kind of agree and disagree with Dimitris about Bigelow. I love her earlier b-movie styled flicks, but i don’t she ruined herself with making The Hurt Locker. I’m kind of happy she got a little serious and she is still the only female director who shows a great deal of violence and explicit themes to my knowledge. Obviously I want someone to state another female director who does that to expand my knowledge.
Go to Comment
8 1/2 becomes NINE over 3 years ago
Daniel Day-Lewis is probably better than the film. I have never cared for Rob Marshall and I thought Chicago was just too showy more than anything else. Perhaps that is why musicals were created though.
Go to Comment
2009 Movie Questionnaire over 3 years ago
Hey if you want to message me, go ahead. Bigelow has always stood in my mind as a female director who takes on male-oriented subject matter but still finds away to be a sentimental female. I’m not trying to be sexist, but saying I rather admire that skill of hers.
Go to Comment
Did anyone go see 10-min Avatar preview on friday night? over 3 years ago
I think Josh Bower said it right and I’ll just agree with him rather than typing several paragraphs about it.
Go to Comment
Best Western of all Time? over 3 years ago
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
The Wild Bunch
The Searchers
Unforgiven
Once Upon a Time in the West
Go to Comment
RIP Brittany Murphy over 3 years ago
I don’t think she was a bad actress. In fact, I think she had potential to be great with a lot of work. She will be missed.
Go to Comment
Foreign Sci-Fi films of 2008 and 2009 over 3 years ago
Does anyone know of any great foreign sci-fi releases recently (last 2-3 years) that use minimal computer technology? I want to broaden a knowledge of some foreign sci-fi films. I know of The Clone Returns Home directed by Kanji Nakajima which is probably one of the more popular foreign sci-fi releases being shown at Sundance. So suggestions or recommendations of filmmakers and films would be great.
Go to Comment
Foreign Sci-Fi films of 2008 and 2009 over 3 years ago
Seen it a few times already. I was thinking less mainstream films. I know it is not mainstream, but it is often mentioned.
Go to Comment
Worst movie to watch on a first date over 3 years ago
Grafton, I was about to post Cannibal Holocaust as I didn’t see it posted lol. I agree with the thread starter about Salo and Sweet Movie. And those who said Antichrist.
I want to add The Holy Mountain if that hasn’t been said.
Go to Comment
Worst movie to watch on a first date over 3 years ago
That would be ideal because everything after that would be like a Disney film.
Go to Comment
Foreign Sci-Fi films of 2008 and 2009 over 3 years ago
Thanks for all the recommendations Sleep Dealer and Timecrimes look like good flicks. Dante 01 seems a little weird for me, but I will check it out and same with the other two mentioned, Eden Log and The Headless Woman.
Go to Comment
Films you love but most people hate. over 3 years ago
Eyes Wide Shut
The Loss of Sexual Innocence
Desperado
Antichrist
A.I. (I thought Spielberg was tortured for apparently “fucking up” a Kubrick film)
Miami Vice
Go to Comment
Good movie, bad ending over 3 years ago
Nathan, I agree with you about Spielberg now. But I think when he first started he actually cared about making good films rather than making money. You could see some art in it, although I don’t think he was ever an artistic kind of director. I do think making all of those blockbusters have consumed him into making films just for money because his better films when he began hardly made any money.
To respond to the topic, I think Danny Boyle’s Sunshine started off exceptional, but ended so weak that I literally want to edit and cut out most of the third act.
Go to Comment
ALFONSO CUARON: DIRECTOR OF THE DECADE? over 3 years ago
Apursansar, the Lars von Trier is the most accurate but that is because I’m a fan.
And I’ll be gladly to start the Peter Jackson thread, after all the man who apparently changed the way of filmmaking at the beginning of the decade deserves a honorable thread. His best cinematic moment was the credits of King Kong imo.
Go to Comment
Unconventional filmmaker looking for unconventional writer for collaboration over 3 years ago
Sure, I’ll send you the Kubrick inspired script I’m working on.
Go to Comment
do u think stanly kubrick is rel8ed 2 tarentino??? over 3 years ago
Well the scene in Reservoir Dogs where the characters talk about Madonna’s Like A Virgin was a copy of the heist planning scene in The Killing.
Go to Comment
do u think stanly kubrick is rel8ed 2 tarentino??? over 3 years ago
Well the scene in Reservoir Dogs where the characters talk about Madonna’s Like A Virgin was a copy of the heist planning scene in The Killing.
Go to Comment
Who's better than Stanley Kubrick? over 3 years ago
lol I love your hatred of Kubrick.
Go to Comment
The Ballsiest, Most Courageous Films Of The '00s? over 3 years ago
@ Zachary “But wait: Say a studio is almost going under, and they have one chance, one film, that will make or break the entire studio. Are you saying that it wouldn’t be ballsy for them to finance it?”
United Artists with Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate, although I don’t think they were going under at the time.
Also I’m going to say von Trier’s Dogville as that hasn’t been mentioned I don’t think. On the production value, the way the film was made is extremely unconventional for mainstream audiences. I know the staging and minimalist set was done before by Louis Malle and I think in a film before that, but von Trier introduced it to mainstream audiences and I think that was extremely courageous because in an quick-action period of cinema we live in. I’m sure many people didn’t like the film or didn’t have the patience to like the film.
Go to Comment