It’s obvious Pi is his earliest flick and not his best work. I like Requiem but it is an extremely overhyped movie and there are some flaws in it too. But for me, both The Fountain and The Wrestler are two of the best films of the past decade. He’s really come into his own the past two years and I think he’s one of the best filmmakers working today, at least within the Hollywood system…
I’ve always had the notion that PTA was adapting styles on each of his movies… Scorsese in Boogie Nights, Altman in Magnolia, and Kubrick in There Will Be Blood. Not sure about Punch-Drunk Love, someone with a better eye could take a guess. Maybe that’s why I like Punch-Drunk so much, though really all his films are great (even Hard Eight is decent for a first attempt).
Yeah, the part I liked most about The Wrestler was that it had themes just as heavy as The Fountain on a much smaller scale. In The Fountain he explores humanity through the lens of epic metaphor, in The Wrestler he examines it in a very real and earthly kind of way. Both are fantastic but theyre so different and that’s just another sign of how talented he truly is.
I’m a rare Button defender I guess. I liked it better than Slumdog, Milk, etc, although it didn’t approach top films of the year like The Wrestler and Waltz With Bashir. I’m glad its getting the Criterion treatment because while its not perfect there are some great individual scenes in there (dancing scene, car crash sequence), and has one of the most epic lines I’ve heard in quite some time (SPOILERS: when button is a baby, Blanchett says something to the effect of “I saw him look at me and for a moment I saw a hint of recognition. Then he was gone.” END SPOILERS). Say what you will about Oscar-bait movies but at least its not a biopic (Milk, Ray), period drama (too many to count) WW2 drama (The Reader), or some “true story” BS (Pursuit of Happiness, the upcoming Soloist).
There Will Be Blood (PTA)
Punch-Drunk Love (PTA)
The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson)
The Wrestler (Aronofsky)
The Fountain (Aronofsky)
Waking Life (Linklater)
All the Real Girls (David Gordon Green)
Adaptation (Jonze)
Lord of the Rings (Jackson)
Big Fish (Burton)
As stated, do you have any films from a certain director that you love, but as a whole you’re not into their work? Three examples for me personally:
The Big Lebowski- The Coen Brothers. I tend to like the Coen Brothers a little bit less than everyone else. Fargo is OK but I thought No Country was overrated and I’m just sort of “meh” on their filmography. There are a lot of WTFs that nobody talks about- Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers being two glaring flaws. But at the same time, The Big Lebowski is far and away my favorite comedy of all time and the movie I quote the most.
Big Fish- Tim Burton. I hate Burton’s Batman and his darker stuff is just real hack-work to me. I don’t gel with the whole Corpse Bride-Sweeney Todd kind of vibe. I do like Ed Wood but at the same time there could be some improvements and I don’t think of him as a great director. But again, Big Fish is fantastic- one of my favorite movies. Maybe I just like him doing lighter stuff but the final scene when Albert Finney is carried down to the river is just unbelievably good.
2001- Stanley Kubrick. I have trouble putting this on here because on the whole I very much like Stanley Kubrick. The Shining is probably my favorite horror film (though I don’t like the genre, and its probably my favorite because its so much more than a horror film) and I think 2001 is just a tremendous movie from a pure technical filmmaking perspective. At the same time I don’t care for Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, and several of his other flicks. Whenever I watch a movie of his, I feel like they are quite good but not good enough to put him in the very top tier of directors for me. Of course, except for 2001. I guess my opinion on the whole is that he’s a great filmmaker who obviously influenced all who came after, but my personal taste doesn’t align with his and I don’t consider him in the Top 10 greatest of all time like many do.
So what are your examples? I’m eager to find out and ready to have my movie buff card revoked for the Kubrick comments.
I’m sure other people here have listed a lot of what I’m about to say already, but here are both my favorites and what I’ve heard are very good and I still need to see.
