Ezen Baklattan Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I just can't get into Terrence Mallick's work as of recently. The Tree of Life just tried too hard, IMHO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 If a director isn't well-regarded, then the director can't be overrated. True most of the time. However, Ed Wood is overrated. His camp classics are simply unwatchable mess. It's Tim Burton's movie that suddenly propelled this hack into "misunderstood genius" territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) If a director isn't well-regarded, then the director can't be overrated. which is exactly my point. But somehow, some of the members here dont agree with that. Edited July 16, 2013 by vc2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACCA Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I watched X-men 3 and SR this week actually and you are correct. Davy Jones was the first CG character (or face) to look photo real. like WOW! Arguably, the T1000 in human form in Terminator 2 had some scenes where he had a CGI face and looked photo-real. Also Neo and Smith in the Matrix trilogy had many scenes where they had photo-real CGI faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Paul Thomas Anderson is dreadfully overrated, but with a caveat- I really liked the PTA who directed Boogie Nights and Punch Drunk Love. Both are clever, witty, and likable movies on top of his artistic merits. But Blood and The Master are two of the more boring and overrated movies of the past decade- no heart, no emotion, no plot, no characters, nothing but beautiful shots, good acting and an empty soul. I don't think he can be called overrated because plenty of people don't like him, but outside of Edward Scissorhands, I'm not a fan of Tim Burton at all. I would say Malick, but he doesn't make movies, he makes cinematic pretension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Don't know what to say if you think Blood and Master have no characters. Daniel Plainview is iconic IMO. Freddie Quell and Lancaster Dodd deserve to be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) Don't know what to say if you think Blood and Master have no characters. Daniel Plainview is iconic IMO. Freddie Quell and Lancaster Dodd deserve to be. That was a typo- I meant likable characters but left out a word. Though perhaps truly compleling is a better word. No doubt that they're interesting and well acted, but put in a cynical movie with no real point, no matter how beautiful it is shot, I just couldn't get behind them Edited July 18, 2013 by Cmasterclay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I found the execution of The Master's meaning subtle, fascinating and more compelling than anything I saw in theaters last year. But we've already had this conversation. You're a skeptic, I can't convert you to The Cause. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 The Master had some good scenes and never really bored me, but ultimately it felt pointless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luna Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 i never understood why people hammer on about characters you can't get behind. it's obviously not the point of the movie to fall in love with everyone. many of the greats are cynical, even misanthropic bastards (kubrick is the obvious example). not everything needs a hero. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 That's why I changed it from likable to compelling, because I realized the same thing. Besides Plainview (obviously) and maybe Dodd, nobody really compelled me to be very interested, even Quell. Also, Gizzopher, what I really hope is that Inherent Vice lands a little closer to the BN/PDL side of the spectrum while maintaining the artistry of his past two films, sending us both home happy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luna Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 TWBB was entirely a study of a single person, and while his interactions with other people were important, to flesh out the other characters any more would reduce focus on plainview, which would have made the movie different (although worse or better we'll never know). anyway, it's the only movie i've seen of his, so i don't know if he's overrated or not...but based on this i would tend toward no way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 It isn't really just the characters, that was only a minor complaint in a broader diatribe. I just didn't like There Will Be Boredom. Personal taste thing. NCFOM certainly deserved the Oscar over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sims Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 The two Godfathers and Apocalypse Now, what's the fourth one? Didn't like Apocalypse Now. The whole movie seemed to gear me up for something epic at the end but did not deliver. The Conversation. And it's a movie with one hell of an ending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peludo Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 The Conversation. And it's a movie with one hell of an ending. You said Coppola has only 4 movies that deserve to be seen. I would add Cotton Club, Dracula, Rumble Fish and Godfather 3. Maybe they are not masterpieces, but all of them are pretty good movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Sometimes... ONLY SOMETIMES... I think Spielberg's work can be over rated, A LOT. He had great movies throughout his career, like Schindler's List, but I can't help but feel that Lincoln was a very dull movie. Apart from Daniel Day Lewis's performance, which shouldn't, SHOULDN'T, have earned him that Oscar, there was really nothing remarkable about that movie to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilusha Bandara Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 You said Coppola has only 4 movies that deserve to be seen. I would add Cotton Club, Dracula, Rumble Fish and Godfather 3. Maybe they are not masterpieces, but all of them are pretty good movies. Dracula is a masterpiece! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Sometimes... ONLY SOMETIMES... I think Spielberg's work can be over rated, A LOT. He had great movies throughout his career, like Schindler's List, but I can't help but feel that Lincoln was a very dull movie. Apart from Daniel Day Lewis's performance, which shouldn't, SHOULDN'T, have earned him that Oscar, there was really nothing remarkable about that movie to be honest. The thing about Spielberg is he made too many films covering too many genres, and you obviously can't expect everyone of them to be Jaws or Schindler's List. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilusha Bandara Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 When a Director first make a good movie, he will then be known as a good director or a critically acclaimed director. Even when that director makes a bad movie thereafter, Critics or audience or both critics and audience will praise it. For an example, when an overly complicated movie like Prometheus get released people watched it and when they can't understand the whole movie(filled with plot holes) they begin to judge the movie by the the standards of that director's previous good movies! Then as the final verdict those people consider Prometheus as a masterpiece! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 When a Director first make a good movie, he will then be known as a good director or a critically acclaimed director. Even when that director makes a bad movie thereafter, Critics or audience or both critics and audience will praise it. For an example, when an overly complicated movie like Prometheus get released people watched it and when they can't understand the whole movie(filled with plot holes) they begin to judge the movie by the the standards of that director's previous good movies! Then as the final verdict those people consider Prometheus as a masterpiece!Then why is Elysium not getting rave reviews? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