Faves: Arrested Development, Freaks and Geeks, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Seinfeld, The Office (UK and US), Lost, Band of Brothers, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, South Park, Entourage, 30 Rock, Spaced, Chappelle’s Show, It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia
Need to see: The Larry Sanders Show, The Wire, The Sopranos, Undeclared, Twin Peaks, Mad Men
I went to a B&N, didn’t like their selection, so I went half an hour out of the way to another Barnes and Noble. Picked up the Cassavettes Box Set, Red Beard (which I’ve never seen in stores!), and Days of Heaven for a grand total of 90 bucks. I basically look at it as like they gave me 30 bucks off the box set and allowed me to take two free Criterions as well. For people who know about Criterion, this is basically the best day ever. Plus it lasts for weeks! I’m gonna cool off for a bit but I’ve got my eye on Young Mr. Lincoln and Scenes from a Marriage once I get a little more dough :)
OK, if you could only ever again watch the films of directors whose last names start with a common letter, what letter would you pick? Personally I’m leaning toward A, because Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Woody Allen, and Apatow would guarantee much enjoyment for years to come. But I gotta mention K as well (Kiarostami, Kubrick, Kurosawa). I’m sure there’s probably some I’ve overlooked, but I’m eager to hear some responses.
Yes I did forget Antonioni. And I did consider C for Capra, Cassavettes, and Coppola. Mostly because I think if I had to live with only one director it would be Frank Capra. But its still a tough call…
I’d also like to throw out Linklater’s Before Sunset, mainly because nobody has mentioned it. I love the movie, not sure if it has “great” status, but more to open it up for discussion than anything.
I’m pretty sure it was Seven Samurai, though I didn’t know what a Criterion was. First one I bought was either Chasing Amy or Life of Brian. That touched off an unhealthy and un-bank account friendly obsession.
I’ll throw a couple out there: McBain (good luck finding this one, I watched it off a bootleg copy, worth it though if you can), Showgirls (watch the special edition with the commentary) Postal (Boll, need I say more), The Room (so bad, tell me somebody on here has seen this), and Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water (still the worst movie I’ve ever seen in theatres, all the others on here were bad movies I watched for fun).
By “not in a good way,” I meant that overstylized films like those find audiences and acclaim. If you’re trying to put 300 into a political context as many critics did after their release, I think you’re reaching. It’s almost a shot for shot remake of Frank Miller’s book, and Miller is mostly concerned with babes and bullets, not overt political statements. It was a stupid action movie.
OK, people responded or didn’t respond to a movie, how does that make it great? People respond to a lot of bad movies in a positive way. Transformers 2 just made eleven billion dollars or something.
I have to be honest, I’m not sure what your argument is. Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
The talking head scenes are quite necessary in my opinion. The story is the filmmaker trying to reconstruct his memory. Those scenes give you the main thrust of the film, the unreliability of memory, etc. That’s why those scenes are animated, and you see things floating in the background. Like Josh said its the end thats important, and makes all the animation make sense. Suddenly you’re out of this fantasy world and into the real world. Without all the discussion of memory and dreams, that wouldn’t have the same effect.
There is so much wrong with your “rationale” that I’m just going to stop responding after this, but thank you for giving me a good laugh. You’re entitled to your own opinon, I suppose. I will say however that 300’s style is not innovative or inventive, it just ripped off Sin City, which ripped off Sky Captain. Snyder just gave it the Michael Bay slo-mo treatment. Then he did the same thing to one of my favorite comics, Watchmen, while completely ignoring every thought-provoking and intelligent thing the book had to say.
It depends on if you “get it” or not, IMO. I’ve had plenty of “art” movies that friends have told me I’d need to see a couple of times and by the time it was over I could give a full, detailed, complete analysis. Other times I was lost or felt I missed some things. The more films you watch the more you can feel if you’re missing some things as the film goes on. Sure, repeat viewings may clue you in to something you missed, but if you pay attention and think about what you’re seeing you can definitely judge a film in one viewing.
OK, so this has been bugging me for awhile, and I’m wondering if anybody else here who has seen the film can offer their opinion. I watched Haneke’s Cache awhile back (I had also seen Funny Games US), and, well, I kind of thought it was stupid. I appreciated the technique, and the way he gives his films a certain atmosphere, but I had a problem with the story that I couldn’t ignore. It’s clear that Haneke means to indict Georges and his bourgeoisie ways for screwing Majid all those years ago. But as the movie went on I couldn’t get over the fact that Majid was being quite immature about the whole thing. Georges was just a jealous kid when Majid was dragged off, so should he really be held responsible now? It was what, 30 years later? Sometimes you just have to let shit go. There are two possible explanations for who sent the tapes, but neither of them really make much sense to me. If Majid sent them, then he’s a moron IMO for killing himself over some shit that happened decades ago. If it was his son, then the bathroom scene makes no sense where he starts yelling at Georges, because its more his son’s fault than anything for drudging up all this stuff that happened years ago. I understand Georges was a bit of a dick for not apologizing, and he obviously acted like a dick when he was a kid. But at the same time he was understandably scared and fearing for his family when he went to visit Majid. Had those tapes never been sent, they all would have went on living. The tapes changed nothing. Also, there is the question of Pierrot’s involvement. What, did Majid’s son just go up to him at school and say “Your dad screwed my dad over 30 years ago?” Why wouldn’t he just tell him to fuck off? And why would he believe him, or help him? Seems a little far-fetched to me. I understand the anti-catharsis that Haneke injects into his movies, and I recognize that this was sort of a breakdown of the way we react to movies. But the whole situation to me just felt contrived and stupid. My friend and I argued about this for some time after it was over before just agreeing to disagree. I’m interested to hear others’ thoughts.
That is certainly interesting, and it seems like something Haneke would do. But even during the argument between me and my friend, the topic of who sent the tapes came up and we both agreed it was rather irrelevant to what Haneke was trying to do. I guess what I’m mostly saying is that the emotional/psychological consequences that Haneke is interested in… that didn’t really work for me. And I know about the Algerian thing as well. I guess I just don’t think Georges was really that much of an asshole given the circumstances. And Majid’s suicide, while shocking, seems stupid to me. I just got the distinct feeling that Haneke wants us to hate Georges (and the French) for what he (they) did, but the situation just didn’t work for me. IDK, I’ll have to mull it over and perhaps see it again. The idea of Haneke sending the tapes is an interesting one as well. Definitely a talented filmmaker to provoke this much thought, but I still can’t say I “like” the film (I’m reminded of Funny Games). Which in some weird way is probably what he wants?
I saw Seven Samurai first and don’t regret it. But I just saw Yojimbo recently and I have to say if I were to start someone on Kurosawa it’d probably be there. Just sort of gives you a sense of his overall style. But you can’t go wrong with either.
Aronofsky about 3 years ago
It’s obvious Pi is his earliest flick and not his best work. I like Requiem but it is an extremely overhyped movie and there are some flaws in it too. But for me, both The Fountain and The Wrestler are two of the best films of the past decade. He’s really come into his own the past two years and I think he’s one of the best filmmakers working today, at least within the Hollywood system…
Go to Comment
Masterpieces By Mediocre Directors about 3 years ago
First two that popped into my head was Casablanca by Michael Curtiz and Cinema Paradiso by Giuseppe Tornatore
Go to Comment
KUBRICK'S INFLUENCE ON "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" about 3 years ago
I’ve always had the notion that PTA was adapting styles on each of his movies… Scorsese in Boogie Nights, Altman in Magnolia, and Kubrick in There Will Be Blood. Not sure about Punch-Drunk Love, someone with a better eye could take a guess. Maybe that’s why I like Punch-Drunk so much, though really all his films are great (even Hard Eight is decent for a first attempt).
Go to Comment
Aronofsky about 3 years ago
Yeah, the part I liked most about The Wrestler was that it had themes just as heavy as The Fountain on a much smaller scale. In The Fountain he explores humanity through the lens of epic metaphor, in The Wrestler he examines it in a very real and earthly kind of way. Both are fantastic but theyre so different and that’s just another sign of how talented he truly is.
Go to Comment
IS "BENJAMIN BUTTON" WORTHY OF BEING IN THE COLLECTION? about 3 years ago
I’m a rare Button defender I guess. I liked it better than Slumdog, Milk, etc, although it didn’t approach top films of the year like The Wrestler and Waltz With Bashir. I’m glad its getting the Criterion treatment because while its not perfect there are some great individual scenes in there (dancing scene, car crash sequence), and has one of the most epic lines I’ve heard in quite some time (SPOILERS: when button is a baby, Blanchett says something to the effect of “I saw him look at me and for a moment I saw a hint of recognition. Then he was gone.” END SPOILERS). Say what you will about Oscar-bait movies but at least its not a biopic (Milk, Ray), period drama (too many to count) WW2 drama (The Reader), or some “true story” BS (Pursuit of Happiness, the upcoming Soloist).
Go to Comment
TOP TEN 2000 - 2008 about 3 years ago
This is extremely tough.
In no order…
There Will Be Blood (PTA)
Punch-Drunk Love (PTA)
The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson)
The Wrestler (Aronofsky)
The Fountain (Aronofsky)
Waking Life (Linklater)
All the Real Girls (David Gordon Green)
Adaptation (Jonze)
Lord of the Rings (Jackson)
Big Fish (Burton)
Go to Comment
Singular films you love from directors you don't care for about 3 years ago
As stated, do you have any films from a certain director that you love, but as a whole you’re not into their work? Three examples for me personally:
The Big Lebowski- The Coen Brothers. I tend to like the Coen Brothers a little bit less than everyone else. Fargo is OK but I thought No Country was overrated and I’m just sort of “meh” on their filmography. There are a lot of WTFs that nobody talks about- Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers being two glaring flaws. But at the same time, The Big Lebowski is far and away my favorite comedy of all time and the movie I quote the most.
Big Fish- Tim Burton. I hate Burton’s Batman and his darker stuff is just real hack-work to me. I don’t gel with the whole Corpse Bride-Sweeney Todd kind of vibe. I do like Ed Wood but at the same time there could be some improvements and I don’t think of him as a great director. But again, Big Fish is fantastic- one of my favorite movies. Maybe I just like him doing lighter stuff but the final scene when Albert Finney is carried down to the river is just unbelievably good.
2001- Stanley Kubrick. I have trouble putting this on here because on the whole I very much like Stanley Kubrick. The Shining is probably my favorite horror film (though I don’t like the genre, and its probably my favorite because its so much more than a horror film) and I think 2001 is just a tremendous movie from a pure technical filmmaking perspective. At the same time I don’t care for Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, and several of his other flicks. Whenever I watch a movie of his, I feel like they are quite good but not good enough to put him in the very top tier of directors for me. Of course, except for 2001. I guess my opinion on the whole is that he’s a great filmmaker who obviously influenced all who came after, but my personal taste doesn’t align with his and I don’t consider him in the Top 10 greatest of all time like many do.
So what are your examples? I’m eager to find out and ready to have my movie buff card revoked for the Kubrick comments.
Go to Comment
TV SHOWS about 3 years ago
I’m sure other people here have listed a lot of what I’m about to say already, but here are both my favorites and what I’ve heard are very good and I still need to see.
Faves: Arrested Development, Freaks and Geeks, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Seinfeld, The Office (UK and US), Lost, Band of Brothers, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, South Park, Entourage, 30 Rock, Spaced, Chappelle’s Show, It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia
Need to see: The Larry Sanders Show, The Wire, The Sopranos, Undeclared, Twin Peaks, Mad Men
Go to Comment
Heads up!!!! 50% off Criterions almost 3 years ago
I went to a B&N, didn’t like their selection, so I went half an hour out of the way to another Barnes and Noble. Picked up the Cassavettes Box Set, Red Beard (which I’ve never seen in stores!), and Days of Heaven for a grand total of 90 bucks. I basically look at it as like they gave me 30 bucks off the box set and allowed me to take two free Criterions as well. For people who know about Criterion, this is basically the best day ever. Plus it lasts for weeks! I’m gonna cool off for a bit but I’ve got my eye on Young Mr. Lincoln and Scenes from a Marriage once I get a little more dough :)
Go to Comment
A completely ridiculous hypothetical question regarding your favorite filmmakers almost 3 years ago
OK, if you could only ever again watch the films of directors whose last names start with a common letter, what letter would you pick? Personally I’m leaning toward A, because Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Woody Allen, and Apatow would guarantee much enjoyment for years to come. But I gotta mention K as well (Kiarostami, Kubrick, Kurosawa). I’m sure there’s probably some I’ve overlooked, but I’m eager to hear some responses.
Go to Comment
A completely ridiculous hypothetical question regarding your favorite filmmakers almost 3 years ago
And Altman for A! How could I forget that…
Go to Comment
A completely ridiculous hypothetical question regarding your favorite filmmakers almost 3 years ago
Yes I did forget Antonioni. And I did consider C for Capra, Cassavettes, and Coppola. Mostly because I think if I had to live with only one director it would be Frank Capra. But its still a tough call…
Go to Comment
A completely ridiculous hypothetical question regarding your favorite filmmakers almost 3 years ago
Also don’t forget Herzog for H
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
The Wrestler. The Fountain. Both Up and Wall-E. If we stretched back to 2003 I’d include Big Fish and All the Real Girls.
Also, 300? Marie Antoinette? I’m no snob, but seriously?
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
I’d also like to throw out Linklater’s Before Sunset, mainly because nobody has mentioned it. I love the movie, not sure if it has “great” status, but more to open it up for discussion than anything.
Go to Comment
What was the first Criterion movie you watched? almost 3 years ago
I’m pretty sure it was Seven Samurai, though I didn’t know what a Criterion was. First one I bought was either Chasing Amy or Life of Brian. That touched off an unhealthy and un-bank account friendly obsession.
Go to Comment
WHAT IS YOUR PICK FOR THE WORSE MOVIE EVER MADE? almost 3 years ago
I’ll throw a couple out there: McBain (good luck finding this one, I watched it off a bootleg copy, worth it though if you can), Showgirls (watch the special edition with the commentary) Postal (Boll, need I say more), The Room (so bad, tell me somebody on here has seen this), and Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water (still the worst movie I’ve ever seen in theatres, all the others on here were bad movies I watched for fun).
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
I think they do too, but not in a good way.
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
By “not in a good way,” I meant that overstylized films like those find audiences and acclaim. If you’re trying to put 300 into a political context as many critics did after their release, I think you’re reaching. It’s almost a shot for shot remake of Frank Miller’s book, and Miller is mostly concerned with babes and bullets, not overt political statements. It was a stupid action movie.
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
OK, people responded or didn’t respond to a movie, how does that make it great? People respond to a lot of bad movies in a positive way. Transformers 2 just made eleven billion dollars or something.
I have to be honest, I’m not sure what your argument is. Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Go to Comment
waltz with bashir almost 3 years ago
The talking head scenes are quite necessary in my opinion. The story is the filmmaker trying to reconstruct his memory. Those scenes give you the main thrust of the film, the unreliability of memory, etc. That’s why those scenes are animated, and you see things floating in the background. Like Josh said its the end thats important, and makes all the animation make sense. Suddenly you’re out of this fantasy world and into the real world. Without all the discussion of memory and dreams, that wouldn’t have the same effect.
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
There is so much wrong with your “rationale” that I’m just going to stop responding after this, but thank you for giving me a good laugh. You’re entitled to your own opinon, I suppose. I will say however that 300’s style is not innovative or inventive, it just ripped off Sin City, which ripped off Sky Captain. Snyder just gave it the Michael Bay slo-mo treatment. Then he did the same thing to one of my favorite comics, Watchmen, while completely ignoring every thought-provoking and intelligent thing the book had to say.
Go to Comment
Heads up!!!! 50% off Criterions almost 3 years ago
Went back today, picked up
Scenes from a Marriage
Ikiru
Late Spring
I love this sale.
Go to Comment
A completely ridiculous hypothetical question regarding your favorite filmmakers almost 3 years ago
One of my friends mentioned G- Godard, David Gordon Green, Gilliam, Gondry, Guest
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great *foreign* film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
Waltz With Bashir
Go to Comment
CAN ART FILMS BE JUDGED ON ONE VIEWING? almost 3 years ago
It depends on if you “get it” or not, IMO. I’ve had plenty of “art” movies that friends have told me I’d need to see a couple of times and by the time it was over I could give a full, detailed, complete analysis. Other times I was lost or felt I missed some things. The more films you watch the more you can feel if you’re missing some things as the film goes on. Sure, repeat viewings may clue you in to something you missed, but if you pay attention and think about what you’re seeing you can definitely judge a film in one viewing.
Go to Comment
CACHE (HANEKE) almost 3 years ago
OK, so this has been bugging me for awhile, and I’m wondering if anybody else here who has seen the film can offer their opinion. I watched Haneke’s Cache awhile back (I had also seen Funny Games US), and, well, I kind of thought it was stupid. I appreciated the technique, and the way he gives his films a certain atmosphere, but I had a problem with the story that I couldn’t ignore. It’s clear that Haneke means to indict Georges and his bourgeoisie ways for screwing Majid all those years ago. But as the movie went on I couldn’t get over the fact that Majid was being quite immature about the whole thing. Georges was just a jealous kid when Majid was dragged off, so should he really be held responsible now? It was what, 30 years later? Sometimes you just have to let shit go. There are two possible explanations for who sent the tapes, but neither of them really make much sense to me. If Majid sent them, then he’s a moron IMO for killing himself over some shit that happened decades ago. If it was his son, then the bathroom scene makes no sense where he starts yelling at Georges, because its more his son’s fault than anything for drudging up all this stuff that happened years ago. I understand Georges was a bit of a dick for not apologizing, and he obviously acted like a dick when he was a kid. But at the same time he was understandably scared and fearing for his family when he went to visit Majid. Had those tapes never been sent, they all would have went on living. The tapes changed nothing. Also, there is the question of Pierrot’s involvement. What, did Majid’s son just go up to him at school and say “Your dad screwed my dad over 30 years ago?” Why wouldn’t he just tell him to fuck off? And why would he believe him, or help him? Seems a little far-fetched to me. I understand the anti-catharsis that Haneke injects into his movies, and I recognize that this was sort of a breakdown of the way we react to movies. But the whole situation to me just felt contrived and stupid. My friend and I argued about this for some time after it was over before just agreeing to disagree. I’m interested to hear others’ thoughts.
Go to Comment
CAN ART FILMS BE JUDGED ON ONE VIEWING? almost 3 years ago
Also- Fredo! You’ve seen The Room! Hi Doggy!
Go to Comment
CACHE (HANEKE) almost 3 years ago
That is certainly interesting, and it seems like something Haneke would do. But even during the argument between me and my friend, the topic of who sent the tapes came up and we both agreed it was rather irrelevant to what Haneke was trying to do. I guess what I’m mostly saying is that the emotional/psychological consequences that Haneke is interested in… that didn’t really work for me. And I know about the Algerian thing as well. I guess I just don’t think Georges was really that much of an asshole given the circumstances. And Majid’s suicide, while shocking, seems stupid to me. I just got the distinct feeling that Haneke wants us to hate Georges (and the French) for what he (they) did, but the situation just didn’t work for me. IDK, I’ll have to mull it over and perhaps see it again. The idea of Haneke sending the tapes is an interesting one as well. Definitely a talented filmmaker to provoke this much thought, but I still can’t say I “like” the film (I’m reminded of Funny Games). Which in some weird way is probably what he wants?
Go to Comment
what should be first kurosawa movie? almost 3 years ago
I saw Seven Samurai first and don’t regret it. But I just saw Yojimbo recently and I have to say if I were to start someone on Kurosawa it’d probably be there. Just sort of gives you a sense of his overall style. But you can’t go wrong with either.
Go to Comment